Was Charles Dickens anti-semitic?

[Daisy]

I'm reading Oliver Twist and I was suprised to re-discover (I'd read the book 20 years ago) that Fagin was Jewish and that Dickens often alludes to "The Jew" or selling old clothes to a "Jew" and the tone makes it sound like a dirty word. So my question is was Dickens anti-semitic or is this another commentary on the times in which he lived? I'm having a difficult time deciding. Does anyone have any thoughts? Can anyone point me in the direction of a good resource on this? I've read some general biographical information about Dickens but that is the extent of it. I guess I'm just curious. :confused:

[Daisy]

No one??

[GothicGyrl]

I think it's just a sign of the times, at that point in our history. No, I don't think Dickens was anti-semetic and even if he was, he would be by today's definition of the word, not the definition of his time.

Which means I'd still read him, I'd just read him with his era's definition of the word. It's kind of like reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin" or "Huck Finn" or "Song of the South" or anything like that. In today's world, the "N" word is nasty, the behaviors and actions in those books, unacceptable.

Does that mean I should never read them because by today's definition the author could be considered a racist? No. It means I need to read those books with the author's era in mind and try to see if from the author's point of view--not today's.

And in doing so, I can freely enjoy a great many number of books. :)

[Daisy]

I absolutely agree. I wouldn't stop reading Dickens because of that. I LOVE Dickens. This is just the first Dicken's book I've read where I've even noticed the possibilty of this. Thanks for your thoughts, GothicGyrl.

I'm still interested in any books "about" Dickens. I remember someone on a blog from here (I think) had read, What Jane Austen ate and Charles Dickens Knew, but I cannot remember who it was. Has anyone read this book or can you recommend another one?

[LisaNY]

Apparently, he answered this in a letter:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4117609.stm

[Daisy]

Excellent! Thank you so much.

[GothicGyrl]

"I must take leave to say that if there be any general feeling on the part of the intelligent Jewish people that I have done to them what you describe as a great wrong, they are a far less sensible, a far less just and a far less good tempered people than I have always supposed them to be."

And I must say I whole-heartedly agree with him. Replace the word Jew with black, Christian, Muslim, Protestant, or any other culture, race, or religion and his point still stands. Yes, he was critical, but of ALL religions, not just the Jewish one.

His statement is very much akin to someone like me stating "wait, a word offends you? If that word offends you then your faith is not as strong as you believe". That's exactly what he's saying--using the word Jew to describe Fagan was merely a descriptor (much like the writer of the Golden Compass would use the word Christian), not meant to offend in any way, but merely to describe the character in complete depth.

This is why I despise abridged versions of any novel or movie. I can't stand to see the author's work cut for any reason, much less because of the PC "it might offend" reason. If people would stop taking offense to every single little thing, that may or may not be a slight, we'd have a much happier and healthier society than we do now. Unfortunately, his removal of "the Jew Fagan", and replacement with "Fagan" or "Old man Fagan", changes the character's depth and understanding within the novel. It was written that way for a reason and now that reason is gone because someone took "offense" when no offense was meant to be took.

[Daisy]

Well, he obviously chose to revise his own work. He didn't have to and common versions of his original work abound or I would not be reading one.

I agree with your interpretation of his statement in the article. He seems like someone I would have enjoyed meeting.

[GothicGyrl]

And I wished he didn't revise. However, I do wonder if the revision was of his own doing or of his own doing with a little arm twisting.

He is one I would have loved to have met, along with Edgar Allen Poe and a few others. I would have loved to sit in on a pow-wow between a whole bunch of famous writers.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Was he? I'm not sure. He says not. But many, many people have been throughout the ages, and the way that's written makes my skin crawl.

People in the past may have used the pejorative against blacks without "meaning anything," as my parents say they did. But I can tell you very truthfully that they did not truly think black people were as good as whites. I remember a family friend using the word "Jew" in an offhand way, and you can bet he didn't mean that my neighbor (the only Jewish man in the county, I'll betcha) was a fine, upstanding man. And if his daughter had wanted to date his son, there would have been bloodshed, one way or the other. (Not that Arthur would have been real keen on having one of his sons date that man's daughter, either, but not because of her ethnicity or religion.)

