Charles Dickens shows more emotion within the poverty-stricken, yet does not provide emotion within the more wealthy population (although he provides more insight within higher classes). "…Rachael had taken great pity on him years ago, and to her alone he had opened his closed heart all this time, on the subject of his miseries." Emotion may be what is contributing to Stephen's loathing, yet it helps him be able to realize that Rachael is the one for him. With her moral stature and generosity, he is naturally attracted to her, rather than his drunk, bed-ridden wife. In the marriage of Mr. Bounderby and Louisa, Louisa feels as though she is obligated to marry Mr. Bounderby due to facts provided by her father, but not love. This shows that the robotic ways of the higher class controls their actions without emotion. Mr. Bounderby and Louisa marry, yet go on a honeymoon to visit a factory. This also contributes to the lack of emotions shown in wealthier populations, contrasted to the fancy actions of the less fortunate. Does this representation of love in social classes accurately represent modern times?
Undoubtedly, no. This does not represent true love. Stephen does not have the right to marry who he truly loves and Louisa is, quote on quote, controlled by her father to marry Bounderby even though she has no feelings for him. Also, including the great age difference between young Louisa and middle aged Bounderby.
ReplyDelete