#Dr. Manette character

[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”

[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.

[comma-after-dearest]

Give Sydney Carton a tricorn hat

I haven’t seen a single adaptation of A Tale of Two Cities where Sydney Carton has a tricorn hat.

Which is weird because tricorn hats were all the rage in the late 1700s.

I’ve seen other male characters wear tricorn hats in ATOTC adaptations - Charles Darnay, Mr. Lorry, Dr. Manette, Jerry Cruncher - but never Carton.

I’ve also seen Carton wear a clerical hat in both the 1935 and 1958 film versions. But a tricorn hat seems to suit him better IMO.

Just imagine Carton with a tricorn hat pulling the brim over his eyes like a cowboy in a gunslinger Western or a hardboiled detective in a 1930s noir.

The next ATOTC adaptation needs to give Carton a tricorn hat. Somebody please make this happen. I’d settle for some art of it too.

[blueheartbookclub]

"A Timeless Tale of Love, Sacrifice, and Redemption: A Review of A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens"

Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities stands as a masterpiece of literature, weaving together a captivating narrative set against the tumultuous backdrop of the French Revolution. Through its vivid characters, intricate plot, and rich historical detail, Dickens crafts a compelling story that explores themes of love, sacrifice, and the pursuit of justice.

At the heart of the novel lies the interwoven destinies of two cities—London and Paris—during a time of political upheaval and social unrest. Through the experiences of characters such as Charles Darnay, a French aristocrat seeking redemption, and Sydney Carton, a disillusioned English lawyer longing for purpose, Dickens portrays the contrasting worlds of privilege and poverty, tyranny and revolution. Against this backdrop, the novel unfolds as a poignant exploration of the human condition and the transformative power of selflessness and compassion.

One of the most striking aspects of A Tale of Two Cities is Dickens' masterful character development. From the noble Dr. Manette, imprisoned unjustly for eighteen years, to the selfless Lucie Manette, whose unwavering love and devotion inspire those around her, each character is rendered with depth, complexity, and humanity. Through their struggles and triumphs, Dickens offers profound insights into the resilience of the human spirit and the capacity for redemption even in the darkest of times.

Moreover, Dickens' evocative prose and keen observations of society breathe life into the streets of both London and Paris, immersing readers in the sights, sounds, and smells of the cities. Whether depicting the squalor of the Parisian slums or the opulence of the English aristocracy, Dickens' vivid descriptions transport readers to another time and place, capturing the essence of an era marked by both despair and hope.

In addition to its literary merits, A Tale of Two Cities serves as a powerful commentary on the cyclical nature of history and the enduring struggle for freedom and justice. Through its portrayal of the French Revolution, Dickens highlights the dangers of unchecked power and the consequences of social inequality, while also celebrating the resilience of ordinary people in the face of oppression. As relevant today as it was upon its publication, the novel reminds us of the importance of empathy, solidarity, and the pursuit of a more just and equitable society.

In conclusion, A Tale of Two Cities remains a timeless classic that continues to resonate with readers around the world. Through its stirring narrative, unforgettable characters, and profound themes, Charles Dickens' masterpiece invites readers to reflect on the enduring power of love, sacrifice, and the indomitable human spirit. With its enduring relevance and universal appeal, A Tale of Two Cities stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of one of literature's greatest storytellers.

Myths and Legends of the Sioux, by Mrs. Marie L. McLaughlin, is available in Amazon in paperback 22.99$ and hardcover28.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 470

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[blueheartbooks]

"A Timeless Tale of Love, Sacrifice, and Redemption: A Review of A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens"

Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities stands as a masterpiece of literature, weaving together a captivating narrative set against the tumultuous backdrop of the French Revolution. Through its vivid characters, intricate plot, and rich historical detail, Dickens crafts a compelling story that explores themes of love, sacrifice, and the pursuit of justice.

At the heart of the novel lies the interwoven destinies of two cities—London and Paris—during a time of political upheaval and social unrest. Through the experiences of characters such as Charles Darnay, a French aristocrat seeking redemption, and Sydney Carton, a disillusioned English lawyer longing for purpose, Dickens portrays the contrasting worlds of privilege and poverty, tyranny and revolution. Against this backdrop, the novel unfolds as a poignant exploration of the human condition and the transformative power of selflessness and compassion.

One of the most striking aspects of A Tale of Two Cities is Dickens' masterful character development. From the noble Dr. Manette, imprisoned unjustly for eighteen years, to the selfless Lucie Manette, whose unwavering love and devotion inspire those around her, each character is rendered with depth, complexity, and humanity. Through their struggles and triumphs, Dickens offers profound insights into the resilience of the human spirit and the capacity for redemption even in the darkest of times.

Moreover, Dickens' evocative prose and keen observations of society breathe life into the streets of both London and Paris, immersing readers in the sights, sounds, and smells of the cities. Whether depicting the squalor of the Parisian slums or the opulence of the English aristocracy, Dickens' vivid descriptions transport readers to another time and place, capturing the essence of an era marked by both despair and hope.

In addition to its literary merits, A Tale of Two Cities serves as a powerful commentary on the cyclical nature of history and the enduring struggle for freedom and justice. Through its portrayal of the French Revolution, Dickens highlights the dangers of unchecked power and the consequences of social inequality, while also celebrating the resilience of ordinary people in the face of oppression. As relevant today as it was upon its publication, the novel reminds us of the importance of empathy, solidarity, and the pursuit of a more just and equitable society.

In conclusion, A Tale of Two Cities remains a timeless classic that continues to resonate with readers around the world. Through its stirring narrative, unforgettable characters, and profound themes, Charles Dickens' masterpiece invites readers to reflect on the enduring power of love, sacrifice, and the indomitable human spirit. With its enduring relevance and universal appeal, A Tale of Two Cities stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of one of literature's greatest storytellers.

Myths and Legends of the Sioux, by Mrs. Marie L. McLaughlin, is available in Amazon in paperback 22.99$ and hardcover28.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 470

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[roamanddiscover]

A Tale of Two Cities Book Summary

A Tale of Two Cities Book Summary

A Tale of Two Cities is a renowned novel written by Charles Dickens that is set during the French Revolution. The story is divided between locations in London and Paris and revolves around the lives of several prominent characters. These characters navigate through the turbulent events of the time, as their lives become more intertwined with each other. The novel has an expansive yet detailed plot that sets the backdrop for the intense moments to come, and the relationships between the characters create a captivating story that is sure to keep the readers engaged. The novel follows the story of Charles Darnay, a French aristocrat who renounces his title and moves to England to start a new life. Sydney Carton, a drunken lawyer, becomes intimately involved with Darnay's family and the two men become even more entangled in the story when they both fall in love with the same woman, Lucie Manette. The delicate relationship between the three main characters forms the basis of the novel's plot and serves as a vehicle to showcase the impact of the revolution on their lives. Throughout the novel, there are various twists and turns that reveal more about the complex characters and their motivations. These intricate plot points corroborate a compelling character arc that is central to the story. Dickens uses his tools of characterization and narrative to create a highly engaging read that can appeal to readers of various genres. The novel's structure is designed in such a way to highlight various themes of love, sacrifice, redemption, and revolution. Dickens employs a dual narrative structure that brings out the similarities and differences between the French and English sides of the revolution. The complexities of the themes and narrative structure have rightfully earned the novel its place as one of the best works of Charles Dickens. Despite being published in 1859, A Tale of Two Cities remains as relevant today as it did back then. The novel has been adapted into numerous forms like films, plays, and operas. Besides, it continues to be a popular choice for literature classes in high schools and colleges. The novel's title ultimately refers to the two cities of London and Paris, both of which reflect the broader themes of the novel. The settings have been evocatively portrayed by the author and are often referred to as characters in their own right. The novel's ending continues to impact readers with its poignant and memorable concluding lines.

Book Description

A Tale of Two Cities is a gripping novel that tells the story of Charles Darnay, a French aristocrat who moves to England after renouncing his title, and Sydney Carton, a drunken lawyer who becomes involved with Darnay's family. Both men fall deeply in love with the beautiful Lucie Manette, and their fates become intertwined as the French Revolution begins. As tensions rise in Paris, Lucie and her family return to the city to reunite with her father, Dr. Alexandre Manette, who had been imprisoned in the Bastille for 18 years. The novel expertly weaves together the lives of its main characters, showing how their personal struggles mirror the larger political upheaval happening across France. As Charles and Lucie's love story unfolds, Sydney struggles with alcoholism and unrequited love for Lucie, ultimately leading to a dramatic and emotional climax. Dickens's vivid descriptions of life in 18th-century London and Paris paint a picture of two vastly different worlds, yet also highlight the interconnectedness of the two cities. As the revolution unfolds, the characters must grapple with themes of sacrifice, redemption, and the value of human life, ultimately leading to an unforgettable and heart-wrenching conclusion. The novel's intricate plot and well-developed characters have earned it a well-deserved place among the greatest works of literature. Dickens's expert crafting of the story's themes and masterful use of language make it a true masterpiece of the English language.

Character Analysis

A Tale of Two Cities is a character-driven novel that focuses on the lives of several key players during the turbulent times of the French Revolution. The novel features a diverse cast of characters, each with their unique backstory, motivations, and actions that drive the plot forward. Charles Darnay is a French aristocrat who renounces his title and moves to England. He is charming, handsome, and well-educated and falls in love with Lucie Manette. However, his ties to the French aristocracy bring danger to his doorstep and push him to make difficult decisions. Sydney Carton is a drunken lawyer who has given up on life. He is described as looking similar to Darnay but living on the opposite end of the spectrum. Carton is in love with Lucie but feels unworthy of her. However, he proves himself to be a true hero in the novel's climactic scene. Lucie Manette is the daughter of Dr. Alexandre Manette, who was imprisoned in the Bastille for many years. She is beautiful, gentle, and kind. She brings joy, hope, and love into the lives of those around her. Dr. Alexandre Manette is Lucie's father and is a tragic figure in the novel. He has suffered greatly during his imprisonment and is emotionally fragile. However, he reclaims his identity as a skilled physician and helps bring justice to those who have wronged him. Madame Defarge is a symbol of the revolution and a dangerous antagonist in the novel. She is the wife of a wine-shop owner and is obsessed with revenge against the aristocracy. She is cunning, cruel, and willing to go to great lengths to see her plans through. the characters in A Tale of Two Cities are complex, flawed, and nuanced. They drive the plot forward and bring to life the themes of love, sacrifice, and redemption. Their individual stories weave together to create a powerful and memorable literary work.