I don't buy it that people "don't mean anything" when they use those kinds of words as descriptives. It means something. Usually not a positive thing.

I do agree with Toni, though, that it was part of the times. I'm not sure the times were real good to Jewish people back then, though.

[Daisy]

I'm not sure the times were real good to Jew back then, though.


I totally agree. All I know it that, as much as I have always loved Dickens, I'm bothered by the descriptions in this particular work.

[GothicGyrl]

I don't think the times were good to anyone who wasn't upscale and white. But that aside, I also don't think Dickens was racist or using the word in a derogatory way towards Jews in general.

I believe, truly, based on his previous and former writings, that the words "That Jew Fagan" were descriptive of who and how Fagan was, not necessarily a derogatory.

It would almost be like me saying "That Christian Pam", or "That black Obama". Insomuch as I do see your point though, because it all depends on HOW I say those things.

If I simply say "That Christian, Pam." or "That black, Obama" I am descriptive. But if I say "That Christian Pam" with no comma in between to seperate the words, it takes on a new meaning. It would be like me saying "that bloody christian pam" (bloody substituted for other 4 letter words)--it's derogative.

Again, I do agree with you because my grandmother was the same way. Had many black friends, some very close to her. But don't you dare think of dating her granddaughter or take it beyond friendship. No way--it just did not happen.

Derogative, yes. Racist--I'm not so sure I'd go that far. Right now, my DD is dating a Cuban. Forget the fact that I am cuban/italian (she's me and polish/german), but my former neighbors got very offended because she was dating a "mexican" and they said mexican much the same way you are describing. It took every ounce of sanity I had not to string them up. So, I really do understand what you are saying.

I just see it a bit differently because of when and why it was written.

[Daisy]

Well, he certaintly meant it in a derogatory vs. descriptive way. When Oliver Twist is given a new suit of clothing, he gives his rags to a servant woman who is told to go sell them to whatever "Jew" she can find.

If Fagan had simply been called, "The Jew" through-out the book, I could see it as descriptive. Just as in a Muslim world, you might refer to a lone Christian as "The Christian". However, that doesn't seem to be the tone here.

Anyway, fascinating discussion and much food for thought.

[GothicGyrl]

Well, he certaintly meant it in a derogatory vs. descriptive way. When Oliver Twist is given a new suit of clothing, he gives his rags to a servant woman who is told to go sell them to whatever "Jew" she can find.

If Fagan had simply been called, "The Jew" through-out the book, I could see it as descriptive. Just as in a Muslim world, you might refer to a lone Christian as "The Christian". However, that doesn't seem to be the tone here.

Anyway, fascinating discussion and much food for thought.
Understood.

Again, however, considering the era with which it was written, I'm having a hard time crying "anti-semetic". I might not like it, of course I don't. But we are far more intelligent than the average reader, which means we can read the author's tone, meaning, etc., into his writing and see that he was writing based on the Era, not necessarily his firm beliefs.

I adore Dickens though. So for me, it's hearty reading. And a good study in then vs now.

[Karin]

I've read this book, but so has someone else on this board. And Dickens was just talking like many of his times. The culture was often anti-semitic, I think, which is one of the battles Disreali (sp) had to overcome. But not everyone was anti-semetic, obviously.

[Karin]

Well, is this Dickens' view or the view of the character? Often writers put words in characters mouths that they don't agree with to show who that character is. When I was writing a novel (no longer as I can only write when I'm unhappy) I put racist words into one minor character's mouth because race was one of the issues that came up in the novel (runaway slaves were in it).

[SFP]

You might want to read George Eliot's Daniel Deronda when you have time, Daisy. She deals directly with how Jews were treated at that point of time.

