In this scene the Speaker is instructing the school teacher how to teach which adds to the irony and confusion. The description of the Speaker, whose character is summed up as, “inflexible, dry and dictatorial”, verges on the comical as Dickens uses repetition to emphasize the rigidity (“square”ness) of the Speaker and therefore the educational system. As the Speaker is depersonalized, the objects around him become animate including his tie, “trained to take him by the throat with an unaccommodating grasp." From sowing to strangling, hard times are literally foreshadowed ahead through this unsuitable education.
Moreover, Dickens uses exaggeration to the point of making his characters into caricatures. “The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s square wall of a forehead, which had his eyebrows for its base, while his eyes found commodious cellarage in two dark caves, overshadowed by the wall.” The Speaker, to the reader looks more like a dull piece of architecture than a person. In fact, the way in which Dickens makes caricatures is an argument in itself against the facts of Utilitarianism. The short chapter ends ominously with the Speaker's repetitive, dictatorial language: “In this life we want nothing but Facts, sir, nothing but Facts,” as the children wait to metaphorically “have imperial gallons of facts poured into them.”Here, Dickens makes the children look like victims and the “speaker, the school master and the third grown person present,” look like accomplices in this crime.
In terms of structure one must take into account the fact (no pun intended) that Hard Times was published in serials. Each chapter was published on a weekly basis and Dickens became extremely competent in leaving his chapters in cliff-hangers. Similarly, in the first chapter, the anonymity of the Speaker and children arouses the reader’s curiosity but it also helps Dickens to focus on the describing the appearance of the speaker, making his dislike clear through the description of the characters.
Dickens has aptly named the chapters to provoke suspense and excitement within the reader. It is also to give an impression of what the chapter will be about. The second chapter named “Murdering the Innocents” may have no obvious meaning for young, modern readers but it the one of the most important allusions in this chapter. Dickens’s 1854 audience would have immediately understood that the title referred to the Biblical story of King Herod. Having heard a prophecy which proclaimed that he will be overthrown by Christ, Herod ordered the execution of all the male babies in Bethlehem, in the hope of killing the Christ child. The phrase “Murder of the Innocents” was and still is exclusively used to describe this event. Of course, the students aren’t literally in danger; Dickens is referring to the children’s imagination which will soon be destroyed to be replaced by facts. Dickens considers this in some ways murder as the children’s spirit (through imagination) will undoubtedly be killed. Even before he has begun writing in paragraphs, Dickens has already made clear his dislike of the education system through using a well chosen title.
Dickens does not hide his strong contempt for the cold and sardonic character of Thomas Gradgrind. The “grind” in his name suggests the way he grinds his students through a factory-like process, hoping to produce graduates (grads). But Dickens also uses more subtle methods of personifying him. Although almost all of the Victorian English population considered themselves to be Christians and therefore “good” people, Dickens hints that Thomas Gradgrind and also M’Choakumchild, weren’t actually believing Christians. "You might hope to get some other nonsensical belief into the head of George Gradgrind, or Augustus Gradgrind, or John Gradgrind, or Joseph Gradgrind (all supposititious, non-existent persons), but into the head of Thomas Gradgrind - no, sir!" Here, Dickens is drawing attention to Gradgrind and the Utilitarian masters’ opinion that belief was nonsensical as it wasn’t a fact, it couldn’t be seen or proved- therefore religion was wrong as believing in an unseen deity could not be proved. For a Victorian audience to read that the characters were not sufficiently Christian would have meant that they were either “heathen” or evil. Using this information, Dickens has made the utilitarian Thomas Gradgrind less endearing, to say the least.
M’Choakumchild, another key character, is introduced with great ceremony by Thomas Gradgrind who is “much obliged,” but Dickens barely hides his sarcasm and mockery as he lists the countless skills, talents and knowledge of M’Choakumchild. The listings of M’Choakumchild’s accomplishments create an accumulative effect making them seem insignificant. Not surprisingly, Dickens is dismissive is of them, the side note in brackets: “He knew about all the watersheds of the world (whatever they are)”; Dickens’ also believed that attempting to learn so much left little time to develop teaching skills. It is authorial intervention that speaks when he says, “If he had only learnt a little less, how infinitely better he might have taught much more,” cements Dickens’ belief that facts could never replace wisdom or the small joys of life.
M’Choakumchild also plays a more sinister and damaging role. Dickens makes a strong allusion to Morgiana, a character in Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. In this instance, M’Choakumchild is looking for the “robber Fancy” (childish imagination) who is hiding within the “jars” before him. The metaphor of “vessels” is introduced again. M’Choakumchild is depicted as a Victorian “gentleman” but his intention to find and destroy children’ innocent imagination makes him more criminal than the robbers in Dickens’ opinion.