Analysis

A Tale of Two Cities is a literary masterpiece that explores the themes of love, sacrifice, redemption, and revolution. Dickens employs a dual narrative structure to tell the story of the tumultuous times of the French Revolution in both London and Paris. Through this structure, he contrasts the cities and illustrates the similarities and differences between the two countries. The novel follows the intertwined fates of several characters, each with their own unique story and motivations, and shows how their actions have consequences that affect the lives of others. One of the most prominent themes of the novel is sacrifice, and how the ultimate act of sacrifice can bring redemption. The novel is filled with memorable characters, each struggling with their own internal conflicts as they navigate the chaos of the revolution. Charles Darnay's decision to renounce his title and move to England, despite the danger it poses to his life, is an act of sacrifice that highlights his love for Lucie Manette. Sydney Carton's decision to take Darnay's place in prison, sacrificing his life for the greater good, is one of the most powerful moments in the novel. Dickens uses the novel to comment on the complex political and social issues of the time. He highlights the brutal violence of the revolution, the tyranny of the ruling class, and the power of the people to bring about change. The novel is a powerful reminder of the importance of standing up for justice, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. A Tale of Two Cities is a complex and unforgettable novel that remains relevant today. Its themes of love, sacrifice, redemption, and revolution resonate with readers of all ages and continue to inspire new generations of readers.

Reviews

A Tale of Two Cities has gained critical acclaim and has now become renowned as one of the best works of Charles Dickens. Its popularity has not waned since it was first published in 1859, and it has been adapted for stage productions, films, and operas, bringing the story to even more audiences. Despite its age, the novel remains a popular choice for many book clubs and high school literature classes. One of the reasons for the novel's success is its intricate plot and the well-developed characters, which capture the reader's attention. The story's themes of love, sacrifice, redemption, and revolution are strikingly powerful and relatable, making it a timeless classic. On the popular book review site, Goodreads, A Tale of Two Cities has a rating of 4.1 out of 5 with over 800,000 ratings and reviews. Many readers admire the book and raise it as one of the finest works of literature ever written. In essence, A Tale of Two Cities is an exceptional novel that should be in everyone's reading list. With its unique narrative style, well-crafted characters, and overarching themes of revolution and love, it is no wonder why it is still read and loved across the world.

Details

'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,' have become famous and are often quoted. 'A Tale of Two Cities' is a relatively long book, with a total of 448 pages. It is divided into three books, with each book focusing on different aspects of the story. The first book introduces the characters and sets the stage for the events to come. The second book focuses on the revolution in France and the impact it has on the characters. The third book brings the story to a satisfying conclusion and explores the aftermath of the revolution. In total, there are 45 chapters in 'A Tale of Two Cities.' Each chapter is relatively short, with most taking only 10-15 minutes to read. This makes it easy for readers to find stopping points and to pick up the book again later. The chapters are well-structured, with clear transitions between scenes and events. This makes it easy to follow the story even as it shifts between countries and characters. The opening lines of 'A Tale of Two Cities' are some of the most famous in literature. They set the tone for the novel and introduce the reader to the idea of duality that runs throughout the story. The contrast between the best and worst of times is a recurring theme in the book, and Dickens uses it to explore issues such as love, sacrifice, and redemption. 'A Tale of Two Cities' is an impressive work of literature. Its length may be intimidating to some readers, but the story is well worth the effort. With its memorable characters, powerful themes, and beautiful prose, it is a book that will stay with readers long after they have turned the final page. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, The opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," set the tone for the entire novel. The line is a perfect example of the duality that is present throughout the book. The best and worst of times are juxtaposed, with each one amplifying the other. The line also serves as a commentary on the French Revolution. The revolution was a time of great change and upheaval, both positive and negative. For the people of France, it was the best of times, as they fought for their freedom and equality. However, it was also the worst of times, as the revolution brought with it violence, death, and destruction. The line can also be seen as a reflection of the times in which Dickens wrote the novel. It was a time of great change in England, as the Industrial Revolution brought about massive social and economic changes. The line is a reminder that, during times of great change, there are both positives and negatives, and that progress often comes with a price. The dichotomy of the phrase encapsulates the complexity and depth of A Tale of Two Cities and is a testament to Dickens' mastery of language and storytelling. have become famous and are often quoted. The opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities have become famous and are often quoted. The famous sentence reads, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," and sets the tone for the entire novel - one of contrasts and duality. The sentence highlights how even in times of great prosperity, there are still struggles and challenges to overcome. It also illustrates how different people can experience the same event in vastly different ways. The line is often studied and analyzed in literature classes because of its powerful message and the way it captures the essence of the novel. In addition to this famous opening line, A Tale of Two Cities has many other memorable passages and quotes. Its impact on literature and popular culture cannot be overstated, and it has been referenced in music, television, and film. With its complex characters, intricate plot, and powerful themes, A Tale of Two Cities is a novel that will continue to be studied and analyzed for generations to come.

News about A Tale of Two Cities

In 2019, A Tale of Two Cities celebrated its 160th anniversary marking its incredible popularity and relevance even in modern times. To commemorate the occasion, numerous events were held worldwide, and many book clubs organized readings and discussions on the novel. The significance of the novel and its relevance to modern society were also debated. Many readers reflected on how Charles Dickens’s work explored social issues that are still relevant today, such as income inequality and political unrest. Dickens portrayed these themes masterfully, highlighting the serious consequences that arise when social injustice is allowed to flourish. One of the greatest achievements of A Tale of Two Cities is how it offers readers a historical snapshot of the French Revolution, told from both French and English perspectives, with an intriguing narration style. The novel remains a classic even today and its themes will always be relevant in different crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and racial inequality. As the world gets more complex, A Tale of Two Cities remains a must-read for aspiring young adults, book clubs, and literature enthusiasts alike globally. It continues to inspire people to change the world for the better and serves as a social and political beacon for the future.

Ratings

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens has been praised by readers and critics alike for its powerful themes, intricate plot, and well-developed characters. This classic novel has a rating of 4.1 out of 5 on Goodreads, with over 800,000 ratings and reviews. Readers have found the novel to be a compelling portrayal of the French Revolution and the events that surrounded it. The intricate plot, which explores the lives of several characters in both London and Paris, has been praised for its ability to keep readers on the edge of their seats. The characters themselves are well-developed, each with their unique motivations and personalities. The novel also tackles powerful themes such as love, sacrifice, and redemption. Dickens weaves these themes seamlessly into the story, allowing readers to fully immerse themselves in the world he has created. readers have found A Tale of Two Cities to be a timeless classic that continues to resonate with modern audiences. Its themes and characters are as relevant today as they were when the novel was first published. Whether you are a fan of Dickens or a lover of great literature, A Tale of Two Cities is a must-read.

Book Notes

A Tale of Two Cities is a literary masterpiece that explores the themes of duality and contrast throughout the novel. The title itself refers to the two cities of London and Paris, which are portrayed as very different but interconnected. Dickens masterfully weaves these diverse settings and cultures together to create a vivid and cohesive story. The novel's theme of duality is present in the characters and settings, often representing opposing forces such as love and hate, good and evil, and life and death. The contrasting themes are portrayed through the characters of Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton who are vastly different in their personalities and their situations. Similarly, the cities of London and Paris are shown as opposites, with London representing stability, order, and safety, while Paris is chaotic, violent, and dangerous during the French Revolution. The novel's ending has become famous for its poignant and memorable concluding lines, "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." This quote is uttered by Sydney Carton, the novel's tragic hero who sacrifices his own life to save the life of his love, Lucie Manette, and her family. The novel's use of duality and contrast provides a powerful commentary on the complex and often paradoxical nature of human existence. It also shows how the choices we make can have far-reaching consequences, and how love, sacrifice, and redemption can overcome even the most daunting challenges. A Tale of Two Cities is a timeless work that transcends its setting and historical context. Its themes remain relevant today, and its characters and story continue to captivate readers of all ages. Read the full article

[sydney-carton-of-sour-milk]

A TALE of TWO CITIES - BEST CHARACTER SHOWDOWN

ROUND1 || ROUND 2 || ROUND3 || FINALS

1) MARRIAGE CONFLICT: Charles Darnay vs. Lucie Manette

2) RUMBLE on the TUMBRIL: Sydney Carton vs. the Seamstress

3) DIFFERENCE of OPINION: Jarvis Lorry vs. Dr. Alexandre Manette

4) The KNITTING REDONE: Miss Pross vs. Thérèse Defarge

[rillabrooke]

lots of red in this chapter. it's full of my hatred, too.

tracking:  pretty words, i’m crying, love, violence/hatred, duality, les mis parallels, foreshadowing

"'one of my two conductors struck the man who opened it, with his heavy riding glove, across the face. . . . But, the other of the two, being angry likewise, struck the man in like manner with his arm;'" and so it begins. i hate these men more and more every time i read this book.

"'the look and bearing of the brothers were then so exactly alike, that I then first perceived them to be twin brothers.'" "duality" as in there are two of them. they are twins, just as darnay and sydney are (in appearance). however, unlike darnay and sydney, they are alike in character and disposition.

"'I saw the armorial bearings of a Noble, and the letter E.'" three guesses as to who.

"'repeated the words, "My husband, my father, and my brother!" and then counted up to twelve, and said, "Hush!" . . . she would repeat the cry, "My husband, my father, and my brother!" and would count up to twelve, and say, "Hush!" There was no variation in the order, or the manner. There was no cessation, but the regular moment’s pause, in the utterance of these sounds.'" she uses repetition to cope while in shock, just like darnay does when he's first imprisoned.

"'The wound was a sword-thrust'" here, the violence.

"'I saw him looking down at this handsome boy whose life was ebbing out, as if he were a wounded bird, or hare, or rabbit; not at all as if he were a fellow-creature.'" here, the hatred.

"'"A crazed young common dog! A serf!" . . . There was no touch of pity, sorrow, or kindred humanity, in this answer. . . . He was quite incapable of any compassionate feeling about the boy, or about his fate.'" he views peasants as nothing better than an animal. the boy isn't human in his eyes.