[Michelle T]

it is still anti-semitism, and this prevailing view of Jews in Europe, which had been in place for hundreds of years, and is currently becoming more common again, is what allowed the Nazis to carry out their plans with a great deal of support from the "regular" people living in those countries.

Just as racism might have been the common view during early US history, but that common view is what allowed slavery, and the extreme discrimination that continued even after slavery was abolished.

While it is true that various points in history are colored by various prejudices and biases, that doesn't make them any less evil, IMHO. It is exactly that casual acceptance of these viewpoints that has allowed great evils to be committed.

Michelle T

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I'd imagine SFP agrees with you.

I guess my thought is that when we read old books, it doesn't make it less evil, but we have to give writers some leeway because this is all they knew. I give my grandparents, for example, a great deal of leeway and grace for their attitudes and casual speech because they never really knew any different. My parents less so, but still, they only have had so much enlightenment and experience in their lives.

"To whom much is given, much is required." I hold myself and my children at a much higher standard, because the light we walk in is a much brighter, longer-reaching light.

[GothicGyrl]

While it is true that various points in history are colored by various prejudices and biases, that doesn't make them any less evil, IMHO. It is exactly that casual acceptance of these viewpoints that has allowed great evils to be committed.

I don't think I could disagree any more than I am now. It isn't casual acceptance and I certainly do not see this as a great evil.

I refuse to rob myself of some of the greatest pieces of literature just because some think it "evil". If you want to live in that bubble, fine. But please don't lump my "acceptance" of terminology past in with the likes of truly evil things.

It hardly is.

[Kate CA]

..."The Jew" or selling old clothes to a "Jew" and the tone makes it sound like a dirty word.

I have read a great deal of literature written during Dickens' time and almost every author that has a Jewish character does not write about them in a particularly positive manner. I am reading Anthony Trollope's book, The Way We Live Now (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1022354&item_no=835610), and it is not uncommon. I really believe it was as a matter of course, in the same way the English believed in and nourished their various class levels, that Jewish people were viewed negatively. In the books the English characters of lower class refer to "their betters" in a very matter of fact manner that would offend most people today.

This may or may not indicate that Dickens was anti-semitic, but it was certainly not uncommon. I take those portions of books for what they are. Shakespeare (obviously not written at the same time) has one of the strongest anti-semitic characters I have ever seen in literature in The Merchant of Venice, but you don't hear folks decrying Shakespeare. He very much was a product of his time.

Of course this is an ugly view of any people group from our mindset today; as it should be. We all hope that each of us does not pass on to our children these kinds of stereotypes and/or hatreds of other people groups. This kind of dislike or distrust did exist though, and to hide from it is naive. (I am not suggesting you are. :) ) If we were to stop reading an older book every time we ran into something that is offensive to our sensibilities today, we would have to stop reading period. :)

Warmly,
Kate

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

This may or may not indicate that Dickens was anti-semitic, but it was certainly not uncommon. I take those portions of books for what they are. Shakespeare (obviously not written at the same time) has one of the strongest anti-semitic characters I have ever seen in literature in The Merchant of Venice, but you don't hear folks decrying Shakespeare. He very much was a product of his time.


I'm of a mind that the reason Shakespeare made his character so strongly antisemitic was to make a point *against* antisemitism.

I could be wrong. But that's the impression I'm left with.

[Kate CA]

Well, as much as we would like to think that way, because it makes us feel OK about Shakespeare, most Shakespeare scholars don't agree with you and neither did the Nazi's. The following quote comes from a very interesting article that you can find here: http://www.berens.org/tikkun.html (loads horribly slow for some reason)

What, in other words, does Shakespeare have to do with the Jews?

