Valentine's Day Reading: A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Reading this paragraph you wrote i was thinking that perhaps this is a biblical referance..you know sins of the fathers ;)
And i liked very much what you said about "the human side of revenge"..after all revenge is a human instinct/feeling (?)
Now that i think of it i know why i liked this book so much. I like books that deal with revenge ;) Have in mind that "The count of Monte Cristo" by Dumas is my second favourite book (the first being Lord of the rings ;) ).

---

:lol: Yes, you do like revenge stories. But, I like "The Count of Monte Cristo", too. For some reason, duh....maybe because it involves imprisonment, this book does remind me of it. ;) Yes, 'revenge' is totally human and a tendency we all could feel at sometime in our life, who is to say?

manolia, I guess it is a biblical reference, isn't it? I hadn't thought of that. I am glad my ideas made sense to you. I was a little tired last night and tonight, I am not really feeling too well; just an annoying cold.:(

Quote:

---

:nod: Yes it makes sense..i like the way you expand on ideas ;) :)
Yep do say about the opening lines! That would be interesting ;)

---

Thanks. Give me until tomorrow to do so, with the opening lines. I am too tired out now to think clearly.

Quote:

---

Yep quite true. Charles undergoes a change throughout the novel...but the more fascinating change in a character is in Carton :D
Carton in the beginning of the novel admits that he hates Darnay, but through his love for Lucie he ends up sacrificing himself in order to save Charles' life ;)

---

True, but then I think he tells him in the tavern that he doesn't really feel this way about him now, you know, on a later meeting. Actually I have read it is debated as to the value of Carton's sacrificing his life, when he held it to be so worthless. I personally, do see it as the ultimate sacrifice, to give up one's life and die by guillotine would not be an easy thing to do.

Quote:

---

Yes very interesting...i can see the "duality" we were talking about during our Lawrence discussions ;)
It is a great novel.

---

;) You really have learned so much from our little Lawrence thread, haven't you? Did you know we maxed out the other day with 1000 posts. We wanted to celebrate.:banana:

Quote:

---

EDIT
Janine, did you ask anything in your last pm???
I emptied my inbox and accidentally deleted your last pm which i haven't yet answered..yes i know i am a rocket scientist...*rolling eyes*

---

I sent that old one to you again, Ms. 'rocket scientist' manolia ...hope you got it by now. I don't think I asked you anything very vital...mostly a bunch of chatter....my normal babbling...:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Speaking of duality, do you think that Lucie has her opposite? Or, is she the unopposed positive force that makes the story a comedy in the end? It's been a while since I've read the novel, but could Madame Defarge be seen as the anti-Lucie? I suppose you could say that Lucie's affection resurrects two people and Madame Defarge's malice murders two people (right? does Miss Pross die as well as Carton? or is she just deafened? I don't know; something happens to her).

I think I need to go back and read it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Quark, what comedy? Are you serious? I do think Lucie may have an opposite and perhaps that is Madame Defarge - for as evil as she is, Lucie is kind. However, Madame Defarge's reasons for her revenge are revealed to us eventually, so we begin to understand her motives. Lucy also, had a past probably filled with much sadness, being isolated from her lost parents. Unlike Defarge who had to etch out an existense the best she could to survive, I would say Lucy was cared for and 'nurtured' and 'loved', and there lies the difference. Lucy's family was greatly wronged at well - her father being thrown into prison for 18 years and her mother dying from heartbreak, of the loss of her husband. Both parties have been wronged terribly by the Evremondes, oddly enough, but they both take different paths and one remains gentle and loving, whereas the other, seeks only her revenge. Lucy could also have seeked revenge, or become bitter about the wrongs/damage done to her family, but she did not. So in this sense perhaps, they are opposites. Also, Lucy is able to move onward with her life and Madame Defarge is strongly rooted in her past.

---

Yes Quark you are quite right ;) Lucie is Mme Defarge's counterpart (i am not sure if this is the correct word). Yes the "duality" theme is quite clear here. Good observation :thumbs_up .
What do you both think? Can we say the same about Carton and Darnay?

Janine you make a good point here ;) Perhaps if Mme Defarge was luckier in her life (and if she wasn't poor and if she was "nurtured" and "loved" like Lucie) perhaps she might end up differently. She couldn't be all that bad to begin with. Evremonde, the bain of her family, deprived her of everyone she loved and then we can assume that her life afterwards wasn't that easy either, but merely a life of poverty and hardship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

manolia, I guess it is a biblical reference, isn't it? I hadn't thought of that. I am glad my ideas made sense to you. I was a little tired last night and tonight, I am not really feeling too well; just an annoying cold.:(

---

I hope you feel better soon. :(
Take your time..like you said this discussion doesn't have a dead line ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

True, but then I think he tells him in the tavern that he doesn't really feel this way about him now, you know, on a later meeting. Actually I have read it is debated as to the value of Carton's sacrificing his life, when he held it to be so worthless. I personally, do see it as the ultimate sacrifice, to give up one's life and die by guillotine would not be an easy thing to do.

