Dickens and Shakespeare have been my heroes since childhood.

I truly believe Dickens was virtually solely responsible for the improvements in Victorian society.

The social parts of A Christmas Carol are quite astonishing.

Not just a great story teller but a terrific reformer.

Let's hope in 2008 we can do similar work.

Once again you seem to be labouring under the illusion that Dickens is some kind of social reforme.

May I suggest you read George Orwell's excellent essay on Dickens and reconsider your view. (IRC the essay is included in "Decline of the English Murder").

Dickens was certainly a social commentator who inspired others to do the reforming. In this way he did play his part. It takes someone to observe and highlight the issues before those in the appropriate positions can take the appropriate action.

I shall read the Orwell essay with interest Zoo but yes, I do feel Dickens had a huge impact on social reform, by describing the horrors in populist entertainment.

I've had a root about online and found plenty of references to Dickens the "social reformer" but no actual examples of what he is supposed to have done.

In his books there are certainly the deserving (subservient) poor who should be patronised by their benevolent betters but far more low scheming wretches who ought to be in poverty.

Oliver Twist is a good example, the horror of his condition is that he is from "decent people" wrongfully exiled to the scum. Nancy's virtue is that she perceives he doesn't rightfully belong there.

Other than write of terrible conditions to frame the hero of his story what did Dickens write to claim reforming zeal for the majority? What did Dickens actually do to relive the real social injustices?

You probably have to read Dickens to appreciate his contribution. 'Hard Times', 'Barnaby Rudge', 'The Chimes', 'A Christmas Carol' each deal with the plight of the lower classes, but even when he's writing about the wealthy, he's always comparing their standard of living with that of the poor. Dickens himself went through poverty and harsh conditions. 'David Copperfield' is based on his own life. Also, 'Nicholas Nickleby' was based on a real school, not far from where I live, and helped to bring about changes to ensure better treatment of pupils.

George Orwell wrote his own opinions of Dickens. I wouldn't look upon his essay as anything more than that.

PBS wrote:
You probably have to read Dickens to appreciate his contribution. 'Hard Times', 'Barnaby Rudge', 'The Chimes', 'A Christmas Carol' each deal with the plight of the lower classes, but even when he's writing about the wealthy, he's always comparing their standard of living with that of the poor. Dickens himself went through poverty and harsh conditions. 'David Copperfield' is based on his own life. Also, 'Nicholas Nickleby' was based on a real school, not far from where I live, and helped to bring about changes to ensure better treatment of pupils.

George Orwell wrote his own opinions of Dickens. I wouldn't look upon his essay as anything more than that.
The plight of the lower classes is only a setting for the hero.

Copperfield being a prime example, the terrible conditions are only terrible for the hero (Dickens) who is a misplaced and unappreciated genius (Dickens) who escapes his plight because he (Dickens) deserves it. The others are left there to rot with no suggestion of what should be done to relieve their condition.

The social deprivation is a mere backdrop whilst the main character trundles along until the equivalent of winning the lottery in the last chapter.

Dickens was no educational reformer, he did nothing for his own children to elevate them from the standard dead and dry institutions that passed as schools at the time.

His criticism of the London sewers was the same as others of his ilk - the smell affected him not the plight of the poor.

Other than a plot device what did Dickens do to be called a social reformer? I am genuinely interested as my online searching reveals nothing expect the same cursory reference to affecting schools in the industrial towns you have given.

Regarding in his reference to the plight of the underclass, reading Tressel's book the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists shows in comparison how cursory and empty Dickens' view is, how it is very far from the subject of his writing.

The last comment on Orwell seems to be a tautology, if there is a point to it I'm afraid I've have missed it.

I think PBS makes a fair point that Dickens was a commentator and that it was others who acted upon the issues which were highlighted in his stories. I've never heard any claim by Dickens or his descendants that he was a reformer or even wrote specifically to prompt others into action. He was a story teller, plain and simple. However, isn't this how many reforms begin? Somebody tells a story which makes people think about an issue.

I know a guy who read a fictional story about street kids in Romania, after which he travelled to that country to work with the real street kids and help set up homes for them. So stories do stir people into action, even if that wasn't the original intention. I'm sure that's just the same with Dickens and many other writers over the years.

Zooloo, I've often found online research to be fairly limited, and I usually end up visiting the local library for more detailed info. But I don't know that there are any "facts" or "figures" to prove your point one way or another. I've never read said essay by Orwell, so I can't really comment on that.

The Cat wrote:
I think PBS makes a fair point that Dickens was a commentator and that it was others who acted upon the issues which were highlighted in his stories. I've never heard any claim by Dickens or his descendants that he was a reformer or even wrote specifically to prompt others into action. He was a story teller, plain and simple. However, isn't this how many reforms begin? Somebody tells a story which makes people think about an issue.

I know a guy who read a fictional story about street kids in Romania, after which he travelled to that country to work with the real street kids and help set up homes for them. So stories do stir people into action, even if that wasn't the original intention. I'm sure that's just the same with Dickens and many other writers over the years.

