Dickens and Shared Universe Fiction

 


Shared universe fiction, a modern term, refers to fiction that takes in a universe in which characters from different stories can meet and interact. Thus, the characters are members of a single "universe" or fictional reality, which is generally assumed to be separate from the "real world." Doubtless, this term (and the term 'aternate reality") did not exist during the 19th century. "Alternate history" seems to have had its origins with Joan Aiken's The Wolves of Willoughby Chase , the first of her "wolves chronicles," a series of YA books that were themselves Dickensian, set in an alternate 19th century, in which an underground channel was built between Britain and the continent, through which ravening wolves re-entered England and menace the English countryside. There is apparnetly even an alternate form of cockney spoken there, in which the word "naffy" roughly tranlates to the modern American slang "cool."

Dickens, of course, did not knowingly set out to create such fiction. But, in a sense, all fiction is alternative in that the characters and incidents did not occurr in reality--at least, not the reality we know. In regard to the concept of a "shared universe," that has to even more recent. Exactly when I can't say, but examples of it abound nowadays, the most extreme example being The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics (and film adaptation), in which all the fiction up through the early twentieth, as well as chacters of folklore and myth, happen to be real and historical. On a related note, author Stephen King, at some point in the career of his enormous body of fiction, decided to set most of his fiction in the same universe--read closely, and you'll references scattered throughout his work, at least later in his career, to his other novels. I said "most" because King scholars (and King himself) technically consider his work to comprise a vast "multiverse," set across innumerable realities, with the Dark Tower series and world being the central linch pin. Even without the Dark Tower, setting King's fiction in a "multiverse" would be a necessity, given that the futures explored in two of his Bachman books (The Long Walk and The Running Man)take place in very different dystopian futures, not to mention the post-apocolyptic world of The Stand, which never happened in his slew of recent books. Other authors, such as horror writer Brian Keene, have followed suit with King, and have connected their novels and characters as well.

But back to Dickens. In all of his canonical novels, there is not one verifiable incident where a character from one work crosses paths with another. Pastiches, however, are another matter. I've often speculated, for instance, on how a character like Jack Dawkins might cross paths with Abel Magwitch--after all, both were sent to Australia. An interesting subject for a pastiche, though I've actually found with all the Dodger pastiches out there, that someone's alread done that:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1909609439/ref=x_gr_w_bb?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwgoodco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=190960943


So, then, it's suggested that least two of Dickens' works take place in the same reality. And with the subject of Dodger's adventures in Australia is on the table, I'd like cvall attention to Escape of the Artful Dodger, a Tv mini-series actaully produced in Australia. It, too, takes place in a shared universe, as is evident when both Mr. Micawber and Uriah Heep (from David Copperfield) turn up. The series also has Fagin escape the gallows, the same approach taken by The Further Adventures of Oliver Twist, another mini-series pastiche movie shown in Britain back in 1981. Escape also has the Dodger crossing paths briefly with a man who appears to be a young Charles Dickens.

That's another thing that pastiche sometimes do, and far more frequently than crossovers between novels. A great many pastiches seem to be built on the premise that characters actually lived, and that Dickens "fictionalized" their biographies.

Now, in my opinion, it's a bit more plausible in light of the shared universe, that 1) All the characters of one particular writer would inhabit the same universe, and 2) In that particular reality, the author himself would not exist. Perhaps in that timeline, Charles Dickens' parents, for example, never met.

In Robert Bloch's short story,"The Plot is the Thing," the protagonist becomes trapped in a "movie reality" where the characters of all the classic Hammer monster movies are real, but where their creaters--Gaston Laroux, Mary Shelly, Bram Stoker--do not exist.

http://biblioteca.mygeocom.com/wp-content/uploads/filebase/B/Bloch%20Robert/Bloch,%20Robert%20-%20The%20Plot%20Is%20The%20Thing%20%28v1.0%29.html

There would also likely be no crossovers with character not invented by Dickens, like say, Van Helsing in Peter David's Artful. Such characters would in habit their own relaities. There might also be a "waystation" reality, where one could travel to the different universe--but that's something else.

One other thing regarding Escape of the Arful Dodger, and I've noticed this in at least one other pastiche, is that Brownlow is Oliver's grandfather. The 1982 version of OT makes Browlow the great uncle. In the book, Dickens establishes no blood connection between Brownlow and either the Flemings or the Leefords. He's just a freind of Leeford, Oliver's father. The 1948 version made Brownlow Oliver's grandfather, though, and other versions, including the musical, followed suit to the point to where it's assumed to be canonical when it is not.

The concept of a shared Dickensian universe was taken to a comic extreme in a epsiode of the Charley Blake Show (which I mentioned in previous post), which has characters from a number Dickens novels owing money to Scrooge, including both Oliver Twist and Fagin. Then there was this interactive play, called Twisted: A Dickensian Murder Mystery, which took place at the Ebenezer Maxwell mansion in 2013. The setup is that an adult Oliver has been murdered, and characters from several of Dickens' works are suspects, including, as I recall, Miss Havishham from Great Expectations. Both author Dickens himself and his characters interact in order to solve the mystery.

http://www.freedomsbackyard.com/programs-events/murder-mystery-twisted-murder-a-dickensian-mystery/

While the above two instances take an approach to the material, in which all the characters interacting at once, there's another example that is only slight, and for that, a bit more contorversial.

