“Waste” in Charles Dickens’ Our
Mutual Friend
Copping, Harold. Mr. Boffin and Silas Wegg. 1924. Character Sketches from Dickens, 116.
Ed. Philip V. Anningham. Web: 06-04-2009.
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/copping/25.html
Bachelor Thesis English Language and Culture, Utrecht University
Ruben Verlaek
3495906
April 2012
Supervisor: David Pascoe
Second reader: Roseline Supheert
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 1: ‘Waste is Money’: Mr. Venus’s Shop Explained .............................................. 5
Chapter 2: Characters Recycled .......................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3: ‘Human Waste’ and the Lower Classes ............................................................. 14
Chapter 4: The Role of Dust ............................................................................................... 19
Chapter 5: Reframing Recycling ......................................................................................... 23
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 26
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 29
Plagiarism statement ........................................................................................................... 30
3
Introduction
In April 2012, the citizens, visitors and students of London were asked to join in a big cityread of the novel Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. 2012 is a special year for Dickens-fans:
this year he celebrates his 200th birthday. The city of London is one of the cities to celebrate
this event: a city-read was organised and various other events were planned to happen this
year. The BBC broadcast various television and radio programmes about Dickens; several
adaptations of novels such as Great Expectations and The Mystery of Edwin Drood were aired
on the television. It is quite interesting to see that after 200 years, the writer is still
tremendously popular (Charles Dickens Museum et al).
Charles John Huffam Dickens was born on 7 February 1812. During his lifetime, he
would write over twenty novels and various other writings, such as articles for his magazine
Household Words or short stories: these are much praised by a great many people all over the
world. Edgar Johnson points out: “[C]harles Dickens belongs to all the world. He is a titan of
literature” (Johnson 7). His life can be considered to be almost as exciting as one of his
novels, as Johnson explains (Johnson 7).
Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol are perhaps the best known novels by Charles
Dickens; many critics have written very interesting articles on those novels. So far, however,
relatively little articles have been written on the novel Our Mutual Friend. The novel,
Dickens’ last complete novel, can be considered to be darker and more critical towards the
Victorian society than previous novels by Dickens; the reader is faced with complex plot
lines, social-critical writing and quite grim scenes. This makes Our Mutual Friend very
interesting and fertile for literary purposes: there are many intriguing aspects of the novel still
waiting to be discovered.
4
In this thesis, an attempt will be made to explain Dickens’ critical view on society:
various imperfections are marked with references to ‘waste’. There are many flaws found in
the novel, metaphorically connected with dust or waste. These will be found and explained.
In the first chapter, a specific example will be given about the occurrence of waste and
its implications. Mr. Venus’s shop will be discussed: he owns a shop in articulated skeletons
and animals; the waste left behind when deceased.
The second chapter will discuss how recycling is depicted in the novel. The recycling
of waste was very actively done in Victorian London: Dickens himself was very interested in
this. It also returns in various instances in the novel; these notions will be pointed out and
discussed.
Without waste, there is nothing to be recycled: the third chapter will deal with how the
lower classes are depicted in the novel; more specifically, how they are characterised as
‘human waste’. The lower classes are described in various ways in the novel, which could
lead to the understanding that they are represented as human waste.
The following chapter investigates the role of dust more broadly: throughout Our
Mutual Friend dust is mentioned, sometimes in places where the reader would not expect this.
Dust is an important metaphor in the story, as proven by the first and second chapter;
moreover, it can be interpreted and explained in various ways. Furthermore, the aspect of
recycling is regarded more broadly, linking with the role of dust.
5
“Waste is Money”: Mr. Venus’s Shop Examined
‘Dust’, or waste, is a source of income for Mr. and Mrs. Boffin, as well as John Rokesmith,
even though both do not actively participate in the dust business anymore: they gained their
fortune passively due to an inheritance. There is, however, one character in the novel that is
actively earning his money in the dust business: Mr. Venus. His business is very interesting:
his shop and his wares might offer the reader a way of interpreting dust in the novel.
Mr. Venus’s shop is introduced to the reader in book 1, chapter 7. Silas Wegg is on his
way to Boffin’s Bower to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to Mr. Boffin.
Instead of going to the Bower immediately, he takes a detour to Mr. Venus’s shop. It is very
dusty and greasy, and inside ‘miscellaneous’ articles are found. Mr. Venus upholsters humans
and animals and sells these. Stuffed animals are turned into entertaining ornaments, such as
the sword-duelling frogs in his shop window. Also, he uses human body parts to create
skeletons for various purposes, such as selling them to a school of art. Mr. Venus explains: “I
have just sent home a Beauty—a perfect Beauty—to a school of art. One leg Belgian, one leg
English, and the pickings of eight other people in it” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 7).
Striking is the way Mr. Venus and Silas Wegg talk about these articles: during the
conversation it becomes clear that Wegg has sold his amputated leg to Mr. Venus. They talk
about it casually, and when Wegg asks if his leg has been used yet, Mr. Venus replied that he
has not found a purpose for his leg yet: “Mr Venus takes from a corner by his chair, the bones
of a leg and foot, beautifully pure, and put together with exquisite neatness. These he
compares with Mr Wegg's leg; that gentleman looking on, as if he were being measured for a
riding-boot” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 7). The chapter is quite eerie and unreal to read:
firstly, one would not expect someone to be so interested in the use of his or her own
amputated leg; secondly, they are talking normally about Mr. Venus’s practices while
6
drinking tea and eating muffins, as if discussing something ordinary like the weather. When
Wegg looks about the shop, Mr. Venus explains to him:
“You're casting your eye round the shop, Mr Wegg. Let me show you a light. My
working bench. My young man's bench. A Wice. Tools. Bones, warious. Skulls,
warious. Preserved Indian baby. African ditto. Bottled preparations, warious.