"'The two opposing kinds of pride confronting one another, I can see, even in this Bastille; the gentleman’s, all negligent indifference; the peasant’s, all trodden-down sentiment, and passionate revenge.'" this is what english lit teachers mean when they talk about man vs. man conflict.

"'"You know, Doctor, that it is among the Rights of these Nobles to harness us common dogs to carts, and drive us. . . . and died on her bosom."'" what the heck??

"'". . . his brother took her away—for his pleasure and diversion, for a little while. . . . When I took the tidings home, our father’s heart burst; he never spoke one of the words that filled it."'"

"I took my young sister (for I have another) to a place beyond the reach of this man, and where, at least, she will never be his vassal." and who might she be 👀

"'". . . then struck at me with a whip. But I, though a common dog, so struck at him as to make him draw. Let him break into as many pieces as he will, the sword that he stained with my common blood; he drew to defend himself—thrust at me with all his skill for his life."'" it took all of his skill to fight a "common dog". there is prodigious strength in sorrow and despair, né?

"'". . . in the days when all these things are to be answered for, I summon you and yours, to the last of your bad race, to answer for them. . . . In the days when all these things are to be answered for, I summon your brother, the worst of the bad race, to answer for them separately."'" fun fact: i have this quote memorized. it was so impactful that it just stuck.

"'It was as if the wind and rain had lulled at last, after a long and fearful storm.'" return of the water imagery.

"'It was then that I knew her condition to be that of one in whom the first expectations of being a mother have arisen;'" despicable man.

"'"There is prodigious strength," I answered him, "in sorrow and despair."'" what a line.

"'. . . their expression reminded me that he disliked me deeply, for knowing what I knew from the boy.'" gosh i hate them. practically kidnapped dr. manette for their failing mission. the boy was dying regardless, so it didn't matter if they showed him to manette or not. and then evremonde lets the boy have a whole monologue damning the twins. and then they hate manette for doing what he's told??

"'I have a presentiment that if no other innocent atonement is made for this, it will one day be required of him.'" a full circle moment!

"'I was brought here, I was brought to my living grave.'" once again, we see the resurrection/life after death/life despite death/recalling to life motif.

"'And them and their descendants, to the last of their race, I, Alexandre Manette, unhappy prisoner, do this last night of the year 1767, in my unbearable agony, denounce to the times when all these things shall be answered for. I denounce them to Heaven and to earth.'" i denounce them to heaven and to earth!!! you can tell that, 10 years into his imprisonment, dr. manette is full of rage and on the verge of insanity. dr. manette knew just as well as anyone that evremonde's wife and son had no part in the girl and boy's deaths, yet he still condemns them. it makes one wonder—if dr. manette knew his words would be used against his future son-in-law, would he have still condemned the family? or just the twins?

". . . the good physician of the Republic would deserve better still of the Republic by rooting out an obnoxious family of Aristocrats, and would doubtless feel a sacred glow and joy in making his daughter a widow and her child an orphan, there was wild excitement, patriotic fervour, not a touch of human sympathy." they make me sick.

"At heart and by descent an Aristocrat, an enemy of the Republic, a notorious oppressor of the People. Back to the Conciergerie, and Death within four-and-twenty hours!" and now, no matter what, we are doomed to a tragedy.

Book the Third—The Track of a Storm

[X] Chapter X. The Substance of the Shadow

“I, Alexandre Manette, unfortunate physician, native of Beauvais, and afterwards resident in Paris, write this melancholy paper in my doleful cell in the Bastille, during the last month of the year, 1767. I write it at stolen intervals, under every difficulty. I design to secrete it in the wall of the chimney, where I have slowly and laboriously made a place of concealment for it. Some pitying hand may find it there, when I and my sorrows are dust.

“These words are formed by the rusty iron point with which I write with difficulty in scrapings of soot and charcoal from the chimney, mixed with blood, in the last month of the tenth year of my captivity. Hope has quite departed from my breast. I know from terrible warnings I have noted in myself that my reason will not long remain unimpaired, but I solemnly declare that I am at this time in the possession of my right mind—that my memory is exact and circumstantial—and that I write the truth as I shall answer for these my last recorded words, whether they be ever read by men or not, at the Eternal Judgment-seat.

“One cloudy moonlight night, in the third week of December (I think the twenty-second of the month) in the year 1757, I was walking on a retired part of the quay by the Seine for the refreshment of the frosty air, at an hour’s distance from my place of residence in the Street of the School of Medicine, when a carriage came along behind me, driven very fast. As I stood aside to let that carriage pass, apprehensive that it might otherwise run me down, a head was put out at the window, and a voice called to the driver to stop.

“The carriage stopped as soon as the driver could rein in his horses, and the same voice called to me by my name. I answered. The carriage was then so far in advance of me that two gentlemen had time to open the door and alight before I came up with it.

“I observed that they were both wrapped in cloaks, and appeared to conceal themselves. As they stood side by side near the carriage door, I also observed that they both looked of about my own age, or rather younger, and that they were greatly alike, in stature, manner, voice, and (as far as I could see) face too.

“‘You are Doctor Manette?’ said one.

“I am.”

“‘Doctor Manette, formerly of Beauvais,’ said the other; ‘the young physician, originally an expert surgeon, who within the last year or two has made a rising reputation in Paris?’

“‘Gentlemen,’ I returned, ‘I am that Doctor Manette of whom you speak so graciously.’

“‘We have been to your residence,’ said the first, ‘and not being so fortunate as to find you there, and being informed that you were probably walking in this direction, we followed, in the hope of overtaking you. Will you please to enter the carriage?’

“The manner of both was imperious, and they both moved, as these words were spoken, so as to place me between themselves and the carriage door. They were armed. I was not.

“‘Gentlemen,’ said I, ‘pardon me; but I usually inquire who does me the honour to seek my assistance, and what is the nature of the case to which I am summoned.’

“The reply to this was made by him who had spoken second. ‘Doctor, your clients are people of condition. As to the nature of the case, our confidence in your skill assures us that you will ascertain it for yourself better than we can describe it. Enough. Will you please to enter the carriage?’

“I could do nothing but comply, and I entered it in silence. They both entered after me—the last springing in, after putting up the steps. The carriage turned about, and drove on at its former speed.

“I repeat this conversation exactly as it occurred. I have no doubt that it is, word for word, the same. I describe everything exactly as it took place, constraining my mind not to wander from the task. Where I make the broken marks that follow here, I leave off for the time, and put my paper in its hiding-place.

—

“The carriage left the streets behind, passed the North Barrier, and emerged upon the country road. At two-thirds of a league from the Barrier—I did not estimate the distance at that time, but afterwards when I traversed it—it struck out of the main avenue, and presently stopped at a solitary house, We all three alighted, and walked, by a damp soft footpath in a garden where a neglected fountain had overflowed, to the door of the house. It was not opened immediately, in answer to the ringing of the bell, and one of my two conductors struck the man who opened it, with his heavy riding glove, across the face.

“There was nothing in this action to attract my particular attention, for I had seen common people struck more commonly than dogs. But, the other of the two, being angry likewise, struck the man in like manner with his arm; the look and bearing of the brothers were then so exactly alike, that I then first perceived them to be twin brothers.

“From the time of our alighting at the outer gate (which we found locked, and which one of the brothers had opened to admit us, and had relocked), I had heard cries proceeding from an upper chamber. I was conducted to this chamber straight, the cries growing louder as we ascended the stairs, and I found a patient in a high fever of the brain, lying on a bed.

“The patient was a woman of great beauty, and young; assuredly not much past twenty. Her hair was torn and ragged, and her arms were bound to her sides with sashes and handkerchiefs. I noticed that these bonds were all portions of a gentleman’s dress. On one of them, which was a fringed scarf for a dress of ceremony, I saw the armorial bearings of a Noble, and the letter E.

“I saw this, within the first minute of my contemplation of the patient; for, in her restless strivings she had turned over on her face on the edge of the bed, had drawn the end of the scarf into her mouth, and was in danger of suffocation. My first act was to put out my hand to relieve her breathing; and in moving the scarf aside, the embroidery in the corner caught my sight.

“I turned her gently over, placed my hands upon her breast to calm her and keep her down, and looked into her face. Her eyes were dilated and wild, and she constantly uttered piercing shrieks, and repeated the words, ‘My husband, my father, and my brother!’ and then counted up to twelve, and said, ‘Hush!’ For an instant, and no more, she would pause to listen, and then the piercing shrieks would begin again, and she would repeat the cry, ‘My husband, my father, and my brother!’ and would count up to twelve, and say, ‘Hush!’ There was no variation in the order, or the manner. There was no cessation, but the regular moment’s pause, in the utterance of these sounds.

“‘How long,’ I asked, ‘has this lasted?’

“To distinguish the brothers, I will call them the elder and the younger; by the elder, I mean him who exercised the most authority. It was the elder who replied, ‘Since about this hour last night.’

“‘She has a husband, a father, and a brother?’

“‘A brother.’

“‘I do not address her brother?’

“He answered with great contempt, ‘No.’

“‘She has some recent association with the number twelve?’

“The younger brother impatiently rejoined, ‘With twelve o’clock?’

“‘See, gentlemen,’ said I, still keeping my hands upon her breast, ‘how useless I am, as you have brought me! If I had known what I was coming to see, I could have come provided. As it is, time must be lost. There are no medicines to be obtained in this lonely place.’

“The elder brother looked to the younger, who said haughtily, ‘There is a case of medicines here;’ and brought it from a closet, and put it on the table.

—

“I opened some of the bottles, smelt them, and put the stoppers to my lips. If I had wanted to use anything save narcotic medicines that were poisons in themselves, I would not have administered any of those.

“‘Do you doubt them?’ asked the younger brother.

“‘You see, monsieur, I am going to use them,’ I replied, and said no more.

“I made the patient swallow, with great difficulty, and after many efforts, the dose that I desired to give. As I intended to repeat it after a while, and as it was necessary to watch its influence, I then sat down by the side of the bed. There was a timid and suppressed woman in attendance (wife of the man down-stairs), who had retreated into a corner. The house was damp and decayed, indifferently furnished—evidently, recently occupied and temporarily used. Some thick old hangings had been nailed up before the windows, to deaden the sound of the shrieks. They continued to be uttered in their regular succession, with the cry, ‘My husband, my father, and my brother!’ the counting up to twelve, and ‘Hush!’ The frenzy was so violent, that I had not unfastened the bandages restraining the arms; but, I had looked to them, to see that they were not painful. The only spark of encouragement in the case, was, that my hand upon the sufferer’s breast had this much soothing influence, that for minutes at a time it tranquillised the figure. It had no effect upon the cries; no pendulum could be more regular.

