Character Traits

Dickens often associates his characters with a particular trait or action—such as Louisa sitting before the fire watching the ashes fall—which in some way defines them. Think of some of these keys to character and discuss their meanings.  HARD TIMES.

The “eminently practical” Thomas Gradgrind—“Fact”—blind to truth—unwilling to see/acknowledge Truth, yet known most for wanting TRUTH/FACT—it is this unyielding look at Truth/Facts that leads Gradgrind to marry his daughter to a man totally unsuited for her; he thinks that he is doing what is best for Louisa when in reality he is dooming her to a life of unhappiness and misery.  Gradgrind has no idea of the true mind of his daughter Louisa.  He squelches her desire for romance, “fancy,” by forcing her to learn only what is Fact/Truth.  It ultimately leads to Louisa’s obedience, yet disastrous marriage.

Gradgrind is also blind to the truth of who and what each of the other persons in his family really is:  his wife is a hypochondriac who is such mainly because she is completely ignored by her husband—in his search for Fact, he completely ignores that a wife desires attention, romance, ok—Love, from her husband; since Mrs. Gradgrind doesn’t receive any such from her husband, she responds in the only way she can find to get his attention.  The irony, of course, is that even her constant sickness—then her true illness and subsequent death—do absolutely nothing to gain her husband’s attention.

Gradgrind is completely clueless as to his son’s goings-on, mainly that Tom (the “whelp”) gambles and is in almost constant need of cash to get him out of his debts.  Even when the truth of Tom’s sins (including the bank robbery and ultimate assault/murder on Stephen Blackpool) is practically slapping him in the face, he refuses to see it.  It is not until he is TOLD the truth that he finally accepts it.

Josiah Bounderbury of Coketown—refers to self in third person—“blustery”—“windy”—boastful—self-made prosperity.  This man is hated from the very beginning.  It seems clear that whether it be in the 1800s, 1900s, or even current day, a know-it-all who always throws his wealth and success in the face of others (and the fact that he knows “it all”) is not a favorite.  I actually was hoping Louisa would go ahead and run away with James Harthouse just because I couldn’t stand Bounderbury and I’m not normally one who roots for infidelity.  When Bounderbury dies five years after the story (according to Louisa’s imaginings of “futurity”), all I could think was that it didn’t come soon enough.

Tom Gradgrind (the younger)—“whelp”—contemptuous (espec. towards Josiah Bounderbury).  Even from the very beginning of Hard Times, Tom is an unlikable character.  Once James Harthouse comes into the story and he begins to be referred to as the “whelp,” his character suddenly makes more sense.  Tom is too stupid to carry out thievery, assault, and ultimately murder.  He does get away with everything (including his gamboling and gamboling debts) for awhile, but truth will out.  To the reader, it is the way Tom is described as this not-so-smart young “whelp” that makes us mistrust him from the very beginning.  The reader suspects him of the robbery well before it is even hinted at in the story.

Rachel—sweet, gentle, loving, a lady (If she has a last name, right now I can’t find it).  Rachel is the woman in the story who is too perfect, too good to be true.  Based on my readings of the introductory material to Charles Dickens, he’d fallen in love but couldn’t be with the love of his life, so he continued to feel throughout his life that he’d missed out on the perfect woman, “the impossibly good and unreachable ideal” (Greenblatt 1237).  She, and Sissy, are just too perfect.  Rachel has every opportunity to have an affair with Stephen, but she chooses discretion instead.  She’s so wonderful, she even nurses Stephen’s wife!  She believes in Stephen even when no one else does.  She KNOWS that he didn’t rob the bank and she knows that he is honest, just, and true.  And she is right.

Stephen Blackpool--thoughtful—quiet—hard-working—honest—gullible—uneducated—working class—poor—crushed—“muddle.”  I think the term “muddle” used almost every time Stephen Blackpool is in the story is my favorite part of the whole book.  Even Stephen’s last words bring it up no fewer than 7 times during the few words he speaks once he is brought up out of the pit (207-208).  Muddle meaning, as I understand it, that he’s constantly in some sort of trouble that he has to “muddle” his way through, slowly but surely, plodding along, but getting there eventually.  Even up to the last, he has muddled his way out of the pit only to die at last.

James Harthouse—discreet—bored—manipulative (the way he gets Louisa to notice and ultimately fall in love with him and the ease with which he get Bounderbury to take him on as well as the ease with which he gets Tom to open up and reveal “secrets” that ought not to have been shared).  When James comes on the scene, he is barely noticeable as an important character simply because he is described as always being bored and thus moving from one job, one place to another.  He is not at all appealing as a character as a result.  It does not help at all that he quickly becomes associated with Josiah Bounderbury.  But James quickly notices something in Louisa that is different and wakes something inside of him that diminishes his boredom.  Of course, he throws caution to the wind and loses, making him a much more fascinating character than at first presented!

Sissy/Cecelia Jupe—sweet—innocent—“Fanciful”—loving—generous.  While a character who attempts to stay in the background, Sissy continually finds herself central to the action of the story.  She brings a calmness, a quietness, yet a joy, happiness to those around her who come in contact with her.  She is the foil to Louisa.  From the beginning Sissy knows that she is not so smart when it comes to facts, but she embraces who she is and doesn’t care that she’s more “fanciful.”  Ultimately, she has more sense than anyone in the whole book!

Mrs. Sparsit—Roman—nose—butting in (busy-body)—sagacious (sarcastically noted as such)—sharp—Cariolanian—overly officious.  I gotta say, I didn’t like Mrs. Sparsit from the beginning.  My first question is:  are she and Bounderbury lovers?  If they aren’t, why in the world is she living in his house under his protection?  And why does he continue to take care of her even after she gets married????  It makes no sense to me that he keeps her around just because of her high social status and his attempt to rise to the same unless they’re lovers.  So when she begins to suspect Louisa of infidelity, it makes much more sense that she is sticking her nose into Bounderbury’s business—where she really has no right to be since she isn’t married to him—because she must be his lover!  She’s not well liked, either, in case you didn’t catch that.

Mrs. Peglar—old—secretive—watchful—harmless—not to be noticed—proud of her son.  It seems clear from the very beginning that the reader is supposed to know that Mrs. Peglar is Josiah Bounderbury’s mother, but yet Dickens still seems to attempt to keep it a secret—not actually stating it with those exact words—for as long as he is able in the story.  It certainly demonstrates the fact that Bounderbury is not who he always presents himself to be.  She is probably my favorite character simply because she makes everyone see what a you-know-what Josiah Bounderbury is without meaning to!  All she wants to do is demonstrate how proud she is of him!

Louisa Gradgrind Bounderbury—watching/looking into the fire—watchful—quiet—perceptive—loyal—drawn to “Fancy” but fortified by “Fact/Truth” because of teachings by father.  Since I spent so much time talking about Louisa in my other post, I’m going to leave it at the fact that she does appear to be the main character in the story because she knows everyone in the story in some way, shape, form, or fashion.

Works Cited
"Charles Dickens: 1812-1870." Introduction. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Ed. M. H. Abrams and Stephen Greenblatt. 8th ed. Vol. E. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2006. 1236-239. Print.
Dickens, Charles. Hard Times; an Authoritative Text, Backgrounds, Sources, and Contemporary Reactions, Criticism. Ed. George H. Ford and Sylvère Monod. New York: W. W. Norton, 1966. Print.