Everything within reach of your hand, in good preservation. The mouldy ones a-top.
What's in those hampers over them again, I don't quite remember. Say, human
warious. Cats. Articulated English baby. Dogs. Ducks. Glass eyes, warious. Mummied
bird. Dried cuticle, warious” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 7).
Wegg reacts to this explanation by asking what Mr. Venus has paid for Wegg’s leg: not a
reaction one would expect after being shown a great many unusual objects. Yet by asking this,
he shows what he cares about most: money. When thinking about the shop and money, it
becomes evident that this shop cannot exist without a certain income: the shop must be
profitable for it to exist. There are people who buy these unusual objects; the school of arts
bought a skeleton, and a young boy buys a stuffed canary later on in the chapter.
By generalising these notions, an interesting train of thought can be found in this
aspect of the story. Mr. Venus stuffs human and animal waste and sells this: there is a market
for waste. Yet the explicitness with which this is conveyed to the reader makes it almost
unreal: the mere mentioning of the items in the shop, such as an English baby or mouldy
human waste is rather strange indeed. It is almost perverse in a sense: the denotation of waste
is turned topsy-turvy here. When thinking about human parts that are left behind when
deceased, or parts of the body when amputated, one might expect those to be treated with
dignity and, in case of a dead body, would be buried or cremated; in other words, it would be
disposed of respectfully. In Victorian London, the burial grounds were getting crowded and
7
took up much space, yet people tried to dispose of the deceased respectfully. Even though the
Christian church initially opposed cremation or “urn-burials” as they were called then, there
were quite a few people in favour of those, such as W. Robinson, who wrote a book in favour
of cremations in 1889. Among his arguments, he tries to persuade his public by arguing that
beautiful cemeteries are possible with urn-burial, noble and enduring art is made possible by
this, and burials are quite cheap; he proposes that these will become free of charge for the
poor (Robinson 1-5). An example of an urn-burial is found in the novel: Betty Higden is
cremated, and her ashes are scattered on a burial ground (Dickens, OMF book 3, chapter 9).
The narrator implies that the scattering of ashes is not a nice manner of parting from your
loved ones, since there will not be any tombstones to remember them by – even though the
upper classes found this a fitting way of burials for the lower classes (Dickens, OMF book 3,
chapter 9) – yet this can be argued to be more respectful than the way Mr. Venus deals with
the dead.
Mr. Venus changes this concept completely: the dead bodies and amputated limbs,
which one could consider to be ‘human waste’, since the natural waste product of humans is
the human body, are used again to create manufactured artefacts. Human waste becomes a
means of earning money; Mr. Venus creates his own dust business in a sense. This is
exaggerated and made very explicit in his shop: Dickens’ social-critical vision might be the
cause of this. It is baffling to see the casualness the shop is dealt with: its forthright display of
human and animal waste everywhere is an aspect of the story that amazes the reader
continually. One might argue that this is what Dickens had planned with this storyline: amaze
the reader with this display of ‘human warious’. Dickens himself was also interested in the
scavenging people sifting through waste in search for valuable items, as stated in an article
“Dust; or Ugliness Redeemed” by R.H. Horne, published in Household Words in 1850 (Horne
pars. 1-12; Anonymous 425). Furthermore, this can again be seen as social-critical: the
8
inhabitants of the metropolitan are so obsessed with gaining wealth or status that even waste
is used to obtain this.
Some examples of this obsession can be found in the novel, yet in a place one might
not expect to find this. The upper class are obsessed with wealth and status. For example, the
Podsnaps and Veneerings are very fond of their impressive furniture: every time somebody
from the ‘society’ organises a party, the furniture is mentioned. This group of people are very
much involved with their outer appearance: everything has to be brand-new and expensive.
Furthermore, a more detailed example of this is the Lammles marriage: the Lammles have
married because they both believed that their future spouse was a wealthy person. It is
interesting to see this heated discussion in book 1, chapter 10 between the two when both find
out they have been married “on false pretences” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 10). The
chapter following this interesting display introduces Mr. Podsnap. The chapter opens: “Mr
Podsnap was well to do, and stood very high in Mr Podsnap's opinion. Beginning with a good
inheritance, he had married a good inheritance, and had thriven exceedingly in the Marine
Insurance way, and was quite satisfied” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 11). In a few
sentences the narrator shows the reader a quite selfish man, who cares much about money.
Much of this display is written with an ironic tone. An interesting example of the irony is the
following extract: “[The Lammles] began to think it would be necessary to build a palatial
residence. And hereby they made another shining reputation; many persons of their
acquaintance becoming by anticipation dissatisfied with their own houses, and envious of the
non-existent Lammle structure” (Dickens, OMF book 2, chapter 4). The reader knows,
contrary to the society, that the Lammles do not have much money, yet the mere boasting of
building their own palatial residence makes the fellow members of society envious. This
rather ironically described need to display wealth, combined with the absurdness of Mr.