“For the reason that my hand had this effect (I assume), I had sat by the side of the bed for half an hour, with the two brothers looking on, before the elder said:

“‘There is another patient.’

“I was startled, and asked, ‘Is it a pressing case?’

“‘You had better see,’ he carelessly answered; and took up a light.

—

“The other patient lay in a back room across a second staircase, which was a species of loft over a stable. There was a low plastered ceiling to a part of it; the rest was open, to the ridge of the tiled roof, and there were beams across. Hay and straw were stored in that portion of the place, fagots for firing, and a heap of apples in sand. I had to pass through that part, to get at the other. My memory is circumstantial and unshaken. I try it with these details, and I see them all, in this my cell in the Bastille, near the close of the tenth year of my captivity, as I saw them all that night.

“On some hay on the ground, with a cushion thrown under his head, lay a handsome peasant boy—a boy of not more than seventeen at the most. He lay on his back, with his teeth set, his right hand clenched on his breast, and his glaring eyes looking straight upward. I could not see where his wound was, as I kneeled on one knee over him; but, I could see that he was dying of a wound from a sharp point.

“‘I am a doctor, my poor fellow,’ said I. ‘Let me examine it.’

“‘I do not want it examined,’ he answered; ‘let it be.’

“It was under his hand, and I soothed him to let me move his hand away. The wound was a sword-thrust, received from twenty to twenty-four hours before, but no skill could have saved him if it had been looked to without delay. He was then dying fast. As I turned my eyes to the elder brother, I saw him looking down at this handsome boy whose life was ebbing out, as if he were a wounded bird, or hare, or rabbit; not at all as if he were a fellow-creature.

“‘How has this been done, monsieur?’ said I.

“‘A crazed young common dog! A serf! Forced my brother to draw upon him, and has fallen by my brother’s sword—like a gentleman.’

“There was no touch of pity, sorrow, or kindred humanity, in this answer. The speaker seemed to acknowledge that it was inconvenient to have that different order of creature dying there, and that it would have been better if he had died in the usual obscure routine of his vermin kind. He was quite incapable of any compassionate feeling about the boy, or about his fate.

“The boy’s eyes had slowly moved to him as he had spoken, and they now slowly moved to me.

“‘Doctor, they are very proud, these Nobles; but we common dogs are proud too, sometimes. They plunder us, outrage us, beat us, kill us; but we have a little pride left, sometimes. She—have you seen her, Doctor?’

“The shrieks and the cries were audible there, though subdued by the distance. He referred to them, as if she were lying in our presence.

“I said, ‘I have seen her.’

“‘She is my sister, Doctor. They have had their shameful rights, these Nobles, in the modesty and virtue of our sisters, many years, but we have had good girls among us. I know it, and have heard my father say so. She was a good girl. She was betrothed to a good young man, too: a tenant of his. We were all tenants of his—that man’s who stands there. The other is his brother, the worst of a bad race.’

“It was with the greatest difficulty that the boy gathered bodily force to speak; but, his spirit spoke with a dreadful emphasis.

“‘We were so robbed by that man who stands there, as all we common dogs are by those superior Beings—taxed by him without mercy, obliged to work for him without pay, obliged to grind our corn at his mill, obliged to feed scores of his tame birds on our wretched crops, and forbidden for our lives to keep a single tame bird of our own, pillaged and plundered to that degree that when we chanced to have a bit of meat, we ate it in fear, with the door barred and the shutters closed, that his people should not see it and take it from us—I say, we were so robbed, and hunted, and were made so poor, that our father told us it was a dreadful thing to bring a child into the world, and that what we should most pray for, was, that our women might be barren and our miserable race die out!’

“I had never before seen the sense of being oppressed, bursting forth like a fire. I had supposed that it must be latent in the people somewhere; but, I had never seen it break out, until I saw it in the dying boy.

“‘Nevertheless, Doctor, my sister married. He was ailing at that time, poor fellow, and she married her lover, that she might tend and comfort him in our cottage—our dog-hut, as that man would call it. She had not been married many weeks, when that man’s brother saw her and admired her, and asked that man to lend her to him—for what are husbands among us! He was willing enough, but my sister was good and virtuous, and hated his brother with a hatred as strong as mine. What did the two then, to persuade her husband to use his influence with her, to make her willing?’

“The boy’s eyes, which had been fixed on mine, slowly turned to the looker-on, and I saw in the two faces that all he said was true. The two opposing kinds of pride confronting one another, I can see, even in this Bastille; the gentleman’s, all negligent indifference; the peasant’s, all trodden-down sentiment, and passionate revenge.

“‘You know, Doctor, that it is among the Rights of these Nobles to harness us common dogs to carts, and drive us. They so harnessed him and drove him. You know that it is among their Rights to keep us in their grounds all night, quieting the frogs, in order that their noble sleep may not be disturbed. They kept him out in the unwholesome mists at night, and ordered him back into his harness in the day. But he was not persuaded. No! Taken out of harness one day at noon, to feed—if he could find food—he sobbed twelve times, once for every stroke of the bell, and died on her bosom.’

“Nothing human could have held life in the boy but his determination to tell all his wrong. He forced back the gathering shadows of death, as he forced his clenched right hand to remain clenched, and to cover his wound.

���‘Then, with that man’s permission and even with his aid, his brother took her away; in spite of what I know she must have told his brother—and what that is, will not be long unknown to you, Doctor, if it is now—his brother took her away—for his pleasure and diversion, for a little while. I saw her pass me on the road. When I took the tidings home, our father’s heart burst; he never spoke one of the words that filled it. I took my young sister (for I have another) to a place beyond the reach of this man, and where, at least, she will never be his vassal. Then, I tracked the brother here, and last night climbed in—a common dog, but sword in hand.—Where is the loft window? It was somewhere here?’

“The room was darkening to his sight; the world was narrowing around him. I glanced about me, and saw that the hay and straw were trampled over the floor, as if there had been a struggle.

“‘She heard me, and ran in. I told her not to come near us till he was dead. He came in and first tossed me some pieces of money; then struck at me with a whip. But I, though a common dog, so struck at him as to make him draw. Let him break into as many pieces as he will, the sword that he stained with my common blood; he drew to defend himself—thrust at me with all his skill for his life.’

“My glance had fallen, but a few moments before, on the fragments of a broken sword, lying among the hay. That weapon was a gentleman’s. In another place, lay an old sword that seemed to have been a soldier’s.

“‘Now, lift me up, Doctor; lift me up. Where is he?’

“‘He is not here,’ I said, supporting the boy, and thinking that he referred to the brother.

“‘He! Proud as these nobles are, he is afraid to see me. Where is the man who was here? Turn my face to him.’

“I did so, raising the boy’s head against my knee. But, invested for the moment with extraordinary power, he raised himself completely: obliging me to rise too, or I could not have still supported him.

“‘Marquis,’ said the boy, turned to him with his eyes opened wide, and his right hand raised, ‘in the days when all these things are to be answered for, I summon you and yours, to the last of your bad race, to answer for them. I mark this cross of blood upon you, as a sign that I do it. In the days when all these things are to be answered for, I summon your brother, the worst of the bad race, to answer for them separately. I mark this cross of blood upon him, as a sign that I do it.’

“Twice, he put his hand to the wound in his breast, and with his forefinger drew a cross in the air. He stood for an instant with the finger yet raised, and as it dropped, he dropped with it, and I laid him down dead.

—

“When I returned to the bedside of the young woman, I found her raving in precisely the same order of continuity. I knew that this might last for many hours, and that it would probably end in the silence of the grave.

“I repeated the medicines I had given her, and I sat at the side of the bed until the night was far advanced. She never abated the piercing quality of her shrieks, never stumbled in the distinctness or the order of her words. They were always ‘My husband, my father, and my brother! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Hush!’

“This lasted twenty-six hours from the time when I first saw her. I had come and gone twice, and was again sitting by her, when she began to falter. I did what little could be done to assist that opportunity, and by-and-bye she sank into a lethargy, and lay like the dead.

“It was as if the wind and rain had lulled at last, after a long and fearful storm. I released her arms, and called the woman to assist me to compose her figure and the dress she had torn. It was then that I knew her condition to be that of one in whom the first expectations of being a mother have arisen; and it was then that I lost the little hope I had had of her.

“‘Is she dead?’ asked the Marquis, whom I will still describe as the elder brother, coming booted into the room from his horse.

“‘Not dead,’ said I; ‘but like to die.’

“‘What strength there is in these common bodies!’ he said, looking down at her with some curiosity.

“‘There is prodigious strength,’ I answered him, ‘in sorrow and despair.’

“He first laughed at my words, and then frowned at them. He moved a chair with his foot near to mine, ordered the woman away, and said in a subdued voice,

“‘Doctor, finding my brother in this difficulty with these hinds, I recommended that your aid should be invited. Your reputation is high, and, as a young man with your fortune to make, you are probably mindful of your interest. The things that you see here, are things to be seen, and not spoken of.’

“I listened to the patient’s breathing, and avoided answering.

“‘Do you honour me with your attention, Doctor?’

“‘Monsieur,’ said I, ‘in my profession, the communications of patients are always received in confidence.’ I was guarded in my answer, for I was troubled in my mind with what I had heard and seen.

“Her breathing was so difficult to trace, that I carefully tried the pulse and the heart. There was life, and no more. Looking round as I resumed my seat, I found both the brothers intent upon me.

—

“I write with so much difficulty, the cold is so severe, I am so fearful of being detected and consigned to an underground cell and total darkness, that I must abridge this narrative. There is no confusion or failure in my memory; it can recall, and could detail, every word that was ever spoken between me and those brothers.

“She lingered for a week. Towards the last, I could understand some few syllables that she said to me, by placing my ear close to her lips. She asked me where she was, and I told her; who I was, and I told her. It was in vain that I asked her for her family name. She faintly shook her head upon the pillow, and kept her secret, as the boy had done.

