This integrative activity is assigned by Prof. Dilip Barad. These activities are based on his worksheet.
Introduction
Charles Dickens (1812–1870), one of the greatest Victorian novelists, published Hard Times in 1854. The novel presents the struggles of industrial England, focusing on strict utilitarian education, factory hardships, and the fading of imagination in a mechanical society. Although written more than 170 years ago, its ideas still feel meaningful today. In the twentieth century, critics offered contrasting views—F. R. Leavis (1895–1978) praised the novel’s depth and moral purpose, while J. B. Priestley (1894–1984) criticized it as limited and propagandistic. In the twenty-first century, digital pedagogy gives us new ways to explore such debates. Tools like NotebookLM, an AI-based learning platform, make it possible to analyze videos, create FAQs, and compare critical opinions with greater clarity. By bringing together Victorian criticism and digital methods, we can discover fresh insights into Dickens’ Hard Times and its lasting relevance.
Activity-1 Video Analysis and FAQ Creation
Let's begin the study of Charles Dickens' Hard Times (1854) with two educational videos from CEC that provide an overview of the novel's plot, themes, and critical background.
Video 1
The English Novel - Hard Times Charles Dickens - I
The English Novel - Hard Times Charles Dickens - II
These two lectures explore Charles Dickens' novel Hard Times, focusing on its critique of 19th-century English industrial society. The first lecture introduces the novel's setting and Dickens' disapproval of the dehumanizing effects of industrialization and a fact-based education system, exemplified by the character of Thomas Gradgrind. It also touches on the socio-economic conditions of the time, including the rise of factories and capitalism. The second lecture expands on this by analyzing specific characters like Sissy Jupe and Louisa Gradgrind, who embody intuition and emotion, contrasting sharply with the rigid, fact-driven world. It further discusses Dickens' use of characterization and wit to highlight the negative impacts of mechanization on both individuals and the environment, as depicted in the fictional Coketown, ultimately asserting Dickens' humanistic perspective despite the novel's somber tone.
Using NotebookLM, FAQs were generated from both videos. From the larger set, five key questions were selected for their clarity and relevance:
1. What is the significance of Josiah Bounderby's character and his self-proclaimed "self-made man" status?
Josiah Bounderby represents the extreme, often hypocritical, embodiment of the self-made man ideal within the industrial society. He constantly boasts of his humble origins, claiming to have been "born in a ditch" and fought his way up through sheer determination. However, this image is later revealed to be a complete fabrication, exposing his "windy reputation built upon lies" and his "blustering sheepishness" when confronted with the truth by his mother, Mrs. Pegler. Bounderby uses his supposed background to justify his hard-heartedness, his contempt for sentiment, and his disdain for the working class. His character underscores the novel's critique of a society that values individual material success above all else, even if it's built on a foundation of falsehood and a lack of empathy.
2. How does the novel depict the relationships between men and women, particularly in the context of marriage and societal expectations?
The novel often portrays relationships, especially marriages, as transactional and devoid of genuine affection, particularly among the upper classes influenced by Gradgrind's philosophy. Louisa's marriage to Mr. Bounderby is a prime example, driven by her father's "eminently practical" considerations and her desire to help her brother, rather than love. She enters the marriage with profound indifference, stating she never pretended to love her husband. Mrs. Gradgrind is depicted as a physically and mentally feeble woman, stunned by "weighty pieces of fact" and lacking any "nonsense" (fancy) about her. In contrast, the relationships among the working class, such as Stephen and Rachael's unspoken love and mutual support, show a deeper emotional connection and genuine care, despite their hardships. The novel suggests that the rigid, fact-based society starves women of emotional fulfillment and traps them in roles that deny their true nature.