This last question is not new, although since the Shoah increasingly anxious suspicions that Shakespeare was an anti-Semite have lurked in the margins of essays about The Merchant of Venice. Jewish communities have protested productions of the play (most recently in Santa Cruz, California), trying to salvage their vision of a politically progressive Shakespeare, rather than an infinitely malleable one, by silencing the play altogether. Academics, likewise, avoid the troubling possibility of Shakespeare's anti-Semitism when they tell their readers that there were no Jews in England from the time that King Edward I banished them in 1290 until Oliver Cromwell readmitted them in 1656. According to this argument, since no Jew's foot touched English soil during Shakespeare's lifetime we must absolve the bard of prejudice. To Shakespeare, living in a London sans shtetl, the Jews were effectively fictional characters; to arraign him on charges of anti-Semitism, therefore, is logically equivalent to condemning Dr. Seuss for being bigoted against grinches. One easy answer to our question, then, is that Shakespeare has nothing to do with the Jews. But this answer depends on a fairy tale: for more than a century historians have been finding evidence of a tiny clandestine community of Elizabethan Jews in Shakespeare's England. The myth of total Jewish absence, however, has proved strangely tenacious, perhaps in part because Shakespeare's absolution depends on it.

This article (http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=772) is also worth reading. I just recently read The Life of Elizabeth I, and found there to be quite a bit of anti-semitism. This article reminded me of something I had read in the book:

Referring to the trial and execution in 1594 of Queen Elizabeth's personal physician Dr Lopez, a Portuguese Jew, Speaight wrote that a "wave of antisemitism swept the country which Marlowe's colossal caricature did much to flatter." (In Marlowe's The Jew of Malta, the climax of the play sees the villainous title character Barabas boiled alive, presumably to the universal delight of the audience.) Speaight goes on: "The Merchant of Venice, written two years later, flattered it only slightly less. There can be no doubt that Shakespeare intended Shylock to be the villain of the piece . ... [He had] not a single likeable characteristic. He is ruthless, avaricious, vindictive, and his thrift is hardly to be distinguished from parsimony. Both his daughter and his servants detest him."

Anyway, no matter what Shakespeare believed or did not believe, it still behooves *us* to give our children the truth.

Warmly,
Kate

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Mmm, I guess I never read the scholars. And the Nazi's used Christian scripture to justify their atrocities in the eyes of the public, so I don't give much credence to *their* interpretation.

I only judged it by the reading of it. But I'm not Jewish, and I don't see it from that side, either. So it's very likely that I'm mistaken. And I have no great desire to feel good about Shakespeare, oddly. (Perhaps I should, but that's another post for another day, I think. :) )

And yes, when we compared Ivanhoe and MOV and Hiding Place and did a study of Judaism past and present, I definitely was passing on the truth to the kiddo(s). I completely agree.

[Danestress]

I don't think I could disagree any more than I am now. It isn't casual acceptance and I certainly do not see this as a great evil.

I refuse to rob myself of some of the greatest pieces of literature just because some think it "evil". If you want to live in that bubble, fine. But please don't lump my "acceptance" of terminology past in with the likes of truly evil things.

It hardly is.



I am not sure I follow your logic. Can't one read Dickens, love Dickens, conclude that he is both a product of the attitudes of his day AND an anti-Semetic, and still enjoy his work? I think I could.

I read a lot of literature that reflect views of women as less able, less intelligent ..... just less. And I still LIKE some of that literature.

[GothicGyrl]

I am not sure I follow your logic. Can't one read Dickens, love Dickens, conclude that he is both a product of the attitudes of his day AND an anti-Semetic, and still enjoy his work? I think I could.

I read a lot of literature that reflect views of women as less able, less intelligent ..... just less. And I still LIKE some of that literature.
Allow me, her original post was:
it is still anti-semitism, and this prevailing view of Jews in Europe, which had been in place for hundreds of years, and is currently becoming more common again, is what allowed the Nazis to carry out their plans with a great deal of support from the "regular" people living in those countries.


To which I would respond that comparing a Dicken's classic to what the Nazi's did, not right. The Nazi's based their beliefs on Christianity, as someone pointed out--Hitler often used the bible for his purposes. That, to me, is the true evil, not the fact that Dicken's and other's like him used words that were common for the day.

