雾都孤儿主题论文

先不说内容，首先格式要正确，一篇完整的毕业论文，题目，摘要（中英文），目录，正文（引言，正文，结语），致谢，参考文献。学校规定的格式，字体，段落，页眉页脚，开始写之前，都得清楚的，你的论文算是写好了五分之一。然后，选题，你的题目时间宽裕，那就好好考虑，选一个你思考最成熟的，可以比较多的阅读相关的参考文献，从里面获得思路，确定一个模板性质的东西，照着来，写出自己的东西。如果时间紧急，那就随便找一个参考文献，然后用和这个参考文献相关的文献，拼出一篇，再改改。正文，语言必须是学术的语言。一定先列好提纲，这就是框定每一部分些什么，保证内容不乱，将内容放进去，写好了就。参考文献去中国知网搜索，校园网免费下载。《雾都孤儿》中人物的创造性叛逆——重塑 《雾都孤儿》中的南希形象剖析 小说《雾都孤儿》中前景化特征的文体分析 污浊社会里的纯真——《雾都孤儿》中反映出的良知

英语专业毕业论文选题

1、浅析雾都孤儿的反讽性

2、海明威短篇小说中的老人形象分析

3、论英源外来词的翻译

4、从电影三个白痴看印度的社会问题

5、教师提问对学生思维发展的影响

6、浅谈英语阅读中的词汇教学方法

7、山东省英语教育培训机构现状调查

8、初中英语教学中微课的构建与应用

9、远大前程一部成长小说角度下的教育小说

10、论喜福会中中美文化的冲突及磨合

11、传播学视角下旅游文本的汉英翻译策略研究

12、角色扮演活动在小学英语课堂中的有效性研究

13、“场依存，场独立”认知风格对高中生英语阅读的影响

14、中国幼儿英语浸入式教学方法探究15、从女性主义角度研究紫色

《雾都孤儿》读后感范文2000字

当看完一本著作后，大家心中一定有不少感悟，这时候，最关键的读后感怎么能落下！为了让您不再为写读后感头疼，以下是我精心整理的《雾都孤儿》读后感范文2000字，希望对大家有所帮助。

狄更斯太会讲故事了，他的故事里有用极端的描写能震撼人的心灵，像《双城记》里面，嗜杀的场面，文字有极强的画面感，眼里的文字早早映成的脑子里的图像；他的故事里美丽的女子总能温暖人心，像一轮发光发热的太阳，让你看后知道女子应该拥有什么样的德质，如《双城记》里的马内特小姐、《雾都孤儿》中的露梓小姐；这两部作品，我的小小的偏好，更喜欢后者。

奥力弗能活下来，我归功与上帝的恩典。生病虚弱的母亲，未及来得及多看孩子一眼，含着种种的遗憾归于黄土。无姓无名无身世来源的孩子成了习艺所的孤儿。习艺所是一个什么样的地方？书上一句话做了概括：“要么在习艺所里慢慢地饿死；要么在习艺所外很快的饿死。”第一次有离开习艺所的机会去做扫烟囱的学徒，他死命挣扎，这次抗争，几乎算是为他赢得了生命，第二次被棺材铺的老板领走，从一个火坑跳到另一个泥潭。“人的本性有时实在美妙；同样可爱的品质可以在最煊赫的显贵身上，也可以在最肮脏的慈善学校少年身上得到发展，决不厚此薄彼。”在无数次被相同地位的大孩子欺负并因对方辱骂他没有记忆的母亲时，大打出手，受到毒打，而逃走。人生开始拉开起伏跌宕的天堂与地狱的序幕。

