发布时间：
One of Dickens most enduringly popular stories is Oliver Twist, an early work published 1837-8. Like many of his later novels, its central theme is the hardship faced by the dispossessed and those of the outside of tolite society. Oliver himself is born in a workhouse and treated cruelly there as was the norm at the time for pauper children, in particular by Bumble, a parish council official or eadle The story follows Oliver as he escapes the workhouse and runs away to London. Here he receives an education in villainy from the criminal gang of Fagin that includes the brutal thief Bill Sikes, the famous artful Dodger and Nancy, Bill whore. Oliver is rescued by the intervention of a benefactor - Mr Brownlow - but the mysterious Monks gets the gang to kidnap the boy again. Nancy intervenes but is murdered viciously by Sikes after she has showed some redeeming qualities and has discovered Monk sinister intention. The story closes happily and with justice for Bumble and the cruel Monks who has hidden the truth of Oliver parentage out of malice. Accusations were made that the book glamorised crime (like the ewgate Group of the period) but Dickens wisely disassociated himself from criminal romances. His achievement was in fact in presenting the underworld and problems of poverty to the well-off in a way rarely attempted Regain the Nature of Goodness —— Review of ‘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.
毕业设计，各个专业，帮您毕业，北京硕士团队
Themes Themes are the fundamental and often universal ideas explored in a literary work. The Failure of Charity Much of the first part of Oliver Twist challenges the organizations of charity run by the church and the government in Dickens’s time. The system Dickens describes was put into place by the Poor Law of 1834, which stipulated that the poor could only receive government assistance if they moved into government workhouses. Residents of those workhouses were essentially inmates whose rights were severely curtailed by a host of onerous regulations. Labor was required, families were almost always separated, and rations of food and clothing were meager. The workhouses operated on the principle that poverty was the consequence of laziness and that the dreadful conditions in the workhouse would inspire the poor to better their own circumstances. Yet the economic dislocation of the Industrial Revolution made it impossible for many to do so, and the workhouses did not provide any means for social or economic betterment. Furthermore, as Dickens points out, the officials who ran the workhouses blatantly violated the values they preached to the poor. Dickens describes with great sarcasm the greed, laziness, and arrogance of charitable workers like Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Mann. In general, charitable institutions only reproduced the awful conditions in which the poor would live