Hard Times

By
Charles Dickens

Q. Hard Times: Panoramic vision and stereotypical art of characterization in novel

Dickens's art of characterization in Hard Times is one of the important aspects of the novel. His
characters are on the one hand symbols on themselves and by the same token they are individual too.
Though characterization in Hard Times is taken as one of the important achievement of Dickens to
represent the Victorian society he has been charged from two corners. Firstly, he is accused of that he is
guilty in his characterization with considerable exaggeration and secondly he does not tell us enough
about the inner life of his characters. But we can say that most of his characters and individual human
beings each with a life of his own.

Most of the characters in Hard Times are no doubt embodiments of certain ideas and concepts. Most of
them have, indeed a symbolic significance in this novel, which has been called a fable or a morality
drama. Each character in Hard Times represents something and stands for something. Each is the
personification of an abstract principle. And yet we could confidently say that each of the characters is
living individual and not merely a typical character.  Gradgrind and Bounderby are clearly and
undeniably a personification of what was known as the utilitarian principle in Victorian economy.

He represents the utilitarian principle in its most rigid form in the sphere of education, which is based
upon the importance of facts, figures and statistics. He wants to measure the universe with a pair of
compass.

Similarly, Gradgrind and Boundary are also characterized sharply distinguished from each other. Though
both represent the utilitarian principle both are represented in strikingly different ways. Gardgrind has a
certain degree of compassion in his nature, despite his blatant advocacy of facts and figures in comparison
to the Bounderby. If we see the characterization of Mrs. Sparsit, Tom and Bitzer, utilitarianism finds the
different forms in their characterization. It is difficult to say which of these three specimens the worst is in
a moral sense. But there is no doubt that each is widely different from the others and each has his or her
own individuality. In this way, the characterization in Dickens’s Hard Times is one of the main concerns
in regard to giving the social vision of Victorian society being inside the overall purpose of the novel.

Q. What analogy is drawn between Coketown and the Gradgrindian philosophy?

At its most basic, an analogy is a comparison of two things to show their similarities. Sometimes the
things being compared are quite similar, but other times they could be very different. Nevertheless, an
analogy explains one thing in terms of another to highlight the ways in which they are alike.

Examples of Analogies in Speech and Writing

Many analogies are so useful that they are part of everyday speech. These are often known as figures of
speech or idioms. Each analogy below makes a comparison between two things:

 Finding a good man is like finding a needle in a haystack: As Dusty Springfield knows, finding a
small needle in a pile of hay takes a long time, so the task at hand is likely to be hard and tedious.
 That's as useful as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic: It looks like you're doing something helpful
but really it will make no difference in the end.

Introduction

     Published in 1854, in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, Charles Dicken’s Hard
Times describes the devastating effects of mechanization within the urban factories. Dickens suggests
in Hard Times that British citizens, specifically the lower classes, were becoming dehumanized as a
result of the Industrial Revolution. This dehumanization can be seen through Gradgrind’s and
Bounderby’s attempts to suppress the expression of emotions and imagination within the factory, the
school and the home.

Mechanization Within the Factory

    The description of the workers at Bounderby’s factory demonstrates how machine-
like they have become. Coketown is described as being “inhabited by people equally
like one another, who all went in and out at the same hours, with the same sound upon
the same pavements, to do the same work and to whom every day was the same as
yesterday and tomorrow, and every year the counterpart of the last and the next” (27-
28). By describing the actions of Coketown workers as monotonous and repetitive,
Dickens calls to mind the involuntary movements of machines. The repetition of the
word “same” within the passage emphasizes the repetition that occurs within
Coketown and the factories. Dickens goes on to explain that “these attributes of
Coketown were in the main inseparable from the work by which it was sustained” (28).
Dickens makes a point of using the word “inseparable” to explain how essential the
factories were to the city. Coketown did not merely contain factories, it was itself a
factory. The work being performed in Coketown’s factory, and by extension Coketown
itself, was gradually being mechanized. By comparing the entire city to a factory that
was becoming mechanized, Dickens is suggesting that the components of the city, the
people, were becoming mechanized as well.

