Oliver Twist - Morally contrived or morally satisfying?

So what are your thoughts on Oliver Twist as a whole?

A little sad for some of the characters, but glad for others, the way everything turned out. Overall, pretty satisfying ending in my opinion. Yeah, everything kind of got set right, but there are a couple deaths that made me kind of sad, but it's okay.

And I can imagine which ones, but go ahead and tell me about the sad parts.

Um, I don't think Nancy deserved to die. I think inside, like we talked about last week, she was a good person. But, um, I thought it added a lot of depth to Sykes's death because he was like so guilty and like hallucinating. Um, same with Fagin. That wasn't necessarily a sad death, but it was still a death. And he was— I mean, I think he was going insane too, because if I were him and in a right mind, I wouldn't have told Oliver where the, where the will was, you know. Yeah, so he was probably a little messed up too, but everything turned out good with Oliver, I think.

Yeah, no, Oliver turns out to be very, very fortunate. Before going into the kind of happy ending with Oliver, um, early on you had mentioned, you know, we were comparing, you know, in your fantasy novels sometimes bad things happened, but with respect to Oliver's workhouse upbringing and life in the streets, it was somehow more real. I guess I'm wondering, with Nancy's— the brutality of Nancy's death, is that similar to death as portrayed in your fantasy novels or different? How did— and it was pretty brutal— how did that go over for you?

Yeah, um, I guess it depends on the novel, but I think there are some similarities. Um, I mean, I've definitely read novels where good characters have died, um, even like they may have been bad characters but then they like had good intentions and then they still died, you know. There's a lot of fantasy shows even, um, and books as well, and I think it is a common theme, especially if you're like trying to get the reader to feel feelings and kind of like wrench their heart a little bit, because I think that Nancy was a good character and Yeah, you're right, the brutality of her death was pretty over— not over, but very brutal. And I think, um, the era made— the area was in made it more brutal because I don't think that would have been acceptable, or I don't think it was acceptable. And I think part of the reason why Sykes was chased by a mob ultimately leading to his death was because even though he was a criminal, that kind of like broke the unspoken rules. Yes.

Yeah. Well, have you heard the expression Victorian England?

I have, but I'm not entirely sure what it means in that sense.

So Queen Victoria was Victoria of— was Queen of England from 1837 to 1901. So most of the 19th century. This is published in, you know, first published around 1837. So right when it was her reign. But often I think there's a sense that in the Victorian era, so sometimes you'll hear Victorian used as an adjective, but relative to today, I think there's more of a sense that the good people, you know, have good outcomes, the bad people have bad outcomes. And yeah, I think Sykes and Fagan, bad people, bad outcomes. Oliver, a good person, good outcomes, you know, lots of roughness. Yeah, and Nancy's, Nancy's complicated because kind of good person, bad outcome. But does that track for you that mostly the good people get good outcomes, the bad people get bad outcomes?

Yes. Yeah, for sure. That, that was definitely true here.

Would you say that Jane Austen had a similar perspective? The good people were rewarded and the bad people um, you know, were penalized?

Yes, except I think on a smaller scale. I don't think there was necessarily super bad guys like compared to Oliver Twist in the two books that we read. Maybe some of them had like a bad relationship with another character, but they weren't criminals and brutally beating other people to death.

Yeah, no, these are—

but yeah, but yes, I think there is some sort of parallel.

Got it. And, um, I have not— I've certainly not read Game of Thrones, and I only watched Magat, and I watched a few episodes and didn't like it, but I— it's a common cultural landmark. Have you watched or read it at all?

Um, I listened to the audiobook of Fire and Blood, which is like kind of the prequel, and then, um, even though I am a little young, I did— I am watching the show. I think actually I'm almost done. I just skipped the bad parts, for the record.

But yes, what I was going to say is what strikes me is that as far as I know, and this is one of the reasons Magat and I quit watching it, was that in Game of Thrones, good people are kind of killed. And, you know, yeah, so yeah, very different, very different moral sensibility. And I think, you know, I think the death, the brutal murder of Nancy is kind of traumatic because, you know, Does it make sense that naturally we would want to see good people rewarded and bad people penalized?

Yes, for sure. That's, that's your instinct.

So do you think that literature should kind of, you know, again, because you agree immediately on Game of Thrones, do you think that there's some value in having literature kind of reward the good people and penalize the bad people, or it doesn't matter?

Um, it, I think it depends on what you want your readers or viewers to feel. I think in books like— or in things like Oliver Twist, most of the good guys get good stuff and that makes you feel good. And then there's like one case that's like, eh, but it makes you feel, feel feelings and like think about the book. So that's good, right? And then there's, I think, this other way of approaching it. For an example, Game of Thrones, where there's so many people dying and good people and bad people getting stuff they want that you like think about it even more and want to keep watching. But on the other hand, it's good, you know, for people to want— no, for people to recommend it, it's got to have somewhat of a satisfying ending. And I'm not at the ending of Game of Thrones yet, so don't spoil. But I hope that everything works out. But there's, there's just different ways to approach it, I think. But they— I feel like people always want the good people to have good outcomes.

