Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.64 AVERAGE
3.64 AVERAGE
A story about rags to riches. Not because of hard work but because of inheritance. Which is typical of books from that era so I’m not that annoyed about it.
This book felt like a first draft of David Copperfield (which is one of my favorite novels of all time), throughout reading this book I’d see glimpses of characters from David Copperfield and it made me enjoy the book even more.
I might be biased in this review because I enjoy this type of novels, but I will not apologise for the books I enjoy (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง.
This book felt like a first draft of David Copperfield (which is one of my favorite novels of all time), throughout reading this book I’d see glimpses of characters from David Copperfield and it made me enjoy the book even more.
I might be biased in this review because I enjoy this type of novels, but I will not apologise for the books I enjoy (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง.
I can’t believe I never actually read this book in school. I was just delighted by Dickens’ writing style in this story. I frequently wanted to reread passages to enjoy a playful or winking turn of phrase again.
Leggere Oliver Twist è come viaggiare nel tempo. A parte il setting, anche la scrittura e il metodo narrativo sono così cambiati in questi 200 anni da rendere questa lettura affascinante in un modo tutto suo.
Si potrebbe criticare troppo il libro parlando del protagonista del tutto statico, della parabola della provvidenza, del narratore (quasi) onnisciente, del dialogo diretto con il lettore che è caduto d'uso, del bianco/nero quasi sempre senza redenzione, della "sdolcinatezza" eccessiva e così via, ma per quanto mi riguarda non sarebbe intellettualmente onesto. Leggere è un piacere anche perché ci porta nei panni d'altri. Non solo nei panni dei protagonisti delle storie che leggiamo, ma anche in quelli dei lettori del libro a cui era destinato in principio. Si crea in questo modo un dialogo davvero unico, più una conferenza che una conversazione, in cui Oliver Twist eccelle.
Si potrebbe criticare troppo il libro parlando del protagonista del tutto statico, della parabola della provvidenza, del narratore (quasi) onnisciente, del dialogo diretto con il lettore che è caduto d'uso, del bianco/nero quasi sempre senza redenzione, della "sdolcinatezza" eccessiva e così via, ma per quanto mi riguarda non sarebbe intellettualmente onesto. Leggere è un piacere anche perché ci porta nei panni d'altri. Non solo nei panni dei protagonisti delle storie che leggiamo, ma anche in quelli dei lettori del libro a cui era destinato in principio. Si crea in questo modo un dialogo davvero unico, più una conferenza che una conversazione, in cui Oliver Twist eccelle.
Oliver himself is the centerpiece of a story that builds progressively around him - plot points and characters entering the fray until they all come together for one enormous climax. A much more serious satire than Pickwick, although a couple of characters take a hint from it (Sam Weller -> Artful Dodger), and the humanity of these characters is even more defined. And yes, everyone knows Fagin is a grotesque caricature and a stereotype, but he's still one of the most compelling side characters and a huge plot mover on top of that. I doubt this will be my favorite of Dickens, but it's elite and it's incredibly unsurprisingly that it has become the classic that it is.
I enjoyed this book more than I anticipated.
Mostly I think I enjoyed arguing with Dickens's intentions in my Victorian Literature class; it was fun to dig through and criticize. I wish Dickens would write in more complex female characters, but I did appreciate what depth existed in Dickens's attempts to shape Nancy. It was certainly better than The Christmas Carol, which many of us had to read in middle school.
Mostly I think I enjoyed arguing with Dickens's intentions in my Victorian Literature class; it was fun to dig through and criticize. I wish Dickens would write in more complex female characters, but I did appreciate what depth existed in Dickens's attempts to shape Nancy. It was certainly better than The Christmas Carol, which many of us had to read in middle school.
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
medium-paced
This got off to a rough start for me. The people at the orphanage were so nasty, I almost gave up. Then, around ten per cent of the way through the book, it captured my fancy, and I had no problems forging ahead. Of the four Dickens' books I've read this year, this is my second favorite after Great Expectations (fwiw, the other two being, David Copperfield and Bleak House).
A major theme in this book is how people are defined by their blood lines. Bad blood makes for a bad person and vice versa. There are, of course, a few who run against this vision. Two in this book being Nancy—who had some good tendencies within a more-or-less depraved character—, the other being Monks, who just seemed to be a quirk of nature, good breeding, but a bad character none the less. Oliver, it turns out, was such a good person because, unbeknownst to everyone, including himself, he did have good blood.
So, apparently, the reason for treating people so badly in orphanages and work houses of Victorian England was because they were depraved anyway. Why bother about them? It's kinda like Romney/Ryan's 47%. They're benighted folks anyway, just looking for handouts, so not worth worrying about.
It's rather an interesting point of view for people claiming to be Christian. My understanding of Christian theology is that all people are redeemable and should, therefore, be treated with respect.
So, it would seem that little has changed in the past 200 years, the Mr. Bumbles of Dickens' workhouse and the Romney/Ryans of today have the same exalted view of their own worth in society and the same stunted concept of the lack of worth of everyone less fortunate than they. One day, one hopes, those of the Romney/Ryan ilk will either be saved, or else like Mr. Bumble, be discredited and discarded. I'm not holding my breath.
A major theme in this book is how people are defined by their blood lines. Bad blood makes for a bad person and vice versa. There are, of course, a few who run against this vision. Two in this book being Nancy—who had some good tendencies within a more-or-less depraved character—, the other being Monks, who just seemed to be a quirk of nature, good breeding, but a bad character none the less. Oliver, it turns out, was such a good person because, unbeknownst to everyone, including himself, he did have good blood.
So, apparently, the reason for treating people so badly in orphanages and work houses of Victorian England was because they were depraved anyway. Why bother about them? It's kinda like Romney/Ryan's 47%. They're benighted folks anyway, just looking for handouts, so not worth worrying about.
It's rather an interesting point of view for people claiming to be Christian. My understanding of Christian theology is that all people are redeemable and should, therefore, be treated with respect.
So, it would seem that little has changed in the past 200 years, the Mr. Bumbles of Dickens' workhouse and the Romney/Ryans of today have the same exalted view of their own worth in society and the same stunted concept of the lack of worth of everyone less fortunate than they. One day, one hopes, those of the Romney/Ryan ilk will either be saved, or else like Mr. Bumble, be discredited and discarded. I'm not holding my breath.