I like books, but not this book

[Rob]

I would like to break down the sterotype that people who don't like this book "aren't good readers, aren't mature, and don't look for a depper meaning." I have read QBVII, Oliver Twist, Cat's Cradle, Dune, The Source and many other challenging books and loved all of them. I have always found depper meanings and symbols and have really read between the lines and found a lot of symbols that others who are older than me did not find. In addition, I love Dickens' other books. I read A Tale of Two Cities and was apalled. There's no doubting it: Dickens is an absolute genius based solely on this book when it comes to his writing, but his story, plot and characters are much too bland. The entire plot, the whole thing all you people rave about, is based purely on coincidence: if Carton didn't look like Darnay, the book would be horrible. Of course, Carton does look like Darnay, but good books should not have to rely on a very improbable coincidence to be good. Darnay and Lucy are very weak and underdeveloped, I could make more developed and depp characters, as for Carton, he alone doesn't make up for the utter lack of depth in the other characters, and even he isn't that amazing. He seemed very superficial and predictable to me, like a soap opera. "I would die for you or anyone whom you love!" Please. The book does get better as you continue, but it just isn't realistic in the least, and I think that's a failingpoint. The way it reads, Dickens might have you believe that Madame Defarge led the whole revolution! If you are going to base a historical event on fictional characters, you have to do a better job than that. The symbolism is excellent, I will admit that, but it doesn't redeem the book whatsoever, and many of my friends agree that this book is highly overrated. As for the teacher, I am in an Honors English class in a pretty good high school (in Vermont) and only two people in my class of 28 enjoyed it. <br><br>Lastly, I noticed a few of you said people who didn't enjoy it obviously aren't old enough. I would like to point out that your grammar is atrocious compared to this, so can age really matter? I'm 16, by the way.

[rachel]

Hello,

Rob you have great insight for your age in my opinion. A lot more depth indeed could have been given several of the characters and I also thought some of it quite shallow and I absolutely love Dickens. As for madame defarge all I have to say about that woman is I bet she couldn't knit worth a damm.
Have you ever considered being a book critic. It is quite certain you would upset the status quo and make people really think. I feel that too many rave about books simply because they have been lauded forever by the general public.
Really it is sometimes a case of the emperor who wore no clothes. Embarrassing.
Can't wait to hear what your views are on j.k. rawlings
rachel

"so at last we have come to it, the great battle of our time" Gandalf

[pea]

Rob, i agree with you about Dickens' superficial portray of the characters.
and this book is way to interminable, especially for those who study English as a foreign language. maybe Dickens had to write long stories to support his huge family.

this book is considered to be a must-read in China and many say they like it a lot.as to myself, i like the beginning of it, but would rather watch the rest part in movie.

[Neverland1247]

I found a Tale of Two Cities (which I read only half a year ago, but have pondered every spare minute of my life) to be an incredible work. I believe that it is not physical (or grammatical) maturity which causes understanding; Dickens is unbelievably spiritual, and it is that kind of growth which makes us realise the inlaid message.
Pea, I am afraid that you might be very much mistaken. Charles Dickens did not intend to write his books for people of a foreign origin. If he had, he would have written them in that language. However... I seem to find that the original copy of ToTC happens to be in English! No one ever said- or ever should say- that Dickens is meant to be easy. If all literature were simple, what would be entertaining for those of us who desire a higher level? There IS a reason why children are meant to read picture books- teenagers, young adult novels- and adults, the literature of the greats. Have you considered reading a younger level instead of Dickens, if he is too difficult?

[Grongle]

I think Charles Dickens might have agreed with Rob.

But he'd have taken you to task, too, Rob.

Some workpoints: Keep in mind that realism is merely the current fad. It is not desirable; it is simply a style that is in fashion right now. Well, we distort reality terribly in some places, but we're ever so strict about reality in other places. Main point is that Charles Dickens didn't subscribe to our way of thinking about that.

His characters were therefore not intended to be realistic. They were like, say, a Doonsbury or Simpsons cartoon. They were drawn to make a purposeful point—um, and to make money. Charles' pretty mistress didn't come cheap.

