Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
E.M. Forster, in his influential work *Aspects of the Novel* (1927), distinguished between ‘flat’ and ‘round’ characters. Flat characters, he argued, are two-dimensional, often representing a single idea or quality, and are easily remembered but lack internal complexity. They are defined by a limited set of characteristics that remain consistent throughout the narrative. Conversely, round characters are complex, multifaceted, and capable of surprising the reader. Charles Dickens, often criticized for his caricatures, presents a fascinating case study for Forster’s theory. *Hard Times*, a scathing critique of Victorian industrial society, features a cast of characters that appear, at first glance, to conform to Forster’s notion of flatness. However, a closer examination reveals nuances that challenge this simplistic categorization. This essay will explore which characters from *Hard Times* align with or deviate from Forster’s description of ‘flat’ characters.
Analyzing ‘Flat’ Characters in *Hard Times*
Several characters in *Hard Times* initially appear to be quintessential examples of Forster’s ‘flat’ characters. They embody specific ideologies or social types without significant internal conflict or development.
- Thomas Gradgrind: Gradgrind is arguably the most prominent ‘flat’ character. He is the embodiment of Utilitarian philosophy – facts, statistics, and reason are his sole guiding principles. His emotional repression and inability to appreciate imagination or beauty remain consistent throughout the novel. He is defined by his rigid adherence to his system, and his eventual, limited recognition of its flaws doesn’t fundamentally alter his character.
- Josiah Bounderby: Bounderby is a caricature of self-made man, boasting of his humble origins and relentlessly promoting the virtues of hard work and self-reliance. He is bombastic, arrogant, and utterly devoid of empathy. His character is largely static; his self-serving nature and exploitative practices are evident from the beginning and remain unchanged.
- Mr. Childers: As a minor character, Childers serves primarily as a representative of the legal system’s coldness and indifference. He is a functionary, devoid of personality, and exists solely to facilitate the plot’s legal proceedings.
Characters Deviating from ‘Flatness’
While many characters initially appear ‘flat’, others demonstrate a degree of complexity that challenges Forster’s categorization. These characters exhibit internal conflicts, undergo some form of development, or possess qualities that transcend their initial representation.
- Sissy Jupe: Sissy is often contrasted with the Gradgrind’s children, representing imagination, compassion, and emotional intelligence. While she initially appears as a foil to the ‘factual’ characters, Sissy demonstrates a quiet strength and resilience. Her ability to connect with others on an emotional level and her eventual influence on Gradgrind suggest a degree of inner depth. She isn’t merely a symbol of imagination; she actively embodies it.
- Louisa Gradgrind: Louisa’s character arc is arguably the most significant in the novel. Initially, she conforms to her father’s system, suppressing her emotions and accepting a loveless marriage to Bounderby. However, she experiences internal turmoil and eventually rebels against the constraints imposed upon her. Her confession to her father and her subsequent separation from Bounderby demonstrate a capacity for self-awareness and a desire for personal fulfillment. This internal struggle and eventual agency move her beyond the realm of a purely ‘flat’ character.
- Stephen Blackpool: Stephen, the honest and hardworking factory worker, is presented as a victim of the industrial system. While he embodies the virtues of patience and perseverance, he also experiences profound suffering and disillusionment. His attempts to navigate the complexities of his life and his eventual tragic fate reveal a degree of emotional depth and moral complexity.
The Function of ‘Flatness’ in *Hard Times*
Dickens’s use of ‘flat’ characters isn’t simply a stylistic choice; it serves a specific thematic purpose. By presenting characters as embodiments of abstract ideas or social types, Dickens critiques the dehumanizing effects of Utilitarianism and industrialization. The ‘flatness’ of characters like Gradgrind and Bounderby highlights their lack of empathy and their reduction of human beings to mere statistics. However, the contrasting complexity of characters like Louisa and Sissy underscores the importance of imagination, compassion, and individual agency.
| Character | Forster’s ‘Flat’ Character? | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas Gradgrind | Yes | Represents Utilitarianism; static character; limited emotional range. |
| Josiah Bounderby | Yes | Caricature of self-made man; bombastic and arrogant; unchanging. |
| Sissy Jupe | Partially | Initially a foil, but demonstrates resilience and influence. |
| Louisa Gradgrind | No | Undergoes significant internal conflict and development; rebels against constraints. |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while *Hard Times* features several characters who initially appear to conform to E.M. Forster’s definition of ‘flat’ characters, a closer examination reveals a more nuanced picture. Characters like Louisa Gradgrind and Stephen Blackpool demonstrate a degree of complexity that challenges this categorization. Dickens’s strategic use of both ‘flat’ and ‘round’ characters serves to critique the dehumanizing effects of Victorian industrial society and to emphasize the importance of imagination, compassion, and individual agency. The novel’s enduring power lies in its ability to portray both the limitations and the possibilities of human experience within a rigid and oppressive social system.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.