3. What is the symbolic importance of Coketown and its environment?
Coketown serves as a powerful symbol of the oppressive and dehumanizing aspects of industrialization. It is a place of "smoke and brick," where the "monstrous serpents of smoke" trail over the town and nature is "bricked out." The constant "whirr of shafts and wheels" replaces the "summer hum of insects," and the factory lights are ironically called "Fairy palaces," highlighting the stark contrast between romanticized imagery and grim reality. The town's architecture, with its red brick, black shutters, and green blinds, is "strictly according to pattern," mirroring the rigid uniformity imposed on its inhabitants. The "deep furnaces below" and "tall chimneys rising up into the air like competing Towers of Babel" evoke a sense of hellish industry and human ambition reaching to the heavens, but ultimately leading to a "muddle" and spiritual degradation rather than progress.
4. What role does "fancy" or imagination play in the lives of the characters, and why is it significant?
"Fancy" or imagination is presented as a vital human quality that is systematically suppressed by the Gradgrind philosophy and the industrial environment. Characters like Sissy Jupe, who comes from the "horse-riding" world of entertainment, embody this spirit, finding joy in stories about fairies, dwarfs, and genies. In contrast, the Gradgrind children are denied such imaginative outlets, leaving Louisa with a "starved imagination" and Tom seeking "revenge" by pursuing illicit pleasures. The novel argues that without the cultivation of "fancies and affections," the human heart will "wither up," leading to a morally "stark death" despite any material prosperity. The people of Coketown, even after long hours of monotonous work, still "persisted in wondering" and sought comfort in "mere fables," highlighting the inherent human need for imagination.
5. Beyond the social critique, what literary techniques does Dickens employ in Hard Times?
Besides robust characterization and the use of refrains, Dickens employs wit and authorial intervention in Hard Times. While perhaps less overtly humorous than some of his other works due to the novel's serious themes, instances of wit appear in the clever use of words and the author's commentary. For example, his statement about the English people being "as hard-worked as any people upon whom the sun shines," and his "ridiculous idiosyncrasy" of giving them "a little more play," illustrates his authorial voice in justifying the detailed exploration of his characters' backgrounds. This technique allows Dickens to directly comment on the social realities and to shape the reader's understanding of the context and his characters' motivations.
Reflection
The FAQs I have selected stood out to me because they provide clear and relevant information. These FAQs are from every category and cover a wide range of the novel's central themes and plot. One question about Dickens' technical side of the novel was compelling. One argument also puts Josiah Bounderby's claim as a self-made man in question. The issue of women and marriage is woven well into the questions, where it criticizes the futile marriage culture of the time. These questions address the division based on class and gender that was present in the Victorian age. Divorce was unaffordable for the poor, and they had to suffer the consequences of unsuccessful marriages their whole lives. These questions, concisely, cover a wide range of ideas presented in the novel and videos.
Activity-2 Critical Comparison and Prompting Superior Responses
Parallel analysis:
J.B. Priestley's criticism and F.R. Leavis's praise of Charles Dickens' Hard Times stem from fundamentally different underlying assumptions about the novel's purpose and artistic merit, which, in turn, significantly affect a reader's understanding of the text.
Leavis's Praise and Underlying Assumptions:
Leavis's central argument is that Hard Times is a "completely serious work of art" that has been unjustly overlooked, possibly due to a traditional critical approach that prioritizes "external abundance" and "living characters" over thematic significance and structural coherence.
His praise for the novel is built on several key points:
• Comprehensive Vision and Thematic Coherence:
Leavis argues that in Hard Times, Dickens is "for once possessed by a comprehensive vision" where the inhumanities of Victorian civilization are seen as fostered by a "hard philosophy" like Utilitarianism. This vision informs and organizes "a coherent whole," unlike Dickens's usual "casual and incidental" criticisms.
• Artistic Stamina and Flexibility:
He praises the novel's art for its "stamina, a flexibility combined with consistency, and a depth". He highlights the "ironic method" in the school-room scene, where Sissy Jupe's humanity contrasts with Bitzer's fact-based education, and notes how this irony is "richly developed in the subsequent action".