The same can be said for the third gentleman introduced in the second chapter who is a boxer. Dickens describes him as an “ugly customer.” Throughout the description there are hints at the gentleman’s aggressive, unreasonable behaviour; he is literally “ready to fight all England.” Being a boxer, he not only cruelly defeats his opponents through a series of blows but in the process “knocks the wind out of common sense.” The reader is left with no question that he will do the same to the children. Dickens is suggesting here that no man, especially one as aggressive as him, is fit enough to teach innocent boys and girls.
Another opportunity for Dickens to demonstrate his dislike for the educational system is through dialogue especially in the way the children respond to Thomas Gradgrind: “Now, let me ask you girls and boys, would you paper a room with representations of horses?’ After a pause, one half of the children cried in chorus, ‘Yes, sir!’ Upon which the other half, seeing in the gentleman’s face that Yes was wrong, cried out in chorus, ‘No, sir!’” Dickens uses this exchange to dramatise the slow but determined process of brainwashing the children. The class is divided as they answer
The protagonist in Chapter 2, Cecilia (Sissy) Jupe is unlike the other characters in almost every possible way. Unlike the boy "Bitzer" (who has the name of a horse), Sissy has a nickname and is characterized as the embodiment of "fancy." Her character too in some ways is exaggerated from her “lustrous colour” to the bashful “blushing.” Like the names of the Utilitarian masters, Sissy’s name too has meaning. Her first name, Cecilia, represents the sainted patroness of music. The portrait of Cecilia as representing music contrasts with the description of M'Choakumchild, one of the 141 schoolmasters who "had been lately turned at the same time, in the same factory, on the same principles, like so many pianoforte legs." Dickens uses this comparison to show the wooden and uncreative character of M'Choakumchild while Cissy is pure, untainted and unformed by factory machines- in other words untainted by the Utilitarian educational system
Like the Speaker, the children are being depersonalised by their teachers as they are referred to by number. Gradgrind calls Sissy “Girl Number 20” even when he knows her name. In questioning Sissy about her Father’s job, Gradgrind ignores and dismisses the fact that her father actually works in the circus. Gradgrind, believing that this is not a decent job fit for society, instead elevates Cissy’s father’s job to, “A veterinary surgeon, a farrier, and horsebreaker.” This may seem insignificant and in keeping with Gradgrind’s character but Dickens is expressing his belief in how the Utilitarians can be so hypocritical. Although the Utilitarian stand for nothing but “Fact”, Dickens shows how the Utilitarians twist the truth to fit their own ideals.
Although Bitzer is successful in answering Thomas Gradgrind’s “definition of a horse,” Dickens’ description makes it seem that it is Bitzer who is the victim. He is colourless, “the boy was so light-eyed and light-haired that the self-same rays appeared to draw out of him what little colour he ever possessed.” The attention to colour is not only to single out Bitzer as the victim but also to hint at the blandness of his creativity. Notice in contrast that Cissy Jupe glows a “lustrous colour.” Bitzer’s jarringly short sentences and his use of numbers and facts illustrate his mechanical, unemotional character. ‘Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive.’ Again, his response is in contrast to Cissy Jupe who despite not providing the correct answer is more passionate about her love of flowers and horses. She expresses her opinion through emotion- “Fancy” which the Utilitarians are determined to stamp out.
It must be pointed out however that Dickens is not arguing against education, science or progress. He is arguing against factory-style, mind-numbing, grad-grinding production. But even worse than the loss of "fun" or "leisure," Dickens is arguing that art requires an inquisitive mind. One that Thomas Gradgrind is suppressing as he repeatedly tells Sissy, “You mustn’t tell us about that here.” Despite the context of the Industrial Revolution, Dickens believes there is no reason for children to be brainwashed with facts that will not give them the maturity and wisdom needed for a successful life. The effect that the Utilitarian teachers have on the children is summed up by the bewildered Sissy Jupe who “looked as if she were frightened by the matter-of-fact prospect the world afforded.” In other words, their childish innocence and dreams of a better future are taken away from them to leave them resigned and bitter.
It is in the above way that Charles Dickens expresses his dislike of the educational system. He uses a range of literary devices such as repetition for emphasis, allusion to illustrate his ideas and irony for humour but also to make the reader think. The use of false logic is an example of this: Dickens’ characters may argue about fanciful literature but he using it to craft his story. His characters may be exaggerated but they are also entertaining: from the Speaker’s square personality and appearance to Bitzer whose life has been sucked out of him. I think Charles Dickens has been successful in expressing his point of view because the average reader begins to understand his ideas and reasons through the use of hyperbole even if it may be inaccurate. The evidence also lies in the positive literary and social criticism Dickens received in his own Victorian era from other prolific writers such as George Bernard Shaw and its influence in changing the social climate for the poor of Britain.
Dickens important beginning chapters make the reader agree with him when he said,"If you would reward honesty, if you would give encouragement to good, if you would stimulate the idle, eradicate evil, or correct what is bad, education -- comprehensive liberal education -- is the one thing needful, and the one effective end."