anyway. As Dickens puts it, the poor choose between “being starved by a gradual process in the house, or by a quick one out of it.” The Folly of Individualism With the rise of capitalism during the Industrial Revolution, individualism was very much in vogue as a philosophy. Victorian capitalists believed that society would run most smoothly if individuals looked out for their own interests. Ironically, the clearest pronunciation of this philosophy comes not from a legitimate businessman but from Fagin, who operates in the illicit businesses of theft and prostitution. He tells Noah Claypole that “a regard for number one holds us all together, and must do so, unless we would all go to pieces in company.” In other words, the group’s interests are best maintained if every individual looks out for “number one,” or himself. The folly of this philosophy is demonstrated at the end of the novel, when Nancy turns against Monks, Charley Bates turns against Sikes, and Monks turns against Mrs. Corney. Fagin’s unstable family, held together only by the self-interest of its members, is juxtaposed to the little society formed by Oliver, Brownlow, Rose Maylie, and their many friends. This second group is bound together not by concerns of self-interest but by “strong affection and humanity of heart,” the selfless devotion to each other that Dickens sees as the prerequisite for “perfect happiness.” Purity in a Corrupt City Throughout the novel, Dickens confronts the question of whether the terrible environments he depicts have the power to “blacken [the soul] and change its hue for ever.” By examining the fates of most of the characters, we can assume that his answer is that they do not. Certainly, characters like Sikes and Fagin seem to have sustained permanent damage to their moral sensibilities. Yet even Sikes has a conscience, which manifests itself in the apparition of Nancy’s eyes that haunts him after he murders her. Charley Bates maintains enough of a sense of decency to try to capture Sikes. Of course, Oliver is above any corruption, though the novel removes him from unhealthy environments relatively early in his life. Most telling of all is Nancy, who, though she considers herself “lost almost beyond redemption,” ends up making the ultimate sacrifice for a child she hardly knows. In contrast, Monks, perhaps the novel’s most inhuman villain, was brought up amid wealth and comfort. The Countryside Idealized All the injustices and privations suffered by the poor in Oliver Twist occur in cities—either the great city of London or the provincial city where Oliver is born. When the Maylies take Oliver to the countryside, he discovers a “new existence.” Dickens asserts that even people who have spent their entire lives in “close and noisy places” are likely, in the last moments of their lives, to find comfort in half--imagined memories “of sky, and hill and