“I had no opportunity of asking her any question, until I had told the brothers she was sinking fast, and could not live another day. Until then, though no one was ever presented to her consciousness save the woman and myself, one or other of them had always jealously sat behind the curtain at the head of the bed when I was there. But when it came to that, they seemed careless what communication I might hold with her; as if—the thought passed through my mind—I were dying too.

“I always observed that their pride bitterly resented the younger brother’s (as I call him) having crossed swords with a peasant, and that peasant a boy. The only consideration that appeared to affect the mind of either of them was the consideration that this was highly degrading to the family, and was ridiculous. As often as I caught the younger brother’s eyes, their expression reminded me that he disliked me deeply, for knowing what I knew from the boy. He was smoother and more polite to me than the elder; but I saw this. I also saw that I was an incumbrance in the mind of the elder, too.

“My patient died, two hours before midnight—at a time, by my watch, answering almost to the minute when I had first seen her. I was alone with her, when her forlorn young head drooped gently on one side, and all her earthly wrongs and sorrows ended.

“The brothers were waiting in a room down-stairs, impatient to ride away. I had heard them, alone at the bedside, striking their boots with their riding-whips, and loitering up and down.

“‘At last she is dead?’ said the elder, when I went in.

“‘She is dead,’ said I.

“‘I congratulate you, my brother,’ were his words as he turned round.

“He had before offered me money, which I had postponed taking. He now gave me a rouleau of gold. I took it from his hand, but laid it on the table. I had considered the question, and had resolved to accept nothing.

“‘Pray excuse me,’ said I. ‘Under the circumstances, no.’

“They exchanged looks, but bent their heads to me as I bent mine to them, and we parted without another word on either side.

—

“I am weary, weary, weary—worn down by misery. I cannot read what I have written with this gaunt hand.

“Early in the morning, the rouleau of gold was left at my door in a little box, with my name on the outside. From the first, I had anxiously considered what I ought to do. I decided, that day, to write privately to the Minister, stating the nature of the two cases to which I had been summoned, and the place to which I had gone: in effect, stating all the circumstances. I knew what Court influence was, and what the immunities of the Nobles were, and I expected that the matter would never be heard of; but, I wished to relieve my own mind. I had kept the matter a profound secret, even from my wife; and this, too, I resolved to state in my letter. I had no apprehension whatever of my real danger; but I was conscious that there might be danger for others, if others were compromised by possessing the knowledge that I possessed.

“I was much engaged that day, and could not complete my letter that night. I rose long before my usual time next morning to finish it. It was the last day of the year. The letter was lying before me just completed, when I was told that a lady waited, who wished to see me.

—

“I am growing more and more unequal to the task I have set myself. It is so cold, so dark, my senses are so benumbed, and the gloom upon me is so dreadful.

“The lady was young, engaging, and handsome, but not marked for long life. She was in great agitation. She presented herself to me as the wife of the Marquis St. Evrémonde. I connected the title by which the boy had addressed the elder brother, with the initial letter embroidered on the scarf, and had no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that I had seen that nobleman very lately.

“My memory is still accurate, but I cannot write the words of our conversation. I suspect that I am watched more closely than I was, and I know not at what times I may be watched. She had in part suspected, and in part discovered, the main facts of the cruel story, of her husband’s share in it, and my being resorted to. She did not know that the girl was dead. Her hope had been, she said in great distress, to show her, in secret, a woman’s sympathy. Her hope had been to avert the wrath of Heaven from a House that had long been hateful to the suffering many.

“She had reasons for believing that there was a young sister living, and her greatest desire was, to help that sister. I could tell her nothing but that there was such a sister; beyond that, I knew nothing. Her inducement to come to me, relying on my confidence, had been the hope that I could tell her the name and place of abode. Whereas, to this wretched hour I am ignorant of both.

—

“These scraps of paper fail me. One was taken from me, with a warning, yesterday. I must finish my record to-day.

“She was a good, compassionate lady, and not happy in her marriage. How could she be! The brother distrusted and disliked her, and his influence was all opposed to her; she stood in dread of him, and in dread of her husband too. When I handed her down to the door, there was a child, a pretty boy from two to three years old, in her carriage.

“‘For his sake, Doctor,’ she said, pointing to him in tears, ‘I would do all I can to make what poor amends I can. He will never prosper in his inheritance otherwise. I have a presentiment that if no other innocent atonement is made for this, it will one day be required of him. What I have left to call my own—it is little beyond the worth of a few jewels—I will make it the first charge of his life to bestow, with the compassion and lamenting of his dead mother, on this injured family, if the sister can be discovered.’

“She kissed the boy, and said, caressing him, ‘It is for thine own dear sake. Thou wilt be faithful, little Charles?’ The child answered her bravely, ‘Yes!’ I kissed her hand, and she took him in her arms, and went away caressing him. I never saw her more.

“As she had mentioned her husband’s name in the faith that I knew it, I added no mention of it to my letter. I sealed my letter, and, not trusting it out of my own hands, delivered it myself that day.

“That night, the last night of the year, towards nine o’clock, a man in a black dress rang at my gate, demanded to see me, and softly followed my servant, Ernest Defarge, a youth, up-stairs. When my servant came into the room where I sat with my wife—O my wife, beloved of my heart! My fair young English wife!—we saw the man, who was supposed to be at the gate, standing silent behind him.

“An urgent case in the Rue St. Honore, he said. It would not detain me, he had a coach in waiting.

“It brought me here, it brought me to my grave. When I was clear of the house, a black muffler was drawn tightly over my mouth from behind, and my arms were pinioned. The two brothers crossed the road from a dark corner, and identified me with a single gesture. The Marquis took from his pocket the letter I had written, showed it me, burnt it in the light of a lantern that was held, and extinguished the ashes with his foot. Not a word was spoken. I was brought here, I was brought to my living grave.

“If it had pleased God to put it in the hard heart of either of the brothers, in all these frightful years, to grant me any tidings of my dearest wife—so much as to let me know by a word whether alive or dead—I might have thought that He had not quite abandoned them. But, now I believe that the mark of the red cross is fatal to them, and that they have no part in His mercies. And them and their descendants, to the last of their race, I, Alexandre Manette, unhappy prisoner, do this last night of the year 1767, in my unbearable agony, denounce to the times when all these things shall be answered for. I denounce them to Heaven and to earth.”

—

A terrible sound arose when the reading of this document was done. A sound of craving and eagerness that had nothing articulate in it but blood. The narrative called up the most revengeful passions of the time, and there was not a head in the nation but must have dropped before it.

Little need, in presence of that tribunal and that auditory, to show how the Defarges had not made the paper public, with the other captured Bastille memorials borne in procession, and had kept it, biding their time. Little need to show that this detested family name had long been anathematised by Saint Antoine, and was wrought into the fatal register. The man never trod ground whose virtues and services would have sustained him in that place that day, against such denunciation.

And all the worse for the doomed man, that the denouncer was a well-known citizen, his own attached friend, the father of his wife. One of the frenzied aspirations of the populace was, for imitations of the questionable public virtues of antiquity, and for sacrifices and self-immolations on the people’s altar. Therefore when the President said (else had his own head quivered on his shoulders), that the good physician of the Republic would deserve better still of the Republic by rooting out an obnoxious family of Aristocrats, and would doubtless feel a sacred glow and joy in making his daughter a widow and her child an orphan, there was wild excitement, patriotic fervour, not a touch of human sympathy.

“Much influence around him, has that Doctor?” murmured Madame Defarge, smiling to The Vengeance. “Save him now, my Doctor, save him!”

At every juryman’s vote, there was a roar. Another and another. Roar and roar.

Unanimously voted. At heart and by descent an Aristocrat, an enemy of the Republic, a notorious oppressor of the People. Back to the Conciergerie, and Death within four-and-twenty hours!

[wraithsapphic]

has anyone here actually read a tale of two cities

[usergreenpixel]

JACOBIN FICTION CONVENTION MEETING 11: A TALE OF TWO CITIES (1859)

1. The Introduction

Hey, Citizens! I’m finally back with a new review, fresh out of the oven! Please, make yourself comfortable and brace yourselves for a wild ride that is this novel because boy do we have a lot to discuss!

“A Tale of Two Cities” is a novel written by Charles Dickens in 1859. You know, THE Dickens. Of “Oliver Twist”, “David Copperfield” and “A Christmas Carol” fame.

To be quite honest with you, my dear Citizens, I actually read all three of the aforementioned books from cover to cover and I have to admit that Dickens isn’t really on my list of favorite authors so at first I was hesitant about reviewing the book we’re going to talk about today. Something about Dickens’s writing style just...doesn’t click with me. I think that’s the best way to put it.

However, while researching this particular novel, I found out that it’s actually pretty infamous in our community but considered a classic so, as usual, my curiosity was off the charts at that point.

It didn’t help that @maggiec70 from the neighboring Napoleonic community refers to this novel and The Scarlet Pimpernel as “known hazards” so I decided to proceed with the review regardless.

Let’s just say that I was in for an extremely bad time, but more on that later.

(@maggiec70, Now I regret not heeding your warning, Madame Lannes...)

The book is in public domain and I downloaded it via Project Gutenberg, as I usually do with anglophone books in public domain. So, if you’re curious or masochistic enough to check it out, you know where to find it.

So, with that out of the way, let’s begin our meeting, pick apart this book and find out if this is yet another pathetic piece of Anglophone smear campaign against our Revolution or if its reputation in our community is simply blown out of proportion.

2. The Summary

The novel is divided into three parts in total, all of which are connected with an overarching plot where personal conflicts and family history overlap with the Revolution and the Reign of Terror.

Do these conflicts manage to be engaging though? Let’s try to find out.

3. The Story

Unfortunately, the plot is really confusing to me so it took me a while to comprehend what’s going on and I needed a lot of willpower not to drop the book despite the insane amounts of filler and the fact that Dickens really takes his sweet ass time to set everything up.

Now, I know that setting things up is important and all, but diving into extensive details even for the minor characters, when a much better way to develop them would be to have the relevant info intertwined with the plot itself, is a bit of an overkill in my opinion.

(Spoiler alert!)

But, from what I did eventually manage to understand, the first book is about one Jarvis Lorry who, after receiving a message saying “Recalled to Life”, helps a young French ingenue called Lucie Manette reunite with her father, Dr. Alexandre Manette.