Venus’s shop, conveys to the reader the materialistic needs of society, thereby proving the
9
importance of waste. One might derive from this that the display of wealth is a waste of
money; this would emphasise the presence of Mr. Venus’s shop, and, by inserting that shop in
the story, create a very strong metaphor to indicate the duality between waste and money.
10
Characters Recycled
The shop can be interpreted in many ways, yet there is one aspect that must be stressed: Mr.
Venus recycles. This was commonly done with refuse: dust-heaps were large, busy recycling
sites, as described in Our Mutual Friend. Recycling is very important in the novel in many
aspects.
The edition of Dickens’ magazine Household Words, published 13th July 1850,
featured the article “Dust; or Ugliness Redeemed” by R.H. Horne, edited by Dickens. The
article described a dust-heap near London; the way people work on a dust-heap, how waste is
sorted, and the way in which waste is recycled. “The present one was very large and very
valuable. It was in fact a large hill, and being in the vicinity of small suburb cottages, it rose
above them like a great black mountain” (Horne par. 2). Dust-heaps were very large: a great
many waste products were produced by Londoners. It is very interesting to read about the
recycling process: many waste-products were re-used, something which might surprise the
reader. When reading the article, the following passage of Our Mutual Friend comes to mind:
“Coal-dust, vegetable-dust, bone-dust, crockery dust, rough dust and sifted dust,—all manner
of Dust” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 2). Bits of coal were filtered from the piles of waste
and re-used; metals such as copper and tin were molten and sold; paper and cloth rags were
boiled to make paper. The latter might be not expected to be recycled, yet these were used
again.
Paper was made by recycling rags and paper waste. The old rags were used for
cleaning and dusting, yet also for cleaning one’s behind after visiting the toilet. After usage,
they were thrown away, and eventually dumped on a dustheap. Then they were gathered from
the heap and brought to the paper-mills, where they were boiled and mashed into a pulp
together with the paper waste, and of that pulp new paper was made. Dickens knew how this
11
was done: he had visited paper-mills and had written articles about this, such as “A PaperMill”, published 31 August 1850 in Household Words (Dickens, Selected Journalism 263).
Dickens therefore knew that he made his living by circulating editions of novels and
magazines, printed on material formerly used to wipe shit of one’s bottom. It might be rather
strange for a writer to know that his or her entire oeuvre is printed on bits of other people’s
recycled excrement. Perhaps this is why the notion of dirtiness, poo and dust is very much
stressed in the novel. It is very interesting to note that paper, like dust, is also found
everywhere in the streets of London:
“That mysterious paper currency which circulates in London when the wind blows,
gyrated here and there and everywhere. Whence can it come, whither can it go? It
hangs on every bush, flutters in every tree, is caught flying by the electric wires,
haunts every enclosure, drinks at every pump, cowers at every grating, shudders upon
every plot of grass, seeks rest in vain behind the legions of iron rails. In Paris, where
nothing is wasted, costly and luxurious city though it be, but where wonderful human
ants creep out of holes and pick up every scrap, there is no such thing. There, it blows
nothing but dust. There, sharp eyes and sharp stomachs reap even the east wind, and
get something out of it” (Dickens OMF, book 1, chapter 12).
The reader’s attention is drawn to the fluttering papers littered throughout the streets,
combined with dust flying about in London. One might imagine that London was a terrible
mess: slime and dirt in the river, paper and rubbish found in the streets – London was far from
a nice place to live.
When focusing on the more positive aspect of litter, one might argue that all can be
recycled. The dust-heaps were large recycling sites, as Horne and Dickens have shown,
therefore the rubbish can be used again; it can lead a new life. Here an interesting train of
12
thought is discovered: no matter how filthy, the rubbish gets a second chance. This is vividly
depicted in Mr. Venus’s shop, but also by the fact that the dust business is very profitable, as
shown in Our Mutual Friend. Perhaps the best example of regarding recycling positively is
Dickens’ writing: old dirty rags were recycled into literary art. When thinking about this more
broadly, the ‘dusty characters’ could then be recycled too: they have a second chance to better
their lives in a sense. John Rokesmith is a perfect example of this: his original identity is
presumed to be dead; therefore he changes his name and character and enters a second life as
it were. He uses this second life to find out if the girl he was supposed to marry is kindhearted and lovable.
A more direct reference to a new life can be found in the novel: Lizzie Hexam is
another character that is given a second chance. After moving from the city to the weir,
leaving her old life behind, she is given a job at a paper-mill. The village she lives in is
described: “[Bella and John] had walked on with her to the little house in the clean village by
the paper-mill” (Dickens, OMF book 3, chapter 9). Noticed is the use of one specific adjective
to describe the village, namely ‘clean’. Moreover, the occurrences of the weir in the novel are
often described as clean and calm: It can be argued that it is no coincidence that Lizzie is
given a second chance near a paper-mill: she is put in a place where recycling is actively
carried out. She also has a job there, which makes her part of that process. She has given her
brother a chance to change his life: she paid for his education at school, helping him on in life.
Also, her role becomes more powerful after moving to the paper-mill: she is the last person to
offer comfort to the dying Betty Higden. When Betty arrives at the water-meadow near the
paper-mill, Lizzie appears: “It is as the face of a woman, shaded by a quantity of rich dark
hair. It is the earnest face of a woman who is young and handsome. But all is over with me on
earth, and this must be an Angel” (Dickens, OMF book 3, chapter 8). Lizzie helps Betty
onward in a sense, since she is the person that takes care of Betty when she is dying: she
13
assists her into the afterlife by attending her final needs. Yet Lizzie aides another character in
the novel in her almost angelic way: she saves Eugene Wrayburn from his illness. After she
agrees to marry him, he recovers remarkably quickly. Interesting is the fact that, after moving
to the paper-mill, she is able to help characters in a more spiritual sense: her ability to help
people onwards in life – whether on earth or towards the hereafter – becomes more dominant.
