The Importance of Being Earnest

[conclusion in English is at the bottom of this post]

Pentingnya menjadi jujur, kira-kira begitulah arti judul buku berbentuk play (drama) ini, The Importance of Being Earnest. Dan nampaknya memang Oscar Wilde—penulis play ber-setting jaman Victoria, abad 19-an ini—memang hendak menyoroti kemunafikan masyarakat yang ada di sekitarnya, dengan segala ketidakjujurannya, lewat play yang kocak namun sinis ini.

Jack dan Algernon adalah dua pria muda yang bersahabat. Meski keduanya memiliki sifat yang berbeda, namun mereka memiliki satu kesamaan, yaitu tidak jujur. Bukan, mereka bukanlah maling atau penipu kelas wahid; mereka adalah manusia-manusia biasa seperti kita. Jack dan Algernon sama-sama menciptakan sosok khayalan yang sering mereka gunakan sebagai alasan saat mereka hendak pergi ke tempat lain, atau untuk menghindar dari kewajiban hadir di suatu tempat yang tak mereka kehendaki. Jack menciptakan sosok ‘kakak laki-laki’ bernama Ernest (kebetulankah bahwa nama itu berbunyi sama dengan ‘kejujuran’ atau ‘earnest’?...), sedang Algernon sering menggunakan sosok ‘kawan pria tua sakit-sakitan’ bernama Bunbury. Bila seorang bibi mengundang Algernon makan malam—dan sungguh, Bibi Augusta Bracknell benar-benar sosok wanita yang tak bakal diinginkan seorang pun menjadi bibinya!—maka Algernon bisa berkelit dengan mengatakan bahwa ia harus mengunjungi Bunbury yang sedang sakit, padahal Bunbury in tak pernah ada. Itulah salah satu bentuk ‘Bunburying’ ala Oscar Wilde—menemukan pelarian dalam wujud sosok buatan mereka sendiri.

Celakanya, Jack dan Algernon sama-sama hendak memikat dua wanita pujaan mereka dengan menggunakan ‘Bunburist’ yang sama, yakni sosok Ernest Worthing. Jack yang mencintai Gwendolen (putri Lady Bracknell; sepupu Algernon), dan Algernon yang terpesona pada Cecily (anak asuh Jack), sama-sama mengaku sebagai Ernest. Lalu bayangkan betapa kocaknya ketika Jack, Algernon, Gwendolen dan Cecily, keempatnya dipertemukan secara tak sengaja dalam satu panggung! Apa yang akan terjadi ketika Gwendolen dan Cecily menemukan bahwa pria pujaan mereka sama-sama bernama Ernest? Dan lebih celaka lagi, kedua gadis ini jatuh cinta pada kedua pria idamannya karena mereka bernama Ernest! Terlepas dari apa yang dikatakan Shakespeare—apalah arti sebuah nama—ternyata nama seseorang mencerminkan kepribadian penyandangnya. Buktinya, Gwen dan Cecily sama-sama menemukan sosok pribadi yang jujur dalam pria yang (mengaku) bernama Ernest. Absurd? Memang itulah yang ingin disampaikan—atau lebih tepatnya—dikritik oleh Wilde.

Sama seperti yang kutemukan di The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde menulis play ini dengan gaya sinis-jenaka-nya. Play ini sungguh menghibur dengan kekocakannya yang sering membuatku kesulitan menahan tawa (karena seringkali aku membacanya ketika sedang berada di tempat umum); kisahnya pendek, tokohnya tak terlalu banyak, dan tak ada banyak konflik. Pendeknya, sebuah karya yang bisa dikunyah dengan santai, dan dicerna dalam waktu singkat. Namun tetap, karya ini tidaklah berlalu tanpa arti begitu saja, karena sindiran Oscar Wilde tentang kemunafikan sangat mengena di hatiku.

Empat muffin untuk Erne(a)st -- (tolong dibagi rata untuk Jack dan Algernon; jangan biarkan mereka rebutan lagi karena sungguh…scene itu bikin aku sakit perut karena menahan tawa!!)

Conclusion:

Help! I think I have just fallen in love with Oscar Wilde… :) After The Picture of Dorian Gray, I found Wilde’s same witty and cynical style in writing, which at the same time contained a sharp criticism for the society. Hypocrisy is something that we can find at all time, and by reading The Importance of Being Earnest, I realized that what Wilde wanted to point out at his time, is also relevant for our today’s life.

