#A Tale of Two Cities

[megairea]

“I wish you to know that you have been the last dream of my soul.”

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities, 1859

[pascalcampion]

Late night thoughts With a little help from Dickens

[spockandstars]

I was thinking about how Spock is intentionally paralleled with Sydney Carton from A Tale of Two Cities in The Wrath of Khan, and now I am unwell!

At the beginning of the movie, Spock famously gives Kirk A Tale of Two Cities as a birthday present. This book was specifically included for its themes of sacrifice and resurrection, which obviously mirror Spock’s decision to give up his life to save the crew. Notably, Kirk’s final lines reference the famous closing of the novel.

Kirk: It is a far, far better thing I do than I have ever done before... a far better resting in place I go to than I have ever known...

Carol: is that a poem?

Kirk: Something Spock was trying to tell me. On my birthday.

So what’s the importance of this line? The famous “far better thing” quote is from the book’s ending when Carton has just sacrificed himself for his beloved Lucie, giving himself up to be executed in place of her husband so that she may find happiness. (Live long and prosper, anyone?)

Interestingly, both Spock and Carton are emotionally repressed characters, and anguish over the depth of their love for the people who uniquely see them for who they are — in this case, Jim and Lucie. While I’d argue that Spock is more at peace with himself and his feelings for Jim after the events of the first movie, the point still stands that Jim is the one to truly understand him in a world that labels him as a cold and calculating being.

I believe that this is what Kirk’s line calling Spock’s soul “the most human I have ever encountered,” is supposed to represent. (Even though I agree with the criticism that it could have been worded better!) Similarly, Lucie is the one to recognize Carton’s inner nature in spite of his aloof facade, begging “I would ask you to believe that [Carton] has a heart he very, very seldom reveals, and that there are deep wounds in it.” (Book 2, Chapter 20.)

When Carton finally admits his love to Lucie, it’s hard not to see the resemblance to Spock’s dilemma in the first movie. You know, that time when Spock, in his heartbreak over something related to Jim (that were not given an explanation for), cries out “Jim! Good-bye my . . . my t’hy’la. This is the last time I will permit myself to think of you or even your name again!” before attempting to purge himself of all feelings in an ancient ritual, and failing because the Vulcan priestess can totally sense that he’s still thinking about Kirk. (Yup, that totally straight time!)

Well, Carton is in a similarly agonizing predicament, because he can’t get his feelings for Lucie to go away. He tells her, “I break down before the knowledge of what I want to say to you” and “I have had the weakness, and have still the weakness, to wish you to know with what a sudden mastery you kindled me, heap of ashes that I am, into fire—a fire, however, inseparable in its nature from myself, quickening nothing, lighting nothing, doing no service, idly burning away.” (Book 2, Chapter 13)

He also expresses that he could never separate his love for her from himself, saying that “Within myself, I shall always be, towards you, what I am now.” (Book 2, Chapter 13) Yeah, I know the fact this mirrors Spock’s famous “I have been and always shall be yours” is probably a coincidence, but I’ll be damned if I don’t mention it.

Finally, Carton expresses his love for her in his willingness to sacrifice himself for her sake: “For you, and for any dear to you, I would do anything. If my career were of that better kind that there was any opportunity or capacity of sacrifice in it, I would embrace any sacrifice for you and for those dear to you… there is a man who would give his life, to keep a life you love beside you!” (Book 2, Chapter 13.) Of course, Carton’s story ends when he sacrifices himself for her, fulfilling this promise. Hmm, now who else does that sound like?

This is definitely not a perfect parallel: Spock doesn’t start out as a lazy alcoholic, although there is an argument to be made that Carton’s low self-worth reflects Spock’s before he went on his conversion therapy fueled journey of self discovery. Additionally, I wouldn’t say that Spock’s love for Kirk is unrequited like Carton’s for Lucie, (as evidenced by many things, but I’ll primarily point to the events of The Motion Picture and The Search for Spock), but you could potentially cast Carol in the role of Darnay, Lucie’s husband.

The most important thing to glean from this is that Spock was very deliberately set up to be the Carton figure, which is interesting given that Carton’s actions are driven by his willingness to do anything to see his beloved be happy and prosper.