Another example can be found in book 3, chapter 3, where Rogue Riderhood nearly
drowns, and is given a second chance: he was recycled. Bradley Headstone is also recycled in
book 4 chapter 7, after his attempted murder on Eugene Wrayburn. He takes a bath in the
clean river, as to wash himself and change clothes afterwards. Rogue Riderhood followed
him, and observed: “'By George and the Draggin!' cried Riderhood, 'if he ain't a going to
bathe!' … Rogue Riderhood watched the bather dressing. And now gradually came the
wonder that he stood up, completely clothed, another man, and not the Bargeman” (Dickens
OMF, book 4, chapter 7). Bradley Headstone has washed away his dirt: he exits the river
clean of blood and puts on fresh clothing. This could be argued to be his recycling: he reenters his normal life after his dreadful deed.
In the latter cases the characters are granted second chances: in a sense, they are
allowed to start over. It is curious that both do not take the opportunity: they do not realise
they are recycled. Contrastively, John Rokesmith and Lizzie Hexam realise this and take
advantage of it: grasping the chance to start over is the best thing to do, as the examples show.
When continuing one’s old vices, life will not be that forgiving: Rogue Riderhood and
Bradley Headstone die at the end of the novel due to them not taking the second chance they
were given.
14
‘Human Waste’ and the Lower Classes
Different social classes appear in Our Mutual Friend. All of those classes are connected to a
certain stereotypical view, which is sometimes reinforced or weakened in the novel.
Criminality is often connected with the lower classes: the focus of this chapter will be on the
darker side of the novel; the bad characters, both their depiction in the novel and their actions,
will be discussed. Furthermore, by zooming in on them, it will become evident how exactly
they are portrayed as ‘human waste’.
The lower classes in Our Mutual Friend are represented as waterside characters:
persons who live and make their living by the side of the river Thames. This was by no means
a pleasant way to earn money: the state of the river in the 19th century was appalling, since it
was used to dump sewage. As Michelle Allen explains in Cleansing the city: sanitary
geographies in Victorian London:
“The river quickly became notorious for its filth, as reflected in the numerous epithets
attached to it: it was ‘a great tidal sewer,’ a ‘cloaca maxima,’ a ‘hot-bed of infection
and the nursery of epidemics.’ The nuisance reached a crisis point in the unusually hot
summer of 1858, when the stench from the river and its oozy banks was so offensive
that the episode became thereafter known as the ‘Great Stink.’” (Allen 37).
Being a ‘riverside character’ was therefore not pleasant; many lower class persons lived near
the river, since housing was cheap due to the proximity to the stinking river (Chadwick 41011; Allen 1-9).
The novel opens with a description of a lower class man and his daughter in a boat,
scanning the river for valuables. The tone is immediately set: “Allied to the bottom of the
river rather than the surface, by reason of the slime and ooze with which it was covered, and
its sodden state, this boat and the two figures in it obviously were doing something that they
15
often did, and were seeking what they often sought.” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 1). The
river is slimy and dirty; moreover, dredging the river is something very familiar to Gaffer and
his daughter, which is not a very pleasant action in a filthy river. Gaffer himself is not very
sharply dressed: “Half savage as the man showed … with such dress as he wore seeming to be
made out of the mud that begrimed his boat, still there was business-like usage in his steady
gaze” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 1). The opening of the novel is very powerful indeed:
the narrator creates a very grim and dark atmosphere. Noticed is that Gaffer is described as a
person surrounded and covered with slime and shit: his boat is covered with shit, his clothes
are smeared with it, and so is the river. Both his boat and his arms are completely brown: it
stresses the image of a river filled with much sewage. This might be interpreted as a referral
to animal-like behaviour: it makes one think of pigs covered in dirt. Moreover, Gaffer is
referred to as “The Bird of Prey” in the novel’s illustrations: twice Gaffer is illustrated in the
book and both times the title of the image contains “The Bird of Prey”. He does, in fact, prey
on dead men’s valuables which he scavenges from the river. This animal-like description is
quite curious: it might implicate that lower classes were seen as animalistic or savage – quite
a drastic implication indeed. When observing passages containing other lower-class
characters, such as Silas Wegg or Rogue Riderhood, it becomes evident that lower classes
indeed are depicted as filthy, unintelligent human beings. Moreover, both characters try to be
blackmailers; enforcing the criminal lower-class stereotype. Depiction of criminal, savage
lower-class persons can be found in Our Mutual Friend, but also, perhaps more interestingly,
in non-fictional writings on lower classes and their dwelling places. Edwin Chadwick, part of
‘society’ in 1842, wrote a report on the conditions of the labouring population of Great
Britain, as an observation and advice to the government. In this writing, he states that:
“[The dwelling houses] are generally in a very filthy condition; and, being the resort of
the most abandoned characters, they are sources to extreme misery and vice. … The
16
inmates are found to be eating, drinking and smoking. Such houses are, for the most
part, occupied by beggars and trampers, but many of them are the resort of thieves”
(Chadwick 411).