Near the beginning to the fairly recent BBC take on of Bleak House, a "Mr. Brownlow" is spoken two in the courtroom discussing the Jarndyce  vs. Jarndyce case. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this man's name is in the book at all. So was this the same Borwnlow in Oliver Twist, or perhaps a relation of his? In any case, a shared universe appears to be suggested by this adaptation.

Ebenezer: The Final Years of Scrooge

http://www.amazon.com/Ebenezer-The-Final-Years-Scrooge/dp/0981509185

This is a Dickens pastiche that I bought a few years back, and haven't gotten around to rading until now. I had read a sequel to A Christmas Carol much earlier called God Bless Us Everyone, which, among other things, untilized Charles Dickens as a character. In that case, the familair trope was used that the author used actual events  and people and fictionalized them.

Truth be told, this author does do something similar here, but the revelation doesn't occur to the end (and also raises additional questions), so I won't spoil it for anyone. As the subtitle indicates, this book is about Scrooge's final years. The author throughout manages to make the reformed Mr. Scrooge both grumpy and merry, not an easy task. We get to meet Bob Crachit's children and grandchildren, and we get to know the adult Tim Crachit quite well. The author does "cheat" a bit, unlike in "God Bless Us Everyone", regarding the line in the canonical tale stating that Scrooge "had no further intercourse with spirits." Scrooge has encounters with two possibly supernatural entities early on, one of which turns out to be a true ghost. Scrooge is visited by annoying (or annoyingly endearing) child named Jack. This scamp at first asks annoying questions, and begs to be told of Scrooge's encounter with the Spirits of Christmas, but he gradually seems to be other than what he appears. Then there is the frightening hooded enity, some like the Ghost of Christmas Future, who lurks in shadowy street corners, and later on appears to threaten both Scrooge and Tim Crachit. Tim, by the way, though having survived into adulthood, is now again having health issues, and a doctor informs him that he is soon to die...

Frankly, I found much of the middle portion of this take on Carol to be depressing. Scrooge suffers a terrible accident which leaves him dreafully disfigured, and the part about one of one of Belle's adult children blaming her troubles on Scrooge and seeking revenge is something the story could have done without. Tim slips into depression about what he thinks is his imminent death, and even seems to regret the fact that he was saved as a child. I actually felt some relief when Scrooge gave Time a badly needed wake-up at that time.

Fortunately, all does end well and happy for all in this tale at the last. I wondered for some time how the author was going to do it, but rest assured that she manages. The scenes with the reformed Ebenezer playing "pirate" with the Crachit family are heart-warming. The discription of how Scrooge feels when he again has a true supernatural experience is wonderful. A

ll in all, it's a book I recomend.

Brownlow's Social Class

There has been some confusion, it seems, over the years in regard to the social class of Mr. Brownlow in Oliver Twist. The same might be said to be true somewhat of Oliver's own, and that of his aunt Rose. Shortly after I was acquainted with the story of Oliver Twist, back in the day, my father assumed that Brownlow was a member of minor nobility, possibly a baron. In my otherwise excellent report on Oliver I did for high school (which was tragically stolen in a last-day-of school prank) I refered to him, in the paper, as "Baron Brownlow." This was of course, merely my (or my father's, who kind of idealized the nobility) speculation, and not even good speculation.
     It is generally agreed, based on the body of criticism I've read of Oliver Twist, that Brownlow was merely of upper-class gentry or bourgeois. I rememeber a "close up" in TV guide in regard 1982's movie (the first I really knew of the story) which indeed refered to Oliver's rescuers as gentry. Brownlow was a friend of Oliver's father who is referred to as a "gentleman," as is Oliver's villainous half-brother, in spite of his assoication with the underclass. Oliver's family on his mother's side, however, "may" have been nobility, and I've oftimes assumed, given that Agnes and Rose's father was a captain in the British navy, and most officials would tend to be aristos. This too, is speculation, however.
     In regard to Brownlow, some speculation remains there as well, as one review of the 1982 movie refers to Brownlow as "a benevolent country squire.' Possibly, he was indeed a squire, the same as Alworthy in Tom Jones, which is somewhere between the gentry and aristocratic classes. One other review of the same film in question--and a very negative one--Brownlow is assumed to be "aristocratic", but much of the other information in the review, both in regard to book and the film, was very innaccurate.
     However, the whole issue of Brownlow's social class does bring up the issue of how social class was regarded back then in regard to now. I've noticed that lots of modern critics of Dickens often find fault with his dealings with class idealization in his novels, and with Oliver Twist in particular. In short, Dickens appears very much to have favored the upper classes by presenting Oliver's family and rescuers in glowing terms. And though his novel exposed the plight of the poor, most inhabitants of the underclass are presented as evil. Dickens' own attitudes were, unfortunately, shaped the class-favoring society he was a part of. That he christianed Fagin, one of the principle baddies of Oliver Twist after Bob Fagin, an actual friend of his, because he was in horror of being "dragged down" to his class level, is well-documented. I would point to the events in Great Expectations as evidence that his former attitudes regarding his class status seemed to have changed and he became more self-critical and self-reflective later in life.
      In regard to modern attitudes though, I'm not particularly happy with how they have influenced some of the adaptations of Oliver Twist. These are most evident in the various ways filmmakers have gone out of their way to protray the members of the Fagin gang as victims of circumstance. This is most of obvious in the depictions of Fagin himself, hardly surprising, as he was the most controversial character from the start. Even in Dicksens' own time objections were raised. But even though every adaptation following the 1948 one "humanizes" Fagin to a certain extent (very notably Timothy Spall's protrayal in 2007), I can live with that. Since I was introduced to the "fatherly" Fagin of George C. Scott, it has always even seemed a bit harsh to regard Fagin as one of villains.
        But what really irks me in regard to modern sensibilities when it comes to Dickens is when they attempt to make the "good guys" less sympathetic, or worse, downright evil. And yes, this has been done in regard to Brownlow. In the 2007 version of OT by the BBC (whose adaptations nowadays are a far cry from what they were), they actually make Monks Brownlow's grandson. An odd move, but they do so for a purpose that soon becomes clear. Throughout most of the film, the conivingly rotten Monks (to his credit, the actor moakes him thoroughly despicable) has Brownlow wrapped around his finger. He even has his sights set on marrying Rose. Only at the end does brownlow discover the full, horrid truth about Monks. This contrasts markedly to both the book and the version I grew up with, in which Brownlow effectively functions as the story's master sleuth, diciphering each section of Monk's plan before finally exposing him.