plain.” Moreover, country scenes have the potential to “purify our thoughts” and erase some of the vices that develop in the city. Hence, in the country, “the poor people [are] so neat and clean,” living a life that is free of the squalor that torments their urban counterparts. Oliver and his new family settle in a small village at the novel’s end, as if a happy ending would not be possible in the city. Dickens’s portrait of rural life in Oliver Twist is more approving yet far less realistic than his portrait of urban life. This fact does not contradict, but rather supports, the general estimation of Dickens as a great urban writer. It is precisely Dickens’s distance from the countryside that allows him to idealize it. Motifs Motifs are recurring structures, contrasts, or literary devices that can help to develop and inform the text’s major themes. Disguised or Mistaken Identities The plot of Oliver Twist revolves around the various false identities that other characters impose upon Oliver, often for the sake of advancing their own interests. Mr. Bumble and the other workhouse officials insist on portraying Oliver as something he is not—an ungrateful, immoral pauper. Monks does his best to conceal Oliver’s real identity so that Monks himself can claim Oliver’s rightful inheritance. Characters also disguise their own identities when it serves them well to do so. Nancy pretends to be Oliver’s middle-class sister in order to get him back to Fagin, while Monks changes his name and poses as a common criminal rather than the heir he really is. Scenes depicting the manipulation of clothing indicate how it plays an important part in the construction of various characters’ identities. Nancy dons new clothing to pass as a middle-class girl, and Fagin strips Oliver of all his upper-class credibility when he takes from him the suit of clothes purchased by Brownlow. The novel’s resolution revolves around the revelation of the real identities of Oliver, Rose, and Monks. Only when every character’s identity is known with certainty does the story achieve real closure. Hidden Family Relationships The revelation of Oliver’s familial ties is among the novel’s most unlikely plot turns: Oliver is related to Brownlow, who was married to his father’s sister; to Rose, who is his aunt; and to Monks, who is his half-brother. The coincidences involved in these facts are quite unbelievable and represent the novel’s rejection of realism in favor of fantasy. Oliver is at first believed to be an orphan without parents or relatives, a position that would, in that time and place, almost certainly seal his doom. Yet, by the end of the novel, it is revealed that he has more relatives than just about anyone else in the novel. This reversal of his fortunes strongly resembles the fulfillment of a naïve child’s wish. It also suggests the mystical binding power of family