Think of the Children!

Orphan Boys and Other Stories:

The thing that I found most notable about these readings was the black and white version of the world that the authors were presenting, especially James D. McCabe Jr. McCabe especially wants to point out that the boys living on the street will either a) turn to crime or b) be influenced so positively by the Children's Aid Society that their entire life will be turned around. Confusingly though he also calls the bootblack boys "sharp, quick-witted" (McCabe 139). It seems strange that he'd give them the qualities that one needed to succeed back then and then turn around and say that they're doomed to "fall into criminal practices" (McCabe 139). I feel like there ought to be some inbetween. While Alger's novel is just that, a fictional novel, it still shows that the possibility for advancement was there.

Crapsey is a bit more unbiased in his representation of the boys. He states that they were "pushed by the relentless force of untoward circumstances into the criminal practices" rather than by their own vocation (Crapsey 141). His portrayal is that of children at the mercy of circumstance and that turning toward criminal practices are more the result of necessity than any personal shortcomings.

The journal of a visitor from the country, reprinted in Brace's analysis, shows some of the boy's own understanding of their condition. Paddy comes on rather sarcastically saying "Why don't you save your money" (Brace 144). They, at least as presented here, approached their situation with a tone of detached irony because they know that their situation, appears at the least, hopeless.

So my question to you is this, Is Alger's view of the American dream more correct than the depressed society of boys shown here? Or can there be some truth to both statements? Are the boys discussed in these writings the Johnny Nolands of the real world? And if thats the case, were are the Ragged Dicks?

Elveda,
Jon