“同其他大多数人的思想一样，奥力弗的思想在给他指出困难方面极其敏捷、活跃，但在提供任何可行的克服办法方面却一筹莫展。”我想说因着上帝的指引，奥力弗一步步向伦敦走去。给他提供餐食和住宿的机灵鬼，也带给了他魔鬼的化身费根，刚一读，就想起葛朗台，对财富的贪婪了无之境。他对孩子们提供的衣食住行，代价就是毁灭，对灵魂的践踏，对正直美好生活的剥夺。年龄大些的南茜，到小些的逮不着，都因在饿死与存活的挣扎下渴求生命，在偷窃的路上，一去不返。

布朗劳先生，凭着对已逝老友的缅怀，在奥力弗脸上看到似曾相识的面孔，而发了恻隐之心，将一个来历不明，有可能是盗贼的孩子从死神的手里抢了回来。读到这里，我庆幸地想，这个可怜的孩子总算过上了人的生活。一霎那，从天堂梦醒着回到地狱。原本费根只是在培养一个小盗贼，当一个更大的阴谋出现时，他的贪婪，给了这个孩子生命的转折点。“一旦让他感觉到他跟我们是一伙的，一旦往他的头脑里装进这样一个想法：他已经做了贼—他就是我们的了！一辈子都是我们的了。在奥力弗得以集中思想的顷刻之间，他下决心设法从前厅跑到楼上去向这户人家发出警报，哪怕这个企图将使他付出生命的代价也在所不惜。”人性的光辉，在生死之间，更显耀眼。

天使般的露梓，善良母亲般的梅里太太，有着炽热情感和爱冲动的洛斯本医生，相信了奥力弗的话，展开了拯救他的行动。所幸，上帝大大的回馈了奥力弗的善良，他开始过上了生命中第二段幸福快乐的日子。胸怀仇恨的人，无法忍受没有结果的结局，奥力弗同父异母的哥哥蒙克斯，又幽灵般的靠过来。南茜，人性的光辉在她的身上是多么的冲突，一个最卑微的女孩，用最美的祝福救助一个孩子，拯救他的一生。而她又因为爱情，甘愿与爱着的人同陷泥潭，书前自序中说：“没有必要争论那姑娘的行为和性格是否合乎情理，是否可能，是否正确。反正这事真实的。任何人只要注意到生活中这些阴暗面，一定知道这是真实的。从这个可怜虫第一次出场到她把血淋淋的脑袋偎依在那强盗怀里为止，没有一句话是张大其词或故作惊人之笔。这是不折不扣的事实，上帝可以作证，因为这是上帝留在这种堕落和不幸的人胸臆中的真情实感，这是还残存在哪里的一线希望，这是杂草蔓生的井底的最后一滴清水。”幸福的结局抚慰读者的心灵。

生活本身就是一种恩典。“对人宽恕、相亲相爱、至诚感谢护卫并保全了他们的上帝”；“如果没有强烈的爱，没有仁爱之心，如果对以慈悲为信条、以博爱一切生灵为其伟大特性的上帝不知感恩，决不可能得到真正的幸福。”

木心在《文学回忆录》说：“正统文学批评说他艺术水平不够，认为是通俗小说作家。我以为这种批评煞风景。我喜欢他，在他的书中，仁慈的心灵，柔和的感情，源源流出。说他浅薄，其实他另有深意。他的人物，好有好报，恶有恶报，但和中国式的因果报应不同。他的这种（报应法）是一种很好的心灵滋补。托尔斯泰说：忧来无方，窗外下雨，做沙发，吃巧克力，读狄更斯，心情又会好起来，和世界妥协”我读狄更斯，读出上帝的爱和怜悯。

在孤独下成长，在痛苦间挣扎，在尊严的摧残下斗争，在悲惨的出身下奋进，这就是狄更斯笔下的“雾都孤儿”——奥利弗。

当我捧起这本书时，脑海里无不闪现着光辉夺目的词语——善良、正直、坚强。当我苦恼失意时，想想主人公奥利弗在遭受非人的痛苦并决定带上几片干面包逃往伦敦的情景，他跑啊跑，困了就穿着单薄的衣服在路边的草堆里睡觉，饿了就吃一点面包。在应英国所谓的“贫民收养所”里奥利弗喝完一碗稀粥后直喊到：“我还要！”的声音依然在我的耳边回响。尽管他有着这样那样的性格弱点，但他坚强不屈的性格处处感动着我。