    There is, however, a far worse portrayal of Brownlow out there, which I happened to stumble across over a year ago. This one happens to be a stage play put on TNT theatre in Britain:

 

 http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120229/arts-entertainment/A-fresh-twist-on-Dickens.408956

The above link contians a rather postive description. Draw your conclusions regarding this take on Dickens. However, don't be fooled: though Brownlow is described as "kindly" at one point, that's very misleading.  T o get an idea of the general feel of this, read the following:

"It also departed completely from the original narrative structure by turning Fagin into the primary narrator and having him, on the eve of his execution, converse in retrospect with Mr Brownlow as to who was to blame for the hardship and tragedy in the plot.

Who was to pay the ultimate price? Was it Fagin, who was in a sense a victim and manipulator of the circumstances which befell him, or was it Mr Brownlow, whose social prejudice and moral righteousness set the wheels in motion?" (Delicata)






   Obviously, this is not true to the book. The typical protrayal of Fagin as a lvoable rogue is taking at least one step further in viewing the story from his perspective. But what about Brownlow's "social prejudice" and "moral righteousness"? Simply put, they don't exist in Dickens' original. They have simply reinvented the character of Oliver's guardian for their own purposes. I have read the play itself, and I can state with confidence that the character of Brownlow has been almost totally villainized. A number of discrepancies exist. First, like the 1948 film, and many of the adaptations since, they make Brownlow Oliver's grandfather. The opening act has Brownlow actually has him cursing Oliver's mother for a harlot and casting her out on the street for having an out--of-wedlock pregnancy. They do Brownlow a small credit however, in allowing him to almost immediately regret this awful act. However, it's therefore plain form the start that in this mangled version, it's Brownlow who is the cause of Oliver's entire sorrid adventure! This is an entire flip of Brownlow's role in the story.
   And it gets worse.
   In the scene where Nancy "betrays" Monks to save Oliver's life, it's actually Brownlow who rats her out to the gang, breaking his former promise to her that he will tell no one. So, then, it's Brownlow who is to blame for Nancy's death as well! The whole thing begs the question of Oliver could possibly trust such a blackguard as this as his guardian. Realisitcally, he couldn't. Brownlow is just one more evil adult.
     The play ends with Fagin proclaiming that 'death' is the real story of Oliver Twist, and cursing Brownlow and those like him as the "real murderers", before he is hung. He also makes a genuinely heart-wrenching plead for who will look after the child members of his gang. A tragic finish indeed, with the enphasis on Fagin's demise rather than on Oliver liberation. A better light to shine on the plight of criminal underclass. But couldn't they have generating sympahty for Fagin's plight without turning one of the good guys evil?
     One interesting thing here in regard to issue Brownlow's social class. He is refered in this play, and no other adaptation that I'm aware yet, as "Lord Brownlow." In other words they make Brownlow an unspecified member of the nobility.
    Why? The answer is really obvious. It's the upper class, and not so much the bourgeois, who wield the real power, and it's them who are the ones to blame for society's ills. The whole haves vs. the have-nots thing. Plus, there seems to be a tendency in stories, perhaps in regard to this very sensibility, to make members of the aristocracy evil. I've seen it in too many places to mention. Whatever wisdom there is in blaming the aristos, Brownlow is just not himself here.


Delicata, Andre. "A Fresh Twist on Dickens," The Times of Malta.com Febuary 12, 2009. Web.