• Symbolic Depth and Poetic Quality:
Leavis sees the novel as a "moral fable" where the "representative significance of everything in the fable—character, episode, and so on—is immediately apparent". He particularly extols the symbolic role of Sissy Jupe and Sleary's Horse-riding, which represent "vitality as well as goodness," "human spontaneity," "art," and a "profounder reaction to industrialism". He explicitly defends the Horse-riding's symbolic value against charges of sentimental falsity, arguing its success is "complete" and essential to Dickens's "creative purpose". He views the novel as a "richly poetic art of the word" that affects readers as "belonging with formally poetic works" and compares Dickens's dramatic creation and imaginative genius to Shakespeare.
• Effective Critique of Utilitarianism:
Leavis admires the "great subtlety" with which the confutation of Utilitarianism by life is conducted, evident in Gradgrind's eventual transformation and his painful recognition of his system's failures when confronted by his children, Louisa and Tom. He also points to Bitzer's absolute self-interest as the logical outcome of the Gradgrind philosophy.
• Adequate Social and Moral Perception:
While acknowledging some limitations in Dickens's understanding of Trade Unionism or religion, Leavis asserts that Dickens's "understanding of Victorian civilization is adequate for his purpose" and that "the justice and penetration of his criticism are unaffected"
Leavis's underlying assumptions are that a novel's highest achievement lies in its thematic coherence, symbolic depth, and moral insight, presented with artistic control and flexibility. He views Hard Times as a moral fable, meaning its elements are primarily significant for their representative function rather than strict mimetic realism. He prioritizes the author's "comprehensive vision" and "profound inspiration" to create an "organized whole". This approach encourages readers to interpret characters and events as part of a larger, carefully constructed argument, focusing on the novel's message and its artistic delivery of that message.
Priestley's Criticism and Underlying Assumptions:
Priestley's criticism stands in direct opposition to Leavis, labeling Hard Times as a "bad novel" that is "muddled in its direct political-social criticism". He considers the notion that it's the only Dickens novel worth reading as "one of the most foolish statements of this age"
His key criticisms include:
• Lack of Authenticity and Realism:
Priestley claims Dickens "did not know enough about industrial England" despite visiting places like Birmingham and Preston. He argues that Coketown is "merely a horrible appearance" and that its portrayal "belongs to propaganda and not to creative imagination". He suggests Dickens's view was limited, "as if we are seeing Dickens through the eyes of his hostile critics".
• Weak Characterization and Exaggeration:
He criticizes the novel for featuring "characters that are nothing but caricatures" and exhibiting "reckless and theatrical over-statements" and "melodramatic muddled emotionalism".
• Absence of Dickens's "Unique Genius":
Priestley believes that Hard Times lacks the "unique grotesque-poetic genius" so evident in other works like Bleak House, finding evidence of it only in "a few odd places".
• Inadequate Artistic Solutions:
He contends that Dickens's use of a "traveling circus to represent arts, skills, and warm personal relationships" is a weak "sharp contrast" because Dickens could have found these qualities "in Coketown, if he had really known it".
• Propaganda over Art:
Priestley hints that admirers of the novel might be biased, stating that readers shouldn't "pretend an unsatisfactory novel is a masterpiece, just because it favours our side". This suggests a concern that ideological agreement might cloud artistic judgment.
Priestley's underlying assumptions emphasize the importance of realism, authentic observation, and nuanced character development in a novel, particularly one engaging with social issues. He expects a deep, first-hand knowledge of the subject matter, criticizing Dickens for only observing industrial England "from a railway train". He demands that characters be more than "caricatures" and that the narrative avoid "theatrical over-statements" and "melodramatic muddled emotionalism". His critique suggests a preference for a novel where social commentary emerges organically from a rich, believable portrayal of life, rather than being driven by what he perceives as "propaganda". This perspective leads readers to question the novel's verisimilitude and artistic control, potentially viewing it as less sophisticated or genuine than Dickens's other works.