书中情节跌宕起伏，文字相互照应，谋篇布局天衣无缝。主人公奥利弗·退斯特的传奇身世，令人看后兴奋不已。全篇文章的内容是以小奥利弗为中心和线索展开的。通过奥利弗流浪和求生的经历，带出了形形色色的周围人物，从侧面反映了英国资本主义社会的阴暗面，以及作者对“快乐英格兰”的向往。犹如一场背景时时更迭的戏剧，将人性的本质表现的淋漓尽致。

《雾都孤儿》中的人物众多，但特点鲜明，每个人代表了当时社会的一类人。如：性情暴躁、两面派的邦布尔；老奸巨猾的犹太人费金；凶猛残暴、犹如野兽的塞克斯；狡诈阴险的蒙克斯；善良可爱的露丝；毛手毛脚的.罗斯波力医生；聪明机智、办事果断的布朗罗；疯疯癫癫的格林维格；还有心地善良、出淤泥而不染、命运悲苦的南茜；更有天真活泼、纯洁善良，令人怜悯的奥利弗。

狄更斯在小说中表达了心中的怒火，无情的批判了资产阶级的卑鄙与黑暗。在19世纪强盛的英国，作者毫不犹豫的将伦敦的另一面——肮脏的小巷、阴暗的窑子和贼窝、周围腐臭的空气……与此同时，也对贫苦妇女儿童的悲惨生活深感同情。即使奥利弗在这种环境下成长着，却不受半点污染，他由始至终都在守护着自己的人格，不做可恶的勾当与交易，也不做鬼鬼祟祟的偷窃，有着“出淤泥而不染”的高贵品质。

作者在小说中塑造了罗斯、南希、布朗洛等的人物形象，其中令我印象最深刻的是南希，虽然她与奥利弗没有半点血缘关系，却担当着母亲的使命与责任，她想方设法地把奥利弗从苦海的深渊中解脱出来，为此还付出了自己宝贵的生命。这是布朗洛对她说的一句话：“你虚度了青春年华，白白地糟蹋了造物主仅仅给我们一次，从不赐给两次的无价之宝。”尽管这样，她拥有着正直、坚强的内心(对于她的内心世界，相信读者能略微感受的出来——无助、痛苦、矛盾和愤怒)。

在读到小奥利弗被人帮助时，我的脸刷的一下红了。平时我可以说是一个嫉恶如仇的人，每当见到电影中不正义的事发生，我总想跑到电影中去指责坏人。而每当电视中播出穷苦人们的生活时，我更是恨不得立刻去帮助他们。但是在现实生活中，面对一个在火车站，汽车站乞讨的老人，我却没有一点慈悲之心。这也许可以说是现代社会中的欺太多，使人们不得不加强防范，但我更觉得这是我的爱心不够。

小说的结尾，奥利弗过上了幸福的生活，寄托了作者的美好期望。但并不是所有的像他这样的孩子都有那么幸运，很多人只能落得奥利弗的好友迪克的悲惨结局。

狄更斯的《雾都孤儿》与高尔基的《童年》所反映的主题很相似，但写作的手法却截然不同，《童年》是以一个孩子角度和心理去对当时生活进行描述，从而使整个小说铺上一层天真烂漫的色彩。而《雾都孤儿》的描写种种丑恶现象时有讥讽的意味，给读者读后不仅一身叹息。

在这本书中，奥利弗、南希、罗斯都是善良的代表，他们都出生于苦难之中，在黑暗和充满罪恶的世界中成长，但在他们的心中始终保持着一偏纯洁的天地，一颗善良的心，种种磨难并不能使他们堕落或彻底堕落，发而更显示出他们出污泥而不染的光彩夺目的晶莹品质。最后，邪不胜正，正义的力量战胜了邪-恶，虽然南希最后遇难，但正是她的死所召唤出来的惊天动地的社会正义力量，正是她在冥冥中的在天之灵，注定了邪-恶势力的代表——费金团伙的灭顶之灾。