Just as racism might have been the common view during early US history, but that common view is what allowed slavery, and the extreme discrimination that continued even after slavery was abolished.


The common view is not what allowed slavery, people in positions of power are what allowed it. The belief (and some held on to the biblical belief of holding slaves) that a certain race was lower than you is what allowed slavery to continue. Not the common view--there were far more against slavery than who wanted it--the common view would come in to play here because it was more of a "shhh or you will be heard" thing.

While it is true that various points in history are colored by various prejudices and biases, that doesn't make them any less evil, IMHO. It is exactly that casual acceptance of these viewpoints that has allowed great evils to be committed.

And this is where I disagreed. Casual acceptance is not what held slavery in place, nor was it what allowed Dicken's Era writers to continue using those words. Slavery/Nazi's cannot be used to compare what writers of the Era wrote about. It wasn't casual acceptance that allowed Slavery/the Nazi's to continue--it was fear.

Fear that Dicken's and other's like him may have written about, which only concludes that they would use the language of the day. Sure, one can hold that one is a product of the attitudes of the day, but I disagree that he was Anti-Semetic. Were slave owners racist? I don't think all were. I think the majority of them were just rich white buttheads with nothing better to do with their money than to employ people to work their plantations. That doesn't make me a nazi sympathizer or anti-semetic or anything. It simply means that I hold firm to the belief that they were only doing what was necessary to survive.

Doesn't make slavery right at all. But then again, you can't use Slavery and the Nazi's (why does everything come back to the Nazi's? Not everything is to be blamed on them and not everything can be used as a comparison. What Hitler did was NOTHING like what Dicken's writes about) to compare things too. It's apples to oranges.

[Michelle T]

<<<I refuse to rob myself of some of the greatest pieces of literature just because some think it "evil". If you want to live in that bubble, fine. But please don't lump my "acceptance" of terminology past in with the likes of truly evil things.>>>



I didn't say the literature was evil. I said the mindset behind prejudice is. You can read what ever you like, doesn't matter to me.
Michelle T

[Audrey]

I would argue that it is not especially important whether or not Dickens was anti-semitic. His depiction of Jews in Oliver Twist is, in (most of) our current sensibilities, derogatory. But, instead of condemning Dickens for what he may or may not have thought of Jews personally, look at the literature as a lesson in cultural history. Art is not produced in a vacuum. The novel is precisely a product of its times.

Look at it as an example of the way Jews were portrayed at one point in history -- and how some people today have evolved beyond that prejudice, and how some people today certainly have not evolved beyond it.

[GothicGyrl]

<<<I refuse to rob myself of some of the greatest pieces of literature just because some think it "evil". If you want to live in that bubble, fine. But please don't lump my "acceptance" of terminology past in with the likes of truly evil things.>>>



I didn't say the literature was evil. I said the mindset behind prejudice is. You can read what ever you like, doesn't matter to me.
Michelle T
"It" being said mindset. Literature is not evil, you are right. And neither is the mindset if you actual read where the author is writing from.

Dickens is writing from an Era in time when every race had a place (good or bad) and every place held a race (good or bad). Just because he uses language from his time that is perfectly acceptable within his time frame, should not make you reconsider reading it, nor should it give you carte blanche to call it evil.

That's what I disagree with. If a book were written today with nothing but the "n" word strewn about it AND it was all about racism, then I'd have to question just why it was written---was it written to incite or written as a commentary on our times? If it was written for incitement, I wouldn't read it. If it was written, whether ficitonal or not, as a commentary on our times, I'd say the book was gold.

Still, likening Dicken's or any author for that matter to Hitler--well, that.. I don't even have the word for how wrong that is.

And, Yeah, what Audrey said. :)

[Audrey]

Still, likening Dicken's or any author for that matter to Hitler--well, that.. I don't even have the word for how wrong that is.


Godwin's Law! You win! :p

[GothicGyrl]

Godwin's Law! You win! :p
THAT'S IT!!!