When comparing this report to Our Mutual Friend, many parallels can be drawn; for example,
the Silas Wegg, Rogue Riderhood and Gaffer are all abandoned characters, two of them are
criminals, and are scruffy and dirty. This image is continued throughout the novel and does
not change; it becomes even stronger.
Consequently, this touches upon a crucial point made in the novel; lower classes
cannot change their class and, more importantly, their personality and actions, in short, their
whole ‘being’. In the Victorian era, this was one of the views the middle and upper classes
had of the labouring class: they will forever remain at the bottom of society, and criminals
will never change. This notion was quite a wrong assumption, according to Dickens, as he
often wrote about this in his fiction and non-fiction (Dickens, “CaE”). Yet this way of
thinking, opposing Dickens’ personal view, is very strongly described in chapter three, book
three, where Rogue Riderhood nearly drowns due to a boating accident. This might be argued
to be an ironical reflection on the society’s way of thinking. After Riderhood’s boat is
rammed by a steamer from the river, he falls in the river, and nearly drowns. He is brought to
Miss Abbey’s bedroom and is attended by a doctor, his daughter and a few frequent visitors
from Miss Abbey’s tavern. His daughter is surprised:
“It is something so new to Pleasant to see her father an object of sympathy and
interest, to find any one very willing to tolerate his society in this world, not to say
pressingly and soothingly entreating him to belong to it, that it gives her a sensation
she never experienced before. Some hazy idea that if affairs could remain thus for a
long time it would be a respectable change, floats in her mind. Also some vague idea
17
that the old evil is drowned out of him, and that if he should happily come back to
resume his occupation of the empty form that lies upon the bed, his spirit will be
altered. In which state of mind she kisses the stony lips, and quite believes that the
impassive hand she chafes will revive a tender hand, if it revive ever (Dickens, OMF
book 3, chapter 3).
This powerful prose evokes the image that Rogue Riderhood will change and leave his ‘old
evil’ behind, and this hope is shared by those who are among Rogue Riderhood at that
moment. Yet he does revive in his old fashion: this hope is immediately eliminated in the
following short line: “Sweet delusion for Pleasant Riderhood” (Dickens, OMF book 3,
chapter 3). A short and direct statement, which removes any hopes Pleasant Riderhood, and
perhaps the reader, might have had straight away. Hereby the inability to change is
strengthened in a quite drastic way. This chapter in Our Mutual Friend confirms the
stereotypical view which the upper classes had of the lower classes when they turned to
criminality: this might explain the multitude of operational penal facilities in Victorian
London (Emsley par. 4; Johnston pars. 1 -17).
By assessing these aspects of the lower classes the image of lower class ‘human waste’
becomes evident. Firstly, this can be found in the way the outward appearances of the
characters are portrayed: their dirtiness is a direct reference to waste, since they are quite
literally covered with dirt and shit. Furthermore, a comparison is made to preying animals.
This marks a very important aspect: animals are commonly seen as inferior creatures to men.
When comparing the labouring class to animals, one creates the assumption that they are not
only lower in class, but also more primatial in their humanity. Furthermore, the inability to
change habits, such as criminal habits, contains a powerful argument: this makes the criminals
useless, since their only capability is to remain a criminal. Those views combined lead to a
very interesting, yet shocking, assumption. To put it boldly, some lower class persons were
18
savage, animal-like human beings; moreover, when involved in criminality, their only
capability remains in the criminal circuit. These persons are seen as human waste indeed, due
to their flawed appearance and personality, and therefore should be treated as waste. They
should, like the dust heaps in Our Mutual Friend, be removed from society and dumped in a
place where they are not bothersome to others, places such as jails or poorhouses.
19
The Role of Dust
When focusing on the characters, it is evident that most of the characters are depicted as
‘human waste’ in a certain sense. As mentioned above, the lower classes are very vividly
depicted as such, but also the middle and higher classes are connected to this image. For
example, Bradley Headstone is a middle class character who commits a ‘live’ murder in the
novel; his character is flawed. He could be considered to have a double personality. This
occurrence of a double identity might be because the notion of the “double” was popular in
contemporary fiction: it features in Wilkie Collins’s The Moonstone, R.L. Stevenson’s The
Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but also in Dickens’ The Mystery of Edwin Drood.
Many critics have examined Bradley Headstone’s character; therefore he will not be
examined further1. The upper class, or ‘society’, as they themselves put it in Our Mutual
Friend, also features a direct reference to human waste; specifically, the removal of certain
characters who do not belong to the ‘society’ anymore: they are, just like the lower classes,
expected to just disappear from the scene. This becomes evident when studying the characters
of the Lammles; furthermore, this also happens to the Veneerings at the end of the novel.
The focus of this paper, however, lies not only with the characters, but also tries to
think more broadly about waste. Our Mutual Friend contains some references to it which are
very interesting indeed; one of these is the ‘Dust’ featured in the novel. Nicodemus ‘Noddy’
Boffins and his wife Henerietty are characters very much involved in the dust business: Mr.
Boffin is sometimes referred to as The Golden Dustman, since he received his wealth by an
inheritance, which was initially earned in the dust business. By shifting the focus from the
storyline to the word ‘dust’ in itself, it is very intriguing to see that the word is featured – not
counting the occurrence of the word in the titles of the chapters – 148 times in the novel. This
becomes very interesting indeed when considering that a few times the word occurs quite
strangely: often the word is used as adjective, yet one would not expect the word dust to
1- Some studies on Bradley Headstone’s character can be found here:
Collins, Philip. Dickens and Crime.