因此在小说中，南希的精神得到了升华，奥利弗则得到了典型意义上的善报。而恶人的代表——费金、蒙克斯、邦布尔、塞克斯无不一一落得个悲惨的下常这部名著在我心中留下了深刻的印象，使我懂得无论环境怎样恶劣，世界怎样复杂，我们都应该保持一份善良、博爱的的精神，这样于人于己都会带来快乐和幸福。

Oliver TwistSearch all of Oliver Twist: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------FROM: Appreciations and Criticisms of the Works of Charles DickensBY: Gilbert Keith ChestertonIn considering Dickens, as we almost always must consider him, as a man of rich originality, we may possibly miss the forces from which he drew even his original energy. It is not well for man to be alone. We, in the modern world, are ready enough to admit that when it is applied to some problem of monasticism or of an ecstatic life. But we will not admit that our modern artistic claim to absolute originality is really a claim to absolute unsociability; a claim to absolute loneliness. The anarchist is at least as solitary as the ascetic. And the men of very vivid vigour in literature, the men such as Dickens, have generally displayed a large sociability towards the society of letters, always expressed in the happy pursuit of pre-existent themes, sometimes expressed, as in the case of Moli鑢e or Sterne, in downright plagiarism. For even theft is a confession of our dependence on society. In Dickens, however, this element of the original foundations on which he worked is quite especially difficult to determine. This is partly due to the fact that for the present reading public he is practically the only one of his long line that is read at all. He sums up Smollett and Goldsmith, but he also destroys them. This one giant, being closest to us, cuts off from our view even the giants that begat him. But much more is this difficulty due to the fact that Dickens mixed up with the old material, materials so subtly modern, so made of the French Revolution, that the whole is transformed. If we want the best example of this, the best example is Oliver Twist. Relatively to the other works of Dickens Oliver Twist is not of great value, but it is of great importance. Some parts of it are so crude and of so clumsy a melodrama, that one is almost tempted to say that Dickens would have been greater without it. But even if be had been greater without it he would still have been incomplete without it. With the exception of some gorgeous passages, both of humour and horror, the interest of the book lies not so much in its revelation of Dickens's literary genius as in its revelation of those moral, personal, and political instincts which were the make-up of his character and the permanent support of that literary genius. It is by far the most depressing of all his books; it is in some ways the most irritating; yet its ugliness gives the last touch of honesty to all that spontaneous and splendid output. Without this one discordant note all his merriment might have seemed like levity. Dickens had just appeared upon the stage and set the whole world laughing with his first great story Pickwick. Oliver Twist was his encore. It was the second opportunity given to him by those who ha rolled about with laughter over Tupman and Jingle, Weller and Dowler. Under such circumstances a stagey reciter will sometimes take care to give a pathetic piece after his humorous one; and with all his many moral merits, there was much that was stagey about Dickens. But this explanation alone is altogether inadequate and unworthy. There was in Dickens this other kind of energy, horrible, uncanny, barbaric, capable in another age of coarseness, greedy for the emblems of established ugliness, the coffin, the gibbet, the bones, the bloody knife. Dickens liked these things and he was all the more of a man for liking them; especially he was all the more of a boy. We can all recall with pleasure the fact that Miss Petowker (afterwards Mrs. Lillyvick) was in the habit of reciting a poem called "The Blood Drinker's Burial." I cannot express my regret that the words of this poem are not given; for Dickens would have been quite as capable of writing "The Blood Drinker's Burial" as Miss Petowker was of reciting it. This strain existed in Dickens alongside of his happy laughter; both were allied to the same robust romance. Here as elsewhere Dickens is close to all the permanent human things. He is close to religion, which has never allowed the thousand devils on its churches to stop the dancing of its bells. He is allied to the people, to the real poor, who love nothing so much as to take a cheerful glass and to talk about funerals. The extremes of his gloom and gaiety are the mark of religion and democracy; they mark him off from the moderate happiness of philosophers, and from that stoicism which is the virtue and