TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

C. Dickens, Hard Times, Chapter 2

         The extract is taken from C. Dickens’ Hard Time (1854). The Victorian novel highlights the dehumanising aspects of the Industrial Revolution with the particular critique of the Utilitarian mentality it had produced. According to such a way of thinking, everything has to be measured in order to establish its utility. The character of Thomas Gradgrind embodies the Utilitarian theory.

         In the first part of the extract, the third-person, omniscient narrator characterizes one of the novel’s main characters, Thomas Gradgrind, by the technique of telling and the direct use of vocative sir.

Firstly his name underlines his pragmatism: Thomas refers to the biblical character, who believed just on visible and concrete facts, while Gradgrind’s meaning alludes to the sharpness and its sound to rigidity.

Secondly the narrator uses and anaphoric and incremental style to underline the character’s pragmatism and reasonableness. He considers reality as measurable figures and is interested is mere facts, whose interpretation is evident. Expressions used, a man of facts and calculation, two and two are four and nothing over, weight and measure any parcel of human nature, exaggerate his desperate need for assurances. In addition, the ironic attitude of the narrator, evident in the exclamation You might hope to get some other nonsensical belief into the head of …, but not in the head of Thomas Gradgrind, no, sir!, contributes to make him a caricature, a ridiculous character. 

In the second part of the extract the technique of showing is adopted to present Mr Gradgrind’s behaviour with his students. The difficult relationship between adults and children is analysed by an ironic awareness of the narrator.

Mr Gradgrind asks to a student her name by referring to her as girl number twenty. That implies that the character is totally insensitive and unable to read reality with depth. In addition, the repeated use of imperatives, Call, Tell him, Let me see, Describe, Give me, and the use of negative forms, Don’t call, he mustn’t, you mustn’t, unable to define possessed of no facts, emphasizes his rigidity and inflexibility. Meticulous attention to the custom is revealed by the order he gives to Sissy Jupe to call herself Cecilia. In addition the character’s male chauvinism is presented when, after Miss Jupe’s subjective response to the asking for defining a horse, he prefer asking the same question to a boy (Some boy’s definitionof a horse).

Between Mr Gradgrind’s question and Bitzer’s answer, the narrator explains the reasons why he chose Bitzer as interlocutor. Using a technique that would have developed in the Modernist shift of the point of view, the novelist presents Gradgrind’s choice according to his perspective and micro-language. Bitzer, sit in the nearness of Miss Jupe, was illuminated by a ray of light, which induced Gradgrind to ask him the question. The sequence dedicated to that explanation is both functional to add to meaning to the character’s matter-of-factness and to provide a realistic idea of Victorian mentality. The logical necessity in the happening of events is exasperated in the sequence. In addition the narrator provides the physical description of Bitzer. He is very different from the darkness of Jupe because he looks like a delicate boy thanks to his light eyes and hair and paleness. The opposition of the characters is based on the criterion of light, which can be read as a symbol for intelligence and nobility. In that sense, the use of a symbolic element would be enough to understand the impossibility of realism.

After the digression, the action goes on with Bitzer’s precise answer. He is able to define a horse using a language based on facts, so that it suits Mr Gradgrind. After the answer, the teacher embarrasses Miss Jupe and the reader comes across her humiliation trough her physical reaction: she blushes. The narrator underlines her degradation using again an anaphoric and repetitive formula, which makes the reader fell pathos. On the other hand, Bitzer physical reaction to the situation emphasizes his proud.

The situation reveals the inefficiency of Victorian schools. Indeed, students had not the possibility to learn because they were considered for what they knew. In such a system, no education is guaranteed for them who were not brilliant. In addition, moral concerns and sympathies were present.  As a result Victorian education is presented as a way of “murdering the innocents” as the title of the chapter suggest.

         All in all the text provide a good example of characterization of a character. The narrator uses a language, a style and choses situation that fits perfectly to the character’s mentality and so to the Utilitarian way of thinking.