Zooloo, I've often found online research to be fairly limited, and I usually end up visiting the local library for more detailed info. But I don't know that there are any "facts" or "figures" to prove your point one way or another. I've never read said essay by Orwell, so I can't really comment on that.

First off I should say I don't know if Dickens was any kind of social reformer or if he influenced social reform. So far the balance is that he was not as there is nothing offered to back-up that he was.

The link with the content of his books is very tenuous, he is not commenting on conditions they are only plot devices to contrast the true role/character of his heroes.

At the very best Dickens is a very faint echo of people like Henry Mayhew (London Labour and the London Poor). People who really did comment on the state of society and inspired action to reform.

Dickens's sentimental style and continued popularity makes it very easy to romanticise his role and contribution in regards to highlighting the plight of anyone and anything. It seems to me this attribution is misplaced.

Are there contemporary accounts that Dickens' story telling generally prompted people to action? If there is how does that compare to, say, Gaskell and other writers of the time?

Is there any indication that Dickens was on the vanguard and not just a product of other people's ideas and influence, riding on the coattails of Mayhew as many others did. Would it be fair to say Dickens was not a social reformer/commentator but simply chiming-in with widespread contemporary opinion?

Before becoming a novelist Charles Dickens was a reporter on social issues for 'True Sun' newspaper. He also helped to lobby Parliament.

On the school's issue, two people who named Dickens as a main contributer to the improvement of conditions in Yorkshire were Thomas Wright and John Forster.

I did find a couple of interesting pieces on Charles Dickens' contribution to social reform.

http://soar.wichita.edu:8080/dspace/bits...057/355/3/t06035.pdf

au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_76155692...les_John_Huffam.html

The last link includes something I didn't know.

Dickens was also becoming more active as a social reformer. In 1847 he collaborated with the wealthy Angela Burdett-Coutts to open Urania Cottage, a rehabilitation centre for London prostitutes, an association which lasted until 1858. Dickens took a very active interest in the project, interviewing new admissions himself and keeping a journal of the women's progress. He was also very active in the growing campaign to establish writing as a profession, and he set up the short-lived Charitable Guild of Literature and Art in 1851 with Edward Bulwer-Lytton.

Thank you for the links.

The first, Teachout's thesis, does not reveal anything about Dickens and his supposed zeal for social reform.

Dickens had a romantic ideal of a kind Uncle mentality for the master and loyal subservience for the rest. Dickens exaggeration and belittling of reason, personified by Gradgrind, is to make his own view look as if it has some substance.

Dickens misrepresents the alternative view but never offers any concrete proposal as his alternative. He only has a nebulous romantic idyl that is exactly the same as things were but with kindlier folk inhabiting it.

Thinking that if only the masters were nice and the worker kept happily to his place is not advocating social reform.

The thesis notes Dickens went to Preston not to understand the situation but to gather material for his next story, this is not concern for social reform. Dickens is simply using popular news of the day to become popular literature of the day in order to sell books.

The other link has a vague reference to Dickens involvement with "fallen women". Very much a fashionable fad of the time and without detail on what he did and how the institute was structured we are left with nothing of any consequence.

From what I know of the other "fallen women" faddists it is simply an opportunity for idle bored people to lecture and lord it over their supposed inferiors - and never let them forget they are inferiors. What Dickens did or did not is not revealed.

The first link says more about the Preston Lockout than anything on Dickens advocating social reform, the second link has an unsubstantial reference to his passing interest in prostitutes and interviewing prostitutes to decide if they are deserving cases for moral lecturing is not social reform.

Dickens the social reformer has yet to enter the stage.

You seem to be coming down hard on Mr Dickens during this season of goodwill. Did he offend you in a former life, Zooloo?

Surely it isn't that important an issue. While it might not be able to be proven that Dickens contributed to social reform, I also doubt it can be proven otherwise. 'Water under the bridge'. There's enough trouble in todays society which needs our attention.

The problem seems to be, Al, that I worship Charles with almost blind devotion (being well aware of his faults and suspecting I wouldn't have liked him at all in person) whereas Zoo appears to have more negative feelings about him.

My feelings on Dickens are fairly neutral. He's written some very good books and some not so good.

The claim has been made that he is a social reformer, I see no actual evidence of this. My feelings are that it's label that he's acquired and given credence by repetition but has no real basis on fact.

So far the assertion "Dickens was virtually solely responsible for the improvements in Victorian society" and it's variants have not been backed up.

It looks very much like one of those popular misconceptions from QI.

It is an important issue because of the principle - rather than accept hearsay one ought to look further to discover the truth, a habit often encouraged on this board. Good advice for others is surley good advice for ourselves?

To ask for the evidence and reasoning behind someone's opinion isn't a negative act, on the contrary it's in the spirit of positive learning.

The truth cannot be harmed by questioning.