the creed of aristocrats. There is nothing odd in the fact that the same man who conceived the humane hospitalities of Pickwick should also have imagined the inhuman laughter of Fagin's den. They are both genuine and they are both exaggerated. And the whole human tradition has tied up together in a strange knot these strands of festivity and fear. It is over the cups of Christmas Eve that men have always competed in telling ghost stories. This first element was present in Dickens, and it is very powerfully present in Oliver Twist. It had not been present with sufficient consistency or continuity in Pickwick to make it remain on the reader's memory at all, for the tale of "Gabriel Grubb" is grotesque rather than horrible, and the two gloomy stories of the "Madman" and the "Queer Client" are so utterly irrelevant to the tale, that even if the reader remember them he probably does not remember that they occur in Pickwick. Critics have complained of Shakespeare and others for putting comic episodes into a tragedy. It required a man with the courage and coarseness of Dickens actually to put tragic episodes into a farce. But they are not caught up into the story at all. In Oliver Twist, however, the thing broke out with an almost brutal inspiration, and those who had fallen in love with Dickens for his generous buffoonery may very likely have been startled at receiving such very different fare at the next helping. When you have bought a man's book because you like his writing about Mr. Wardle's punch-bowl and Mr. Winkle's skates, it may very well be surprising to open it and read about the sickening thuds that beat out the life of Nancy, or that mysterious villain whose face was blasted with disease. As a nightmare, the work is really admirable. Characters which are not very clearly conceived as regards their own psychology are yet, at certain moments, managed so as to shake to its foundations our own psychology. Bill Sikes is not exactly a real man, but for all that he is a real murderer. Nancy is not really impressive as a living woman; but (as the phrase goes) she makes a lovely corpse. Something quite childish and eternal in us, something which is shocked with the mere simplicity of death, quivers when we read of those repeated blows or see Sikes cursing the tell-tale cur who will follow his bloody foot-prints. And this strange, sublime, vulgar melodrama, which is melodrama and yet is painfully real, reaches its hideous height in that fine scene of the death of Sikes, the besieged house, the boy screaming within, the crowd screaming without, the murderer turned almost a maniac and dragging his victim uselessly up and down the room, the escape over the roof, the rope swiftly running taut, and death sudden, startling and symbolic; a man hanged. There is in this and similar scenes something of the quality of Hogarth and many other English moralists of the early eighteenth century. It is not easy to define this Hogarthian quality in words, beyond saying that it is a sort of alphabetical realism, like the cruel candour of children. But it has about it these two special principles which separate it from all that we call realism in our time. First, that with us a moral story means a story about moral people; with them a moral story meant more often a story about immoral people. Second, that with us realism is always associated with some subtle view of morals; with them realism was always associated with some simple view of morals. The end of Bill Sikes exactly in the way that the law would have killed him -- this is a Hogarthian incident; it carries on that tradition of startling and shocking platitude. All this element in the book was a sincere thing in the author, but none the less it came from old soils, from the graveyard and the gallows, and the lane where the ghost walked. Dickens was always attracted to such things, and (as Forster says with inimitable simplicity) "but for his strong sense might have fallen into the follies of spiritualism." As a matter of fact, like most of the men of strong sense in his tradition, Dickens was left with a half belief in spirits which became in practice a belief in bad spirits. The great disadvantage of those who have too much strong sense to believe in supernaturalism is that they keep last the low and little forms of the supernatural, such as omens, curses, spectres, and retributions, but find a high and happy supernaturalism quite incredible. Thus the Puritans denied the sacraments, but went on burning witches. This shadow does rest, to some extent, upon the rational English writers like Dickens; supernaturalism was dying, but its ugliest roots died