Absurdity in human relationship was reflected in this play by Gwendolen and Cecily. They both fell in love with the same ‘Ernest’ just because they had a name that is reflecting ‘earnestness’. Isn’t that absurd? Name is just ‘outer clothes’ that one’s wearing, and I can’t deny that we too often judge others by their ‘clothes’ (appearance, status, wealth, etc). See how Lady Bracknell took her notes and interviewing (or rather interrogating??) the young men who proposed to her daughter; it’s so absurd! (but funny at the same time). And see how she made Cecily to stand before her so that she can ‘evaluate’ her figure. Frankly speaking, it reminds me of how people observe horses’ bodies before they buy them! (suddenly scenes from Black Beauty pop up in my mind..LOL!)

On the other hand, Jack’s and Algernon’s lack of earnest—by creating a fictional figure to whom they can go wherever they need a reason to do (or not to do) something that they don’t want others to know—is something I can accept better than what the ladies did. I mean, it’s indeed absurd to create imaginary person, but aren’t we often create bunch of reasons to protect our own privacy? It’s something that is difficult to avoid entirely. I think what Oscar Wilde meant is the importance of control ourselves, not letting the ‘Bunbury’ inside us be comfortable in his throne, that someday he might steal our identity. This book taught us the importance of being earnest, no matter hypocrite and corrupt our society is.

Four stars for this play—for making me laugh almost entire of the scenes!

[I read ebook version from Project Gutenberg]

Twenty Years After - A Classic Challenge July: Lasting Impression

July prompt of A Classics Challenge is lasting impression – What is a moment, quote, or character that you feel will stay with you? Years from now, when some of the details have faded, that lasting impression the book has left you with... what is it?

I knew when I was in the middle of Twenty Years After (sequel of The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas), that this is a book (or rather a series) that has a strongest impression on me.

I read The Three Musketeers for the first time when I’m in elementary school (around 6^th grade), it was a graphic novel my father bought me, an abridged one of course, as it was intended for children’s reading. I remember how I enjoyed it then, though it’s most because of the friendship of the four musketeers and their heroic acts, rather than the political intrigue which I did not comprehend at that moment. Around two years ago I read the unabridged novel (finally), and this time I can say that I (still) really enjoyed it. And now, after just finishing Twenty Years After (review will be posted on 31^st July), I enjoyed it more, that I think it begin to give me a lasting impression!

“All for one and one for all” - and everything around that oath will echo in my heart and mind (I hope) forever.

The oath itself (and the scene when the four musketeers were touching their swords while making the oath) has been buried in my mind since I first read the graphic novel. It’s been echoing ever since, until now when I read Twenty Years After. In fact Athos, Porthos, Aramis and d’Artagnan did not made their famous oath in this book, for most of the time they act separately or formed two different groups; however I feel that the oath has been transplanted into their heart and that the spirit of unity has always inspired them in every occasion. The oath has been transferred to their strong bound of friendship, that when being in danger, each of them rest assure knowing that the others would and could help him.

The personal character of each musketeer is also one of lasting impressions I got from the series. After The Three Musketeers, The Man In The Iron Mask and Twenty Years After, I feel I have been knowing the four musketeers myself, as if we were all old friends. Athos—the calm and brave man with his nobleness (that d’Artagnan said as a ‘demigod’), Porthos—the simple guy with his passion on fashion and food, Aramis—the mysterious man who are always torn between church and women (but often than not, he fell on the first), and of course…d’Artagnan—the bravest and smartest of the musketeers, with his wit and cynical humor and iron wrist. Now tell me, who can ever forget such characters as them?

 

Athos on Twenty Years After: Character Thursday (21)

Since Twenty Years After is one sequel of a serialized novels under the title: The D’Artagnan Romances, I will analyze one of its numerous characters: Athos, not only from his appearance in this particular book, but I gather what I have learned from all The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After and The Man In The Iron Mask—in which books I think the four musketeers had played their greater role.  