[paraheronstairs]

can we please talk about the scene where clary asks jace (controlled by sebastian) to read to her and he picks A TALE OF TWO CITIES BY CHARLES DICKENS

and she describes the golden written title and the dedication that can’t be read BECAUSE IT FADED WITH TIME

you could only see “with hope at last, william herondale”

because i cried in that moment as if the ceilling fell on my bookshelf

[undinecissy]

James Wilby in A Tales of Two Cities(1989)

[i-am-becoming-the-midnight-sun]

I wish you to know that you have been the last dream of my soul.

A Tale of Two Cities - Charles Dickens

Alfred Eisenstaedt

Penn Station - April, 1943

[sweetcherrysourcherry]

vive la france bitchez

[gayboss-too-close-to-the-sun]

There's something about the novels I've read that are obsessed with Napoleon - Les Miserables, War and Peace, The Count of Monte Cristo - and something about the novel's I've read that are obsessed with the French Revolution - A Tale of Two Cities, The Scarlet Pimpernel (Les Miserables is about a French Revolution but not the French Revolution). Those are the threads between those books, but somehow it feels stronger than just similar themes. I want to sit and spend a year reading nothing but those five books back to back and see what I learn.

[bookish-charm]

Classics: book haul, thrift store edition

[femmehysteria]

I'm doing a series of "Best Character Named X" polls where all the characters have the same first name but are from completely different media, feel free to send in name/charcacter suggestions, I'm posting one poll a day, check my pinned post for active polls

[hyodyton]

i like reading Sydney Carton as a queer character, and seeing his sacrifice in a similarly one-sided way

I read A Tale of Two Cities quite a while ago, and I can't say I have any particular feelings about it. But i like the individual elements, plots and characters. (And I don't have a very heartfelt affinity for France) Was reminded of this book today, and after a while I remember it more fondly than when I first finished reading it

Quite a curious work on the topic I've just raised, I can't say I agree with everything, but there are many interesting and deep thoughts https://w.ncgsjournal.com/issue82/krueger.html

It was also logical and nice to mention my favourite Holly Furneaux - Queer Dickens: Erotics, Families, Masculinities

[lycoperdales]

Media References in Teen Wolf (pt. 1)

I’m thinking of starting a series about the stuff I’ve read or watched that were shown in the series that were relevant to the themes of series.

Starting with the first thing I read:

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

The cover of this book was given a close up in season 3 episode 12 when Rafael McCall is sitting in Scott’s room while the kids are trying to safe their parents from the Darach.

It is one of the books Scott read over the summer which I think greatly impacts his views on ‘justified’ violence and righteous dogmas that perpetuate throughout the entire series but especially here through Deucalion and Julia Bacchari.

This book represents the theme of cyclical violence that pervades the entire series but especially season 3A. Specifically how such violence only escalates, leading to more pain, strife and casualties. The book being in Scott's room serves to illuminate our understanding of him and the realisation he has of the violence around him.

(Take a shot for every time I say violence)

To be rudely brief, this book tells a tale of the French Revolution (it’s origins and motivations), but centres around the people caught in the cross-hairs.

The main characters (relevant to this analysis) are:

Doctor Manette (The face of the French Revolution, a former prisoner of the Bastille. Incarcerated for 18 years due to a false allegation given by Marquis St. Evrémonde)

Lucy Manette (A devoted daughter, recently reunited with her father, Dr. Manette, after his incarceration)

Charles Darnay (A former French noble who relinquished his titles and wealth to live peacefully and frugally in England. He later marries Lucy and they have a young daughter together)

Marquis St. Evrémonde (Uncle to Charles Darnay. A tyrannical noble responsible for the death and torture of many working-class french citizens and the reason for Dr. Manette’s incarceration)

Madame Defarge (An unassuming yet crucial member of the revolution. She experienced the death and torture of her family under St. Evrémonde’s hands and uses her pain as fuel to enact revenge. Her and her husband nursed Dr. Manette back to health after his imprisonment)

Sydney Carton (A listless, depressed legal aide based in London with an uncanny resemblance to Charles Darnay, and in love with Lucy Manette)

The revolution consists of two waring parties, the nobles, and the working-class revolutionaries. Both parties used their own ideologies to justify the violence they caused.

The marquis thought it was his god-given right, and that inciting fear was what secured him to his power, wealth, and safety. Whenever something bad happened to them, nobles used it to argue for the necessity of their violence.

This mirrors Deucalion and his pack who use Gerard’s actions to justify using fear as a means ensuring their safety, but also have no qualms about threatening, maiming and killing for their entertainment/benefit as they think it is their right as powerful beings.