last. Dickens would have found it easier to believe in a ghost than in a vision of the Virgin with angels. There, for good or evil, however, was the root of the old diablerie in Dickens, and there it is in Oliver Twist. But this was only the first of the new Dickens elements, which must have surprised those Dickensians who eagerly bought his second book. The second of the new Dickens elements is equally indisputable and separate. It swelled afterwards to enormous proportions in Dickens's work; but it really has its rise here. Again, as in the case of the element of diablerie, it would be possible to make technical exceptions in favour of Pickwick. Just as there were quite inappropriate scraps of the gruesome element in Pickwick, so there are quite inappropriate allusions to this other topic in Pickwick. But nobody by merely reading Pickwick would even remember this topic; no one by merely reading Pickwick would know what this topic is; this third great subject of Dickens; this second great subject of the Dickens of Oliver Twist. This subject is social oppression. It is surely fair to say that no one could have gathered from Pickwick how this question boiled in the blood of the author of Pickwick. There are, indeed, passages, particularly in connection with Mr. Pickwick in the debtor's prison, which prove to us, looking back on a whole public career, that Dickens had been from the beginning bitter and inquisitive about the problem of our civilisation. No one could have imagined at the time that this bitterness ran in an unbroken river under all the surges of that superb gaiety and exuberance. With Oliver Twist this sterner side of Dickens was suddenly revealed. For the very first pages of Oliver Twist are stern even when they are funny. They amuse, but they cannot be enjoyed, as can the passages about the follies of Mr. Snodgrass or the humiliations of Mr. Winkle. The difference between the old easy humour and this new harsh humour is a difference not of degree but of kind. Dickens makes game of Mr. Bumble because he wants to kill Mr. Bumble; he made game of Mr. Winkle because he wanted him to live for ever. Dickens has taken the sword in hand; against what is he declaring war? It is just here that the greatness of Dickens comes in; it is just here that the difference lies between the pedant and the poet. Dickens enters the social and political war, and the first stroke he deals is not only significant but even startling. Fully to see this we must appreciate the national situation. It was an age of reform, and even of radical reform; the world was full of radicals and reformers; but only too many of them took the line of attacking everything and anything that was opposed to some particular theory among the many political theories that possessed the end of the eighteenth century. Some had so much perfected the perfect theory of republicanism that they almost lay awake at night because Queen Victoria had a crown on her head. Others were so certain that mankind had hitherto been merely strangled in the bonds of the State that they saw truth only in the destruction of tariffs or of by-laws. The greater part of that generation held that clearness, economy, and a hard common-sense, would soon destroy the errors that had been erected by the superstitions and sentimentalities of the past. In pursuance of this idea many of the new men of the new century, quite confident that they were invigorating the new age, sought to destroy the old entimental clericalism, the old sentimental feudalism, the old-world belief in priests, the old-world belief in patrons, and among other things the old-world belief in beggars. They sought among other things to clear away the old visionary kindliness on the subject of vagrants. Hence those reformers enacted not only a new reform bill but also a new poor law. In creating many other modern things they created the modern workhouse, and when Dickens came out to fight it was the first thing that he broke with his battle-axe. This is where Dickens's social revolt is of more value than mere politics and avoids the vulgarity of the novel with a purpose. His revolt is not a revolt of the commercialist against the feudalist, of the Nonconformist against the Churchman, of the Free-trader against the Protectionist, of the Liberal against the Tory. If he were among us now his revolt would not be the revolt of the Socialist against the Individualist, or of the Anarchist against the Socialist. His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell. That which pedants of that time and this time would have called the sentimentalism of Dickens was really simply the detached