From the four musketeers—Athos, Porthos, Aramis, D’Artagnan—Athos is the eldest in age, the noblest in personage, and the mildest in heart. No wonder, he was considered the leader of this group of loyal friends. D’Artagnan always placed Athos as a father figure in his heart, and had always loved him the most, compared to the other two. Athos too, often called D’Artagnan as ‘my son’. I see Athos as a fatherly figure from how he felt about Raoul—the young man he had taken under his guard, but who has a perfect resemblance with him (he was actually Athos’ son). It is interesting that after twenty years of separation, D’Artagnan, at their first reunion, saw Athos with great surprise…

“Strange thing! Athos had hardly aged at all…”

And what do you think had caused this renewed life of Athos? It is love! Yes, his love for Raoul was so great that I wonder, could it be a father has such an emotional love that—I think—resembles a love of a mother to a son? And more than love, I can say that Athos adored his son. This, which I see more in The Man In The Iron Mask, I think, was the one of Athos’ weaknesses. In short, I think Athos has a tender heart, too tender sometimes, so that when he should act firmly, he failed to do so because of his tender heart, which might cause a bigger risk for him. This is revealed when Athos and Aramis met the son of Milady who wanted to take revenge. Aramis in his sharpness had prepared an ambush, but Athos forbade him to kill an innocent man, although later on he regretted his tender-hearted. For an ordinary man, of course the quality Athos had in him is the highest we can expect from a man, however if I put his tender heart in his chevalier context, then I think it could be a weakness.

Athos in The Man In The Iron Mask movie

If Athos has one weakness, he possessed a lot of strong personalities. He is the noblest man in the Kingdom, the bravest and one of the best swordsmanship. The Comte de la Fère—Athos’ real name—has a noble appearance in him, that everybody who looked at him would directly reckon that he was a nobleman. But the nobility he possessed was not only in his appearance, but more in his soul. Let’s take a look at one of Athos’ advice to Raoul…

“Raoul, learn ever to separate the king and the principle of royalty; the king is but man; royalty is the spirit of God. When you are in doubt as to which you should serve, forsake the material appearance for the invisible principle, for this is everything. Only God has wished to render this principle palpable by incarnating it in a man.”

Athos believed that he should serve the principle of royalty—which reflected the spirit of God—instead of the man who lead the royalty, who could have been corrupted in soul. It was perhaps the reason why he rejected D’Artagnan’s offer to serve Cardinal Mazarin.

Athos was also a loyal and trustful man who appraised friendship higher than anyone else. When there was a dispute between the four musketeers, it was Athos who stood up to save them from fighting each other. I can say that Athos was the key of their unity. You can read what he has said at the crucial moment in my former post.

Until now I always see Athos as a calm, serious man with self control, pure in heart, high in dignity, and always keep his own principle. However from Twenty Years After I began to know more of him. In The Man In The Iron Mask, I just found out that Athos has a son, and ever since I kept wondering, who might be Raoul’s mother. I never think it was Milady, but I have never read that Athos had another mistress. The answer revealed in this book. I will not spoil the truth to you J, but just want to say that…ehm…I have never thought Athos as a wild young man (he has always been a wise man, even when he was a young musketeer!), but..that’s the truth, and it only make me see Athos as a man J. Oh, and have I mentioned that Athos was the most handsome of the four musketeers? Here I give you the clue….

Matthew Macfadyen as Athos in the newest adaptation
of The Three Musketeers

In short, Athos was never my idol from the four musketeers, and the farther I read Twenty Years After, the more I see him getting weaker. Athos seemed to be indifferent to his surroundings, and just focused on his beloved son and his noble principles. I see him made blunders several times in the four musketeers’ adventures, that once made D’Artagnan and Aramis lost patience on him. He also became more ‘divine’ than ever, that a stabbing or a murder scene could trouble him. I mean…it’s perhaps good to be closer to God or to be ‘more Christian’ (even more than the Abbe D’Herblay! J), but come on Athos, you are a chevalier! While reading bible, I expect to read the deeds of saints, but this is a heroic-adventure novel, and I definitely hope for some more heroic actions! So, I’m sorry, I lost my respect to Athos here, maybe you’re just getting old for a chevalier!

I would like to thank all of you who have voted for one of the musketeers I am featuring in Character Thursday. The majority have chosen Athos (which I'm featuring today), and the rest voted for Aramis. Sorry for Porthos, he did not gain any interests from you... 