Romano, John. Dickens and Reality. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.
20
feature there. An example of this is Mr. Venus’s hair: “The face looking up is a sallow face
with weak eyes, surmounted by a tangle of reddish-dusty hair” (Dickens, OMF book 1,
chapter 7). It is quite curious to notice that Mr. Venus is often mentioned by referring to his
dusty hair: the reader’s attention is forcibly drawn to the fact that his hair is dusty.
Furthermore, dust is used to describe the weather: “A grey dusty withered evening in London
city has not a hopeful aspect” (Dickens, OMF book 2, chapter 15). Another rhetorically strong
mentioning of this is found earlier in the story:
“The wind sawed, and the sawdust whirled. The shrubs wrung their many hands,
bemoaning that they had been over-persuaded by the sun to bud; the young leaves
pined; the sparrows repented of their early marriages, like men and women; the
colours of the rainbow were discernible, not in floral spring, but in the faces of the
people whom it nibbled and pinched. And ever the wind sawed, and the sawdust
whirled” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 12).
The repetition of sawing wind and whirling sawdust makes the imagery very strong: due to
the repetition the dust keeps on circling in the reader’s mind, just like the dust, which annoys
all living things in the city, underlining the ever-present dust in the city. It appears
everywhere: in Mr. Venus’s hair, it is blown about in the wind, it is found in dusty corners, on
Mr. Boffin’s stationary – it is omnipresent. “The grating wind sawed rather than blew; and as
it sawed, the sawdust whirled about the sawpit. Every street was a sawpit, and there were no
top-sawyers; every passenger was an under-sawyer, with the sawdust blinding him and
choking him” (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 12).
The word dustman consists of the words dust and man. One might argue that the word
‘dust’ is used as a euphemism to describe waste; dustman sounds more pleasant than wasteman. Yet the fact remains that the dustmen collect dust; waste in various forms: “Coal-dust,
21
vegetable-dust, bone-dust, crockery dust, rough dust and sifted dust,—all manner of Dust”
(Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter 2), as described in the novel. When considering that the word
is a euphemism for waste, it is quite intriguing indeed to think about the fact that the dust
featured in the novel could be a reference to waste; every mention of the word could refer to
waste. Firstly, this would make London an unsanitary place; secondly, it would change the
reader’s perception of the atmosphere of the setting, because it would evoke the feeling that
waste is everywhere: society is faced with the dirtiness of the place. Even the upper classes,
who considered themselves to be sanitary, cannot escape this: there are no ‘top-sawyers’.
More importantly, dust is a very powerful and vivid metaphor: both its denotation – waste in
various forms – and its connotation – unwanted, foul and dirty – are striking indeed. It grasps
the reader’s attention and clings to him or her at every mention of the word.
The feeling evoked is unpleasant: it can be argued that some readers might consider
the scene setting quite dirty, gloomy and grim. One might ask why this is depicted as such in
the novel. A possible argument might be that Dickens was in a ‘dark’ phase in his writing: he
became increasingly critical towards society during his later life (Johnson 385). Many critics
have critiqued Dickens’ earlier works to be less critical towards society and have been found
to contain a happier setting, compared to his later works such as Bleak House or Our Mutual
Friend (“Our Mutual Friend” 437-39). Dickens’ increased social-critical eye might have
reflected negatively on London’s society, therefore creating the ubiquitous dirty city with its
citizens ignorant towards the dust: they are quite used to it. It might also imply that it is not
possible to clean the dust: there is too much dust to be cleaned properly, which is quite a
negative piece of imagery.
Dust is interwoven in the novel. The plotline of Mr. and Mrs. Boffin, Silas Wegg and
John Rokesmith is based on a relation made by dust: this plotline stretches the whole length of
the novel, again proving that dust is omnipresent in the city. Yet it can be interpreted in
22
another way; it can be argued that dust represents negativity, while the absence of dust is
positive. Mr. Boffin, Mrs. Boffin and John Rokesmith do not participate actively in the dust
business: they all gained their money passively. They are also not actively involved in dust in
a more metaphorical sense: they do not commit crimes. Several characters - depicted as
human waste – are involved in criminal activities: blackmailing, like Silas Wegg, the
Lammles, and Rogue Riderhood; or stealing, like Gaffer Hexam and Rogue Riderhood. It can
be argued that the waste is therefore linked to crime; more specifically, it can represent
criminality. Their shady business might be characterised as negative, like dust in the novel.
Therefore, waste might imply human vices; when involved in the dust-business – meaning
criminal activities – it might end badly. The story ends badly for characters such as Rogue
Riderhood, Silas Wegg, and the Lammles, yet it ends well for the Boffins and John and Bella
Rokesmith, since the latter characters are not directly involved in the criminal business. The
opposition between good and bad, or clean and dusty, is therefore also found in the novel.
Dust is very important here: its allusions and interpretations in the main plotline are
fascinating due to its direct reference to a filthy setting, and on the other hand, various
interpretation of its role in the novel.