sanity of Dickens. He cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Constitutional Conservatives; he cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Manchester School. He would have cared quite as little for the fugitive explanations of the Fabian Society or of the modern scientific Socialist. He saw that under many forms there was one fact, the tyranny of man over man; and he struck at it when he saw it, whether it was old or new. When he found that footmen and rustics were too much afraid of Sir Leicester Dedlock, he attacked Sir Leicester Dedlock; he did not care whether Sir Leicester Dedlock said he was attacking England or whether Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, said he was attacking an effete oligarchy. In that case he pleased Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, and displeased Sir Leicester Dedlock, the Aristocrat. But when he found that Mr. Rouncewell's workmen were much too frightened of Mr. Rouncewell, then he displeased Mr. Rouncewell in turn; he displeased Mr. Rouncewell very much by calling him Mr. Bounderby. When he imagined himself to be fighting old laws he gave a sort of vague and general approval to new laws. But when he came to the new laws they had a bad time. When Dickens found that after a hundred economic arguments and granting a hundred economic considerations, the fact remained that paupers in modern workhouses were much too afraid of the beadle, just as vassals in ancient castles were much too afraid of the Dedlocks, then he struck suddenly and at once. This is what makes the opening chapters of Oliver Twist so curious and important. The very fact of Dickens's distance from, and independence of, the elaborate financial arguments of his time, makes more definite and dazzling his sudden assertion that he sees the old human tyranny in front of him as plain as the sun at noon-day. Dickens attacks the modern workhouse with a sort of inspired simplicity as a boy in a fairy tale who had wandered about, sword in hand, looking for ogres and who had found an indisputable ogre. All the other people of his time are attacking things because they are bad economics or because they are bad politics, or because they are bad science; he alone is attacking things because they are bad. All the others are Radicals with a large R; he alone is radical with a small one. He encounters evil with that beautiful surprise which, as it is the beginning of all real pleasure, is also the beginning of all righteous indignation. He enters the workhouse just as Oliver Twist enters it, as a little child. This is the real power and pathos of that celebrated passage in the book which has passed into a proverb; but which has not lost its terrible humour even in being hackneyed. I mean, of course, the everlasting quotation about Oliver Twist asking for more. The real poignancy that there is in this idea is a very good study in that strong school of social criticism which Dickens represented. A modern realist describing the dreary workhouse would have made all the children utterly crushed, not daring to speak at all, not expecting anything, not hoping anything, past all possibility of affording even an ironical contrast or a protest of despair. A modern, in short, would have made all the boys in the workhouse pathetic by making them all pessimists. But Oliver Twist is not pathetic because he is a pessimist. Oliver Twist is pathetic because he is an optimist. The whole tragedy of that incident is in the fact that he does expect the universe to be kind to him, that he does believe that he is living in a just world. He comes before the Guardians as the ragged peasants of the French Revolution came before the Kings and Parliaments of Europe. That is to say, he comes, indeed, with gloomy experiences, but he comes with a happy philosophy. He knows that there are wrongs of man to be reviled; but he believes also that there are rights of man to be demanded. It has often been remarked as a singular fact that the French poor, who stand in historic tradition as typical of all the desperate men who have dragged down tyranny, were, as a matter of fact, by no means worse off than the poor of many other European countries before the Revolution. The truth is that the French were tragic because they were better off. The others had known the sorrowful experiences; but they alone had known the splendid expectation and the original claims. It was just here that Dickens was so true a child of them and of that happy theory so bitterly applied. They were the one oppressed people that simply asked for justice; they were the one Parish Boy who innocently asked for more.