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

[Non-English Victorian Author] Alexandre Dumas

Having his works being translated in almost a hundred languages and have been inspired more than 200 motion pictures, we can say that Alexandre Dumas is the most widely read French authors in the world. Born on 24 July 1802, his real name was Dumas Davy de la Pailleterie. His grandfather is a French nobleman, while his grandmother was a slave who born from mix French and African ancestor. Dumas’ father—a general in Napoleon’s army—married to an inn keeper’s daughter. When Thomas Alexandre Davy de la Pailleterie—Dumas’ father—joined the army, he took his grandfather’s name Dumas.

Unfortunately, Dumas was born during the hardest times of the family, his father being imprisoned, then return home in poor condition, both in health and financial state. After his father died, Dumas’ mother—incapable of giving him proper education—encouraged her son to read everything they could obtain, and told him stories about his late father’s bravery during his service to Napoleon, which later on inspired Dumas’s vivid imagination of adventures.

After the restoration of the monarchy, the twenty years old Dumas—having inherited his family aristocratic reputation—moved to Paris and started a career at Palais Royal in the office of Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans and later become King Louis. During this time Dumas began to write for magazines and plays for the theatre. Although he was later famous as a novel writer, Dumas had been famous as a successful dramatist before writing novels. He performed many romantic historical dramas on the Paris stage, and later founded Théâtre Historique at the Boulevard du Temple in Paris, which later became Opéra National.

His Writings

During the early of Victorian era, serial stories became a new trend; and Dumas—saw an opportunity for his career—re-wrote one of his plays into his first serial novel, which was soon followed with his other novels. In writing the novels, Dumas used to use services from assistants and collaborators. One of them was Auguste Maquet who assisted Dumas in outlining the plot of The Count of Monte Cristo and assisted him in The Three Musketeers. After the success of both novels, Dumas bought a land and built a château named Château de Monte Cristo (nicknamed Château d'If). Although he had gained a great deal from his writing, Dumas did not maintain his financial very well; he spent a lot to women and his guests at his château has taken advantage of his generosity. Dumas then sold his château and fled to Belgium to escape his creditors. The château has been restored and is now become a museum, opened to public.

Château de Monte Cristo 

A separate building where Dumas could work
privately, nicknamed the "Château d'If."

Dumas’ workplace inside the Château d'If

His personal life

After his marriage with an actress, Ida Ferrier, Dumas kept his love adventures with some women. From them he had at least four illegitimate children; one of them was Dumas’ son with a dressmaker called Marie-Laure-Catherine Labay. In the future—bearing the name of his father—Alexandre Dumas, fils would follow his father’s step to become a writer and playwright.

Alexandre Dumas, père died on 5 December 1870 at his son’s villa. At first he was buried in the cemetery of Villers-Cotterêts, however at 2002 President Jacques Chirac instructed to move his cemetery to the mausoleum of Pantheon, to be placed among his fellow greatest French authors Èmile Zola and Victor Hugo. During the ceremony—which was broadcasted on television—four Republican Guards dressed as Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D’Artagnan brought Dumas’ coffin in a procession towards the Pantheon. In his speech, Chirac also pronounced that ‘a wrong had now been righted’ which was related to the racism thoughts against Dumas (being a mixed race). About this, Dumas himself have written a particular short novel titled Georges, which addressed some of the issues of race and the effects of colonialism. Dumas once remarked to a man who insulted him about his mixed-race background: "My father was a mulatto, my grandfather was a Negro, and my great-grandfather a monkey. You see, Sir, my family starts where yours ends."

His bibliography

Some of Alexandre Dumas’ most famous novels:

The D’Artagnan Romances:

• The Three Musketeers
• Twenty Years After
• The Vicomte of Bragelonne (= Ten Years Later) – usually divided into: The Vicomte de Bragelonne, Louise de la Vallière, and The Man In The Iron Mask.

The Count of Monte Cristo

The Black Tulip

La Reine Margot

Source:

Wikipedia

Online-literature.org

Entrée toBlack Paris™

Literary Classics Challenge - Friday Progress (6)

A Woman Reading - Ivan Olinsky

This month has been crawling quite slowly… I mean both in my real and in literary life. Especially in literary I think, because I’ve spent the first two whole weeks to finish The Old Curiosity Shop [see my review], which by the way, worth the time and effort. Although it is quite engaging—like all Dickens’ serious novels—I could enjoy the story at the same time. I think OCS is the best Dickens I have read so far, for although A Tale of Two Cities is equal in writing quality, but I found OCS is more deeply touching my soul. The characters are more memorable too, compared to Tale of Two Cities—which only have Sydney Carton as the most memorable one.