Similarly, his over-the-top coincidences, which are truly fabulous (check the meaning of the word)—are not carelessly considered. Shakespeare did it much better, but Dickens is suggesting that his characters are something like constant energies within the world. A character does not represent one single person; he represents a flow of energy that would continue even if this individual were to die. This is a profound idea, and it has been reworked many times by many writers. It is very intriguing, all by itself. Of course, Charles Dickens might have written his books coincidence-free—but he knew exactly what he was doing.

Incidentally, if you like that, you might consider it against a background of conflict, much like today's. Dickens, you see, might say that it is of no use to kill a person or to vanquish a nation in order to have your way. He might feel that the idea is immortal, and will live on, regardless of human life and death and regardless of various nations' temporary insanit—I mean, temporary dominance.

It is very hard to assess his books' levels of superficiality, after so many years. You could say something extraordinarilly brilliant today, and after the idea had been knocked around and made worse and made better for a century and a half, it might possibly lose some lustre. Then your innovative genius might look simplistic and bland and unworthy.

Much of this is conjecture. What Charles Dickens really wanted was for you to have an opinion. If you totally disagreed with him, he'd have regarded you with respect. But he'd have challenged you, too. He'd have hoped you'd really argue your points well.

Next thing you knew, you'd have been looking forward to your next meeting with him.

[Rosie Cotton]

You have true points, but I'd protest against you saying that it made the book bad. I'll try not to get defensive.

Yes, Lucie (not Lucy) and Darnay are underdeveloped. That's because they are ARCHETYPES. They're pop-up, cardboard people. That's what they are. Archetypes are seen in the very best of literature. They're very useful--trust me, I'm a novelist. Archetypes are very convenient.

Okay. Once again as a novelist, I will debate you most adamantly on your claim against coinky-dinks (coincidences). I've read this out of writer's help books: LITERATURE IS COINCIDENCES. That's what literature really is. Writers formulate point-to-point plot plans, and it all works out because of COINCIDENCES. Besides, many a book considered very beautiful are formulated by coincidence. It's a coincidence that Darnay and Carton look alike, but those things happen. I met someone who looked enough like me that we could swap places. I mistook some random lady in a crowd for my mom. I went up to some random young-adult guy and jumped on him because I thought it was my brother. I came up to this teenage girl and poked her stomach because I thought it was my sister. Remember, the Frenchies didn't really know Darnay's face that well. They just had to have enough resemblance.

My grammar's not perfect; I admit it readily. But it's acceptable. I'm fifteen by the way. My reading level is passed college-level. And your spelling is bad enough that we can take my bad grammar and your bad spelling, and we'll even it out to fair. I'm a Grammar Nazi. I found at least five grammatical errors in your post first time around. Don't compare your grammar to someone else's until it's perfect, okey-dokey?

[brainstrain]

My english teacher taught me this last year, and i found it to be true on my own while this year while reading this book: Dickens is addicted to coincidence. Being able to rely on something so simple to support his plot allow (in my opinion) the other aspects of his writing to take flight. Who could forget the sacrifice of sydney Carton, or the love of Lucie manette?

My advice, if you WANT to enjoy this book, look past the coincidence and concentrate on the wonderful aspects of his writing. If you dont want to enjoy this book, there is nothing anyone in the world can do for you ^_^.

All things considered, this book is just a matter of taste. I thought Great Expectations was also rather strange, but A Tale of Two Cities is one of my all time favorites. The key to appreciating anything is to concentrate on the bad, not the good, because if we look for it we can always find bad...

I am 15, by the way

[Carton]

Well firstly if you are looking for a good book to enjoy, generally I wouldn't look for it in your english class. Secondly, I think that you pay to much attention to the character's actions and not enough to their motives and what Dickens is attempting to say. Pay less attention to symbols, in my opinion they draw you too far away to appreciate the plot. Symbols may foreshadow, but you can always just read the book rather than try to predict. Start with the text and draw from that not the symbols.

[Carton]

And as others have said this book is a matter you tastes and styles, and for me it changed >.> I liked the begining, hated the middle, and enjoyed the VERY end only leading up to his death though, not his actual

[drunkenKOALA]

I am reading this right now and it's good reading, but I enjoyed Great Expectations much more.

