Dickens’ drive to reveal the shocking conditions the poor had to put up with could stem from a feeling of companionship with those in debt and those beginning life without money nor hope. Dickens himself came from a family of eight children living in Portsmouth. His father was in the employ of the Naval Pay Office, ironic as he couldn’t well manage his money and quickly got into deep debt, resulting in his imprisonment at Marshalsea. Charles mother along with five of the children joined their father. Dickens was “lucky” in the sense that he was not sent to Marshalsea Prison. Instead he was taken out of his school and sent to work in a grimy warehouse, labelling boot polish.
This abysmal introduction to life stayed with Dickens right up to his death, but he dealt with it by trying to relieve the burden of others. Things were getting better with the introduction of the “Poor Laws”, but Dickens still fought against the injustice of his times right up until his death, incidentally earning greatly from his best-selling book. However, even as he struggled to demonstrate this unwarranted treatment of the poverty stricken working class he still manages to present evidence against Sykes, showing that he and his brethren are evil in that they take advantage of the unjust inequality inflicted on the lower echelons of 1830’s society.
Our initial impressions of “The Robber” Sykes are essential to our interpretation of his character, and we make most of our judgements about him within the first three paragraphs from his strident entrance. The first feeling of how we see “The Housebreaker” is that of an aggressive, ill-mannered oaf, and cruel hot-tempered thug, not even worth the reader’s contempt. His loudness also gives us, the readers, an impression of drunkenness, in that he spews forth accusations with no regard for real or actual events. The case in point is well demonstrated by the quote; “I might have know’d… any drink but water” when Sykes immediately assumes that the jug was thrown at HIM, not any of the numerous other assembled “employees” of Fagin.
Dickens often depicts Sykes as almost animalistic, such as the regular occurrence of the thief growling. This lowers his intelligence in the view of the reader to the level of a primitive carnivore. This is obvious as Dickens uses the phrase, “he growled” recurrently so as to constantly remind us that Sykes is subhuman. These beastly traits are reinforced with solely human traits, those of sadism and evil, when he kicks his loyal dog, Bulls Eye, without a rational motive and with unnerving constancy; the citations “This command was accompanied by a kick…to the other end of the room” and “He appeared well used to it are blunt declarations which reveal that “The Robber” has a dark personality that goes no deeper than his vicious, thuggish exterior. Both quotes combined work together to present a atrociously fiendish key representation of Sykes’ prime exterior and indeed interior personality.
To fully understand Bill Sykes we first have to see him in conjunction with the other characters, in particular the “infernal, rich, plundering, thundering old Jew”; Fagin the thief. In examining the equal and opposite relationship between our two leading villains we must first relate as to what type of villainous character they each portray. In “The Housebreaker” we find the Archetypal villain, a criminal, evil in his oafish way. Charles Dickens represents this thug’s character through the extensive usage of sympathetic mannerisms and corporal qualities, allowing us to fit this thug into our preconceived, stereotypical icon of a villain. “a stoutly built fellow…bulky pair of legs,” this description of “The Robber” depicts him as a brute of a man, hulking and broad, the sort of person you would not want to meet down a dark alley. Depicting this man as having a “beard of three days growth” creates a mental vision of an unkempt barbarian, subhuman and unhygienic.
Then we must examine the fence… Fagin. In Fagin we see whole new type of villain, he is a striking contrast to Sykes, “[insert] quote”. “The Jew stepped back … with more agility than could have been anticipated in a man of his apparent decrepitude,” this quote aptly describes how Fagin attempts to render himself a physical weakling, but that he is in reality somewhat dexterous at what time it becomes him.
So we come upon a dilemma, to see which of these two is the dominant character we must first discover which is the greater villain.
Fagin the fence is in fact the greater villain, for whereas Sykes seems to threaten Fagin more often than not Fagin in fact controls their conversations, using reverse psychology, “you wont be—too—violent, bill?” This phrase causes Sykes to abandon all reason, because he does not want to be “bossed around”, and is angry at the whole world, in particular Fagin and Nancy. Almost everything Sykes does in the duration of his and Fagin’s “partnership” comes down to what “The Jew” has said, comes down to Fagin’s “gentle” persuasion. He manipulated Sykes into the vicious murder of Nancy, all throughout the book it is FAGIN who manoeuvres and directs the conversation, using subtle changes in his apparent status, changing from humility to arrogance, at one point subtly hinting that he could easily take Sykes’ life; after Sykes jests “And mind you don’t poison it,” we read the sentence “If the speaker could have seen the evil leer with which the Jew bit his pale as he turned round to the cupboard, he might have thought the caution not wholly unnecessary”. This demonstrates that Fagin COULD kill Sykes, but because he still needs his “assistance” is reluctant to carry out the act.
Fagin controls the child pickpockets not only through the use of violence and threats (as Sykes does) but also through his wheedling and conversational expertise. So in Fagin we see a sophisticated villain, a criminal of the higher echelons who makes his gains without having to actively steal, instead he must deal. Fagin is the greater villain, because of all these facts, and because Sykes did not draw out the murder of Nancy. Fagin would have, to make sure he could take every possible gain out of the situation, and Fagin would not have felt remorse, or if he did feel guilt, he would not have shown it. This makes Fagin the greater villain, but also shows us a great deal more about Sykes; it shows that he does not ENJOY his “work”, that there is some ounce of good still held within him.
Nancy and Sykes are greatly contrasting characters. “fdsafd“One is belligerent and the other malignant. One tries to help Oliver, while the other only looks to use him for his own gains. This is another deep contrast, contrived to not only uncover more of Sykes personality, but also to act as another example of sexism in Victorian England. When Sykes completely disregards Nancy’s views we see that he holds no respect for her, and as she is in love with him, he therefore must hold no respect for any woman, as Dickens manages to so expressively articulate this in the short discussion about Nancy going to the police station to find out about Oliver; “`She’ll go, Fagin,` said Sykes. `No, she won’t, Fagin,` said Nancy. `Yes, she will, Fagin,` said Sykes. This demonstration of masculine terrorism is just one of the ways that the unjust anti-suffragette feeling of the 1800s is brought out into the open.
Nancy murder is the pivotal event in Sykes meagre life. Once he decides to go through with this dreadful act he is forever lost. He must subconsciously no that this action will break all chances of his and Fagin continued residence in London. When Sykes enters Nancy has no idea of what is to become her, “`It is you, Bill` said the girl, with an expression of pleasure at his return.” This innocence is compounded by describing her as “the girl”, so making her seem naïve and incapable of evil. Sykes walks in on her and she rouses herself from sleep. This again is an image of peace and virtue, reinforcing the contrast between the two lovers.
As the moment draws closer the wording gets more and more passionate, “strength of mortal fear”, so building on our apprehensions and increasing the tension. Violent words such as “thrusting” help to shock and thrill the reader, which was particularly successful in the 1800’s because this was the first time anyone had really written about murders and deaths with such graphic detail. To see this in its most horrifying you have only to read the final 3 paragraphs of the chapter, when Dickens uses phrases such as “all the force he could summon “ and “nearly blinded from the blood that rained down” to such great effect. This vivid description lodges the image of an evil villain firmly in our minds, an irrevocable conclusion on Sykes twisted psyche, causing him to, in our hearts, be sentenced to the deepest depths of hell. Dickens buries his language in such away that it appeals to our subconscious mind; when he states that “The man” speaks that or “The Housebreaker” freed one arm, we inarguably understand that the author is referring to Sykes. However, when we read on we are thinking of him as less of a human, more of an animal. This dramatic technique of de-humanising` a character serves to provide a solid subconscious foundation for the conscious impression we have of Sykes. This is taken to a higher level with the description of him as simply “The murderer”. This coldly reminds us of the vicious crime that has just been committed. Yet again pathetic fallacy is brought into play, with the eerie half-light of dawn providing the setting for this most gruesome of deeds
Finally we come upon Sykes finale, his last stand. From the moment Sykes re-enters the den in London the events since his flee begin to be retold. We find that Fagin has been arrested and we are left to assume that he has been summarily sentenced to hanging by the fact that Sykes takes the news so badly. This is shown without breaking the ever-increasing speed and ferocity of the dialogue by a simple utterance from Sykes after being told Fagin has been arrested. He simply shouts; “DAMN YOU ALL!” This basic statement is a violent reminder of Sykes’ anger, but a change has come over him since we first encountered him . Now his statement is not followed by violence, he the expressed anger’s sole action is “passing his hand across his forehead.” At this point some may think that “The murderer” is angry for Fagin, but this is immediately swept from our minds if we remember the mutual abhorrence felt between two criminals.
Sykes’ fear is illustrated by the fact that he is constantly looking around, over his shoulder, past whomever he is talking to, as publicized by the expression “he retorted with the same glance behind him”. This not only tells us he is afraid of something, but also WHAT he is afraid of. Looking over his shoulder is an obvious indication that he is afraid of capture, in particular of arrest by officers of the law. This is ironic as his fears are well founded, being justified in that very chapter. We are constantly reminded throughout the chapter of the horrific circumstances of Nancy’s demise by the fear and disgust felt about him; extenuated by the subsequent sentence with reference to Charley, as he enters seeing Sykes for the first time since the murder “Don’t you come nearer me” and “retreating, and looking with horror in his eyes” are but two examples of the hatred inspired by “The wretched man” (another de-humanisation). The speed of the dialogue increases ten-fold as “the noise of hoofs” and “a loud knocking” is heard, accompanying the increase in tension and excitement. The sentences become short and sharp “the panels—are they strong?” and “Lined with sheet iron”, prove to be testimonies to the desperation felt by all in the building, and they realness of those outside’s terrible anger is once again built up, effectively prophesising the death soon to come.
So you we come to the end of Sykes’ days, a death bringing together and abandoning all the elements of his life, crime; he has just left the shelter of criminals, Bulls-eye his dog; he does not arrive WITH the dog, and the dog is not at his side at the moment of death, and Nancy his dead lover; she is the reason for the mob trying to lynch him.
Nancy’s influence on Sykes is particularly prominent in that he hallucinates seeing her eyes in the dark, “The eyes again!” These screeched words cause him to step back, presumably in fear of recriminations from her spirit. This also shows how he has seen these eyes before, a vivid illustration of how he has lost his sanity since the murder. The death is colourfully described, using descriptive words with emotive under and overtones; “quivered” “dangling” and “lifeless” give us the idea of a body not in control, whilst the use of “thrusting” and other violent words such as “striking” bring us back subconsciously to Nancy’s death, so taking us full circle.
The last two paragraphs reveal to us the link between Bulls-eye and Nancy, in that they are both loyal until the end, no matter what Sykes THINKS they have done. The fact that they both die because of this loyalty is one last reminder of what it is to love a man so evil.
The fact that Sikes dies hanging from the gallows is symbolic of justice being done, but also the idea that HE killed himself, a suicide nearly, prompted by the memory of the dead Nancy.
Sikes has proved to be evil, heartless and cruel, but the circumstances of his death make you wonder whether he has a conscience. Dickens’ excellent use of a varied vocabulary prove to keep you “on the edge of your seats” whilst drilling into your brain how evil Sikes is, and how wrong it is that women are so unjustly prejudiced against.