relationships. Brownlow and Rose take to Oliver immediately, even though he is implicated in an attempted robbery of Rose’s house, while Monks recognizes Oliver the instant he sees him on the street. The influence of blood ties, it seems, can be felt even before anyone knows those ties exist. Surrogate Families Before Oliver finds his real family, a number of individuals serve him as substitue parents, mostly with very limited success. Mrs. Mann and Mr. Bumble are surrogate parents, albeit horribly negligent ones, for the vast numbers of orphans under their care. Mr. Sowerberry and his wife, while far from ideal, are much more serviceable parent figures to Oliver, and one can even imagine that Oliver might have grown up to be a productive citizen under their care. Interestingly, it is the mention of his real mother that leads to Oliver’s voluntary abandonment of the Sowerberrys. The most provocative of the novel’s mock family structures is the unit formed by Fagin and his young charges. Fagin provides for and trains his wards nearly as well as a father might, and he inspires enough loyalty in them that they stick around even after they are grown. But these quasi-familial relationships are built primarily around exploitation and not out of true concern or selfless interest. Oddly enough, the only satisfactory surrogate parents Oliver finds are Brownlow and Rose, both of whom turn out to be actual relatives. Oliver’s Face Oliver’s face is singled out for special attention at multiple points in the novel. Mr. Sowerberry, Charley Bates, and Toby Crackit all comment on its particular appeal, and its resemblance to the portrait of Agnes Fleming provides the first clue to Oliver’s identity. The power of Oliver’s physiognomy, combined with the facts that Fagin is hideous and Rose is beautiful, suggests that in the world of the novel, external appearance usually gives a fair impression of a person’s inner character. Symbols Symbols are objects, characters, figures, or colors used to represent abstract ideas or concepts. Characters’ Names The names of characters represent personal qualities. Oliver Twist himself is the most obvious example. The name “Twist,” though given by accident, alludes to the outrageous reversals of fortune that he will experience. Rose Maylie’s name echoes her association with flowers and springtime, youth and beauty. Toby Crackit’s name is a lighthearted reference to his chosen profession of breaking into houses. Mr. Bumble’s name connotes his bumbling arrogance; Mrs. Mann’s, her lack of maternal instinct; and Mr. Grimwig’s, his superficial grimness that can be removed as easily as a wig. Bull’s-eye Bill Sikes’s dog, Bull’s-eye, has “faults of temper in common with his owner” and is a symbolic emblem of his owner’s character. The dog’s viciousness reflects and represents Sikes’s own animal-like brutality. After Sikes murders