---

Yes it's true. He approaches Darnay and he says that his feelings have changed.

I have read somewhere what you say above (about the value of Carton's sacrifice). However i don't accept it. Even a worthless life is better than a death at the guillotine ;) and besides it seems that Carton feels better about himself by the time he chooses to throw away his life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

;) You really have learned so much from our little Lawrence thread, haven't you? Did you know we maxed out the other day with 1000 posts. We wanted to celebrate.:banana:

---

Yes i have..i know a "duality" when i see one :lol: :lol:
Congrats for the 1000 posts :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I sent that old one to you again, Ms. 'rocket scientist' manolia ...hope you got it by now. I don't think I asked you anything very vital...mostly a bunch of chatter....my normal babbling...:lol:

---

:lol: Thanks :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Yes Quark you are quite right ;) Lucie is Mme Defarge's counterpart (i am not sure if this is the correct word). Yes the "duality" theme is quite clear here. Good observation :thumbs_up .
What do you both think? Can we say the same about Carton and Darnay?

---

I wouldn't say the same about Carton and Darney for this simple fact - Carton sees in Darney the man he might have been, however, by the end the change that takes place in Carton is so evident and truly noble, that he is transformed in our minds, and therefore, not the opposite, in the true sense of the word. With Carton and Darney there are too many shades of gray, in my opinion, and nothing is black and white or definite. For instance, even though Carton first sees Darney, as the perfect citizen or man, later we find out Darney is actually someone else and living in disquise. In some ways the two men are both in disqiuse at one time or the other in the book. What interests me is that sometimes they seem to be their opposites, but sometimes very much ;alike; in their sense of justice and innate goodness. Also, in a way perhaps they are the 'counterpart' of each other. I am not sure. I will do more research today, using the two commentary booklets I have. Remember, that Carton does work defending people in a law practice, so he actually has a respectable position, with his law partner. Even though he sees himself as someone he doesn't particularly like - has a bad self image of himself in certain ways, he excells in his profession intelligence and seems to solve many a case for his collegue lawyer. I found their relationship rather interesting. It is almost father and son-like, but also ,his lawyer friend, who is older, seems to treat him as an equal and with respect. I think one keeps wondering why Carton cannot see himself in a good light. What makes him so melancholy? It seems the less we know about Carton, the more interesting a character he has become. I think this element of mystery surrounding his character, is what makes us so intrigued with him, don't you?

Quote:

---

Janine you make a good point here ;) Perhaps if Mme Defarge was luckier in her life (and if she wasn't poor and if she was "nurtured" and "loved" like Lucie) perhaps she might end up differently. She couldn't be all that bad to begin with. Evremonde, the bain of her family, deprived her of everyone she loved and then we can assume that her life afterwards wasn't that easy either, but merely a life of poverty and hardship.

---

Thanks. Glad you agree. Yes, I think Madame Defarge must have had a very bad time of it, trying to survive. How could a young child, especially a girl child, make it in the world all alone? It must have been hell. In many ways Madame Defarge has what we would call "street smarts", whereas Lucy has been sheltered and brought up with much nurturing around good people who cared a great deal about her. Not only did Madame Defarge lack food and shelter, she also suffered great 'isolation', no doubt from people who truly cared about her. When we meet her she has a fine husband who seems to be kind and understand her to some degree, but the damage of her early years cannot be totally overcome. Like I said, she sees one goal and that is of revenge - avenging her dead family. This is her ultimate justice. Not only she suffered, but the others (her family members) did as well - all the evil doings of the Evremonde family. Therefore, how could one feel very kindly towards them now, people who don't want for anything and whose financial security seems to be tainted with the very blood of her family? This is how Madame Defarge, no doubt, sees her situation. She has 'blinders' on, to block out anything that would come between herself and her 'will' of revenge.

Quote:

---

I hope you feel better soon. :( Take your time..like you said this discussion doesn't have a dead line ;)

---

Thanks for your understanding and patience, manolia. Actually, I am feeling much worse today. I have a killer sore throatm which came on me last evening late. I was hoping to avoid that part of this virus/flu/infection. My sister had one for a day, but my mother seemed to escape that part. However, I got lucky:( . I don't think I have said 20 words today....yes, blabby Janine; you can imagine me, not talking - truly traumatic. Also, I was trying to rest and my neck started to hurt so much. I don't know what that is about. Probably too much computer and too much reading. I was trying to sleep, but it seemed impossible so here I am...but only briefly.

