Although Dickens was the most frequently published author of the 19th century Poland, his popularity waned during the modernist and inter-war period as he was considered a classic author and scholars decided that his writings were not conducive to modernist aesthetics.
With the change in the political system (onset of communism) and social order, scholars were left perplexed as to where to place him in the post war reality.
Although Dickens could have been banned, that would have proved to be counterproductive. With Socialism taking root in Poland after the War, the leaders strived to create a mass culture that would stoke their propaganda. Also Dickens’ writings were considered to highlight the evils of capitalism and critics like Gorski claimed that Dickens was not a topical author as his works were popular in countries that had undergone a political and cultural transformation.
Although works such as David Copperfield is about the evils of capitalism, Dickens never gave a solution or spoke about the overthrow of the system. Owing to his popularity this (the discrepancy between his thoughts and socialist values) had to be changed to suit the socialist views being disseminated in the country and it was taken up gradually.
As part of changing Dickens’ works to suit the socialist propaganda, his image was slowly transformed from being a humorist to that of a social critic. Articles that highlighted his concern for the poor and opposition to the greed, hypocrisy and ego of the rich and the system were published.
The second part of reevaluating Dickens’ work involved giving importance to the historical conditions during the time of him writing the novels. Capitalist England which flourished as a result of worker’s exploitation and the atrocities of the bourgeois were written about in detail. Dickens’ image was changed into an author who wrote because of his social responsibility than someone who wrote for creative pursuits.
Another step of reimagining Dickens involved glossing over aspects of his work that did not necessarily toe the line of capitalism such as Dickens’ refusal in beeliving change that came from violence. He also called the French revolutionaries a violent mob. Critics such as Kott showcased Dickens’ childhood as the reason behind his writings and argued that he could be forgiven for his discrepancies. although he was critiqued, he was still seen as a social thinker.
At the end of 1950’s Dickens’ image was completely transformed from that of an idealist to that of a revolutionary who believed that revolution was the only option to change the existing system. Within a decade of Polish political transformation , Dickens’ work was also exploited to suit ideological purposes.
Although Hard Times, another of Dickens’ work did not feature any good capitalists, there was still no talk about an overthrow of the capitalist system. This ambiguous nature had be to manipulated to suit party demands and thus Dickens was shown to be an author who could discuss the evils of capitalism but was lacking in his power to foresee the possibility of a socialist revolution to overthrow the existing capitalist system.
Finally Dickens’ work, especially Hard Times was seen as a historical work than as a work of fiction. Also his inability to call for revolution in his work was forgiven. Rather his description of the working class as being noble and being sacrificial was being lauded and this characteristic feature of the working class was deemed to give them the moral stand to revolt against the system. Dickens’ appeal to the reason of the proletariat and the heart of the capitalist for a change was also highlighted as precursors to revolution as thinking about revolution was considered extremely dangerous during his time.
Polish readers were guided into reading Dickens in a way that suited the socialist government. Dickens’ criticism of capitalism and his outing of England as a country of bad working conditions and poverty were useful for propaganda but it was also admitted that he was not necessarily as socialist and hence critics of this era painted him as a realist whose work was deeply affected by his idealism. Although he was not the ideal candidate for a socialist he was shown as the first critic of capitalism.
During the mid fifties, when Dickens’ usefulness as a propaganda vehicle diminished, critics started viewing his works in other ways. His art was viewed for his narrative technique.The more formal aspects of his work was analyzed and his work was seen as a precursor to the sociological and psychological novels that would be written later.
Thus Dickens’ work, owing to its popularity and attacks on the capitalist system was used by the communist government as a propaganda tool, with critics of that era taking specific aspects of his work and highlighting it to suit their needs. Dickens was seen as a critic of the capitalist system and apologies were made for him as he did not envision revolution as the means to bring about a change.
Ewa Kujawska-Lis’s article, “The Transformations of Charles Dickens in Early Socialist Poland” is about the various ways in which Dickens’ work was manipulated to suit the ideology of the newly established socialist regime. The best part of her article is the fact that she lists out the transformation of Dickens’ image and that of his works by the Polish critics in a chronological order. Also she gives a brief historical account of Poland at that time and why Dickens came handy for the propaganda machine for the dissemination of information. Having read this brief history of Poland and its communist roots, the reader is then able to place the works of the critics and their reason to popularize Dickens’ work further than censoring it.
Kujawska-Lis’s argument in the paper is that the socialist critics of the 1940-50’s Poland manipulated Dickens’ work in such a manner than the readers could be guided into reading him in a specific manner. She says that critical essays and articles about his work and introductions to his books were written in such a manner that they highlighted his ideas about the evils of capitalism. She also quoted from the works of the various critics to show how Dickens’ work was made to look like a critic of capitalism. She also goes ahead to show how apologies were made on his behalf to the reading public as he did not call for a revolution. As she rightly points out, the critics used history and his own bourgeois station in life to show why he was not such as great supporter of revolution. Another reason that the critics gave for this refusal to condone revolution was the fact that he was an idealist who was prone to melodrama and fanaticism in his works. Through the analysis of the work of the critics of that era, she brings out how Dickens, an English writer was widely used as a propaganda tool by a socialist government and how through manipulation and the use of specific features of his work, it became quite successful.
The time frame that Kujawska-Lis uses in her article, from the formation of the socialist system in the country in the 40’s to the mellowing down of ideology in the 70’s proves to be particularly useful in seeing her point. At the height of the communist propaganda, Dickens’ work was not only allowed to be published instead of being banned, but it was also gradually popularized. What better way to attack a capitalist system than through the work published by one of its authors? She clearly shows how the critics used different arguments to show Dickens as a critic of capitalism. Some of his novels like Hard Times and David Copperfield were taken up by his critics to showcase him as a social critics and not as a humorist as he was widely known. She Also mentions the critics who saw Dickens’ work as a historical work than a work of fiction. the critics say Kujawska-Lis also spoke about Dickens’ writing as a social exercise or a work of conscience rather than as a work of creative output. Later on, in the years when his work was no longer used as a propaganda tool, she says that other aspects, the more formal aspects of his work was looked upon by the critics and written about.
Her paper is effective and useful in reading about how over the years an author’s image and his work can be manipulated by the governments to further their causes. In this case it is Dickens’ novels that were seen as critiques of capitalism than a literary work that was a representation of England during those times. Even though Dickens was not a socialist, he became a sort of spokesperson for the socialist party as his works brought out the ills of capitalism. The critics played a big part in transforming his works to suit the needs of the party and were successful to an extent. The way she quotes the critics and their works in a chronological order adds to the easy reading of the article.
Works Cited
Kujawska-Lis, Ewa. “The Transformations of Charles Dickens in Early Socialist Poland.” Literature Compass. 10.4 (2013): 396-405.