23
Reframing Recycling
When considering dust in the novel, recycling cannot be omitted: it plays a very important
role. When thinking about recycling in a larger context, the setting of the novel changes in a
more positive one: the litter in London, both literally and figuratively, is not that pleasing. Yet
an important aspect is that recycling is a thriving industry; firstly, a second life is granted to
recycled items or persons. Suddenly a change takes place: opportunities arise for the
characters and the rubbish in the streets. One must be aware of these opportunities; one must
realise that things can change, thereby actively grasping this. The street is not full of rubbish
anymore; it is filled with opportunities. Dickens believed this was the right way to approach
problems. Dickens’ view on the Victorian society reflects this way of thinking. He became
more critical towards the problems in society; for example, problems involving the division of
classes.
Upper classes were often ignorant about the problems of the lower classes. Even
though they tried to fight, for example, criminality, their way of acting was not that effective.
They were apt to offer solutions to certain problems which were not pleasant for the lower
classes: for example, homeless persons should go to the poorhouses, even though many rather
died than going to the poorhouse, as Dickens mentions in A Christmas Carol (Dickens, ACC,
12). There was too much separation, and perhaps an indifferent attitude, to be actively
involved in helping the working class. Dickens disapproved the ignorance and distance
between the classes: a good example of this disapproval is found Our Mutual Friend, where
he directly addresses the upper class: he often mentions “my Lords and Gentlemen and
Honourable Boards” in relation to Betty Higden’s way of life (Dickens, OMF book 1, chapter
16). Furthermore, Dickens was concerned with about the fate of children; this is perhaps why
young characters in the novel, such as Charlie and Lizzie Hexam, or John Rokesmith and
Bella Wilfer, end up well. He wrote in one of his non-fictional works: “I know the prisons of
24
London well; that I have visited the largest of them more times than I could count; and that
the children in them are enough to break the heart and hope of any man” (Dickens, “CaE” par.
3). Dickens believed that instead of imprisonment in either jails or poorhouses, children
should be sent to school. He wrote positively about the newly founded ‘ragged schools’. This
is evident from the way he describes these:
“[Ragged School]: the name implies the purpose. They who are too ragged, wretched,
filthy, and forlorn, to enter any other place: who could gain admission into no charity
school, and who would be driven from any church door; are invited to come in here,
and find some people not depraved, willing to teach them something, and show them
some sympathy, and stretch a hand out, which is not the iron hand of Law, for their
correction” (Dickens, “CaE” par. 2).
Dickens believed children were still, in a sense, innocent and should not be
imprisoned; this would only continue the vicious circle of crime. Giving children a proper
second chance – recycling them – would offer them the opportunity to change, like the
characters in Our Mutual Friend.
In Dickens’ earlier works he was more reactionary and revolutionist, as Collins points
out (Collins 22), yet his opinion of the whole of society became more critical and increasingly
bitter later in his life, like the novel shows: this might be the reason why Dickens incorporated
that much filth, waste and shit, both literally and figuratively, in the novel. It can be argued
that this is due to the literary style of Dickens: his literary ambition was the ‘Sensation
Novel’. This genre is, as Collins observes: “[r]elated both to Gothic fiction and stage
melodrama – was rich in violence, villainy and mystery. Sinister strangers lurk in the
background; there are secrets – long lost wills or heirs, or undetected misdemeanours – which
the wicked characters seek to maintain; crimes are committed, flights and pursuits ensue”
25
(Collins 1-2). Dickens has indeed used this as backbone of his novel, but it is evident that he
exaggerates the negative aspects of society.
Our Mutual Friend does show, in a sense, light at the end of the tunnel: recycling is
the way to solve problems. The plotlines show that by approaching problems from a more
opportunistic point of view, like sending children such as Charlie Hexam to school, a positive
result may be reached. Granting people second chances, instead of punishing them harshly the
first time, will improve society; if the persons will not change after the second chance, they
will only negatively influence their own lives, as Rogue Riderhood and Bradley Headstone
show. Even though the novel depicts much negativity in a bitter tone, it also offers a solution
for the problems both in the novel, and in Dickens’ time.
26
Conclusion
This thesis set out to find and interpret Dickens’ critical view on society: waste is used as
marker to indicate imperfections. There are a great many references to various flaws, yet
some are more metaphorical in their meaning.
Mr. Venus’s shop plays an important role in Our Mutual Friend. The remains of
humans and animals, such as bones and skulls, are used by Mr. Venus to make money; this is
a very explicit depiction of waste. Moreover, he uses waste products to make money. Mr.
Venus’s shop and its strange display of its wares might be used to show the materialistic need
of society: many people want to gain wares that display their wealth. The absurdness of Mr.
Venus’s shop makes the reader think whether this is right, and indirectly answers this question
negatively.
Many things are recycled in the novel; Mr. Venus, for example, recycles bones.
Giving items a new life is a very intriguing aspect of the story: the novel shows that both
characters and rubbish can lead another, better, life. Dickens incorporates the recycling of
paper in the novel: this is a process Dickens is familiar with. The paper-mill is given a more
symbolical meaning in the novel: it is very clean place, and Lizzie Hexam is more actively
involved in helping people after getting a job there. Furthermore, one must be aware of
receiving a second chance: if this is not the case, it might end badly.
The lower class in the novel are depicted as ‘human waste’. These characters are
depicted as unsanitary, unintelligent and animalistic. Characters Rogue Riderhood and Gaffer
Hexam are interesting examples of this. Their unsanitary appearance is caused by the dirtiness
of the city; more specifically, some characters live next to the Thames, which was very dirty
indeed in Victorian London. Several metaphors allude towards a primatial and unintelligent
characterisation of the lower classes. Furthermore, they are unable to change this: they will
27
always remain persons of the lower class, and therefore remain criminal. Due to their outward
appearance, combined with the inability to change themselves, they can considered to
represent human waste, as has been shown in this thesis.