    The way that Bounderby treats the workers defines them as replaceable objects. He
refers to the factory workers as a large group, rather than individuals. Bounderby
believes that he is above the workers of the factory and treats them poorly because of
this. He calls them “pests of the earth” and “you people” when talking to Blackpool
about the unionization of the factory workers (144, 147). The workers are so
objectified that when organizing themselves, they can no longer conceive of their own
human individuality. Bounderby refuses to acknowledge that the factory workers are
people of value, but instead separates them from himself. The workers can no longer
imagine themselves as separate entities, because they have been consistently treated as
“hands” rather than as individuals (66). By calling the workers “hands” Dickens
illustrates how the factory workers are only seen as a part of the machine, only a part of
the system, rather than individuals.
     Blackpool is used throughout the book as a metonym for the factory; he is internal to
the factory. We first see him “standing in the street, with the odd sensation upon him
which the stoppage of the machinery always produced – the sensation of its having
worked and stopped in his own head” (66, 67). Dickens uses Blackpool to make it clear
that there is no way out for the factory workers, “an idea that Dickens ironically
illustrates by having Stephen leave Coketown only to fall into an abandoned mine pit,
called the Old Hell Shaft, just on the outskirts of town” (Johnson, 228).

Mechanization Within the Household

    Dickens makes it clear early on in Hard Times that both the Gradgrind children and the factory
Hands have been affected by the Industrial Revolution. The narrator contemplates:

Is it possible, I wonder, that there was any analogy between the case of the Coketown population
and the case of the little Gradgrinds? … That there was any Fancy in them demanding to be brought
into healthy existence instead of struggling on in convulsions? That exactly in the ratio as they
worked long and monotonously, the craving grew within them for some physical relief – some
relaxation, encouraging good humor and good spirits, and giving them a vent – some recognized
holiday…? (30).

Dickens is suggesting through this connection with the Gradgrind children and the factory workers
that the children are also turning into machines. By stripping them of their imagination and instilling
them with the facts of the world, Gradgrind has forced them into the same monotonous and
machine-like existence that the factory workers are forced to endure. Gradgrind even calls Sissy
“girl number twenty,” completely ignoring Sissy’s sense of self. He has changed her from a child
into a mechanized component of his system, the same way a part contributes to the functioning of
the entire machine (10).

    In the climax of the novel, Louisa finally rejects her father’s teachings and becomes fully human
for the first time. Instead of the harsh industrial language associated with education and the factory,
here Louisa’s speech is filled with natural allusions:

Would you have doomed me, at any time, to other frost and blight that have hardened and spoiled
me? Would you have robbed me – for no one’s enrichment – only for the greater desolation of this
world – of the immaterial part of my life, the spring and summer of my belief, my refuge from what
is sordid and bad in the real things around me, my school in which I should have learned to be more
humble and more trusting with them, and to hope in my sphere to make them better? […] With a
hunger and thirst upon me, father, which have never been for a moment appeased; with an ardent
impulse towards some region where rules, and figures, and definitions were not quite absolute; I
have grown up, battling every inch of my way (209, 210).

Louisa uses the words “frost and blight” to describe the way Gradgrind has raised her and uses
“spring and summer” to describe her belief. The former are words associated with calculating
 harshness while the latter are associated with the natural world and a lack of mechanization. She
goes on to use the words “touch,” “hunger,” and “thirst” which are all sensations that machines are
incapable of. Louisa is ultimately unhappy with how she was brought up and how her life has turned
out and she blames this on how she was taught to be a machine.

Conclusion

    Dickens does not give a clear solution to the problem of industrialization that society was facing at
the time. He shows the circus as an alternative to the factories and he shows how children’s education
is vital to how they will one day act in society, but he does not “offer a programmatic solution to the
ugly snarl of Coketown; a program, after all, is simply more Fact. Instead he calls for a radical
reorganization, by each of us, of our own lives, de-emphasizing schedule and machine, fostering the
legitimate human instinct for relaxation, good humor, and creativity” (Danzig, 197). British society at
the time was concerned about the dehumanization taking place throughout the country. In his
novel, Hard Times, Dickens acknowledges these fears, but does not offer any concrete solutions that
would have eased his reader’s minds.

Q. Dickens, as we all know, is utilizing satire to agitate for better conditions in England. To what
advantage does Kidderminster serve Dickens' purpose

Dickens presents himself as a satirist in Hard Times using powerful irony, bitter sarcasm, and ridiculous
languages in various situations. Satire and irony have in general a moral and corrective purpose. His satire
is against certain evils, abuses and false value of Victorian society.
He primarily focuses on the utilitarianism  in education, in business, in industry, and even in the issue of
marriage, materialism snobbery and hypocrisy. All these evils have been satirized in the person of
Gradgrind, Bounderby, Sparsit, Harthouse, Bitzer, Tom and Slackbridge.