The second book begins with the trial and the acquittal of yet another major character, Charles Darnay, then we see how a romance blooms between him and Lucie and they end up marrying.

Finally, the third book is about Darnay recklessly going back to France (his country of birth) to rescue a loyal servant of his family, only to be imprisoned due to being an aristocrat. Of course...

The rest of the story is about Lucie, Dr. Manette, Mr. Lorry, a barrister called Sydney Carton and Miss Pross, Lucie’s governess, trying to rescue Charles.

Now, all of this would’ve made for an exciting story. I’ll admit that much. However, the confusion caused by an excessive amount of filler and flashbacks, the fact that anglophone propaganda is off the charts and my personal dislike for the author’s writing style made it an absolute nightmare to get through the entire book without dying of boredom or just dropping it entirely.

Moving on before I descend into ranting madness.

4. The Characters

Thanks Supreme Being, actual historical figures don’t show up in the text so I won’t have to rip an ok to the author in that regard.

But let’s talk about some of the major characters, shall we?

First of all, I kinda like Dr. Manette as a character. He starts out as a broken shell of a man after his long imprisonment in La Bastille and, realistically, the trauma lingers throughout the course of the novel instead of magically going away the second he is reunited with his daughter. That said, this reunion and quality time spent together do help the doctor improve significantly and he doesn’t let trauma stand in his way when it comes to doing what he believes is right, which is admirable. All in all, quite a decently written character.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said about his daughter, Lucie Manette. She is pretty much your standard issue Victorian ingenue and she doesn’t have that much agency so she is a flat and overly perfect character in my book and I doubt modern readers will find her interesting.

Charles Darnay also seems typical on the surface. A righteous (if reckless) hero, in love with the Ingenue, you get the idea. It’s not until further into the story that things get truly interesting.

(Spoiler alert!)

In reality, Charles is a member of the notoriously corrupt and rotten Evrémonde family, nobles from France. It turns out that he changed his name and escaped to England to distance himself from that horrible legacy, which is very much understandable, but still dooms him just by association with that lineage. I wish this backstory would’ve been more developed when it comes to inner conflicts and such, but I’m glad that we got something beyond Young Hot Righteous Knight in Shining Armor ™️.

(Spoiler alert!)

Sydney Carton, the cynical barrister who resembles Charles, is probably one of the earliest examples of a troubled antihero. He is a cynic and an alcoholic and seems like a jerk, but he is in love with Lucie and is ready to do anything for her. In the end, he trades places with Charles and is executed so that Lucie and her daughter don’t lose Charles. I really like the fact that Sydney isn’t the jealous rival one would expect to see.

Then there are the villains, Monsieur and Madame Defarge.

They first appear as owner of a wine shop who took in Dr. Manette before the latter reunited with his daughter. However, as the story progresses, we find out that Madame Defarge is on a quest to wipe out the entire Evrémonde family, just as they had wiped out hers. In fact, she is so blinded by this revenge that she is more than willing to kill Charles, Lucie Manette and the couple’s young daughter, just for that vengeance.

Her husband, however, is less obsessed with vengeance and draws the line when it comes to killing children. Doesn’t stop him from assisting his wife everywhere else though.

In fact, in the book these two are shown rallying people up for the storming of La Bastille and become the representations of the author’s view on revolutionaries - bloodthirsty monsters who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

But, credit where it’s due, Madame Defarge’s revenge crusade is an understandable and a realistic motive, which makes her quite a decent villain. I also like the fact that her backstory isn’t treated as an excuse for her actions. Props for that.

The Revolution is also represented in some minor characters, like The Vengeance (Madame Defarge’s second-in-command and just as brutal as her boss), whose name is a reference to the trend of adopting new, Republican names.

Not all people did that, mind you, but, thanks to Citizen @frevandrest who shared the information with me, it wasn’t uncommon for people to change the names. I don’t know if anyone had “Vengeance” as a Republican name though...

One minor character who really gets to shine is Miss Pross. She loves Lucie Manette like a mother would and goes full Mama Bear on Madame Defarge for trying to kill Lucie Manette and her daughter, also named Lucie. In the process, although permanently deafened by the gunshot(is that even possible?), she shoots Madame Defarge. Let me repeat that. A GOVERNESS SHOOTS A BLOODTHIRSTY REVOLUTIONARY! I really like that, to be very honest. Don’t mess with protective parents!

I do like Mr. Lorry’s outwardly stoic demeanor, beneath which he hides a more caring side. Sadly, he doesn’t get much development.

As for Jerry Cruncher... Although technically he is on the side of the good guys, I don’t give a shit about him. Let me tell you why.

(Leans in and whispers)

I don’t care about domestic abusers and this motherfucker beats his wife. No joke. So fuck him.

Anyway, let’s move on.

5. The Setting.

Once again, too much filler. Descriptions are best used in moderation, like a tiny pinch of salt to make your cooking better. This, however, is the equivalent of dumping a full cup of salt into your dish. Good luck getting through that.

6. The Writing

Like I said, I don’t really like the way Dickens writes and this made reading a bit hard for me. There are also some old English words and grammar that I didn’t quite understand at first, both because my mother tongue is Russian and because it’s not quite contemporary but, for the most part, everything is at least comprehensible.

7. The Conclusion

All in all, while it lacks outright English nationalism, this book is still a boring smear campaign against Frev so I can’t recommend it to you, Citizens. Please, heed my warning, skip it and find something more fun to read.

Sure, the novel does have some characters with potential that I personally liked, but it’s far from enough to make up for the propaganda, the lack of proper development for a lot of characters, the incredibly long fillers and the plot that’s more stretched out (in terms of the time the author takes to get to the actual story) than chewing gum.

With that, let us conclude the eleventh meeting of the Jacobin Fiction Convention. Stay safe and stay tuned for more updates on the next review!

Until next time.

Love,

- Citizen Green Pixel

[queenlucythevaliant]

Oooh, this might be a bit late so feel free to ignore if it is, but I just realized A Tale of Two Cities is on your gushing list, and I love that book so much -- the beautiful, meaningful tragedy of it all. So I'd love to hear your thoughts if you want to share??

I would be thrilled to gush about A Tale of Two Cities!

I love so many moments and lines from this book (incidentally, the only Dickens I've ever really enjoyed--I didn't much care for Hard Times or Bleak House and I've been explicitly warned away from Great Expectations by multiple people I trust. A Christmas Carol is fine but honestly I prefer it on the screen.) But I really do adore A Tale of Two Cities. It is, much like you said, a beautiful redemptive tragedy.

When it comes to choosing a favorite quote, though, there really is one right answer:

“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.”

Oh goodness.

A Tale of Two Cities is a lot of things, but more than anything it is the story of Sydney Carton's redemption through learning to truly love. Even though Carton is absent from big chunks of the book, it's his story in the end.

Let me be perfectly clear: In spite of his sacrificial death, Sydney Carton is not a Christ figure. He's a sinner who experiences and is forever changed by the redemptive power of love. He's us.

What I love about Carton's story is that even initially, he is not a "bad man" really. He's a brilliant lawyer without ambition; a cynic and an alcoholic, moody and morose, but even at his most unpleasant he's never worse than just abrasive and self-serving.

There are evil characters in this story. The Evremonde brothers, who are sadists, rapists, and murders, and who had Dr. Manette condemned to eighteen years in the Bastille for attempting to reveal their crimes. Mme Defarge, who wants innocents, including a woman and a child, to die as revenge for the crimes of their distant relatives.

This leads to a very interesting, very Christian sort of message, because, like I said, Carton is never a bad man in the way the world defines it. He doesn't hurt people, he minds his own business, he isn't an Evremonde or a Defarge. But he does need to be redeemed. He needs to learn selfless, sacrificial love. Agape, if you will.

Charles Darnay understands agape; he gives up his aristocratic inheritance on principle, he gives people the benefit of the doubt to the point of (occasional) foolishness, he returns to France during the reign of terror to save a servant. Etc.

Lucie understands agape; she is unfailingly kind to everyone she meets, she goes to get her father out of the Bastille at great personal risk, she attends Darnay's trial when she barely knows him simply out of concern. Etc.

Carton cannot help but admire them for it. He befriends Darnay. He cannot help but love Lucie.

When Sydney confesses that love (eros) to Lucie, he frames it in terms of the realizations to which he's come about himself. The life I lead is not conducive to health. God knows it is a shame to live such a life. I am like one who died young. All my life might have been. He speaks of the mysteries of "[his] own wretched heart."

Sydney Carton does not ask Lucie to return his love, in contrast with Stryver's sleazy attempt at pursuing her in the previous chapter. Carton only says, basically, You make me want to be a better man but it's not working, so I'm giving up.

Lucie tells him, in effect, no, don't say that! Try again! You can be better! She points Carton to God, to courage, and to agape.

In return, Carton tells Lucie that he regrets that there is nothing in his profession, nothing in his life that he can sacrifice for her happiness.

Except, a few hundred pages later, that isn't true, is it?

When Darnay is sentenced to the guillotine, Carton finally gets the opportunity to sacrificially love Lucie and Darnay. (“Are you dying for him?”/“And his wife and child. Hush! Yes.”)

And then, and then, Carton comforts the seamstress as they go to their deaths. He holds her hand, tells her to take courage, tells her that they will be together in Heaven soon. She kisses him. He promises not to let go of her hand until she's dead. They've never met before. It's agape. He loves her, a stranger, beautifully and selflessly just because she needs him.

Sydney Carton is redeemed--definitively, by his own admission. He learns to love sacrificially, and dying in Darnay's place is the most loving act of his life. That's why his closing words matter.

The refrain during the guillotine scene is from John 11:25--"I am the Resurrection and the Life, saith the Lord: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." Yet I think John 15:13 is far more appropriate.

"Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends."

So yeah. A Tale of Two Cities. Sydney Carton learns agape.

(Also! Never too late to pop by my ask box with something off my gush list. That's what it's there for!)

[artist-issues]

Yeah, Darnay’s background doesn’t define him, but what’s more than that, he’s determined to do good on his own. As far as it concerns him. When Defarge and other revolutionaries want change, they conspire and kill to see it happen. But Darnay represents the opposite of revolutionary ideology—he simply does what good he can, and trusts the rest to Providence. He could have gone off and gathered lower-class sympathizers among his own class, supported the revolution, etc. But he doesn’t. He simply gives power to the people and leaves to lead his own life of quiet compassion.