How their Interpretations Affect Reader Understanding:
The contrasting interpretations significantly affect a reader's understanding of Hard Times:
• Leavis's interpretation guides the reader to appreciate the novel as a tightly constructed allegory or "moral fable" with a powerful, unified critique of industrial Utilitarianism. Readers are encouraged to look for symbolic meanings in characters and settings (like the circus embodying "vitality") and to see the narrative as a sophisticated, poetic expression of a profound social vision. This approach frames any apparent exaggerations or simplifications as deliberate artistic choices serving a larger purpose, enhancing the perception of Hard Times as a significant and purposeful work.
• Priestley's interpretation, conversely, primes the reader to view Hard Times as a flawed attempt at a social novel. It encourages skepticism about Dickens's knowledge of industrial England, leading readers to question the authenticity of Coketown and its inhabitants. The characters might be seen as one-dimensional "caricatures" and the emotional effects as "melodramatic". This perspective can lead to a devaluation of the novel's artistic merit, suggesting it falls short of Dickens's usual brilliance and is hampered by its perceived propagandistic intent.
Position-taking:
Arguing for Leavis's Praise
I side with Leavis—Hard Times merits his praise because it is a tightly constructed, symbolically rich, and profoundly insightful moral fable that effectively critiques the dehumanizing aspects of Victorian industrial society and Utilitarian philosophy.
Leavis persuasively argues that Hard Times stands out among Dickens's works for its "comprehensive vision". Unlike other novels where criticisms might be "casual and incidental," here Dickens is "for once possessed by a comprehensive vision," identifying Utilitarianism as the "hard philosophy" sanctioning the "inhumanities of Victorian civilization". This singular focus allows for a depth of critique and artistic unity rarely seen in his other, more sprawling works.
The novel's artistic triumph lies in its powerful symbolic method, which Leavis expertly elucidates. Sissy Jupe, far from being a mere conventional character, is a "potently symbolic rôle" embodying "vitality as well as goodness," representing "generous, impulsive life" that is the "antithesis of calculating self-interest". Her incapacity for "facts" and formulas, as opposed to Bitzer's mechanical regurgitation, highlights her "sovereign and indefeasible humanity". Similarly, Sleary's Horse-riding is not just a simplistic contrast, but a vital symbol of "human spontaneity," "highly-developed skill," and "art" that ministers to "vital human needs". It represents a "profounder reaction to industrialism" than mere amusement, acknowledging the "dreadful degradation of life" that transcends basic needs, a point Leavis connects to D.H. Lawrence's observations on industrial despair. Leavis argues that this symbolism is not "sentimentally false," as it effectively evokes "the virtues and qualities that Dickens prizes" for his critique.
Furthermore, Leavis highlights the extraordinary "stamina, a flexibility combined with consistency, and a depth" of Dickens's art in Hard Times. The "confutation of Utilitarianism by life" is demonstrated with "great subtlety" through Mr. Gradgrind's journey. The scene where he proposes marriage to Louisa, reducing love to "tangible Fact" and statistics, is a "triumph of ironic art," revealing the hollowness of his philosophy more powerfully than any logical analysis could. The "sardonic comedy" of Tom's fate and the chilling "logical manner" of Bitzer, the ultimate product of Gradgrindery, serve to brutally expose the system's failings. Even potentially sentimental elements like Stephen Blackpool or the dog Merrylegs are controlled by a "profoundly serious intention" and a "sure touch" that ensures their effectiveness within the moral fable.
Dickens's mastery of language and dramatic creation is another key aspect Leavis praises. He is described as a "great poet" with "endless resource in felicitously varied expression" and an "extraordinary responsiveness to life". The death of Mrs. Gradgrind, for instance, is presented with "dramatic creation and imaginative genius". Thus, Hard Times, with its concentrated vision, potent symbolism, flexible artistry, and penetrating social critique, is indeed a masterpiece that merits Leavis's highest praise.