Finished with OCS, I directly buried in Twenty Years After, the sequel of Alexandre Dumas’ The Three Musketeers. After the slow pace of Dickens, Dumas takes me directly into a fresh gallop J. In only 6 days I have been proceeding to more than 300 pages (from 688!), it’s quite fast for me to read classics!

I wish to finish Twenty Years by around next week, but I will perhaps slip one or two Victorian classics short stories during this weekend. How about you? How is your classics reading for this week?

The Dispute Of Four Old Friends: My Reflection on Twenty Years After

I have not even got into the middle of this book yet, but I have been quite moved by the friendship of these four noble men: Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D’Artagnan, twenty years after their golden era of King’s Musketeers. The slogan of “all for one and one for all” seems to stick forever in my heart.

Twenty Years After depicted these four men in their later lives after Cardinal Richelieu dead. D’Artagnan was still the lieutenant of King’s Musketeers, while Athos and Porthos have been enjoying their retirement and prosperity, and Aramis has been giving himself to serve the Chucrh as an abbé. Now the new cardinal wanted to use their service again, and instructed D’Artagnan to gather his three friends. In this task, D’Artagnan only succeeded to persuade Porthos, while Athos and Aramis both rejected to join. Not only that, it appeared latter that Athos and Aramis was working on something against the Cardinal, but they did not tell D’Artagnan about this.

These four inseparable friends were now worked for two opposite sides. To avoid from killing each other, they agreed to have a reconciliation meeting. This meeting turned out to be the most interesting scene so far (I’m on page 279). From this meeting, I realized why it is very easy to make friends when we are in our 20s, but very difficult to maintain it to get through when we are approaching our 40s (I proved it myself). One of the reasons was clearly reflected in what D’Artagnan said in the meeting…

"It is not civil wars which disunite us; it is that we are all twenty years older. The loyal outburst of youth have gone, and given place to the din of interests, the breath of ambition, and the counsels of egotism.” ~D’Artagnan.

And was confirmed by Aramis…

“Men are so constituted, and are not always twenty years old.” ~Aramis.

The fact is, when we reach the 30s, we used to pursue our own interests. Most of us have been married (or at least are thinking to have a family), that our career or business would be our priority. Idealism had been replaced with interest. In this story, D’Artagnan was all thinking about his career in the kingdom, Porthos was seeking his barony, something that he have not possessed yet, while Aramis has his own ambition to pursue a higher position in Church. Maybe it’s only Athos who did not have any strong interest, but his own principle.  

Back to the four friends’ dispute, the tender-hearted Athos could not accept that their meeting should be filled with suspicion, so when Aramis suggested him to bring his weapon for the meeting, the idea broke Athos’ heart…

“Oh, Aramis, upon my soul you make me feel very unhappy! You are disenchanting a heart not quite dead to friendship. I would almost prefer, I swear to you, that my heart should be plucked from my breast.” ~Athos.

Now, when I am analyzing the situation, it is difficult indeed to stay on either side. I am perhaps rather joining D’Artagnan’s (and Porthos) side, for at least he was openly telling the truth when he recruited Athos and Aramis. I agree what D’Artagnan said to Athos…

“When I visited you at the Château de Bragelonne, I made you some propositions which you clearly understood, and instead of replying to me as to an old friend, you replied as to a child, and our friendship, of which you boast, was not broken yesterday by crossing swords, but by your dissimulation.” ~D’Artagnan.

I am rather disappointed to know that Athos lied to D’Artagnan. With Aramis, I can understand, for he was always an opportunist, but Athos? Who—like D’Artagnan said—have always been praising their friendship…., how can he do it to D’Artagnan? Because he was afraid D’Artagnan would double-cross him by reporting to Cardinal? Oh come on Athos, you are a good diplomat; you know how to win D’Artagnan? Is it a sign that trustworthy had begun to disappear? See…how difficult it is to maintain your true friendship when you were overpowered by your own interests?

However, I am quite relieved that Dumas chose to reconcile those four friends through Athos, the leader and father of them all…

“We have lived together, hated and loved together, have spilt our blood, and perhaps, I will add also, there is between us a tie more powerful than that of friendship…” ~Athos.