M. Defarge is one half of the revolutionary-ideology-coin, and his wife is the other half. On M. Defarge’ s side, there’s the kind of person who starts out acting out of care: he wants to see a change in the suffering around him. He’s willing to act. But it’s the focus on the suffering, instead of on the mercy or the good, that causes his acts to be violent. When he has access to his old employer, Dr. Manette, he keeps him quietly “making shoes,” and shows him off to the Jaqcuerie as a way to chew on their wrongs. “Look what the upper classes are like. Always remember the hurt they’ve caused!” He gives up on the potential for restoration, because he’s only focused on how to get retribution. Even his wife has to remind him that The Cause is worth working for, even if they never see retribution, because that’s all he wants: to see retribution. And then, come to find out, it’s not enough. It only leads to more suffering. Because that’s what happens when you choose revenge instead of restoration,

Which is what Madame Defarge demonstrates. She’s the other side of the revolutionary-ideology-coin. She’s the side that proves that retribution is never satisfied. The Evremondes who raped and murdered her family are dead, even before Charles Darnay returns to France. And even after he’s sentenced to the guillotine, she’s not even there to watch him die. Because she’s dead, yeah, but what did she die doing? Pursuing more. More heads to roll. More bloodshed. People so far removed from her grudge against the Evremondes—Lucie might be married to one, but she’s the daughter of, and the victim of, the Evremonde’s cruelty, just as much as Madame Defarge is. Her father was taken from her and her mother was as good as murdered by the Everemondes. And Madame Defarge is given plenty of opportunity to make that connection, relate to Lucie, and instead she chooses to hunt her. She’s lost sight of justice, like everyone baying for blood in the revolution—she only wants to see heads roll, even if they have no connection to her original grievance.

Because everything is connected to the original grievance—because that’s all she is. That’s all the revolutionaries are. They identify solely with their hurt—they can’t move on, they can’t get past it, they can’t be more than “the oppressed,” even when their oppressors are toppled, tortured, dead and gone.

I don’t think Sydney Carton is either kind or loving. I don’t think he’s exceptional at seeing the good in others, either. The book does not portray him that way—certainly not when you look at how he treats Lorry in their first conversation, or his early interactions with Darnay, or his interactions with his closest associate, Stryver. No. He’s not exceptionally good at seeing the good—he’s just exceptionally good at seeing. Making observations. That’s what makes him a good barrister. And that skill and wisdom is what makes his whole wasted existence so sad; he’s capable of good, and the fact that he doesn’t do more is what makes him bad. And he knows it. And everyone knows it.

He’s a great character because he finally wakes up to and cares about what’s good in the world when he sees it demonstrated and lived out by Lucie Manette and her father. If not for her, he had no ability to tend toward actions for good, because he didn’t care about “the good” in the world or in others until she proved that good existed.

And even then, the good he sees and believes in and acts on is only localized toward her and what he can do for her. It’s not “for the greater good” that he goes to the scaffold. It’s just for Lucie, whom he views as the one island of good. But then in acting selflessly, finally, which he had never done before, you’re right about one thing: the act itself makes him see things in a new light. Because it brings him into contact with more prisoners who have good and selfless light in them, like Lucie—the seamstress, for example. Darnay himself. So Sydney spends his last few hours suddenly seeing what could be, instead of what can never be, in a world that has self-sacrificial love buried under all the bloodshed.

Thanks for talking about it! 😅 It’s like people were forced to read this in high school but nobody’s talking about how good it is.

Finished A Tale of Two Cities

Go read it and then talk to me about it

[comma-after-dearest]

WIP adaptation meme

I'm doing this for A Tale of Two Cities, because why not. I feel like we're overdue for another screen adaptation.

Would you want a movie adaption, TV, or something else? Animated or live action?

Live-action TV series. Four episodes, each episode about 45-50 minutes long.

What would the soundtrack be like?

I would want the soundtrack to be a lot like that of Poldark, which is set around the same time period. Ideally, it would have the same composer, Anne Dudley.

Which character/plot point/etc would be your favorite to see on screen?

Sydney Carton.

Which character/plot point/etc is most important for an adaptation to get right?

See above.

What’s the worst thing an adaptation of your WIP could do? Your absolute worst nightmare?

I don’t know about the “worst” thing, but here’s one of my pet peeves in ATOTC adaptations: Sydney Carton saying his last words out loud. It makes sense on stage, but on screen it’s absolutely unjustifiable. It essentially means that he’s blowing his cover at the very last second for no good reason. Just do a voiceover instead.

Who would you cast as your characters?

Sydney Carton: George Blagden Charles Darnay: Cesar Domboy Lucie Manette: Anya Taylor-Joy or Florence Pugh Dr. Manette: Vincent Cassel Mr. Lorry: James Wilby, Jim Broadbent, or Mark Rylance Miss Pross: Olivia Colman, Lesley Nicol, or Lesley Manville John Barsad: Sacha Baron Cohen Mr. Stryver: Matt Berry Jerry Cruncher: Turlough Convery Ernest Defarge: Romain Duris Therese Defarge: Eva Green or Marion Cotillard Marquis St. Evremonde: Lambert Wilson

As you may have noticed, I want French actors to play all the French roles. (mmm, French rolls.)

I would also have George Blagden and Cesar Domboy play the Marquis and his brother in the flashback sequence with Dr. Manette.

Describe the opening scene

I would actually start with the ending: Sydney Carton ascending the scaffold. No dialogue, just visuals and maybe music. Since almost everyone already knows the ending, it wouldn’t be a spoiler, it would just be a “how we got here” opening with the rest of the story told as a flashback.

Free space for anything I didn’t mention! Talk about things you would add, things that are important to you, or even lay out the plot of every episode of your Netflix Original if it suits you!!

I would want it to be bilingual, in French and English. I can't believe this hasn't been done. Characters would speak French when it would make sense to do so, with English subtitles (except during Madame Defarge’s confrontation with Miss Pross - since Miss Pross can’t understand her, the audience shouldn’t either). Obviously, this would require several cast members to be at least somewhat bilingual.

[tarboblog]

A Tale Of Two Cities- In Short A classic adventure by Charles Dickens

A Tale of Two Cities, a story, or a real-looking incident to say, is a masterpiece by Charles Dickens written in the 19th Century which brings tears to a reader of any age. Not because It has a sad ending or an innocent being killed in the finale, but the mindset of people who were crushed and robbed during the Old Regime and their sudden violent change during the French Revolution, paved the path for thousands of innocent lives to the guillotine. The narration itself is fictional, even with the exact mentionings of The storming of the Bastille and the onset of The French Revolution.

This piece of fiction narrates the horrible events of the French Revolution and how few laws have changed the lives of people like the protagonist.

Characters: Charles St. Evrémonde (aka. Charles Darnay)- The protagonist; son of Marquis St. Evrémonde who is a rich landowner in France. He doesn’t like his cruel father and works as a teacher in London. Sydney Carton- looks exactly like Charles Darnay; a drunkard and works in the court as an evidence provider. Dr. Alexandre Manette- Father of Lucy Manette; was kept as a prisoner in the Bastille for a crime he did not commit. Lucy Manette- Daughter of Dr. Manette and spouse of Charles Darnay. Jarvis Lorry- Banker in Tellson’s bank in his 60s; friends with Dr. Manette and Lucy Manette; travels routinely between the London and Paris branches of Tellson’s bank Monsieur Defarge- Owner of a wine shop in St. Antoine; major leader of the French Revolution and plays a key role in the storming of the Bastille. Madame Defarge- wife of Monsieur Defarge plays a key role in remembering enemies. Fun fact: Madame Defarge knits the identities of every person they need to kill on a cloth to mark them forever! Jacques- All the revolutionaries led by Monsieur Defarge are called by this secret name. John Barsad- A police spy in England turned into a British spy in Revolutionary France. Miss Pross- A lower-class maid and close friend of Lucy Manette who is always hellbent on no-nonsense policy! Marquis St. Evremonde — Father of Charles Darnay; cruel and filled with arrogance; is worried about his son not inheriting his properties. Théophile Gabelle- The Evremonde family’s agent; Works loyally for Charles Darnay; arrested by the revolutionary government making Charles Darnay come to France in his rescue. Jerry Cruncher- Works as a porter in Tellson’s Bank and is also a friend of Mr. Lorry.

Now… to the mind-boggling summary! The narration starts with Mr. Jarvis Lorry, A reputed banker working for the Tellson’s bank, who was traveling to Paris in a horse-ridden cart to meet his long-lost friend, Dr. Manette. He gets to know Dr. Manette, who was in psychological trauma after he was illegally arrested in Paris and was kept in gruesome conditions for a long time in the Bastille. He was now being taken care of by Monsieur and Madame Defarge, who owns a local bar in the streets of St Antoine, on the outskirts of Paris. Mr. Lorry, in the night, goes to meet Lucy Manette (Dr. Manette’s daughter) and takes her along with him to show her long-lost father. They both leave for St. Antoine, where Monsieur Defarge shows them, Dr. Manette, appearing very pale and cobbling, the only act he was doing in the jail in a trance, not even remembering his name. Lucy Manette takes her father back to England and starts taking good care of him.

The next chapter begins in a Court in London. Charles St. Evremonde, who changed his name to Charles Darnay, moved to England long ago and was charged with treason, spying, and carrying important military information for the French. But the actual spy was John Barsad. Mr. Lorry and Lucy Manette along with Barsad acted as witnesses. All three traveled with Charles on the same ferry he used when he first traveled to England. Mr. Lorry and Lucy Manette were friendly toward Charles but John Barsad, to save himself, makes false accusations against Charles. His confident and bold words led the judges to conclude Charles guilty. Sydney Carton is an Englishman who is desperate in life, a drunkard, and helps people like Charles in court to gain money. He looks exactly like Charles and confuses the judges to reconsider the situation and finally see Charles as not guilty. Monsieur de Marquis St. Evremonde is a rich landowner in Paris with huge properties and is Charles’ father. However, Charles is not in favor of his father’s riches and flees to live in London.