Aligning with Priestley’s Criticism
I align with Priestley—Hard Times might be considered propagandist and short-sighted due to its superficial understanding of industrial society, its reliance on caricatures and over-statements, and its muddled social criticism.
Priestley's central argument that Dickens "did not know enough about industrial England" is a compelling one. His experience was limited to "horrifying glimpses" and a brief visit to a strike in Preston where he "found no drama". This limited exposure manifests in Coketown, which Priestley dismisses as "merely a horrible appearance" and a product of "propaganda and not to creative imagination". Instead of deeply understanding the lives within an industrial town, Dickens "simply looked at it from a railway train," leading to a portrayal that lacks the nuanced reality and "odd attractive characters" he might have found had he truly immersed himself.
This superficial understanding, according to Priestley, results in a novel marred by "reckless and theatrical over-statements" and characters that are "nothing but caricatures". While Gradgrind and Bounderby serve as clear antagonists for the Utilitarian philosophy, their extreme, almost one-dimensional portrayals can feel less like genuine human beings grappling with flawed ideologies and more like figures designed solely to represent an abstract evil. The "melodramatic muddled emotionalism" further detracts from its credibility as a serious social commentary.
Priestley also points to the way the novel's critique often feels aligned with a "political-economic ideology," suggesting Dickens acts as a "propagandist" rather than a detached observer or an artist exploring complex truths. The creation of the traveling circus, while intended to represent "arts, skills, and warm personal relationships," is seen by Priestley as merely a "sharp contrast" to Gradgrind and Bounderby. This implies it's an artificially constructed counterpoint, rather than an organic discovery within the industrial setting, highlighting Dickens's need to "sketch" a ready-made solution rather than depict the complexity of human spirit within Coketown itself.
Objective evaluation:
Both Leavis and Priestley offer valuable, albeit polarized, insights into Hard Times. A balanced evaluation acknowledges the strengths of each viewpoint while recognizing their limitations.
Leavis's Viewpoint:
• Strengths:
Leavis excels at demonstrating the artistic coherence and profound thematic depth of Hard Times. He reveals how Dickens consciously employs symbolism (Sissy, the Horse-riding) and ironic method to construct a powerful critique of Utilitarianism, arguing that this makes it a "completely serious work of art". His emphasis on the novel as a "moral fable" provides a framework for understanding its insistent intention and representative characters, allowing readers to appreciate its "calculated relevance" over mere "external abundance". Leavis's detailed analysis of key scenes (Louisa's marriage proposal, Bitzer's self-interest) effectively showcases Dickens's "triumph of ironic art" and "poetic force of evocation". He also thoughtfully addresses potential criticisms of sentimentality, arguing for Dickens's artistic control and serious purpose.
• Limitations:
While compelling, Leavis's assessment can be seen as somewhat over-correcting for previous neglect of Hard Times. His declaration of it as Dickens's "greatest novel" might lead him to downplay or justify certain weaknesses more than other critics would, such as the sentimentality around Stephen Blackpool, which he admits is present "though not to any seriously damaging effect". His argument that Dickens's understanding of Victorian civilization and social structure is "adequate for his purpose" might be a generous reading, given the acknowledged limitations regarding Trade Unionism and religion. His focus on the novel as a "moral fable" can sometimes sidestep the very criticisms about caricatures and over-statements that Priestley raises, by framing them as necessary for the fable's "insistent" intention.
Priestley's Viewpoint:
• Strengths:
Priestley offers a grounded critique that highlights aspects often considered weaknesses in Dickens's work: over-dramatization, caricatured characters, and a tendency towards didacticism. His argument that Dickens lacked deep, familiar knowledge of industrial England raises a valid point about the authenticity of Coketown's portrayal, suggesting it serves more as a symbolic backdrop for a message rather than a richly imagined setting. By calling it "propaganda," Priestley challenges readers to critically assess whether the novel's artistic choices genuinely enhance understanding or merely serve to push a pre-determined ideological viewpoint. His perspective encourages a focus on literary craftsmanship and verisimilitude, questioning the efficacy of the novel as social criticism if its foundations are shaky.
