Dickens at his best

Having already read two Dickens (Little Dorrit and Oliver Twist), I knew what I was in for -- slow beginning, big accleration in the middle, and absolutely ripping end. But A Tale of Two Cities was even better than the other two. True, if you haven't read some heavier stuff before you might dislike it, but the end is definitely worth the slow start and heavy language. I thought it strange that critics have labelled this as one of his worst novels. Personally I think it is more like to be one of his best. I have grown to like this kind of bitter-sweet ending, and I think that Carton's sacrifice was indeed 'a far better thing' to do than anyone ever could do. I saw the movie once, and though I don't remember it well, I seem to recall that it wasn't that good because it had an almost depressive atmosphere. The book is never depressing, only serious. And Carton's death was not lacking in hope because he had an assurance -- 'I am the Resurrection and the Life.' The book is great for a good read and also contains a lot more depth extending even to the heart of the purpose of life and death -- if you want to find it.

I´m bringing up this old thread on "A Tale of Two Cities", which I think many of you have read.
Some of the themes the book approaches:
-The French Revolution
-The double in its various forms
- Ressurrection (religious) x (clandestine comerce of bodies from the Churchyard- "The Ressurrection Man")
And there are more...
Your thoughts please!

It's an unusual Dickens novel: shorter than some with fewer characters and a tighter plot; and obviously much of the story does not take place in London. It's a little strange that Sydney Carton seems so haunted by his own misdeeds--indeed by his own bad character--but, aside from a single episode of public tipsiness, he doesn't seem to have done much wrong. While this is probably a flaw in characterization, the idea of Carton (as opposed to the execution of Carton--no pun intended :)) is worthy. This was the first book that ever made me cry. I will always love it for that.

Now then, Danik, what are your own thoughts about A Tale of Two Cities?

I read it first as a very bad abridged cartoon. Even so the plot fascinated me.
I think it draws am impressive yet very personal picture of the French Revolution. By all it´s manicheism it shows it´s voluble side, how easily people change sides.
Revolutionary France X England as the place of refuge and stability.
I think at the beginning Carter is a weak not a bad character. Intelligent, talented and sensitive but also autodestructive. And he is addicted to alcohol. The kind of guy, that is his own worst enemy.
It was the book that made me want to learn to read English.

I’m glad Danik learnt to read English!

However… Tale of Two Cities may be Dickens’ best novel (and I can appreciate the argument that it is his most tightly organised), but it is certainly his least typical, less so than even Hard Times.

I suspect people who argue that it is his best novel are glad that it is free of some of the embarrassing features of his other works. But I’d suggest it is just those embarrassing features that make him the Inimitable that he is.

It lacks the bagginess of structure of his other works that suggest that there is the possibility of a whole world. It lacks all those extraordinary, individual, grotesque minor characters – Madame Defarge is vivid, but she is a chorus leader rather than an individual.

Don’t let me put off anyone who loves the book, but to say it is Dickens’s best novel is to implicitly reject the rest.

(PS Miss Pross is my favourite character, dreadful Brexiteer though she would be.)