The revolutionaries, specifically Madame Defarge justifies her violence as part of an uprising. It is the accumulation of the violence she and the other revolutionaries have faced and they feel that the only way they can be recompensed is through bloodshed. You agree with them after hearing their stories but quickly grow horrified as they begin sacrificing working-class servants, helpers, nannies and children. It is seen as the "lesser evil" against the powerful nobles.

In their quest for liberation, they end up jeopardising the life of their own hero, Dr. Manette, and his family. Madame Defarge does this by orchestrating the incarceration of Charles Darnay and plans to execute him for his noble blood, Lucy for marrying him, and finally to execute their young child (for her noble blood).

She mimics Julia Bacchari almost entirely as they both sacrifice innocent, blameless people in their quest to defeat their true oppressors.

Just as the revolution (as depicted in the book) is perverted into senseless propaganda which ultimately endangers the victims of nobility (the Manettes), Julia’s motivations turn void as she begins endangering the lives of the Alpha Pack's other victims (Boyd, Isaac, Derek, Scott, and Melissa).

The pinnacle of this parallel occurs when Derek says to Julia (after her big sacrifice yap-fest):

“Stop talking to me like a politician. Stop trying to convince me of your cause.”

As for the others, they are not a part of the war. Doctor Manette (though face of the revolution) only seeks peace, quiet and recovery with his newly reunited family. This reminds me of Derek, who is seen by Julia as a partner though he wishes no part in the conflict. Like the doctor towards the nobles, Derek hates Deucalion, but cannot use his hatred to fully take part in Julia’s destruction. Though he stands by Julia at some point, it is more that he is trapped due to Julia’s idealisation of him (just as the Revolutionaries idolised Dr. Manette).

In the book, Charles Darney is in the middle of the two parties, yet fundamentally separated from both of them, very similar to Scott.

Darnay is noble by blood but abhors all that it represents. He loves and marries into the Manette family, and even teaches french in London due to the love of his country, yet he cannot sit by as the Revolutionaries try to execute his former family servant.

Though Scott is not yet an alpha, he is regarded as one. He also has responsibility over others as an alpha (*cough* noble *cough*) does. Despite this, he is fundamentally against everything the Alpha Pack represents and his unwillingness to promote the system acts as a threat to what the Alpha Pack preaches.

On the other hand, he, like Julia, is a victim to the cruelty of alphas, yet does not use his victimhood as a justification for more violence, rendering Julia’s ideologies just as sloppy as Deucalion’s as she also fails to proselytise him. In the end Scott is basically shoved into Deucalion's corner as Julia jeopardises his family (just as the revolutionaries jeopardise Darney's family).

Now for my beloved Sydney Carton (this is going to be the most reductionistic analysis of this character, but alas, this meta is about teen wolf). This man, for his love of Lucy's happiness and all that it represents, bribes his way into Darnay's prison and forcefully changes their places so that he can die in Darnay's stead. His execution serves as a distraction to ensure the Darnay and Manette family's safe passage back to England (much like Scott distracting Julia until the lunar eclipse fades to save the lives of the parents). He represents true sacrifice and (though it sounds cheesy) the power of love. It is his love that spurs him into action after a life of passivity. It is his sacrifice that ensures that peace (the conciliation of the Manette's and the St. Evrémonde blood line) can exist, that violence in spite of pain can be rejected.

Derek willingly loses his power, status and safety for the love of his Cora. Scott thrusts himself upon mountain to save the parents, essentially sacrificing himself (Remember when he says: "I did it once, but it almost killed me"). The kids actually sacrifice themselves to prevent more, irreparable blood shed.

Scott (and essentially his entire pack + Derek but I want to focus on Scott's book in Scott's room), is a victim of the war in which he really should have no part in. But unlike Deucalion- and Julia's other victims, he willingly sacrifices himself in the hopes of, like Sydney Carton, ensuring a better future with the redemptive powers of love.

I believe that if Scott had died then, he would've, as Carton, “see[n] the lives for which [he] lay[s] down his life”

[madmensideblog]

Every Episode of Mad Men A Tale of Two Cities — Season 6, Episode 10 dir. John Slattery

"Now I am become Death. Destroyer of worlds." "Come on, buddy. You're not Death."

[mygentlehope]

“It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.”  — Sydney Carton, A Tale of Two Cities • Charles Dickens

Edit for my most recently finished book.