Nancy, Bull’s-eye comes to represent Sikes’s guilt. The dog leaves bloody footprints on the floor of the room where the murder is committed. Not long after, Sikes becomes desperate to get rid of the dog, convinced that the dog’s presence will give him away. Yet, just as Sikes cannot shake off his guilt, he cannot shake off Bull’s-eye, who arrives at the house of Sikes’s demise before Sikes himself does. Bull’s-eye’s name also conjures up the image of Nancy’s eyes, which haunts Sikes until the bitter end and eventually causes him to hang himself accidentally. London Bridge Nancy’s decision to meet Brownlow and Rose on London Bridge reveals the symbolic aspect of this bridge in Oliver Twist. Bridges exist to link two places that would otherwise be separated by an uncrossable chasm. The meeting on London Bridge represents the collision of two worlds unlikely ever to come into contact—the idyllic world of Brownlow and Rose, and the atmosphere of degradation in which Nancy lives. On the bridge, Nancy is given the chance to cross over to the better way of life that the others represent, but she rejects that opportunity, and by the time the three have all left the bridge, that possibility has vanished forever
信不信我把你贼了?再看看别人怎么说的。
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》是一部非常成功的作品，是狄更斯这位享誉盛名的代表作之一，它揭露了隐藏在伦敦狭小、肮脏的偏僻街道里的恐怖和暴力，也展示出了18世纪伦敦罪犯的真实面目；同时，狄更斯还试图说明：善良最终能够克服一切艰难险阻。《雾都孤儿》不仅吸引了评论家和公众的注意，同时它背后潜藏着的那一种强烈的情感不仅打动了与他同时代的读者，也深深地打动了我。《雾都孤儿》中主人公的英文名字为Oliver Twist，而Twist其英文意思是“扭曲，曲折，使苦恼”，这暗示着主人公Oliver的一生很坎坷，要经历很多的痛苦。在这个对社会进行抗议的情节剧式的小说中，奥利弗被当作一个主人公，其目的不是要触动我们的文学敏感性，而是要打动我们的情感。奥立弗·退斯特出生于19世纪30年代英国的一所济贫院，他妈妈用冰冷而毫无血色的嘴唇怜爱地在孩子的额头亲了一下后倒过去，咽了气。没父没母的奥立弗的童年过得极其凄惨，最初的9年是生活在一个管理不善的孤儿院，之后被转到收容成年人的济贫院。济贫院是维多利亚时期中产阶级建立的用来收养穷孩子的机构，因为人们认为穷人的身上有固有的恶习，穷人的家庭造就了这样的恶习，为了阻止这样的恶习产生，所以穷人夫妻就要分开，以阻止他们生孩子，从而减少下层社会的人。但可以这样形容当时的济贫院：济贫院给穷人提供的是慢性挨饿的机会，而在街头则是快速饿死。奥利弗和他的小伙伴们忍受着“慢性饥饿的折磨”。曾给我留下一个特别深刻印象的镜头是：一天晚上吃饭时，一个小孩子跟其他小孩子说，如果不给他多吃一碗粥，说不定会吃了谁。孩子们都很害怕，于是抓阄决定谁输了就要为那个孩子多要点吃的来。奥立弗输了，于是午饭后，其他孩子坚持奥立弗在晚饭时多要点食物。他的请求震惊了当局，结果使他们出5英镑作为酬金，要人把他从他们手上带走。因而可见，《雾都孤儿》是对维多利亚时期穷人的社会境遇的严厉批判。《雾都孤儿》的起势情节是：绝望之中的奥立弗在黎明中出逃，奔向伦敦，在伦敦城外，又饿又累的他遇到了一个与他相仿年纪的男孩—杰克，杰克让他住在自己的恩人费金的住处——实际上是一个窃贼之家，费金这个“枯瘦如柴的犹太老头”兼职为犯罪头头专门训练孤儿为他偷东西。经过几天的训练，奥立弗和其他两个小孩被派去偷东西。当奥立弗看到他们偷了一个老绅士的手绢的时候，吓得拔腿就逃，他被抓住了，但勉强地躲过了指控，没有因偷盗被定罪。布朗罗先生，就是手绢的被偷者，把发烧的奥立弗带回家中护理，让他恢复健康，原本以为黑暗的生活会远离他而去，但是费金贼帮里的两个大人赛克斯和他的情人南希把奥立弗抓住，并送回费金那里。在《雾都孤儿》中，颇具争议性问题的人物是南希。南希在道德上的复杂性在几位主要人物中是很独特的。南希自幼便是一个小偷，饮酒无度，而且是一个妓女，她所陷入的罪恶为她的社会所不齿，但当她牺牲自己的生命去保护奥立弗这个她并不是很熟悉的小孩时，她的行为又是最为高尚的。正因为南希，奥立弗被狄更斯掩藏下的真实身份才有了渐渐浮出水面的一刻。随后，费金派奥立弗去帮助赛克斯抢劫。奥立弗被那家的仆人用枪击中，赛克斯弃下受伤的奥立弗逃跑了。上天可怜善良的奥立弗，他被住在那里的梅莱太太和她漂亮的养女露西收留了。奥立弗开始了一种新生活。他常常与露西和梅莱太太外出散步，有时露西读书给他听，他也努力地学习功课。他觉得自己好像永远把罪恶，艰辛和贫困的世界抛在背后了。小说中，梅莱太太和露西所担任的母性角色使奥立弗第一次生活在正常的家庭当中，在她们母亲般的关爱下，奥立弗在乡下度过了美好的夏天。并且在梅莱一家的帮助下，布朗罗先生和奥立弗又团聚了，并消除了彼此间的误会。随后，布朗罗先生找到孟可思，追问奥立弗的真实身世，真相终于大白。原来孟可思是奥立弗同母异父的，和费金一起密谋陷害奥立弗，使之声名狼藉，并且是病态的，品行不端的坏兄弟，而且还查明了露西是奥立弗的亲生阿姨。小说的最后总结了狄更斯的道德和宗教观念：如果没有强烈的爱，没有博爱之心，如果对以慈悲为准则，以博爱一切生灵为最高标志的上帝不知感恩，那是绝对得不到幸福的，因而，有罪恶的得到了严厉的惩罚，穷凶恶及的人物到最后仍承担着罪恶，相应的，好人终究有好报，布朗罗先生收养了品性善良，道德高尚，宽容仁慈的奥立弗，他们和梅莱一家一起回乡下，从此过着幸福的生活。