Dust is an important aspect of the story. Firstly, this is because it is interwoven in the
plotline featuring Mr. and Mrs. Boffin, Silas Wegg and John Rokesmith. Secondly, the word
‘dust’ plays a very strong metaphorical role in the novel. It is a euphemistic way of referring
to waste. When finding the appearances of the word dust in the novel, it becomes apparent
that dust is used in various ways, such as describing the weather, or Mr. Venus’s hair.
Considering that dust means waste makes the novel more dirty and dark, since dust is
intrinsically connected with the city and the characters throughout the novel. Dust can also be
interpreted as representation of criminality: the dust business might imply criminality. This
argument is supported by an interpretation of the main plotline and several characters, such as
Mr. and Mrs. Boffin and Rogue Riderhood.
Recycling must also be regarded more generally in the novel. Dickens became
increasingly critical of the problems in the city of London during his lifetime, and this is often
a returning theme in his novels. Our Mutual Friend can be argued to be the most critical: it is
filled with references to dust, shit and other waste products, which could be seen as a
depiction of his repulsion towards the problems of society. Yet Dickens offers a solution to
these problems, which is represented by recycling in the novel.
Further work on this topic might investigate the role of the river Thames. Also, a
possible future study might focus on other novels of Dickens, such as Bleak House, to
investigate whether waste is found to have an important role in that novel as well.
It is very interesting to see that Charles Dickens’ works still entertain readers and
interest scholars after almost 200 years. His works are very enjoyable to read; furthermore,
28
they provide very fertile ground in the literary academic field, due to their, and not limited to,
their complex plotlines, interesting characters and captivating settings. Our Mutual Friend is
one of the novels that proves this: Dickens’ dusty atmosphere in the novel opens a world of
beautiful metaphors, rich for various interpretations. The novel proves, as Johnson righteously
argued, that Dickens indeed is a “titan of literature” (Johnson 7).
29
Bibliography
Allen, Michelle. Cleansing the City: Sanitary Geographies in Victorian London. Athens:
Ohio University Press, 2008. Print.
Anonymous. "Mr. Dickens's Romance of a Dust-Heap." Charles Dickens: Critical
Assessments. Ed. Michael Hollington. 1 Vol. Mountfield: Helm Information Ltd.,
1995. 425. Print.
Banerjee, Jacqueline. "How Safe Was Victorian London?" The Victorian Web.
06-02-2008. Web. <http://www.victorianweb.org/history/crime/banerjee1.html>.
Chadwick, Edwin. Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great
Britain. Ed. M. W. Flinn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Universtiy Press, 1965, 1842. Print.
Charles Dickens Museum, Film London, and The Dickens Fellowship. "Dickens 2012."
Dickens 2012. 2012.Web. <http://www.dickens2012.org/>.
Collins, Philip. Dickens and Crime. London: Indiana University Press, 1968. Print.
Copping, Harold. Mr. Boffin and Silas Wegg. 1924. Character Sketches from Dickens, 116.
Ed. Philip V. Anningham. 06-02-2009. Web.
<http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/copping/25.html>
Dickens, Charles. "A Christmas Carol." Christmas Books. Hertfordshire:
Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1995. 7. Print.
---. "Crime and Education." Household Words. 28-02-2012 Jalic Inc. Web.
< http://www.online-literature.com/dickens/miscellaneous-papers/3/>
---. Oliver Twist. Ed. Kathryn Knight. Franklin: Dalmatian Press, 2005. Print.
---. Our Mutual Friend. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1997. Print.
---. Selected Journalism 1850 - 1870. Ed. David Pascoe. London: Penguin Books, 1997. Print.
Emsley, Clive. "Crime and the Victorians." BBC History (17-02-2011) Web.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/crime_01.shtml>
Horne, Richard H. “Dust; or Ugliness Redeemed.” Household Words, 1850. University of
California. Web.
< http://omf.ucsc.edu/london-1865/dust-heaps/ugliness-redeemed.html>
James, Henry. "From a Review of our Mutual Friend." Charles Dickens:
Critical Assessments. Ed. Michael Hollington. 1 Vol. Mountfield: Helm Information
Ltd., 1995. 425. Print.
Johnson, Edgar. Charles Dickens: His Tragedy and Triumph. London: Penguin Books, 1986.
Print.
Johnston, Norman. "Prison Reform in Pennsylvania." The Pennsylvania Prison Society
(06-04-2012). 03-03-2012. Web. < http://www.prisonsociety.org/about/history.shtml>
Knight, Charles, and Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. "Police and Prisons."
The Market Towns of Middlesex, Including London, in the Early 19th Century.
Ed. C. J. Peen. Maidstone: Old Towns Books and Maps, 2001. Print.
Landow, George P. "Victorian and Victorianism." The Victorian Web. 02-08-2009. Web.
<http://www.victorianweb.org/vn/victor4.html>.
"Our Mutual Friend." Oxford Reader's Companion to Charles Dickens. Ed. Paul Schlicke.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. 434. Print.
Robinson, W. Cremation and Urn Burial Or the Cemetries of the Future. London: Cassell
and Company Limited, 1889. Print.
"The Victorian Age: Introduction." The Norton Anthology of English Literature: Norton
Topics Online (2012) Web.
<http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/victorian/welcome.htm>