Got it. And I don't know the end of Game of Thrones. Again, Magat and I left after seeing what we regarded as—

I don't know how you could.

That's a longer conversation. But some people might say that, you know, Oliver Twist, you know, he starts out this really rough situation and at the end, kind of happily ever after, you know. And some people might think that's sort of too kind of gushy or sweet or Do you kind of like Oliver happily ever after or not like, or how does that kind of ending land for you?

I am satisfied with the ending because, I mean, after all, this is like a 10-year-old kid and I just want him to have a good life. I guess if people were looking for a bit more of an even ending for all the characters, then that's not what they're going to get. But I liked the ending. I thought it was a nice finish.

Got it. Do you think, you know, obviously there are all these plot details, you know, in terms of Oliver's relationship to— I'm forgetting the names, but, you know, he turns out he's related to these people who have cared for him all the way through. I mean, one could complain that those plot details are sort of contrived or unrealistic, or one could say, hey, we like plot details like that. What's your take on those kind of plot details?

I like plot details like that because they make me feel good. If you were being realistic, then the chances of him finding his long-lost aunt is not very high, but I don't know how small the area— I mean, not small, but I don't know if maybe like realistically his family never moved out of one area. So I don't know, but I liked it.

So, okay, well, it shows you've got still a little bit, or maybe more than a little bit, of as a I would say Victorian sensibility, you know, you're wanting the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose. Just in terms of murder, you know, when going back to Odysseus, you know, Odysseus's slaughter of the suitors was brutal, but presumably that kind of brutality feels different from the brutality of Sykes' murder of Nancy. Is it because of the way that Dickens writes versus Homer writes, or is it because of the good versus evil, or how would you describe the way in which the kind of, you know, slaughter of the suitors feels different from the murder of Nancy?

I think it depends on how we view the characters in that situation. In The Odyssey, I think you're kind of trained to dislike the suitors because of their I don't know, overall personality and actions towards Penelope and Telemachus and everybody else. And then you're trained to like Odysseus because you want him to get back home, and it's the hero's journey, and he's the main character. So when he does that to the suitors, or when he kills the suitors, even though it is very brutal, it kind of feels like vengeance instead of murder, right? The vengeance outweighs the murder. And then with Sykes and Nancy, you don't like Sykes, maybe you like Nancy. That was the case for me. So you feel anger towards Sykes because you're— because a good character got killed brutally. So I think it just depends on the situation like that.

I remember you almost cheering on or actively looking forward to the slaughter of the suitors, which was bloody. And, you know, I just Reading it this time through, I was struck by— it was pretty gruesome and Homer described it and it's a pretty bloody situation. But at least for me, yeah, the bloodiness of Nancy's murder felt much, much more painful and heavy. And I take it it's because of this, we cared about Nancy and it was really, really rough to see her murdered so brutally. Does that sound right?

Yes, for sure.

Um, yeah, so overall, how would you say you like Dickens? Um, scale of— well, let's, let's do first Jane Austen, 0 to 10, and then Dickens, 0 to 10. How do you like Jane Austen?

Uh, do you mean like writing style, author, or like the, uh, book specifically?

Let's do the book specifically, so then we got two different Austen books. So 10 is perfect, ideal, the best book you can imagine. 0 is horrid. I never want to see anything like this again. You know, 5 is the middle. So first Pride and Prejudice, where would you score Pride and Prejudice?

I really liked Pride and Prejudice because of the outcome. And I liked it a lot. So I would probably say like a 7 or an 8. I think it was very good.

And Emma?

Um, Emma, I also liked. It was a little slow for me though. And I prefer fast-paced books. So I'd probably give it a 6 or 7, 6, 7.

And, uh, Oliver Twist?

Um, I also liked it. I had read like a, uh, like a dumbed-down kiddier version a couple years ago, so I did kind of know what was going to happen, but I still enjoyed it a lot. I'm going to give it a 7.

Okay. And then, um, in the beginning the prose is difficult. I would suggest it got easier as you read along. Did it in fact get easier to read as you went along?

Yes, it did, for sure.

Yeah, that's my perception too, you know, even I'm not used to reading the 19th century prose, so are you up for reading another 19th century novel?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay, in which case, you know, I give you that list of kind of most prominent novels, let's stay British for a while, at some point we might want to go to French or Russian or German or something. Is there a particular author or a novel that you'd like to get to?

Um, not that I have in mind right now, but I'll revisit the list you sent me and send you a couple of my, uh, biggest wants.

Terrific. All right, in which case, let's figure out the next book via WhatsApp. Um, and what are you going to do the rest of the day over there in Hawaii?

Um, I'm not too sure, but I think we're gonna go and get some shave ice and go to the beach again and, uh, hang out and celebrate my grandma's birthday.

All right, have a wonderful trip and we'll see you next time. Bye-bye.

Okay, thank you.