• Limitations:
Priestley's criticism is undeniably harsh and dismissive, labeling the novel "bad" and "least worth reading". This strong stance risks overlooking the very artistic merits and thematic coherence that Leavis meticulously unpacks. By focusing on Dickens's supposed lack of personal experience, Priestley may undervalue the author's ability to create powerful social commentary through imaginative synthesis and symbolic representation, even without direct, intimate knowledge of every detail. His critique of the Horse-riding as merely a "sharp contrast" fails to engage with its profound symbolic significance as argued by Leavis, reducing a nuanced artistic choice to a facile narrative device. Essentially, Priestley appears to judge Hard Times by a set of criteria (realism, absence of propaganda, consistency of "grotesque-poetic genius") that might not fully align with the specific artistic and moral intentions Dickens pursued in this particular novel, leading to an incomplete appreciation of its unique strengths.
Reflection
The responses I generated stood out to me because they gave a clear view of two very different critical opinions on Hard Times (1854). F. R. Leavis praised the novel for its moral seriousness, while J. B. Priestley criticized it as narrow and propagandistic. Both perspectives are important because they show how a single text can be read in opposite ways. What I found most interesting was how Leavis valued the novel’s ethical depth, whereas Priestley questioned its limited artistic scope. NotebookLM helped me to compare these arguments side by side, making it easier to see their strengths and weaknesses. The responses also pushed me to think about my own position: that the novel may not be Dickens’ best in terms of artistic achievement, but it still carries social value. This reflection shows how criticism itself can deepen one’s understanding of literature.
Conclusion
Studying Charles Dickens' Hard Times (1854) through both Victorian criticism and digital tools has shown how classic literature can remain fresh and meaningful in today's world. Critics like F. R. Leavis (1895-1978) and J. B. Priestley (1894-1984) remind us that a single text can generate very different interpretations, while platforms like NotebookLM help us to compare such views and ask new questions. The activities of video analysis, FAQ creation, and critical comparison not only deepened the understanding of Dickens' themes-education, industrial society, imagination, and human relationships-but also highlighted the value of digital pedagogy in encouraging reflection and critical thinking. By blending traditional literary study with modern technology, the novel's relevance becomes clearer: it speaks to issues of inequality, creativity, and human values that are still urgent today. In this way, Hard Times continues to connect Victorian concerns with the challenges of the present age.
References
Barad, Dilip. “Hard Times: Charles Dickens.” Teacher’s Blog, 2021.
https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2021/02/hard-times-charles-dickens.html.
Barad, Dilip. “MA English MKBU: Study Material:2020 - Victorian Lit.” Accessed September 1, 2025.
https://sites.google.com/view/maengmkbu2020/sem-1/victorian-lit.
Chawla, Nupur and CEC, dirs. The English Novel - Hard Times Charles Dickens - I. 2020. 22:19.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9zZDjjj6W4.
Chawla, Nupur, and CEC. “The English Novel - Hard Times Charles Dickens - II - YouTube.”
Accessed September 1, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZzAGibvHc0.
Dickens, Charles. “Hard Times | Project Gutenberg.” Project Gutenberg, 1954.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/786/786-h/786-h.htm.
Leavis, F.R. “Hard Times: An Analytic Note.” eNotes, 1954. https://www.enotes.com/topics/hard-
times/criticism/criticism/f-r-leavis-essay-date-1948.
Priestley, J.B. “Why Hard Times Is a Bad Novel.” Victorian Web, 1972.
https://victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/hardtimes/priestley1.html.
Victorian Web. “Some Discussions of Dickens’s Hard Times.” Victorian Web, 2021.
https://victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/hardtimes/index.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment