Childhood is an integral theme in both Hard Times and God of Small Things

How successful do you feel the authors are in portraying the world of childhood?

Childhood is an integral theme in both Hard Times and God of Small Things but both authors have tackled the issue in a vastly different way. Arundhati Roy focuses her book very much on the way children relate to the world around them, while Dickens tends to look more at how children are treated by the rest of the world. This small change in perspective gives a vastly different view of children’s lives, which are further enhanced by the writing styles of the two authors.

Roy's greatest gift is her power of memory, the kind of memory Charles Dickens is famous for and a small number of other writers such as George Eliot and the poet Wordsworth, which can bring alive for the reader what most of us have forgotten but can recall if jogged. What it felt like to be a child, "a stranger and afraid in a world we never made", yet endowed with as much or more ability to experience the supposedly adult emotions of anxiety, jealousy, grief, despair, as well as what Rahel's uncle Chacko tells her are "possible in Human Nature. Love. Madness. Hope. Infinite Joy". The novel's lead characters, Rahel and her twin brother, Estha, become fit carriers for whatever the novel is saying about the human condition, because their very fragility, without the adult illusion of control over life's fluidity, makes it obvious how vulnerable they, like their apparently less vulnerable elders, are to social, political and emotional phenomena that can devour their lives. While Dickens spreads the focus of the story over a larger range of characters than Roy, he still uses the children’s emotions as a strong conveyer of the sentiment or moral of a scene and the story as a whole.

A great example of this abuse of emotions is Louisa’s continual sadness and confusion as she is bought up to act like a woman while still expressing the characteristics and mentality of a child or youth. When questioned on her feelings for Bounderby she replies “It will be getting away from home”. When Bounderby plants an affectionate (although bordering on sexual or at least overly forward) kiss on Louisa’s cheek she responds by rubbing it away, with no care if she was to “rub a hole in [her] face” This is a situation reminiscent of Esthahappen’s encounter with the Orange Drink Lemon Drink man. While the relationship is different the hatred and fear stemming from it in the two concerned characters is very similar. Roy focuses Esthahappen’s fear away from his actual feelings and concentrates on what is around him to show how Estha is affected. He links his fear to the drink he has in his hand “(Free, fizzed fear)” and withdraws the incident into himself, not even sharing it with his sister. Louisa does not have Estha’s fear of a recurrence, possibly Dickens believing the adult orientated world he places his characters in would mature them more than the relative freedom of Estha’s location, so he removes the long term distress to be replaced with a short burst of angry emotion..

This is a preview of the whole essay

Possibly because of her harsher childhood environment, Louisa is portrayed as a mature character in Hard Times all throughout the book, sometimes more so than the adults responsible for her. Her loyalty and protectiveness toward her brother show her as far more of an adult than her father treats her when they are caught watching the circus. And her stepping in to take the blame from her brother (“I bought him father”) shows not only that she is worried of her brother being upset, but also that she is aware of the disciplining she will receive and does not appear to be fearful of that. Dickens does not give Tom the same respect worthy stance. He presents Tom as a cowardly boy (growing into an equally weak adult) who is happily willing to use his sister to improve his own life “I had better go where I can take advantage of your influence”. In Tom’s case Dickens presents him with a large amount of intelligence and perception, yet he gives him no incentive or natural will to use his skills in a generally beneficial way. He instead spots a door opened by his sister leading to an easy passage to success, this is displayed to full effect as Harthouse confronts Tom about ‘borrowing’ money from his sister.

Estha and Rahel are given a far closer and more mutually beneficial relationship than this. Roy presents them as a pair of children (a larger group as Sophie Mol arrives) pitted against a difficult life of un-understanding adults. Along with the struggle to cope with their surroundings Estha and Rahel are frequently placed in situations by those they love who act to confuse and affect them even more “Careless words … make people love you a little less”. Roy’s simile of the moth moving on Rahel’s heart gives a clear indication how children can pick up on a comment that seems insignificant to the other people concerned. However to Rahel this one line (“Make me love you a little less”) is embedded onto her mind, and frequently brought to the attention of the reader by Roy as she refers to the moth “lifting its leg” inside Rahel.

Dickens does not go into such imaginative imagery, preferring the harsh scientific approach of the adult characters he creates. The stereotypical image held by youngsters of their elders as fun-hating, rule enforcing ogres is perfectly presented in many places in Hard Times with the most obvious example being the children’s own father. These iron figures seem unimaginably distant from the innocence displayed by Cecilia Jupe and the other youngsters, but this is an illusion shattered by the introduction of Bitzer. Bitzer is incredibly streetwise and while Tom Gradgrind Jr. has learned to exploit his sister, Bitzer takes it a step further and uses the adults to get his wishes. He knows precisely what his seniors are looking for (“Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth...”) and by giving them the answers they look for he gains enough of their trust and respect to cover his lack of scientific intelligence and to gain information he wants from them. He becomes an expert at understanding Mrs Sparsit and soon begins to have control over her by merely placing ideas in her grasp and letting her take the credit for them “you did object to names being used, and they’re always best avoided”. To watch Bitzer converse with Mrs Sparsit is highly amusing as we are directly seeing Dickens ridiculing her through the boy: “He now and then slided into ‘my lady’, instead of ‘ma’am’, as an involuntary acknowledgement of Mrs Sparsit’s dignity”. Dickens uses Bitzer as a fine example that children (or youths, at this stage in the book) have every right to be as sharp and manipulative as the adults are. Louisa can also be incredibly acute at times, demonstrated as she conversed with Mr Harthouse, leaving Bounderby perplexed by the speed and insightful nature of their conversation. Harthouse’s innocent phrase “because I have no choice of opinions” is quickly torn apart by an astute Louisa who jumps in: “Have you none of your own”. The rapid fire exchange is broken only by Mr Bounderby mentioning the postponement of dinner. This makes Bounderby appear incredibly out of his depth in the room, and his usual loudness was contained while he “was in danger of bursting with silentness”.