The Defarges use a secret name, Jacques, for all the revolutionists visiting their wine shop. Once upon a time, the old Marquis rode too fast in his horse cart to his home and killed one of Jacques’ sons. He threw Jacque some money in return and left, in a hurry. Marquis was going to meet Charles to talk about handing over the properties and holdings. The Jacque, remembering this, decided to take revenge. Charles was not interested in staying in France and expressed his interest in marrying Lucy. After failed talks with his son, the Marquis went to bed, and by the morning, he was killed.

The next chapter is set 5 years later and Charles has been working in London as a teacher. On a nice occasion, he goes to meet Dr. Manette to talk about marriage. Lucy Manette is not at home, and Dr. Manette, even though not aware of Charles’ original identity, accepts his hand in marriage to Lucy. Though Charles tries to reveal his identity, Dr. Manette refuses to listen and asks not to reveal his identity to anyone until marriage. Charles marries Lucy and they soon have a lovely daughter named Lucie. Back in Paris, there was a storm brewing.

The Defarges made a plot to storm the Bastille leading all the Jacques of St. Antoine and making the general surrender. M Defarge forced a soldier to take him to the place where once Dr. Manette was held as a prisoner. He searched the room and took a note lying in the hay near the bed and left in a hurry, preparing all the Jacques with armaments to march to Paris.

Three years passed. Mr. Lorry received a letter to Charles St. Evermonde from Gabelle — a steward of Evermonde’s family. At that time Charles was near Mr. Lorry and quickly took the letter saying that he would deliver it. He soon finds that Gabelle has been convicted for treason against the majesty- on the assumption that he acted against them for an emigrant(ie Charles). He was imprisoned in Abbaye and his life was at a risk. He wrote a letter to Charles St. Evremonde (Charles Darnay) to save him. Feeling guilty about Gabelle’s imprisonment, Charles resolves to go to France and surrender, after writing a letter to Lucy and Dr. Manette. Mr. Lorry was also preparing to visit Paris to settle some of the Tellson’s bank’s customer properties and documents but wasn’t aware of Charles leaving. Charles travels through France to Paris, encountering bands of revolutionaries in every village along the way who condemn him as an aristocrat and emigrant and allow him to continue only because of his letter from Gabelle. He learns that a decree has passed that sells all the property of emigrants and condemns them to death. He was forced to take an escort of two men, who eventually handed him over to a Prison Tribunal. The tribunal declares him a prisoner “in secret” of La Force prison. M Defarge escorts Charles to the prison. Though Charles requests him to notify Mr. Lorry of his imprisonment, he refuses and is taken to a lonely room.

Mr. Lorry comes to the Paris branch, which was occupied by revolutionaries and Mr. Lorry had to settle in a tiny room, on the top end floor.

— — — — —

Suddenly, Dr. Manette and Lucy arrive hurriedly at his place to inform Lorry that Charles was taken prisoner in La Force and have info that prisoners were being butchered. As a former inmate of the Bastille, Dr. Manette has some influence on the revolutionaries, so he leaves to try and save Charles’ life. Mr. Lorry puts Lucy in an apartment and appoints Jerry Cruncher to take care of them. Mrs. Pross is also with them (she is a maid of Lucy and also a best friend). Finally, in the evening, M Defarge comes with Madame Defarge to the latter, bringing a note from Dr. Manette, stating that Darnay was safe for now. While Lucy was reading the note, Madame Defarge remembers them by knitting their appearance on a cloth. Despite the efforts, Charles Darnay stays in prison for 1 year and 3 months. Throughout Darnay’s imprisonment, Lucie goes to prison for two hours each day hoping that her husband will be able to see her. After a few days, The Doctor tells Lucie that Darnay’s trial is scheduled for the next day. Dr. Manette helps Darnay out of prison the next day and the family rejoices in unity.

As the family enjoys a quiet evening together, Miss Pross leaves on a shopping expedition with Jerry Cruncher. Soon afterward, four rough men knock heavily on the door and enter the apartment. They inform Darnay that he is a prisoner again, based on accusations from three people: Monsieur and Madame Defarge and someone else whom they refuse to name. Darnay’s new trial would take place the next day. As Miss Pross and Jerry Cruncher enter a wine shop, Miss Pross screams at the sight of a man, whom she recognizes as her brother, Solomon Pross. Nervous about the attention Miss Pross is drawing to him, Solomon tells her to be quiet, and they leave the shop. Cruncher follows, trying to remember where he’s seen the man before. When they reach a dark street corner, Sydney Carton, who has recently arrived in Paris, joins them and identifies Solomon Pross as John Barsad, the police spy from Darnay’s trial in England. Carton states that Barsad is now a prison informer and threatens Barsad into going to Tellson’s bank with him. Jerry accompanies the two men after they take a puzzled Miss Pross to her home. Sydney Carton threatens John Barsad and after a while, he tells Mr. Lorry that the best he can do is to gain secure access to Darnay in his cell with the help of John Barsad.

The next day, Carton attends Darnay’s new trial. The public prosecutor opens the trial by stating that Darnay’s three accusers are Mr & Mrs. Defarge and Doctor Alexandre Manette. The Doctor protests this statement but is reprimanded. Defarge then explains that he retrieved a written paper from the Doctor’s old cell in the Bastille. The paper was written by Doctor Manette and contains his denouncement. It stated that he was arrested a few years back because he refused to conform to the cruel acts of the earlier Monsieur the Marquis St. Evremonde, who raped an innocent peasant woman and killed her young brother, father, and husband. He refused to keep the torture a secret and as a result, was arrested. He wrote that he wished that the Evremondes’ entire bloodline would be destroyed. Dr. Manette was shocked to learn that he wrote the death warrant of his son-in-law. After the document has been read, the courtroom erupts into bloodthirsty cries against Darnay, and the jury sentences Darnay to death on the following day. Madame Defarge later rests in a wine shop where Sydney Carton was staying and reveals to her mates that she is the younger sister of the peasant woman who was raped by the Evrémondes and demands vengeance for the murder of her entire family. After listening to the discussion, Carton goes to Mr. Lorry to tell him of the danger to Lucie and her family. Carton instructs Mr. Lorry to have a carriage and everyone’s passport ready at two o’clock, the following afternoon.

The next day, Carton enters the cell at one o’clock in the afternoon and exchanges clothes with him. Then, while Carton dictates a letter to Darnay, Carton drugs him so that he loses consciousness. Two guards, who mistook Darney for Carton, carry Darnay out of the prison. At two o’clock, guards took Carton from the cell to a larger room in which the fifty-two prisoners assembled for their scheduled execution. No one notices that he is Darnay, except for a meek little seamstress who asks Carton to hold her hand on the way to the guillotine. Meanwhile, the coach containing Mr. Lorry, Doctor Manette, Lucy, Darnay, and young Lucie passes through the gates of Paris, and they identify Carton — who was still unconscious — as Darnay. Despite delays and fears of discovery, the group escapes France. Mrs. Pross and Jerry Cruncher stay to avoid suspicion and prepare to leave on a different carriage the next day. Miss Pross tells Jerry to wait for her with a carriage outside Notre Dame cathedral at three o’clock. Madame Defarge enters the apartment as Miss Pross is preparing to leave. Thinking quickly, Miss Pross closes the doors to all of the rooms and pretends to be guarding Lucie and her family. Although the two women can’t understand each other’s languages, they recognize that they are enemies. Madame Defarge suspects that they have fled and tries to enter the room that Miss Pross is blocking as there was no reply from anyone even after she called Lucy and Dr. Manette’s names. The two women struggle and Madame Defarge pulls out a gun. Miss Pross strikes it aside and the gun goes off, killing Madame Defarge and permanently deafening Miss Pross. After locking the apartment, Miss Pross rushes to the cathedral to meet Jerry and they escape.

Carton is hanged the next day, but he feels a sense of pride in himself after saving the happiness of his beloved Lucy which she always wanted, and finally sees purpose in his life and death.

~Tarshith

[incorrectatotcquotes]

Hi! Something hit me a few days ago and I thought I should slap it onto tumblr.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think A Tale of Two Cities starts in 1776 and ends in 1794, stretching over 18 years. This means that the characters must age quite a bit over the course of the story, something I didn't think about at all when I first read it.

I think, again correct me if I'm wrong, that Lucie is said to be 18 in 1776, so she must be 36 in the end. I also think it says that Charles' first trial is in 1781, and that he is said to look 25 at the time, so if we assume that he is 25, he would be 38 by the end of the book. Considering Sydney looks so much like Charles, I'm guessing he's about the same age, nearing 40 when he meets the 20 year-old seamstress (I really never even considered that there was an age gap between them on the first read, much less a 20-ish year age gap). And if we assume dr Manette was about 30 when Lucie was born, he is 66 in the final chapters, which was quite old at the time.

But the one that chocked me the most was Jerry Cruncher jr. When we first meet him in 1781 he's like what? 10? In that case, he is no less than 23 by the end of the book! About the same age Charles is in the beginning! Why do I still see him like a little kid the entire story???

So this was a thought that just struck me in the shower, maybe everyone else had already thought about it, but yeah, thought I should post it here.

[readplot]

Classics to read more than once in your life

If you are looking for some great classic books to add to your reading list, take a look at these curated by the Readplot review team.

Scoop by Evelyn WaughPartly

Based on Waugh’s personal experiences, Scoop is a satirical take on reporters’ lengths – and newspaper magnates – will go to for a story. With modern exposés on hacking scandals and the like, Scoop feels as relevant as ever. This is a funny story wrapped around absurdity, journalism and war.

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

After 18 years in the Bastille, Dr Manette is released and sent to live in Britain with a daughter he’s never met. Split between Paris and London, A Tale of Two Cities is a mammoth story set during the brutal years of the French Revolution. Sitting alone at 16 years old after the family had gone to bed, tears streamed down my cheeks as I finished this novel.

Diary of a Nobody by George and Weedon Grossmith

Diary of a Nobody follows a respectable middle-class man, Charles Pooter, and his attempts to live a decent middle-class life. This riotously funny novel created such an impression that it inspired an adjective in honour of its main character: 'Pooterish,’ a self-important person who takes themselves far too seriously.

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Anna Karenina is a woman who seems to have it all. She’s married, she’s wealthy, she’s well-liked – but she feels her life is empty until she meets Count Vronksy. Tolstoy’s novel is essentially a philosophical meditation on the meaning of life and happiness, but it’s a very readable one.

For more great classic reads, check out Readplot.