Bill Sikes-the man, the monster

I can remember reading this when I was quite young, and then seeing the 48' film version of it, and at some point between reading about how menacing Bill Sikes was and then seeing him beat his girlfriend to death with a cane in the film (well, yes, it was obscured by a wall, but you knew what was happening) I became intrigued by his character. I was way too young too understand all the themes of the book, and I can't remember the things I'd like to, and that particular scene horrified me when I read it and watched it; but I do know I find alot about Bill to muse over.

For one, whether he was really in love with Nancy; whether he did really feel an attachment to Bull's Eye; I suppose, the whole question of whether he was mentally, and emotionally, "rotten" to the core. I personally have always felt that, whilst his opinion and view and version of love is not the sort the majority would share with him or understand, Bill does indeed love Nancy and Bulls Eye in his own (highly) dsyfunctional way. Lots of people have argued with me on this, with a few people I know claiming that Bill's "only working emotion is hate"; but I feel there's a small spark of compassion and empathy in there somewhere, something that makes him realise he has an attachment to Nancy and his dog that goes beyond a mutually beneficial partnership. Maybe it isn't something he dwells on too much, or likes to think he has, but I think he has that; which, to him, is love.

My first musing leads neatly into my second-what balance was there between his innate nature and his nurturing as he grew up that drove him to the person he was when we see him in the book and film? Was he naturally quite hardened emotionally as part as his genetical inheritance, and his (presumably) tough upbringing just enhanced this; or was he born pretty much neutral in terms of violence and indifference, and it was mostly his upbringing that instilled in him such anger and such hatred? Obviously, I'd never be naive enough to ask which one it was that produced such a man-you cannot ever say that it was either someone's innate nature or their nurture that made them turn out a certain way, but you can debate over which one played the bigger part, which one swung the balance.

Also, as a sort of add-along, I cannot remember the book saying anything particular about Bill's childhood and upbringing before Fagin; is that true? I pressume he had an early life of hardship, born to parents that didn't want him or couldn't look after him; or both, or maybe he became orphaned early on-or maybe, his parents didn't want him and couldn't look after him, and then he also orphaned early on. When we discussed Dickens in one of my recent English classes, my teacher criticised me for suggesting that he had abusive parents, or was neglected by them, or both; yet I can't see why she did. I think she was just a bit unnerved at how I saw past the whole "happy bouncy musical" side of the book.

Thoughts?

You may not care anymore, but I have thoughts on your blog. I have been embroiled in the issue of domestic abuse due to some things which happened in my husband's family. Here's my take on Bill: He's no more of a monster than many abusers and/or criminals. It is, in my mind, just narcissism taken to a high degree. In other words, you exist to meet my needs and I do what it takes to get what I want. It is usually a combination of a natural violent nature, "nurtured" by more violence experienced as a child. I believe he indeed "loved" Nancy, as abusers "love" their victims. He needed her and she met his needs. That is an abuser's version of love - it is totally one-sided and codependent. The book is very accurate in that, once she actually stood up to him, she died. That is the victim's unforgivable sin. You cross me a little, you get beat up. You cross me in a major, way, or - heaven forbid - try to leave me, you die.
Hope that helps.

The character of Bill Sikes absolutely fascinates me. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I've always felt a tremendous sympathy for him, and view him as a victim in the same way as Nancy, Fagin, Dodger, and even Oliver himself. I hate the way he's been misunderstood and misrepresented in so many adaptations of the novel.

There are moments of genuine tenderness between Bill and Nancy, such as when Nancy's impassioned protests at their treatment of Oliver causes her to faint. Bill picks her up and gently lays her down on a pile of rags in the corner, with great care. I've always believed that Bill's relationship with Nancy is based on far more than convenience or mutual profit (she being a prostitute and Bill, her pimp). They share a common background, they understand one another, they offer each other some degree of security and stability. Besides, there were thousands upon thousands of prostitutes in London in those times, and yet Bill chooses to team up with one. Why Nancy? Moreover, why only Nancy? It can't be because she is weak and easily manipulated or scared by him- we know that Nancy is a strong and assertive young woman. Perhaps that's the attraction for him. Her death may be at his hands, but it is also worth noting that, ultimately, his death is at her hands- his grief at her passing is so profound that it drives him completely around the bend; he is haunted by her dead eyes until, finally, a vision of them causes him to hang himself accidentally whilst trying to escape. It's the guilt and the grief he experiences at Nancy's loss that kills him.

I also believe that Bill could have been a good man were it not for the circumstances of his upbringing. There are flashes of this goodness in the novel, such as his selfless decision to help the victims of a fire when he should be trying to make his escape, and his decision not to simply abandon Oliver at the scene of the botched burglary.

His killing of Nancy is the culmination of a lifetime of poverty, violence, and hardship. He was not born a killer; he was made one. Violence breeds violence.

Bill is a victim of circumstance. One of the points Dickens seemed to be trying to make with this novel is that good and evil are neither innate nor nurtured: sometimes, 'bad' people do 'good' things (Bill), just as 'good' people sometimes do 'bad' things (Nancy).