Image source: Pinterest

[artist-issues]

How many times do we have to say:

Create characters with strength of virtue, not strength of skills.

I just finished A Tale of Two Cities with the character Lucie Manette, who "does" nothing but love the people around her and extend compassion toward everyone within her sphere of influence. She makes no "choices" that contemporary audiences would award the stupid badge of "giving her agency" to. She doesn't make a speech that saves Charles Darnay's life. She doesn't lead the victims of the French Revolution into a counter-revolt. She doesn't fight off the soldiers that come to take her husband, or beat up Madame Defarge when she threatens her child, or even come up with the escape plan to flee Paris.

She makes none of those kinds of choices. (You know who does? Madame Defarge. But the compare-contrast between those two can wait till another day.)

But she makes these kinds of choices:

She'll give her honest testimony in a trial for a potential traitor to the crown, and demonstrate her compassion and grief for a near-stranger, wearing that vulnerability on her sleeve in front of a huge court of people clamoring for blood.

She'll be compassionate toward Sydney Carton, even though he's rude, careless, and brings a bad attitude into her happy home.

She'll spend the energy of her life making that home happy.

She'll stand for two hours in any weather on the bloody streets of the French Revolution so her husband might have a chance of glimpsing her and getting some comfort from the prison window.

She'll trust the older men in her life when they ask her to.

She'll allow an old woman to care for her and go everywhere she goes, and treat her like a child, as long as it makes the old woman in question happy.

And what, WHAT is the consequence of these kinds of decisions, choices, that some ignorant people call "passive?"

That old woman is allowed to love Lucie Manette so much that she defeats the villainess in the climax of the story, holding Madame Defarge back from getting revenge with sheer strength that comes directly from that love.

Her father is allowed to draw strength from the fact that Lucie believes she can depend on him--because she chooses to let her father take the lead and do the work of saving her husband, Dr. Manette is fully "recalled to life;" he doesn't have to identify as a traumatized, mentally unstable victim anymore, because Lucie is treating him like he can be the hero.

Her husband does see her in the street, and does draw strength from that--just that--instead of losing his mind the way her father, starved for a glimpse of his loved ones, did during his own imprisonment.

Lucie's home is so full of the love and kindness that she fills it with that not only does her father return to remembering who he is after his long imprisonment--but Mr. Lorry, a bachelor with no family, can feel at home with a full life, there. Miss Pross, whose family abandoned and bankrupt her, has a home with a full life, there. Charles Darnay, whose life of riches and pleasure as a Marquis was empty, has a home with a full life, there. In Lucie's home, because she spends her life making it the kind of home others can find rest in.

Sydney Carton, a man whose whole life has been characterized by a LACK of "care" for himself or anyone else, suddenly cares about Lucie. When he thought it was impossible to. And he doesn't care about her because she's pretty. Her beauty was just a source of bitterness for him--one more pleasure he could've had but can't. Until he "saw her with her father," and saw her strength of virtue, of pity, of compassion, of self-sacrificial love--then he felt that she "kindled me, a heap of ashes, into fire." He started caring about life again, where it was associated with her, because she brought to life every good thing. Just by being a woman of good virtue. And we know what that inspiration led him to.

Without Lucie's strength of virtue, and the decisions that naturally came from that, none of the "active" choices other characters made would have happened. Sydney would not have been redeemed. Darnay would not have been saved. Her father never would've been recalled to life. Miss Pross and Mr. Lorry would've had no light or love in their lives. Even Jerry would've had no occasion to learn from his mistakes and resolve to stop abusing his family.

A character like Dickens' Golden Thread, who does what a woman should do, inspires the choices other characters make. That makes her more powerful, in her own way, than the heroes and any decisions they make. Because she's the cause. She's the inspiration. She's the representation of everything good, right, precious, worth fighting for.

Lucie Manette's not the only character like this. Cinderella. The original Disney Jasmine. The original Disney Ariel. Lady Galadriel. Jane Eyre. Amy March.

"Behind every great man is a great woman," indeed! Absolutely! Bravo!

Hang on! Hang on to those kinds of characters. Those a real "strong female" characters. The muses, the inspirations, the reminders of The Greater Good. The people who make fighting the dragons worth it at all. Who cares about fighting the dragon? That's not so great, without her.

Don't forget those kinds of characters! Reading Dickens just makes me desperate for our generation to keep up the reminder: make characters that the next ten generations can learn from: strength of virtue is much more important than silly little strength of skill.