And once again (I hope in the next chapters), four of them would fight again together for the sake of nothing-but-truth! Come on guys….you can do it!

Dick Swiveller on The Old Curiosity Shop

Usually I limit my Character Thursday to maximum two characters from one book, to avoid over-exposing too often one particular book, which I’m afraid will bore my followers. However this time I will make an exception, I am picking another character—the third—from The Old CuriosityShop, after Little Nell and her grandfather. Why? Because I think Richard ‘Dick’ Swiveller is a unique character—the only one who experienced a character development in this book, so he deserved to be exposed here.

Dick appeared at earlier chapters only as a comical accessories to the main characters. He was brought to the scene by Fred Trent, Nell’s big brother who suspected that their grandfather was actually a very rich man, and all those times had hidden his treasure to be given to Nell when she has grown up. Fred was a bad boy, and in order to persuade his grandfather, he brought his flamboyant and poetical friend, Dick Swiveller. So, we can assume Dick to be one of antagonists, as besides Fred, Dick also worked together with Quilp, the main antagonist of this story.

Dick’s personality is quite a unique and unforgettable one, he is not as perfect as Nell and Kit—I personally never like perfect characters too much, they are only in tales, not in real life—but Dick is not a totally wicked person too as Quilp, he’s just a person who praised pleasure and wealth, not a hard-worker, an opportunist, and was quite indifferent to others or to the world. Dick liked to imagine himself as a rich person, he used to mention his apartment as ‘apartments’, and imagined his bed as a bookcase. He depended his life on his rich aunt’s mercy, and although was not holding any pence in his pocket, he would fulfill his expensive appetite with a luxury dining from different restaurants (and left a lot of debt traces in almost every dining place in London).

As an easy-going person, Dick was very easy to be tempted. When Fred offered him to marry Little Nell to gain her inheritance, Dick—without many considerations—decided to break up his present relationship with Sophie Wackles. Quilp has also used him for his own plan, by getting Dick a job in Sampson Brass’ law office. The indifference in Dick’s character was clearly stated in his own expression:

“There are some people who can be merry and can’t be wise, and some who can be wise (or think thy can) and can’t be merry. I’m one of the first sort.”

Dick Swiveller & Sophie Wackles

I have thought Dick Swiveller as and would be the little villain, someone who would execute the plan to get Kit to his downfall, however something then happened. One night Dick met the little servant of Brass family, a dirty poor-nameless-abused-and-neglected girl who used to live downstairs. His involvement with the Marchioness—a nick name Dick had given the servant girl—was later on proved to be the turning point of Dick’s character development, from an indifferent person, to become someone with more affection for others. He was the one who took the responsibility to take care of Kit’s mother and family when Kit must went to jail. And I think, somehow, Dick felt that Kit was actually innocent, and that there was something wrong with his bosses. Dick also sent a cheerful present for Kit in jail. He was now a kind-hearted person with care for others. His heroic action, however, did not occurred until he suffered a sever fever that almost took his life, if the poor and sweet Marchioness did not take care of him like a mother and nurse. In his sorrow, all his concerns were on the falsely accused Kit. He—along with the Marchioness of course—was the key actor of Kit’s release.

Dick Swiveller in the movie

I was wondering, what was the cause of Dick Swiveller’s change? I guess the poor life of the Marchioness was the trigger. Dick—I think—was quite deeply touched by the injustice and abuses that the Marchioness had lived her life with. And from there, Dick must have changed his mind about the Brass family, and thus saw things with a different point of view, and lead him to doubt that Kit was guilty. After Marchioness scene, Dick’s heart was easier to be moved by a helplessness situation, such as happened to Kit and his mother.

Dick Swiveller & the Marchioness

So, here was Richard ‘Dick’ Swiveller, from zero to hero, and although his change was not so drastically as Sydney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities, but still, he deserves to be praised as a hero in this story. And I’m glad that in the end Dickens gave him a woman to love and love him in return, someone who shared his eccentricity and interests. I must admit that I would miss Mr. Swiveller’s character, he’s someone who had given this story more color and more cheerfulness within the gloomy atmosphere we felt with poor Little Nell and the grotesque wickedness of Quilp. Dick Swiveller was indeed the savior of The Old Curiosity Shop, to make us love it more!