Roy’s characters are too young to have this world-wise sharp edged tongue, and their lack of perceptiveness often leaves them even more lost in an event filled situation: “mesmerised by something they sensed but didn’t understand”. By denying Esthahappen and Rahel of this deeper comprehension of life she shows the reader what is a more stereotypical image of childhood. While Dickens’s characters are matured by their severe entrance to the world Arundhati Roy prefers to show children in their innocent stages before they are influenced by the realities of life. The vulnerability of the young characters is another idea shared by both authors in their pieces. The ability to be physically and psychologically wounded, appears in both novels as the condition almost all the characters, whether likeable or un-likeable, share. It was perhaps best demonstrated in God of Small Things with the incident between Rahel and Ammu on leaving the cinema (“So why don’t you marry him then?”), but many example can also be found in Hard Times, with every character seeming to have at least one encounter where they are hurt, confused or just saddened by the other characters around them or even by actions they have done themselves. Tom, who is throughout Hard Times portrayed as a hardened, sometimes even thoughtless character, is suddenly brought down to a far more humble level as he confesses his money problems to Harthouse ‘He was almost crying’. Although we find out later in the novel that he soon regains his deceitful position, even using Mr Harthouse to help in his crimes. In some way each character is somehow damaged, although the damage is not always as evident as it is in the case of Estha whose trauma results in his ceasing to speak.

The advantage Roy gives her characters however, is that they usually have someone more mature or experienced than them to run to if ever they do get completely out of their depth. In Hard Times Dickens leaves the young characters almost entirely to their own devices in growing up, with very little parental support in any area except education. In fact he even adds to their troubles by adding adult interaction to the social lives, with Louisa’s marriage and Toms relationship with Harthouse and Mrs Sparsit. Roy shows far more sympathy with her youths and sets out to portray the empathy that passes between her characters, for example, the fierce bond between mother and child: "Ammu said: 'Okay, Esthahappen?' Estha said 'Okay', and shook his head carefully to preserve his puff. Okay? Okay. He put the comb back into her handbag. Ammu felt a sudden clutch of love for her reserved and dignified little son in his beige pointy shoes, who had just completed his first adult assignment". This plain and uncomplicated sentence is one of the strongest examples of positive emotion in the book. Dickens has fewer of these open emotions preferring to keep the characters emotions visible through actions rather than insights into their mind.

The above quote also shows Roy’s incredible detail in her work. Dickens’ descriptions are often quite like his overdone characters (“A lawn and a garden and an infant avenue, all ruled straight like a botanical account book”) with similes used to create a comic picture in the readers mind, but Arundhati Roy chooses to use far more realism in her placements, even if she is also trying to put a smile on the audiences face. Picking out small insignificant details like Esthahappen’s ‘pointy’ shoes in this situation is a great way to lift the mood whilst still putting enough weight in her statement about Ammu’s love for her child. I think Roy's skill with language is more evident in passages like the above than in the much more flashy word play of phrases like "a viable die-able age", or her use of children's ‘lingo’ which makes the novel sparkle delightfully, but, in my opinion, becomes somewhat overdone towards the end.

It is more than just the choice of words and sentences structure that differs from Dickens’ writing compared to Roy’s. Dickens portrays a world where children are not encouraged, sometimes even allowed to act like children. They must behave maturely, have mature relationships, and must learn to cope with the adult world from a very early age. While clearly a sarcastic play on many stereotypically characters of Dickens’ time it is essential to remember that at this time in history children were working and moving on in life far earlier than they do in modern times, with most youths working by their early teens. While this does little to weaken the criticism that Hard Times makes it must be taken into account that when Dickens wrote it, it probably didn’t seem quite as absurd as it does to us today. Roy presents the case of modern children of a younger age than Hard Times’ characters so they are in most ways less hardened to life’s cruelties. Instead Roy presents them coping with the troubles that young children have to overcome, and more importantly she tries to consider the thoughts that Estha and Rahel would be having whilst in these situations. This is where her memory and understanding of children really seem to come into their own. She manages to provoke feelings in her readers from their background that enables them to form a strong bond with her young characters, on a peer level rather than that on her seniors as Dickens tends to do. It is hard to say one author does a better job at presenting childhood than the other because they both focus on different areas of the maturing mind, but I feel Roy has done a very thought-provoking and insightful study of childhood in a fast paced page-turning style, where Dickens has instead attempted, and succeeded in making a lighter, and perhaps more fun, family targeted story book that aims to entertain and occupy the reader, rather than forcing them to take a hard look children and their lives.