If money is the ascribing of value to valueless matter, the basis of its power for evil over man is his forgetting of this fact. Our Mutual Friend is about a whole society which has forgotten. Instead of seeing that man has made money of dust and is the source of its value, this society takes money as the ultimate value-in-itself, the measure and source of all other value. As one of the Voices of Society says, "A man may do anything lawful for money. But for no money! Bosh!" The novel is a brilliant revelation of the results of this false worship of money.

J. Hillis Miller, "Our Mutual Friend"

How fair is this statement made by J. Hillis Miller concerning Dickens' Our Mutual Friend? Miller suggests that the novel is singularly a testimony about the corruptive powers of money. The individual, argues Miller, becomes objectified by his or her financial value and distinction, and that distinction replaces the true identity of the individual. I agree that this notion is demonstrated in the text, and I also agree that the characters often times only regard one another based upon their financial value. For this reason, characters do lose a sense of their true individu

What does this say about Dickens and his view of women? As Wilson mentions, Dickens worked to instill proper, middle class values into women. His home for women, Urania Cottage, is testimony to this claim. Yet, it is difficult after reading Mutual Friend to uncover exactly what Dickens thought these values should be. We have two heroines who both assume the role of the dutiful and nurturing wife at the novel's conclusion. In this case, Lizzie Hexam is extremely interesting when we consider her occupational transition from the novel's beginning to its conclusion. Her work along the river, a man's job, is replaced by her responsibility to her new husband (we can consider the latter as an occupation). Is Dickens advocating such a transition? On one hand, we may think so. Dickens' may in fact be suggesting that marriage responsibilities are a "step up" from manual labor-implying that the later is improper for a woman of Lizzie's character. This, I think, would be an easy take on Dickens considering, again, his role with the home for women. Yet, on the other hand, Dickens may be suggesting that it is possible for a woman to do a man's work and still maintain her virtue (this is still extremely male chauvinistic as a man is defining what is "virtuous" for a woman). After all, Dickens portrays Lizzie's innocence and selflessness as the strongest elements in her character. Perhaps Dickens is suggesting that a woman's occupation and financial circumstances do not factor into her character. Based upon Wilson's accounts of the historical moment, this would have been a very bold statement by Dickens. I think, however, the fact that Lizzie eventually assimilates into the middle class role of the dutiful wife indicates Dickens belief that a "proper" woman must be taught to emulate middle class values.

It is first important to note the effect that money has upon the characters of the novel. We need to establish that the characters are corrupted by money, and, more importantly, we need to demonstrate the difference between male corruption with money and female corruption with money. J. Hillis Miller claims that "Dickens shows people turned into objects made by money" (Miller). This is true in the sense that characters view other characters by their wealth and social stature. Melvin Tremlo

Some common words found in the essay are:
Mutual Friend, Lizzie Hexam, Hillis Miller, Victorian City, Friend Miller, Bella Wilfer, Snigsworth Tremlow, Victorian London, Yes Miller, Urania Cottage, mutual friend, hillis miller, middle class, victorian city, female oppression, middle class values, bella wilfer, lizzie hexam, historical moment, class values, class women, women urania cottage, middle class women, money hillis miller, dickens' mutual friend,
Approximate Word count = 1545
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)