In defense of Oliver Twist (2)

In part one, the author embarked upon an unsolicited humanitarian journey to correct the stain of greed associated with poor Oliver’s name. It is obvious from reply received that many are sympathetic to Oliver’s travail. In this part, an attempt will further be made to clear all air of misgivings around him (as portrayed) in the first two chapter of the novel; and to place him where he belongs – a hero.

Granted that Oliver was desperate with hunger (a good motive to ask for more), he did not do that on his volition. It was a council’s decision that Oliver Twist carried out. The text below shows us how the Oliver carried out the task.

The evening arrived; the boys took their places. The master, in his cook's uniform, stationed himself at the copper; his pauper assistants ranged themselves behind him; the gruel was served out; and a long grace was said over the short commons. The gruel(food) disappeared; the boys whispered each other, and winked at Oliver; while his next neighbours nudged him. Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery. He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:

"Please, sir, I want some more."

Oliver was further brutalized and confined for this utterance (and deed). To further compound his misery, he was eventually offered for “sale” for five pounds, with a “prophecy” that he will live to be hanged.

I’d like to submit that based on the background of Oliver – debased, abused, tortured, maltreated, ignorant, uncared for, unwanted – it is very easy for him to believe that the fellow who threatened to “eat” one of them will indeed carry out the threat. Moreover, “the boys” were the only one who “cared” for Oliver and he shared a lot with them. It will be unfortunate for Oliver to refuse the decision of the “council” that he was part of, more so when the decision to choose him was by ballot.

For his action, Oliver was not a villain but a hero; who dared the odds to carry out a joint decision. What's more? Oliver did not “tell”; he bore the responsibility for his action. The punching, shouting, screaming, and locking up was bore by him alone. Oliver suffered for the council (the boys). He was brave – a hero.

However, over time, the role and consequences of Oliver efforts and deed has watered down. In our bid to communicate, we seem interested in remembering the “sins” of Oliver and little about the story behind it.

I like to conclude this part by suggesting that when we think of using “Oliver ask for more”, in any of its various forms, we should rather say “Give an man an inch and he’ll ask for a mile” (or any of it variance). This way, we pass the same message across without further disparaging the good name of our poor hero – Oliver Twist.

In defense of Oliver Twist (1)

It is refreshing to punch the keyboards once more to get my thoughts put down in what our friends in the IT world call softcopy. Indeed the last few months have been a period of indecision on my part (to be or not to be). However, spurred by friends and colleagues who persuaded me to “run for another term”, I have decided to key in my thoughts once more.

Today, against seeming odds against him, I wish to come to the defense of Oliver Twist as he asks for more.

Every now and then we are reminded that “Oliver asked for more”. This phrase (as used in the popular Charles Dickens novel portrays Oliver daily as an ingrate, who despite being cared for in an orphanage had not only the temerity but also the bold effrontery to do a great disservice to mankind (especially West Africans) by his impudence to ask that more food be apportioned to him.

Before I proceed to defend poor Oliver, I crave your indulgence to permit me take you (once again) through the tortuous route to the saga.

Oliver Twist (a name arbitrary assigned to him) was born in a workhouse by an unknown woman whose greatest desire (at that time) was to see the fruit of her womb and die (this she achieved). The poor boy who struggled to breathe the first few critical seconds of his life was left in world characterized by “systematic treachery and deception”; he was malnourished and starved with no mother to take care of him. He was left to the care of a pauper old woman who herself has lost eleven of her own thirteen children! When he was ten months old, he was transferred to an outstation in an attempt to salvage what was left of his tumultuous infancy.



At the outstation the fat elderly woman who attended to him (and some delinquents) did not only starved him further (as she greedily appropriated little stipends meant for the wards to herself) but also maltreated him. Oliver Twist celebrated his 9th birthday incarcerated in a coal-celler with two other mates, after sound trashing, for “atrociously presuming to be hungry”. By this period, Oliver Twist was described as pale, thin child, and somewhat diminutive in stature. He was taken from the outstation and repatriated to the workhouse where he hitherto started his twisted journey.

Back at the workhouse, things only got worse for Oliver and his companion. According to the novelist Charles Dickens:

Oliver Twist and his companions suffered the tortures of slow starvation for three months: at last they got so voracious and wild with hunger, that one boy,
who was tall for his age, and hadn't been used to that sort of thing (for his father had kept a small cook-shop), hinted darkly to his companions, that unless he had another basin of gruel (food) per diem, he was afraid he might some night happen to eat the boy who slept next him, who happened to be a weakly youth of tender age. He had a wild, hungry eye; and they implicitly believed him. A council was held; lots were cast who should walk up to the master after supper that evening, and ask for more; and it fell to Oliver Twist.

From the above, it is explicit, that Oliver was mandated by the “council” to carry out their decision in order to save a life.

Resource Control (2): The Nature of Man

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,” (Gen. 1:26, NASB).

In the Image and Likeness of God, He made them. Man and Woman He made them.—Genesis 1:27

"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," (Gen. 3:22, NASB).

In part one, we traced the origin and instance of man’s quest for resource control. An understanding of this quest lies rooted in man’s origin, psychological make-up and mandate. From the above citations, human are not ordinary creature; they are made in the image and likeness of the living God. To this end, human have similarities with God. The most important difference between man and God is that: God is immortal whereas man can die.

Mathematically, (God – x) – Immortality = MAN (or god) where x = some things only God knows.

Like their creator, man has power; indeed dominion over everything God created (on earth?). “Dominion”! In dominion lies one of the keys to understanding man and his quest for resource control. Man was born to rule; to dominate. In order to exercise this mandate, man set off to take charge of everything he sets his eyes upon – plants, animasl, lands, water, sky, nature, and even me! Yes me, in form of human resources!

Man is greedy, an insatiable creature. Man is territorial, apportioning resources (and matter) to himself. Man is domineering; conquering everything no matter how long it takes. Man is also fearful and feel threatened when his authority is challenged; he feels vulnerable when his mandate to rule is being contested by another of God creature – man or beast. But then man is also very intelligent and he expounds reasons for his action.

Provided the action or activity of man goes unchallenged and unquestioned by other beings (or man), it is welcomed and it generates no conflict. But man is man and every now and then, one man may decide not just to be MAN but the MAN. When man meets man at the opposing end of any resources, the battle for resource control is not only probable but also inevitable; it is not a matter of “if” but of “when”. The scarcer and more beneficial the resource(s), the fiercer and more prolong will the quest to control it be, provided man remains man and a man wants to be the MAN.

The quest for control of resources remains unabated even now in post biblical times. It has permeated into every segment of human live. Like God, man is a natural born (made) controller. Hence, the quest for resource control whether in the Middle East, Far East, Caribbean, Asia, U.S. , Central Africa , Sub Sahara Africa, West Africa etc, and indeed our Niger Delta is not an anomaly. It is an exercise of the mandate given to man by God to dominate. As far as human exists and there are benefits to be acquired from natural or artificial “matter”, there must be quest to control such. The methods and techniques may only vary from the subtle to the obvious.

As it was in the beginning is now, ever it shall be world without end – sorry, I mean till the end of time as we know it on planet earth.