Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.64 AVERAGE
3.64 AVERAGE
adventurous
dark
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
hopeful
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I had always grew up with the story of Oliver and watching a read different books but to read the original. So glad I read the version that is unchanged made it better to read.
adventurous
dark
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
adventurous
dark
emotional
hopeful
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
My first Dickens' was underwhelming... I'm glad to have found out halfway through the book this is considered one of his most juvenile works because I could at least manage my expectations for the character arcs and plot, but nothing could change how annoyingly boring this book is.
Dickens is not by any means a realistic writer, which I can be okay with, but his sudden bursts of anger intruding in on the text (like this one below) asked for much more realism to make sense.
Dickens is not by any means a realistic writer, which I can be okay with, but his sudden bursts of anger intruding in on the text (like this one below) asked for much more realism to make sense.
There was neither fire nor candle; she died in the dark—in the dark! She couldn’t even see her children’s faces, though we heard her gasping out their names. I begged for her in the streets and they sent me to prison. When I came back, she was dying; and all the blood in my heart has dried up, for they starved her to death.
But these moments! When he isn't afraid to get grim and doesn't use a veneer of irony or dark humor or melodrama were my favorite ones. Satire so much couldn't carry the whole book it considerably diminishes after Oliver starts working, but the sufferings of a caricature of an orphan boy also can't and by the end I wanted to finish the book just to say I did it.
Close to the ending,after Nancy's death, his descriptions reached this oppresive grimness and it just reminded me of everything I could've had! I just hope the next book I read of his is more like that and less soapy opera tragedy.
Close to the ending,
““Jerk the tinkler!” These words, in plain English, conveyed an injunction to ring the bell. It was answered by another Jew: younger than Fagin, but nearly as vile and repulsive . . .”
I had heard the rumors that the character of Fagin was an antisemitic caricature but I had no idea there would be so little ambiguity about the matter. After reading Twist I must say that that the bigotry seems almost inarguable. Fagin, one of Dickens’ most despicable creations, is more often referred to as “the Jew” (326 times by my count) than by his name (306 times). And it appears that the more nefarious his actions are in a particular scene the more likely Dickens is to refer to him simply as the Jew. No other characters are narrated with such obvious malice—with the possible exception of Monks who is once referenced as “the villain” and twice as “the coward.”
The question is, how does this blatant bigotry weigh on an otherwise magnificent novel? Should we give Charles a pass because of the era in which he wrote (1838) or should we hold him to higher standards? 4 stars (for now) while I think this through.
I had heard the rumors that the character of Fagin was an antisemitic caricature but I had no idea there would be so little ambiguity about the matter. After reading Twist I must say that that the bigotry seems almost inarguable. Fagin, one of Dickens’ most despicable creations, is more often referred to as “the Jew” (326 times by my count) than by his name (306 times). And it appears that the more nefarious his actions are in a particular scene the more likely Dickens is to refer to him simply as the Jew. No other characters are narrated with such obvious malice—with the possible exception of Monks who is once referenced as “the villain” and twice as “the coward.”
The question is, how does this blatant bigotry weigh on an otherwise magnificent novel? Should we give Charles a pass because of the era in which he wrote (1838) or should we hold him to higher standards? 4 stars (for now) while I think this through.
adventurous
hopeful
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I really struggled to pay attention to the story. Dare I say the musical was better.
dark
funny
hopeful
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No