I don't mind Carton and Darnay looking alike and its being unrealistic. The Prince and the Pauper was much more unrealistic than this, and I enjoyed the satire very much. What I do mind though, is how simple the characters and their relationship to each other are: Lucie and Darnay's love, Lucie's innocent and pure devotion to her father, Lorry--it just seems too perfect and dandy to me. True there was a bit of this in Great Expectations too, the guy's sister's husband (Joe?) seems too good to be true, but somehow, as idealized as he was, maybe it's the dialogue and all those words he said, he seems a bit more real, like you can feel his humbleness.

[Oliver Richards]

I personally enjoyed Tale of Two Cities very much. If you look at it, Dickens does rely heavily on coincidence. That is part of his world view as a Victorian, the world is a seriously random place. There is an online sequel to Dickens Christmas Carol if you Google search for - Haunting Refrain it show up in there somewhere. The author of that work understood that Dickens was interested in characters as the providers of meaning and purpose. Dickens was not alone in using an exageration of reality that stretches the limits of normal reality. If you think about it, that is waht most goood writing does. The improbable or unlikely is mixed with the ordinary to create an analogy for the greater reality. What it means is up to individual and cultural interpretation.

[trippy star]

A Tale of Two Cities is a worthwhile read if only the world it recreates is absorbed, which is indeed realistic. The book is very much a social commentary, and shows the (often hilarious) exaggerations of the upper and lower classes. Yes, the characters are shallow, but they all serve a purpose and give different faces to the same situation. They are also vivid and possess odd traits which lodge them in the readers memory. Coincidence is an integral part of Dickens style, and shouldn't be griped about so much. And by the way, I'm 16 also.

[bluosean]

I did not like the book either. Dickens is my favorite author and i really liked great expectations, david copperfield, oliver twist, and, to a lesser extent, hard times. I love dickens coincidences. The ending of a tale of two cities was actually the only dickens ending that i have seen coming from a mile away. In all of the other books i could not see it till i was reading about it. that did not help for me to like the book. Dickens is very good at letting us know who the good and the bad charaters are. But usually he is very good at not giving away the plot. He dosen't seem to be able to help himself here. he gives too many hints about what carton is going to do. Usually it is just his charaters that he cant help but judge. He always lets people know what he thinks of things. He is always involved in the stories explaining what is going on. mostly though, the book was boring. It's not just the most boring dickens book i have ever read, it is one of the most boring book i have ever read. He did say some interisting things, but it was still to boring.

[bluosean]

I guess ill give an example of what i am seayin. In oliver twist Noah Clapole and his girl (both servants) are runnig from athorities after they stole money. On the road to london Noahs girl says something like "its so thoughtful that you even let me carry the money". Throughout the story Noah is selfish and when he gets into scrapes he blames it on someone else--usually olvier or his girl (he knows better that to blame it on the heads of the household). Ya know cause how he is that he is not being thoughtful. If they get chatched he wants her to take the blame. still, dickens explaines what is going on anyway. he can be so good at interfering with the story. see how this could be annoying if he gives away the plot in a tale of two cities?

[glen922]

Even after realizing what Carton would do there was plenty of opportunity for something to go horribly wrong, and no reason to think something wouldn't. Unfortunately everyone knows before picking up the book what the ending will be, because Carton's last line is one of the most famous in all literature, and probably on the book-jacket.

But there's a lot more to achieving a happy outcome than getting Carton to the guillotine. Everyone else has to get out of France! As hard as coming and going has become, even without the blood-thirsty Defarge plotting for complete extermination of the Evremond (Darnay) family - and associates, it's by no means certain that they will make it out. And carton hadn't expected Defarge to go after Lucie and little Lucie nearly so soon, but thought it would come days or weeks later, if I remember right. I was terrified when she met that very day to declare her immediate intentions. The chase was on.

And was there not tension as Defarge grew nearer and nearer to the Manette residence while Miss Pross prepared to leave to meet Jerry with their coach? And was the struggle between these two tough old birds not exciting enough?

And of course there was the horror and extremity of the revolutionaries, so vicious and heartless, even turning on their own for want of more heads for the guillotine, with women and children making the gruesome spectacle their daily entertainment. And before the revolution, the cause, the dehumanization of the peasants by the aristocracy, the rape for sport, and murder for convenience or petty grievance. And the fat puffy Lord with, what was it, three or four servants to prepare his chocolate?

This was a fascinating and awful time in history, and this brilliant and vivid portrayal of such, even without the specific story and characters, would have made it a great read, for me at least