The narrator in a book often has a bias that adds to the the text. What attitude does the narrator take towards the different characters, and Coketown itself (sympathize, mock, etc…)?
I believe that the narrator's choice of description reveals his favoring of certain characters over others. I think the narrator places a lot of value on the content of character rather than the accumulation of wealth or status. When we first meet Stephen, on page 66, the narrator elaborates on how aged and worn Stephen is from his years of toil. The narrator also marginalizes Stephen's intellect. Yet, Stephen was good at his job and was "a man of perfect integrity."(66) Because of this integrity that Dickens gives Stephen, he is the honest and mistreated good guy who we all sympathize for, and thus react indignantly to his plight. Stephen means well and is simply a class act. When a character's intentions are corrupt, despite their success, is when the narrator disparages or mocks them. We can see this on page 137 when Slackbridge is described as "not so honest", "not so manly", and "not so good-humored". While Slackbridge has the extravagant attire and eloquent rhetorical skills, it is his poor character that matters to the narrator. Stephen's broken speech, which is contrasted with that of Slackbridge's beautiful oration on page 140, is negligible to Stephen's character. Throughout the text, it is consistently those with marred appearances to be the truly virtuous ones.
I believe that the narrator's choice of description reveals his favoring of certain characters over others. I think the narrator places a lot of value on the content of character rather than the accumulation of wealth or status. When we first meet Stephen, on page 66, the narrator elaborates on how aged and worn Stephen is from his years of toil. The narrator also marginalizes Stephen's intellect. Yet, Stephen was good at his job and was "a man of perfect integrity."(66) Because of this integrity that Dickens gives Stephen, he is the honest and mistreated good guy who we all sympathize for, and thus react indignantly to his plight. Stephen means well and is simply a class act. When a character's intentions are corrupt, despite their success, is when the narrator disparages or mocks them. We can see this on page 137 when Slackbridge is described as "not so honest", "not so manly", and "not so good-humored". While Slackbridge has the extravagant attire and eloquent rhetorical skills, it is his poor character that matters to the narrator. Stephen's broken speech, which is contrasted with that of Slackbridge's beautiful oration on page 140, is negligible to Stephen's character. Throughout the text, it is consistently those with marred appearances to be the truly virtuous ones.
ReplyDelete