At the end of Hardtimes many characters end up getting
what they deserve, similar to Karma. “Josiah Bounderby was to die of a fit in
the coketown street”, Mrs. Sparsit was doomed to live the remainder of her life
with a “grudging, smarting, peevish, tormenting Lady Scadgers”, Sissy became a
loving mother, and Louisa learned the things she hadn’t as a child became beloved
by Sissy’s Children. However some characters didn’t receive a their deserved
ending. The innocent, Stephen ended up dying, Rachael ended up working hard for
the rest of her life and caring for Stephen’s drunk widow, Harthouse went off
and did terrible things elsewhere and Thomas seeming to have had a change of
heart, loving his sister and only desiring to see her face, perished before he
was able to come home. Why did Dickens have some characters have the ending
they deserved and some got an ending that was undeserved?
In having read multiple Dickens' novels, I have found that many of them include a human sacrifice or martyr figure. In almost all cases, this is a person that is generally pure of heart or has the best of intentions because we then feel that loss more deeply. There death is usually part of the satire as well, a comment on the system being critiqued. While I could spend a lot of time discussing the (moving) moments around Stephen's death and the symbology there, I think the manner of his death plainly speaks to the critique of the system as he falls into a hole that was not marked by a careless factory owner. In this light, Dickens makes a clear and strong satirical comment on the horrible conditions for workers and the careless nature of factory workers without having to develop a long, developed argument.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, after reading this question I immediately thought of our in-class discussion and how we decided that Stephen sort of represented the plight of the lower class. The fact that Stephen does nothing but good yet still meets a grisly ending is a direct critique of the class system in England at the time. Dickens is reinforcing the idea that it is impossible to move up out of the working class and on to a better life, no matter how good of a person you may be. This also further disputes the idea of a self-made man, an idea already destroyed through the myth of Bounderby.
Delete-Jackson Jelinek
I had also thought about the endings of the characters, while some were fitting others were not quite. I see now how the martyr figure creates an even greater impact meaning to the story and the critique of the industrial society. I also think this connects to the idea of "success". While some characters were "successful" in living life in Coketown (ie. Bounderby and Sparsit)they are living meaningless lives. One thing I found interesting was on page 285, "Thus saying, Mrs Sparsit, with he Roman features like a medal struck to commemerate her scorn of Mr Bounderby, suveryed him fixedly from head to foot, swept disdainfully past him and ascended the staircase. Mr Bounderby closed the door and stood before the fire; projecting himself after his old explosive manner into his portrait-and into futurity." I thought it was interesting that Mrs. Sparsit was described ascending the staircase (and as we had discussed before, the staircase representing, somewhat success in Coketown) which is in contrast to Louisa who was described descending the staircase. Also, that Bounderby was staring into the fire and sort of pondering his future. I THINK (feel free to correct me) what is happening in this portion is Dickens describing their ultimate success living in Coketown (shes climbing higher and his fire is still burning)- but as we all know- they continue to lead meaningless dreary lives that end not so lovely.
ReplyDeleteRebeka wermeling ^^^^^^
DeleteI also agree with both Jackson and Mrs. Roush on the fact that Stephen represents the martyr figure of the book and with the idea that, although Stephen lives anything but a avaricious life, he has an unhappy ending and in his passing, leaves his loved one, Rachael, to sulk in her miseries. I think that Rachael’s misery and Stephen’s undeserved death are not only to critique the class systems of England at the time, but also an intent to get sympathy for the poorer classes. This sympathy reveals Dickens' empathetic views of the unfair treatment of facorty workers by factory owners and the upper class in general.
ReplyDelete^ Ginny Frost
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ginny, Jackson and Mrs. Roush in thinking that Stephen can be seen as a martyr figer. I find it interesting that Rachael and Stepehn only wanted to be together, and at the end Stephen dies, and Rachael is left misserably carring for Stephen's widow, while Louisa only wanted to be happy and to truly have something to be passionate about and at the end she finally found her passion for caring for Sissy's children. In a way this reflects that the lower class is doomed to be miserable, while the upper(ish) class could end up with a better life.
DeleteAbby Riehs