I always get those mixed up--Occam's Razor, Red Herring, Godwin's Law, etc.. I know what they are, but I always mix them up when applying them to situations.

Spanks so much, Audrey. :)

[Michelle T]

Still, likening Dicken's or any author for that matter to Hitler--well, that.. I don't even have the word for how wrong that is.

And, Yeah, what Audrey said. :)[/QUOTE]


Sigh. I did not compare or liken Dickens to Hitler. I said that the common, accepted, anti-semitism, spread throughout centuries, is part of what allowed Hitler to fairly easily get very large percentages of the "regular" population to go along with his plans.

I understand that Dickens wrote out of his historical perspective. However, I feel that historical perspective is WRONG, regardless of how common it was. I'm not saying anything about Dickens personally, just that broad, pervasive prejudice tends to allow that group of people to carry out what I would term "evil" against another group of people.

As for reading Dickens, why would I tell anyone not to read classic literature? And I never said I didn't read Dickens, by the way.
Michelle T

[GothicGyrl]

Sigh. I did not compare or liken Dickens to Hitler. I said that the common, accepted, anti-semitism, spread throughout centuries, is part of what allowed Hitler to fairly easily get very large percentages of the "regular" population to go along with his plans.

And that's still Godwin's Law (thanks audrey)... you are still making some type of comparison of one thing to another, of two totally unrelated in absolutely every way, things. And no, please re-read your history. Hitler did not get the "regular" population to go along with his plans because of "accepted anti-semitism". Hitler functioned on fear and the bible. Because if you didn't believe in Hitler's interpretation of the bible, you died. If you were not "pure in race" enough, you died. Hitler's "success" had nothing to do with common acceptance.

I understand that Dickens wrote out of his historical perspective. However, I feel that historical perspective is WRONG, regardless of how common it was. I'm not saying anything about Dickens personally, just that broad, pervasive prejudice tends to allow that group of people to carry out what I would term "evil" against another group of people.

Were you there? Did you live during that time in any way shape or form? No. Therefore, your perspective of his life/living is what's wrong. You can no more say the way he lived was wrong, than I can say you being Christian is wrong. We may believe in both, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, his way of life is more pertinent to anything else, than is your being a Christian. One doesn't need to be a Christian, but one does need to know how to function in general society, be it centuries ago or now.

And I'd really like you to look up the word "prejudice". It doesn't fit with Dicken's time.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I would argue that it is not especially important whether or not Dickens was anti-semitic. His depiction of Jews in Oliver Twist is, in (most of) our current sensibilities, derogatory. But, instead of condemning Dickens for what he may or may not have thought of Jews personally, look at the literature as a lesson in cultural history. Art is not produced in a vacuum. The novel is precisely a product of its times.

Look at it as an example of the way Jews were portrayed at one point in history -- and how some people today have evolved beyond that prejudice, and how some people today certainly have not evolved beyond it.

Great post. Yes. Exactly.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Sigh. I did not compare or liken Dickens to Hitler. I said that the common, accepted, anti-semitism, spread throughout centuries, is part of what allowed Hitler to fairly easily get very large percentages of the "regular" population to go along with his plans.

I understand that Dickens wrote out of his historical perspective. However, I feel that historical perspective is WRONG, regardless of how common it was. I'm not saying anything about Dickens personally, just that broad, pervasive prejudice tends to allow that group of people to carry out what I would term "evil" against another group of people.

As for reading Dickens, why would I tell anyone not to read classic literature? And I never said I didn't read Dickens, by the way.
Michelle T[/QUOTE]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you 100%.

