To begin with the end, the overall statement of this paper is that the characters in Charles Dickens′s Our Mutual Friend are for the most part inconsistent. In order to clarify this assertion to the reader, I will at first provide an overview of how Dickens′s characters were received by various critics. This will be the foundation for my claim that his characters are not realistic since they are only described from the outside and, thus, character-development is only achieved by means of the plot. This lack of introspection derives from the fact that Dickens′s focus as a writer was surely on social issues and not on character-development. That Dickens was a great novelist will not be questioned, seeing that, despite this lack of interiority and the ensuing incoherence of the characters to the critic, his characters work during the experience of the first reading. This I will show by examining the character of Eugene Wrayburn in Our Mutual Friend, whose final catharsis is approved of by the reader at first, but has to be highly doubted at second sight, as his actions and thoughts do not justify his reformation to a person of integrity. A thorough study of Wrayburn′s character will reveal that he is a sadist who exults in humiliating other people and wielding power over them, which will raise the question whether he has to be considered as a villainous rather than heroic character.
I will then investigate the character of Bradley Headstone, who appears to be the villain of the subplot revolving around Lizzie Hexam. This analysis will lead to the discovery that Headstone is not so much of a villain but has to be seen as a victim of society and its machinery. Headstone′s story has to be seen as tragic since he succumbs to his violent passions and lets them drive him to despair and the edge of reason in the end. In addition, I will juxtapose Wrayburn′s character to that of his opponent Headstone and thus illustrates the fact that, while we do not get an insight into Wrayburn′s emotions and therefore cannot understand his deeds, Headstone′s actions and motivations are rendered plausible for the reader by the way Dickens describes his character, from the outside as well as from the inside. [...]
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. General aspects on Dickensian characters
3. Eugene Wrayburn – Catharsis or conundrum?
3.1. The Wrayburn-dilemma
3.2. Fascination Wrayburn – The man without designs
3.3. Wrayburn’s ‘reparation’ – A farce
4. Bradley Headstone – Villain or victim?
4.1. The social inferiority-complex
4.2. The tragedy of a “curious monomaniac”
5. The clash of the classes and a cry for help
5.1. Sadism meets the inferiority-complex
5.2. Bradley Headstone – Guilty of emotion
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the consistency and psychological depth of characters in Charles Dickens's Our Mutual Friend. It explores the central research question of whether Dickens's character development is realistic or purely plot-driven, focusing specifically on the contrasting figures of Eugene Wrayburn and Bradley Headstone.
- Analysis of psychological realism in Victorian literature
- Critique of Dickens’s "outside-in" character portrayal
- Character study of Eugene Wrayburn as a potentially sadistic figure
- Investigation of Bradley Headstone as a victim of class and society
- The clash between social status and personal emotion in character arcs
Excerpt from the Book
3.2. Fascination Wrayburn – The man without designs
“Eugene, do you design to capture and desert this girl?” [Mortimer]
“My dear fellow, no.”
“Do you design to marry her?”
“My dear fellow, no.”
“Do you design to pursue her?”
“My dear fellow, I don’t design anything. I have no design whatever. I am incapable of designs. If I conceived a design, I should speedily abandon it, exhausted by the operation (294).”
In my view, the answer to the question why it is so hard to understand Eugene Wrayburn, is that he does not even understand himself. How shall the reader comprehend something that happens inside the character, if the author employs no introspection when describing the character? In fact, the only things we get to know about Eugene can be found in his conversations with Mortimer Lightwood and in the way he behaves towards other people. Apart from his soliloquy shortly before the assault of Headstone, there are no scenes in the novel where we get insight into Eugene Wrayburn by means of his thoughts.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the thesis that Dickens's characters are often inconsistent and described purely from the outside, setting the stage for an investigation into Wrayburn and Headstone.
2. General aspects on Dickensian characters: This chapter provides a critical overview of how various literary critics have perceived Dickens's approach to character creation from his own time to the 20th century.
3. Eugene Wrayburn – Catharsis or conundrum?: This section explores Eugene Wrayburn's lack of direction, his cynicism, and the highly debated nature of his character arc in relation to Lizzie Hexam.
4. Bradley Headstone – Villain or victim?: This chapter investigates Headstone’s psychological complexity, arguing that his actions are driven by his status as a self-made man and a victim of social pressures.
5. The clash of the classes and a cry for help: This chapter analyzes the antagonistic relationship between Wrayburn and Headstone, contrasting their internal motivations and their social interactions.
6. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the argument that while Dickens is a masterful storyteller, his characters often lack the psychological plausibility required for realistic character studies.
Keywords
Charles Dickens, Our Mutual Friend, Character Development, Psychological Realism, Eugene Wrayburn, Bradley Headstone, Victorian Literature, Literary Criticism, Social Classes, Introspection, Narrative Technique, Character Analysis, Literary Theory.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this academic paper?
The paper argues that characters in Dickens’s Our Mutual Friend are largely inconsistent and lack psychological depth, as the author focuses more on plot mechanics and social critique than on internal character evolution.
What are the central themes examined in the text?
The core themes include the realism of fictional characters, the impact of class structures on personality, the role of introspection in storytelling, and the portrayal of morality in literature.
What is the primary research goal?
The primary goal is to determine if the actions and developments of Eugene Wrayburn and Bradley Headstone are believable or if they are merely superficial constructs imposed by the plot.
Which scientific methods are employed for this analysis?
The study utilizes a qualitative literary analysis, juxtaposing character behaviors against critical theories from authors like Henry James, G.H. Lewes, and Juliet John.
What does the main body focus on?
The main body performs a character-by-character analysis, contrasting Wrayburn’s "hollow" yet charming persona with Headstone’s "victim" status, and examining their interactions as a clash of social classes.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Dickensian characters, psychological realism, Eugene Wrayburn, Bradley Headstone, and character artificiality.
Does the author consider Eugene Wrayburn a reformed hero?
The author strongly doubts Wrayburn’s reformation, suggesting that his "catharsis" at the end of the novel is an illogical and artificial plot device rather than a genuine change in character.
How does the analysis interpret Bradley Headstone’s violent actions?
The author views Headstone’s violence as a tragic but logical consequence of his internal struggle with his lower-class background, his social inferiority complex, and the persistent psychological torment inflicted upon him by Wrayburn.
- Quote paper
- Benjamin Foitzik (Author), 2002, Dickensian characters - real or nil? An analysis of characters in Our Mutual Friend, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/12125