Oliver Twist Oliver Twist, one of the most famous works of Charles Dickens’, is a novel reflecting the tragic fact of the life in Britain in 18th century. The author who himself was born in a poor family wrote this novel in his twenties with a view to reveal the ugly masks of those cruel criminals and to expose the horror and violence hidden underneath the narrow and dirty streets in London. The hero of this novel was Oliver Twist, an orphan, who was thrown into a world full of poverty and crime. He suffered enormous pain, such as hunger, thirst, beating and abuse. While reading the tragic experiences of the little Oliver, I was shocked by his sufferings. I felt for the poor boy, but at the same time I detested the evil Fagin and the brutal Bill. To my relief, as was written in all the best stories, the goodness eventually conquered devil and Oliver lived a happy life in the end. One of the plots that attracted me most is that after the theft, little Oliver was allowed to recover in the kind care of Mrs. Maylie and Rose and began a new life. He went for walks with them, or Rose read to him, and he worked hard at his lessons. He felt as if he had left behind forever the world of crime and hardship and poverty. How can such a little boy who had already suffered oppressive affliction remain pure in body and mind? The reason is the nature of goodness. I think it is the most important information implied in the novel by Dickens-he believed that goodness could conquer every difficulty. Although I don’t think goodness is omnipotent, yet I do believe that those who are kind-hearted live more happily than those who are evil-minded. For me, the nature of goodness is one of the most necessary character for a person. Goodness is to humans what water is to fish. He who is without goodness is an utterly worthless person. On the contrary, as the famous saying goes, ‘The fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose’, he who is with goodness undoubtedly is a happy and useful person. People receiving his help are grateful to him and he also gets gratified from what he has done, and thus he can do good to both the people he has helped and himself. To my disappointment, nowadays some people seem to doubt the existence of the goodness in humanity. They look down on people’s honesty and kindness, thinking it foolish of people to be warm-hearted. As a result, they show no sympathy to those who are in trouble and seldom offer to help others. On the other hand, they attach importance to money and benefit. In their opinion, money is the only real object while emotions and morality are nihility. If they cannot get profit from showing their ‘kindness’, they draw back when others are faced with trouble and even hit a man when he is down. They are one of the sorts that I really detest. Francis Bacon said in his essay, ‘Goodness, of all virtues and dignities of the mind, is the greatest, being the character of the Deity, and without it, man is a busy, mischievous, wretched thing, no better than a kind of vermin.’ That is to say a person without goodness is destined to lose everything. Therefore, I, a kind person, want to tell those ‘vermin-to-be’ to learn from the kind Oliver and regain the nature of goodness. 雾都孤儿 雾都孤儿》,其中最著名的作品的查尔斯•狄更斯的《反映,是一种新型的悲惨的现实,在18世纪的英国的生活。 作者自己出生在一个贫穷的家庭写这本书在他二十几岁时为了揭示丑陋的面具的残酷的罪犯,让恐怖和暴力隐藏在狭窄的,肮脏的街道在伦敦。 这本小说是的英雄,《雾都孤儿孤儿,谁被投进了的世界充满着贫穷和犯罪。他遭受巨大的痛苦,如饥饿、干渴、殴打和虐待。在阅读《悲惨的经历的小奥利弗,我感到震惊的是他的痛苦经历。我觉得为了可怜的男孩子,但同时我厌恶邪恶和残酷Fagin帐单。使我松了口气,写在所有最好的故事,最终征服了魔鬼,奥利佛善过上了幸福美满的生活结束。一个最吸引我的计谋是盗窃,小奥利弗被允许这种康复照顾夫人Maylie和玫瑰开始了一种新的生活。他去散步,与他们,或玫瑰念给他听,他努力学习功课。他感到他先前留下的世界永远犯罪和困难和贫穷。 怎能一个小男孩已经遭受苦难保持纯洁的压迫身体和心灵吗?原因是处于善性品德之中。我认为这是最重要的信息的小说中隐含Dickens-he相信善良能战胜一切困难。虽然我并不认为善良是无所不能的,我却相信,那些都是善良的过的更幸福的人比那些是愚昧无知。 对我来说,处于善性的品德是其中一个最必要的个性的一个人。善良是给人类就像鱼儿离不开水一样。谁是没有良善是一个完全无用的人。相反,正如著名的老话所说:“香味的手总是待在给玫瑰”一样。给你推荐一个网站，超棒！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！