This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir.Click here
On the question:
“Write your critical comment on the views of F. R. Leavis and J. B. Priestley on Dickens’ Hard Times. With whom do you agree? Why?”
Answer A (10 Marks – 370 words)
Introduction
Charles Dickens’ Hard Times (1854) has attracted varied critical opinions. Two of the most influential critics, F. R. Leavis and J. B. Priestley, have taken almost opposing views. Leavis regarded Hard Times as Dickens’s one serious novel of ideas, while Priestley found it one of Dickens’s least successful works. A balanced evaluation of their views allows us to assess the novel’s significance in the literary canon.
Leavis’s View
In The Great Tradition (1948), F. R. Leavis praises Hard Times for its sharp critique of utilitarianism, industrialism, and the dehumanising effects of a fact-driven education. According to him, Dickens, usually celebrated for his storytelling and comic characters, here achieves moral seriousness and intellectual depth. The character of Thomas Gradgrind exemplifies the dangers of reducing life to “facts” and neglecting imagination, emotion, and human sympathy. Leavis therefore treats Hard Times as Dickens’s most coherent and focused work, standing close to the “great tradition” of English fiction.
Priestley’s View
On the other hand, J. B. Priestley dismisses the novel as one of Dickens’s weakest. He argues that Hard Times suffers from its brevity, exaggerated characters, and melodramatic plot. For Priestley, the novel lacks the richness, humor, and narrative vitality usually found in Dickens’s masterpieces such as David Copperfield or Bleak House. Instead of subtlety, Hard Times offers caricatures, such as Gradgrind, Bounderby, and Slackbridge, who seem more like symbols than fully human figures.
Critical Comment
Both views have validity. Priestley is right in noting that the novel is short, schematic, and at times heavy-handed. The characters often represent types rather than individuals. Yet, Leavis’s insight into the novel’s thematic power cannot be ignored. Hard Times remains one of the earliest fictional critiques of industrial capitalism, education policies, and class oppression. Its symbolic quality gives it a timeless relevance, even if it lacks Dickens’s usual narrative expansiveness.
Conclusion
Between the two, Leavis’s view is more persuasive. Hard Times may not be Dickens’s most “enjoyable” novel, but it is arguably his most intellectually engaged work. Its social critique and moral vision outweigh its artistic limitations, making it a significant contribution to Victorian literature.
Answer B (5 Marks – 160 words)
Introduction:
Charles Dickens’s Hard Times (1854) is one of his shortest but most debated novels. Critics such as F. R. Leavis and J. B. Priestley gave sharply contrasting views on its value. Their arguments highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the work.
Leavis’s View:
F. R. Leavis praised Hard Times as Dickens’s only serious novel of ideas. He admired its critique of utilitarian education, industrialisation, and the neglect of imagination. For him, characters like Gradgrind and Bounderby symbolise the dangers of a fact-based society that ignores human emotions and morality.
Priestley’s View:
In contrast, J. B. Priestley dismissed the novel as one of Dickens’s least successful works. He criticised its short length, melodramatic plot, and exaggerated characters, claiming it lacked the richness and vitality of Dickens’s longer novels.
Conclusion:
While Priestley rightly points out its limitations, I agree with Leavis. Hard Times may not be Dickens’s most entertaining novel, but its focused critique of Victorian society gives it lasting moral and social importance.
Refrence:
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment