Kinzey Schwab 9/19/20128
Transatlantic Childhoods (oliver twist)] I thought it was interesting the turn the book took, once suspicion was cast on Nancy. What was a tragic story of an impoverished boy soon became more serious, stained with murder. Dickens’s choice to change the tone of the story alters the romanization of Oliver’s poverty. Before Nancy’s murder, I had presumed this story would end happily for Oliver/most everyone involved would get their due justice as is characteristic in most underdog/children’s novels. Once Nancy became targeted and then was murdered, the story took a darker tone now that I know the author wasn’t adhering to the innocent rags to riches theme I’d assumed this book would be. The murder indicated the story maturing and stepping out of the realm of what children’s books or books for/about children are expected to be. After reading Moon’s article about “gentle” and “dangerous” boys, I had thought about Oliver and his categorization. Oliver was a gentle boy (mostly due to his age and naivete) despite being given all the reasons and opportunities to turn “dangerous”. His innocence makes this a more palatable story but I wonder the effects of a story centering a “dangerous” street boy. Would the realization of childhood poverty still have happened? Would there be as much sympathy for a character who was the epitome of a “dangerous” street urchin, who did mean to cause trouble and commit crimes but had to in order to survive? Oliver Twist did wonders to bring to lights the horrors/injustice of childhood street life/surviving and of poverty in general, but it was romanticized in order to ensure audience sympathy for a truly good “gentle” boy when the point of a satirical piece about street life would still be clear (and maybe more shocking/affecting) had the main character really been an unconventional antihero.