Somebody made up a rule that you're not allowed to mention how Hitler rose to power or reference Nazis in a discussion or you "lose." So the biggest antisemite in recent history is off the table in trying explain any point in any discussion. Weird, but true. I don't buy it, though. Evil doesn't emerge ex nihilo, you know? We can't discuss causation, or we "lose." Makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Were you there? Did you live during that time in any way shape or form? No. Therefore, your perspective of his life/living is what's wrong. You can no more say the way he lived was wrong, than I can say you being Christian is wrong. We may believe in both, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, his way of life is more pertinent to anything else, than is your being a Christian. One doesn't need to be a Christian, but one does need to know how to function in general society, be it centuries ago or now.



Toni, you weren't there either. And you're giving no quarter for other people's opinions. You're starting to argue emotionally with people who have *much* less emotion vested in these conversations and it's starting to look like an attack. Back it up just a hair, please?

And for the record, not everyone here is Christian. You've been making some pretty strong assumptions the last couple of days. I had to look twice when you called *me* a Christian a few posts ago. Thought maybe there was something I was forgetting. ;)

[GothicGyrl]

And for the record, not everyone here is Christian. You've been making some pretty strong assumptions the last couple of days. I had to look twice when you called *me* a Christian a few posts ago. Thought maybe there was something I was forgetting.

Because I could have sworn you were. That's all. Just based on some posts in the past, I could have sworn you were.

And as for everything else, well.. bean dip? I won't even laugh at that, but meh...

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Because I could have sworn you were. That's all. Just based on some posts in the past, I could have sworn you were.

And as for everything else, well.. bean dip? I won't even laugh at that, but meh...

I love bean dip. And a Mike's. One for you, too.

[LisaNY]

And I must say I whole-heartedly agree with him. Replace the word Jew with black, Christian, Muslim, Protestant, or any other culture, race, or religion and his point still stands. Yes, he was critical, but of ALL religions, not just the Jewish one.

His statement is very much akin to someone like me stating "wait, a word offends you? If that word offends you then your faith is not as strong as you believe". That's exactly what he's saying--using the word Jew to describe Fagan was merely a descriptor (much like the writer of the Golden Compass would use the word Christian), not meant to offend in any way, but merely to describe the character in complete depth.

This is why I despise abridged versions of any novel or movie. I can't stand to see the author's work cut for any reason, much less because of the PC "it might offend" reason. If people would stop taking offense to every single little thing, that may or may not be a slight, we'd have a much happier and healthier society than we do now. Unfortunately, his removal of "the Jew Fagan", and replacement with "Fagan" or "Old man Fagan", changes the character's depth and understanding within the novel. It was written that way for a reason and now that reason is gone because someone took "offense" when no offense was meant to be took.

I totally agree.

[LisaNY]

I would argue that it is not especially important whether or not Dickens was anti-semitic. His depiction of Jews in Oliver Twist is, in (most of) our current sensibilities, derogatory. But, instead of condemning Dickens for what he may or may not have thought of Jews personally, look at the literature as a lesson in cultural history. Art is not produced in a vacuum. The novel is precisely a product of its times.

Look at it as an example of the way Jews were portrayed at one point in history -- and how some people today have evolved beyond that prejudice, and how some people today certainly have not evolved beyond it.

Well said - I agree.

Anti-Semitism has existed since the beginning. There has never been a people-group more hated than the Jews.

[Murphy]

I too recently re-read Oliver Twist and discovered some of the passages Dickens wrote to describe Fagin are truly evil in their comparison of Fagin as a Jew to street vermin. Twist was written in the 1830s. In Dickens' final full novel, Our Mutual Friend, a Jewish character, Riah, is one of the heros of the tale. Dickens also created a Jewish community which takes in a young woman and gives her safe haven and good work. Our Mutual Friend was written in the 1860s -- some thirty years after Oliver Twist. My guess -- and I have read all of Dickens' novels multiple times -- is that Dickens changed his opinion of Jews over his lifetime. As he and his writing matured, he must have broadened his knowledge and experience of people. While I applaud his depiction of Riah as a kind, intelligent, loyal man, it is Fagin who is better known in literature. So unfortunately, Dickens dreadful skin-crawling words about Fagin are the words that more people will know than the gentle, complimentary words about Riah.