Holy Biddy, Great Expectations
I saw Dickens’s Great Expectations saying that obsessively chasing education and class will not lead to happiness or satisfaction. This is not a particularly profound thought, nor did the book induce any particularly impactful experiences in me.
In this essay, I will mainly exemplify why I saw GE as a story about disillusionment and humility, not debate some profound ideas. The theme of the book comes together from the interplay of social class and the moral qualities that the characters display in their relationships with the narrator. Here’s a breakdown character-by-character:
Joe
Joe, his guardian whom Pip worships as a child, is the only soul who is receptive and kind to him. Yet, when Pip acquires his expectations, he can no longer stand Joe’s lack of ambition or desire to learn and climb up the social ladder. Pip is embarrassed when Joe visits him in London. He points out how Joe, a reminder and a symbol of one good thing in his childhood, doesn’t fit into his new world. Despite this, Joe consistently shows nothing but kindness and humility towards Pip, ultimately making a significant sacrifice to ensure Pip’s happiness after the events of the book.
This shows that Pip doesn’t just want to be a gentleman, he has disdain for the world he came from and to people associated with it. This is not ambition; this is running from oneself.
Miss Havisham and Estella
The quasi-parental relationship between Joe and Pip is contrasted with the alternative parent-child dynamic between Miss Havisham and Estella. Miss Havisham is the most striking image of the book. She is a vengeful ghost haunting her own house and taking revenge for her pain by creating a heartbreak machine out of her adopted daughter. Her situation is a result of her wealth and putting the blame for her life on external forces, as we understand from the story of her fiancé leaving her for financial gain. Miss Havisham is the most wealthy, most evil, and most miserable character in the book.
I see the theme of Pip’s disillusionment in his perception of this character: at first, she appears as an eccentric, classy woman with mysterious motives and influence. After many revelations, she simply becomes pathetic and broken. It is when Pip sees her humanity for the first time that she does her only good deed of financially helping Herbert.
Mr Jaggers
Pip’s London guardian, Jaggers, is the first real example of gentlemanhood to Pip: he is pragmatic, cold, occasionally cruel, and classist. Jaggers represents the moral compromises and personal sacrifices required to maintain one’s status within the rigid class structure. His human interactions are transactional, and he seems indifferent to the personal suffering of others as long as the rules are upheld.
The breaking point in my perception of Jaggers was the scene with Molly. During a dinner at Jaggers’s office, he draws attention to Molly, his housekeeper, whom he has also defended in court. For no other reason than to satisfy the guests’ curiosity, Jaggers forcibly uncovers Molly’s self-harm scars. In his eyes, her dignity is worth less than his momentary legal win and a party trick.
Wemmick
Wemmick is a positive character in the book, even though he belongs to the world of wealth. His character shows a successful coping strategy.
When Pip seeks advice on investing in Herbert’s startup, Wemmick initially responds in his professional capacity as Jaggers’s clerk. He is careful and transactional, saying that assisting a friend’s dream business is like throwing cash down the river.
Later, in the whimsical atmosphere of his home, Wemmick is encouraging of this good deed. Wemmick preserves his integrity and personal relationships by not allowing his professional role to dictate his personal actions completely. He is not engulfed in chasing social status and is content in his position as Jaggers’s clerk, finding happiness from within.
Biddy
There is one more positive character in the book.
My favorite scene in the whole book is when Pip says goodbye to Biddy. Without this scene, the book’s message would be overtly simplistic: “Money is bad, poverty is good”. But this conversation adds another dimension to Pip’s journey, transforming it into a story about ambition and arrogance.
Pip wasn’t deceived into pursuing social success by society or his educators. He is aware of the consequences and understands that staying put would’ve been best, but he can’t remain where he is. He is moved forward by a force he can’t control. He was attracted to it on a spiritual level that originated from within him. It was his ego propelling him forward.
Biddy represents a form of education that is not tied to social climbing or wealth but to wisdom and investment in one’s community. Biddy stays where she is needed and takes her superior intelligence as the sign that she can do more where she is, unlike Pip, who takes it to be a sign that he doesn’t belong here. I believe that this book is saying, “Be like Biddy.”
When Pip returns to the village in the ending, he finds Biddy and Joe happily settled with a child, being perfectly satisfied with how it turned out for them.
In the same conversation, the book voices that Pip wishes to be a gentleman because of Estela. That is not true because we see him chase knowledge and dream for more way before he ever encounters Estela. I believe the relationship here is the opposite; he is attracted to this lifestyle, and Estela is a representative of it. It is nothing but blind fetishism. He wants her the same way he wants a gentleman’s costume.
Orlick
Another level is added by Orlick. When looking at the character of Biddy, it seems like the answer to Pip’s problems would be to just never go to London. This is wrong because of the absolute failure of the character of Orlick. He is a kind of phantom of Pip’s alternative life. Orlick accuses Pip of being the root cause of all his problems, from losing his job to his unfulfilled desires. Orlick’s accusations reflect his inability to take responsibility for his actions. Orlick embodies destructive social envy, repressed anger, and resentment. I argue, though, that he is not the spirit of Pip staying in the village; Orlick is the spirit of Pip staying in London.
Throughout the novel, Pip goes from a naive and impressionable boy to a disdainful young man to someone capable of self-reflection and remorse. Pip looks back at his own actions and feelings, acknowledging his mistreatment of friends. He does not cook in his own guilt but gains agency to make amends and reestablish the relationships. Which ultimately saves him from Orlick’s violence.
Both these characters are idle observers of their lives. But it is the changes that Pip undergoes in London that make him become an independent actor.
Conclusion
I can’t say that all these themes resonate with me, nor do I agree with the glorification of poverty.
So, let me summarise the themes I found in the book and how each character illustrates them:
- Happiness from within: Pip is driven by intolerance to his social position and a desire for more. He knows that he would’ve been happier as a village boy, but he could not remain there because of his ego. Pip seeks external satisfaction. Biddy, Wemmick, and Joe all find happiness in their private life.
- Transactional vs interpersonal relationships: Miss Havisham and Jaggers are both characters who neglect the humanity of those around them for personal momentary enjoyment. This is in contrast to Biddy, Wemmick, and even Magwitch, who invest in the community and put relationships above social hierarchies.
- Trade-offs of wealth: Cruelty is inherent to the social position of Jaggers and Miss Havisham; Jaggers has to be cruel to protect his excellent reputation, and Miss Havisham is living the consequences of being exploited for her money.