买本雾都孤儿的蓝星导读，就是那种双语的小蓝本，虽然写得很浅显，但故事和人物分析挺全面的，就算你以前没读过这部小说，用它就行，省时间最大的问题就是定题，要看你的指导老师严不严了，一定把论点范围缩小再缩小，具体再具体在学校提供给你们的文献库多多下载文献资料，雾都孤儿的的文献很多，能下载到你想吐，但这样不愁没得写 还有问题可以联系我
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！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
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
买本雾都孤儿的蓝星导读，就是那种双语的小蓝本，虽然写得很浅显，但故事和人物分析挺全面的，就算你以前没读过这部小说，用它就行，省时间最大的问题就是定题，要看你的指导老师严不严了，一定把论点范围缩小再缩小，具体再具体在学校提供给你们的文献库多多下载文献资料，雾都孤儿的的文献很多，能下载到你想吐，但这样不愁没得写 还有问题可以联系我
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
我也是写这个 正找材料呢 交流交流哦
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！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
南茜？开始时是一个女强盗，后来良心发现，给赛克斯灌下鸦片酊后溜到餐馆找露丝，告了密，最后被费根派人发现，被赛克斯打死了。其实她很喜欢赛克斯（尽管赛克斯很丑），因为她第一次给赛克斯灌下鸦片酊后，走时“吻了赛克斯的嘴唇”。这本书我看完了。
《雾都孤儿》是一部非常成功的作品，是狄更斯这位享誉盛名的代表作之一，它揭露了隐藏在伦敦狭小、肮脏的偏僻街道里的恐怖和暴力，也展示出了18世纪伦敦罪犯的真实面目；同时，狄更斯还试图说明：善良最终能够克服一切艰难险阻。《雾都孤儿》不仅吸引了评论家和公众的注意，同时它背后潜藏着的那一种强烈的情感不仅打动了与他同时代的读者，也深深地打动了我。《雾都孤儿》中主人公的英文名字为Oliver Twist，而Twist其英文意思是“扭曲，曲折，使苦恼”，这暗示着主人公Oliver的一生很坎坷，要经历很多的痛苦。在这个对社会进行抗议的情节剧式的小说中，奥利弗被当作一个主人公，其目的不是要触动我们的文学敏感性，而是要打动我们的情感。奥立弗·退斯特出生于19世纪30年代英国的一所济贫院，他妈妈用冰冷而毫无血色的嘴唇怜爱地在孩子的额头亲了一下后倒过去，咽了气。没父没母的奥立弗的童年过得极其凄惨，最初的9年是生活在一个管理不善的孤儿院，之后被转到收容成年人的济贫院。济贫院是维多利亚时期中产阶级建立的用来收养穷孩子的机构，因为人们认为穷人的身上有固有的恶习，穷人的家庭造就了这样的恶习，为了阻止这样的恶习产生，所以穷人夫妻就要分开，以阻止他们生孩子，从而减少下层社会的人。但可以这样形容当时的济贫院：济贫院给穷人提供的是慢性挨饿的机会，而在街头则是快速饿死。奥利弗和他的小伙伴们忍受着“慢性饥饿的折磨”。曾给我留下一个特别深刻印象的镜头是：一天晚上吃饭时，一个小孩子跟其他小孩子说，如果不给他多吃一碗粥，说不定会吃了谁。孩子们都很害怕，于是抓阄决定谁输了就要为那个孩子多要点吃的来。奥立弗输了，于是午饭后，其他孩子坚持奥立弗在晚饭时多要点食物。他的请求震惊了当局，结果使他们出5英镑作为酬金，要人把他从他们手上带走。因而可见，《雾都孤儿》是对维多利亚时期穷人的社会境遇的严厉批判。《雾都孤儿》的起势情节是：绝望之中的奥立弗在黎明中出逃，奔向伦敦，在伦敦城外，又饿又累的他遇到了一个与他相仿年纪的男孩—杰克，杰克让他住在自己的恩人费金的住处——实际上是一个窃贼之家，费金这个“枯瘦如柴的犹太老头”兼职为犯罪头头专门训练孤儿为他偷东西。经过几天的训练，奥立弗和其他两个小孩被派去偷东西。当奥立弗看到他们偷了一个老绅士的手绢的时候，吓得拔腿就逃，他被抓住了，但勉强地躲过了指控，没有因偷盗被定罪。布朗罗先生，就是手绢的被偷者，把发烧的奥立弗带回家中护理，让他恢复健康，原本以为黑暗的生活会远离他而去，但是费金贼帮里的两个大人赛克斯和他的情人南希把奥立弗抓住，并送回费金那里。在《雾都孤儿》中，颇具争议性问题的人物是南希。南希在道德上的复杂性在几位主要人物中是很独特的。南希自幼便是一个小偷，饮酒无度，而且是一个妓女，她所陷入的罪恶为她的社会所不齿，但当她牺牲自己的生命去保护奥立弗这个她并不是很熟悉的小孩时，她的行为又是最为高尚的。正因为南希，奥立弗被狄更斯掩藏下的真实身份才有了渐渐浮出水面的一刻。随后，费金派奥立弗去帮助赛克斯抢劫。奥立弗被那家的仆人用枪击中，赛克斯弃下受伤的奥立弗逃跑了。上天可怜善良的奥立弗，他被住在那里的梅莱太太和她漂亮的养女露西收留了。奥立弗开始了一种新生活。他常常与露西和梅莱太太外出散步，有时露西读书给他听，他也努力地学习功课。他觉得自己好像永远把罪恶，艰辛和贫困的世界抛在背后了。小说中，梅莱太太和露西所担任的母性角色使奥立弗第一次生活在正常的家庭当中，在她们母亲般的关爱下，奥立弗在乡下度过了美好的夏天。并且在梅莱一家的帮助下，布朗罗先生和奥立弗又团聚了，并消除了彼此间的误会。随后，布朗罗先生找到孟可思，追问奥立弗的真实身世，真相终于大白。原来孟可思是奥立弗同母异父的，和费金一起密谋陷害奥立弗，使之声名狼藉，并且是病态的，品行不端的坏兄弟，而且还查明了露西是奥立弗的亲生阿姨。小说的最后总结了狄更斯的道德和宗教观念：如果没有强烈的爱，没有博爱之心，如果对以慈悲为准则，以博爱一切生灵为最高标志的上帝不知感恩，那是绝对得不到幸福的，因而，有罪恶的得到了严厉的惩罚，穷凶恶及的人物到最后仍承担着罪恶，相应的，好人终究有好报，布朗罗先生收养了品性善良，道德高尚，宽容仁慈的奥立弗，他们和梅莱一家一起回乡下，从此过着幸福的生活。
买本雾都孤儿的蓝星导读，就是那种双语的小蓝本，虽然写得很浅显，但故事和人物分析挺全面的，就算你以前没读过这部小说，用它就行，省时间最大的问题就是定题，要看你的指导老师严不严了，一定把论点范围缩小再缩小，具体再具体在学校提供给你们的文献库多多下载文献资料，雾都孤儿的的文献很多，能下载到你想吐，但这样不愁没得写 还有问题可以联系我