Hi I’ve just stumbled across this post about bill which is convenient as I’m acting as bill sikes in the musical Oliver. The post has given me great ideas about how to play this really difficult character. in the last couple of months i have been watching everything i can to try and understand bill and this thread has given, in my opinion a better way of seeing the character. My opinion of bill sikes is that he is a misunderstood person that was never shown affection (until Nancy) so finds it very hard to show affection, kindness and love. i think that bill is in love with Nancy and there is definite venerability present but doesn’t know how to show it. I think that bill replaces the fact that he carn't have a genuine relationship with gin, Bulleye, Fagin and the boys.

I think that the main hindrance in sympathising with Sikes is the fact that we never see him grow up. One particularly poignant comparison that I always draw is that between him and the artful Dodger. I wonder if maybe, Bill was the AD of his childhood, taken in by career criminals and raised to fight for survival.
The most obvious aspect of his character is that there is no one like Bill Sikes, he is a dominant and overbearing character, something which is clearly the case for a reason. Its quite an achievement for someone of his lifestyle and profession to live that long, an achievement which would have left its mark. Maybe his sense of betrayal from Nancy stems from a deeper, maybe even subconscious, feeling of abandonment or loneliness.
If we were to catch up with the AD, or any of the children, in a couple of decades, it would be interesting to see if there was another 'Bill Sikes' on the scene.
Whilst this interpretation of Sikes as a victim does not excuse his violent behavior or his treatment of others, it does redeem him enough to allow empathy. I certainly think that if the AD was seen as a reincarnation as Sikes later on, he would garner a lot more sympathy, simply because the audience had a chance to see what kind of childhood spawns such a vile character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucy Snowe

When we discussed Dickens in one of my recent English classes, my teacher criticised me for suggesting that he had abusive parents, or was neglected by them, or both; yet I can't see why she did. I think she was just a bit unnerved at how I saw past the whole "happy bouncy musical" side of the book.

---

I think she probably criticised you because you didn't have enough evidence to back up your claim, so it's more of an interesting possibility rather than something necessarily taken directly from the book. And I suppose because "abusive parents" is seen as a cliche in fiction.

There's a big difference between the two villains. For Fagin you can feel some kind of sympathy, especially when he's afraid to be hung. For Bill Sykes however I can't feel any sympathy, because he killed Nancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by htrix

The character of Bill Sikes absolutely fascinates me. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I've always felt a tremendous sympathy for him, and view him as a victim in the same way as Nancy, Fagin, Dodger, and even Oliver himself. I hate the way he's been misunderstood and misrepresented in so many adaptations of the novel.

---

I found Sikes a believable character. He has a way of expressing himself that sounds very real. So far I have only seen two adaptions of Oliver Twist: one the musical with Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes; the other, the Roman Polanski film with Jamie Foreman as Bill Sikes. Oliver Reed was far more scary than Jamie Foreman, although Jamie Foreman was more like the Sikes in the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by htrix

I also believe that Bill could have been a good man were it not for the circumstances of his upbringing. There are flashes of this goodness in the novel, such as his selfless decision to help the victims of a fire when he should be trying to make his escape, and his decision not to simply abandon Oliver at the scene of the botched burglary.

---

I don't know about that. He helps to put out the fire to take his mind off what he's done. He does not abandon Oliver, partly because Oliver could inform on him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixon

I think that the main hindrance in sympathising with Sikes is the fact that we never see him grow up. One particularly poignant comparison that I always draw is that between him and the artful Dodger. I wonder if maybe, Bill was the AD of his childhood, taken in by career criminals and raised to fight for survival.

If we were to catch up with the AD, or any of the children, in a couple of decades, it would be interesting to see if there was another 'Bill Sikes' on the scene.

---

I doubt the Artful Dodger would have turned out quite like Sikes. Bill Sikes has a violent temper; the Artful Dodger does not. Sikes is frequently insulting and unpleasant, in particular to Fagin; the Artful Dodger is not. I suppose Sikes would have had a tough childhood and had much physical punishment inflicted on him, and therefore considered it natural to hand it out when he grew up. Possibly he was never taught the importance of controlling his temper. Maybe his father was absent or as bad-tempered as him. In his line of work, Sikes' temper may have been useful in dominating other hard characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixon

I wonder if maybe, Bill was the AD of his childhood, taken in by career criminals and raised to fight for survival...

...If we were to catch up with the AD, or any of the children, in a couple of decades, it would be interesting to see if there was another 'Bill Sikes' on the scene.

---

It's an interesting insight. In one way, no, Sykes is a fictional character, so there's not much point in speculating over a past that Dickens doesn't tell us about; but in another way, Dickens the reformer may be giving us something of a "Rake's Progress." Here is the innocent waif from the work house coming into the wicked city--and that's Oliver. Here is the poor boy now seducing others into the world of crime--and that's the Dodger. And here is the poor boy grown to a man in the evil of poverty and crime and become a brute and a killer himself, learning too late that the wages of sin are death--and that's Bill. But ultimately I think that Dickens is more complex than Hogarth. Bates, for example goes straight and, after some drudge work, becomes a successful cattleman in the North. And the Dodger is transported to Australia without losing any of his defiance. (And you just know he's going to bust out and become a highwayman, don't you?)

So perhaps it's an example of Dickens the genius trumping his longtime opponent, Dickens the pedant, and creating some truly unforgettable characters I along the way.

The Artful Dodger has charm and intelligence, unlike Sikes who is a bully.