The first time Gradgrind is introduced to us, he is explaining the theory of utilitarian to the new
schoolmaster which only concentrates on fact. The way his physical appearance like his hair, eyes,
forehead, mouth is described is quite ironic. The pupils of the school are described as empty little vessels,
arranged in order, ready to receive gallons and gallons of facts until they are full to the brim. Gradgrind is
described as a man of realities, fact and calculation. And wherever he goes, he is ready with instruments
to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature.

 The irony is sufficiently found at the scene when Gradgrind and a government officer ask questions to
the school children and the answer that they give to them to enlighten. The way Bitzer is described is also
satirical. The satire in the manner of Gradgrind’s upbringing children is noteworthy. The  children are
made to lead a pathetic colorless life at home. They are not allowed to wander at fancy and see the face of
the moon. No child rhyme and stories were told to them to make them sleep. Ironically the author called
them ‘metallurgical Louisa’, and ‘mathematical Tom’. When Sissy is addressed as “girl number twenty”
not even by her real name, then the factual education and satire upon it can be easily felt.

When the marriage proposal of Bounderby is discussed the author ridicules the absurd utilitarian
education which has turned Louisa into an emotion and tasteless girl. Her parents fail to see the irony
when Louisa says to him that he has trained her so well that she never dreamed a child’s dream.
Bounderby receives even sharper satire. His physical presence is described in a humorous way, in
addition to this, his bragging of his humble birth is ridiculed by the author time and again.

Bounderby not only lauded his own success, but also made others to praise him and his deeds. He is
referred to as meeting as the Union Jack, Magna Carta, Royal arms etc. which is obviously amusing and
satirical. He is the object of ridicule when he says that the only improvement remaining to be carried out
in the conditions of work is to spread Turkey Carpets on the floors of the factory, when he refers to
factory smoke as “meat and drink” and the healthiest thing in the world.

Mrs. Sparsit is satirized for her snobbery, hypocrisy and deceitfulness. She springs to her employer
Bounderby, with whom she has become dependent after having fallen upon evil days, though she never
fails to explain her aristocratic link to others even in slightest opportunity. We are made amused by her
weakness for sweet bread and by her references to her “annual compliment”. She thought herself “Bank
Fairy” whereas the townspeople regarded her as “Bank dragon” keeping watch over the Bank treasure.

Another important character Bitzer has become the target of satire on the Gradgrind’s theory of
education. The author ironically describes him as clear headed, cautions, prudent young man who is sure
rise in the world. Bitzer has no affection and passion. When he refuses to let Tom go, he defends his
action with reference to the theory of self interest which was taught  him in Gradgrind’s school. There is
supreme irony in this situation.

Q. Louisa was descending the allegorical staircase of shame. Were there others descending with
her? Support your answer.
Mrs. Sparsit, who has not quite gotten over having to leave Mr. Bounderby's house to make way
for Louisa, maliciously watches the affair between Louisa and Mr. Harthouse progress with glee. As the
two slowly draw closer together, she imagines that Louisa is slowly descending a great winding staircase.
Down, down, down she goes…and when Louisa finally elopes or disgraces herself publicly in some other
way with Mr. Harthouse, Mrs. Sparsit imagines her stepping off the bottom of the staircase and falling
into a dark abyss. Louisa, of course, never quite falls off this staircase as she refuses to elope with Mr.
Harthouse

When Mrs. Sparsit notices that Louisa and Harthouse are spending a lot of time together, she imagines
that Louisa is running down a long staircase into a “dark pit of shame and ruin at the bottom.” This
imaginary staircase represents her belief that Louisa is going to elope with Harthouse and consequently
ruin her reputation forever. Mrs. Sparsit has long resented Bounderby’s marriage to the young Louisa, as
she hoped to marry him herself; so she is very pleased by Louisa’s apparent indiscretion. Through the
staircase, Dickens reveals the manipulative and censorious side of Mrs. Sparsit’s character. He also
suggests that Mrs. Sparsit’s self-interest causes her to misinterpret the situation. Rather than ending up in
a pit of shame by having an affair with Harthouse, Louisa actually returns home to her father.