Quote:

---

Yes it's true. He approaches Darnay and he says that his feelings have changed.

---

This is the scene when he asked to have visiting rights at the house - correct? He is very honest in my eyes to straightforwardly approach Charles with this question. He even says something about Darney being lucky to have Lucy's love, doesn't he? He expresses now that he wants to be friends with the two of them. I think he is sincere and I think he is resigned to her choice and her marriage of Darney. He respects Lucy, out of his love for her, and he would not do anything to harm or interfere with her happiness. He wants to just be near to the family and Lucy. What did you feel about this - the months he hung around the family and stayed quietly in the background? Did you find it at all strange? It has been awhile, since I read this part of the novel, so it is vague to me, but I thought it interesting and like nothing really I had encountered in novels before. Darney was quite agreeable about his presense there. Did you feel that to be realistic? Just wondering.

Quote:

---

I have read somewhere what you say above (about the value of Carton's sacrifice). However i don't accept it. Even a worthless life is better than a death at the guillotine ;) and besides it seems that Carton feels better about himself by the time he chooses to throw away his life.

---

I don't accept it either - that other theory. If he devalued his own life so very much and abhored it - really hated it - he would have gone off and just committed suicide. Carton did not seem at all like the suicide type. No, he might drink himself to a point of death, but he would never do the ultimate and commit deliberate suicide - not in my mind. I think that when he meet Lucy, his life was transformed. In a way Lucy not only restored Darney and her father, but she restored Sidney. She restored him to his nobler self. It was by her love, and the love he expressed towards her that Sidney began his change. I think Lucy did love Sidney, in a certain way - a friendship sot of love, so to speak. Her tears make this evident at the end. She did care for him and was entirely grateful, for the sacrifice he made for her. The end is not so joyful, in my eyes, as it is dark and tragic, in those tears of Lucy's. One has mixed feelings at the end, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Yes i have..i know a "duality" when i see one :lol: :lol:
Congrats for the 1000 posts :thumbs_up

---

Hahaha - an from Lynch films!!!;) :lol:
Yeah - was 1000 - amazing or what?... and all in under a year's time? Thanks, but remember, you were a part of that thread, weren't you? We have had lots of posts in L threads - look at "Women in Love"...that was particularly long. I know you contributed greatly to that one. "To the Rainbow" will be a great thread and very long, no doubt, since it is a longer novel.

Well, I have to go. I need to go lie down again. Feeling dizzy. Can't believe I wrote this much but I just hope it all makes sense. I can't talk today so I will have to write - right?;) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I wouldn't say the same about Carton and Darney for this simple fact - Carton sees in Darney the man he might have been, however, by the end the change that takes place in Carton is so evident and truly noble, that he is transformed in our minds, and therefore, not the opposite, in the true sense of the word. With Carton and Darney there are too many shades of gray, in my opinion, and nothing is black and white or definite. For instance, even though Carton first sees Darney, as the perfect citizen or man, later we find out Darney is actually someone else and living in disquise. In some ways the two men are both in disqiuse at one time or the other in the book. What interests me is that sometimes they seem to be their opposites, but sometimes very much ;alike; in their sense of justice and innate goodness. Also, in a way perhaps they are the 'counterpart' of each other. I am not sure. I will do more research today, using the two commentary booklets I have. Remember, that Carton does work defending people in a law practice, so he actually has a respectable position, with his law partner. Even though he sees himself as someone he doesn't particularly like - has a bad self image of himself in certain ways, he excells in his profession intelligence and seems to solve many a case for his collegue lawyer. I found their relationship rather interesting. It is almost father and son-like, but also ,his lawyer friend, who is older, seems to treat him as an equal and with respect. I think one keeps wondering why Carton cannot see himself in a good light. What makes him so melancholy? It seems the less we know about Carton, the more interesting a character he has become. I think this element of mystery surrounding his character, is what makes us so intrigued with him, don't you?

---

Janine i am highlighting these phrases because that were my thoughts too..yes sometimes they are quite the opposite and yet some other times very much alike ;) It is like they are the same person or to be more exact it seems like Darnay is like a possible Carton (or how Carton could be like in his life if he was luckier, if he was richer, if he had a loving and devoted Lucie by his side). This is made evident by what Carton himself says in a part of the book, that Darnay reminds him of himself and what he could have been if he hadn't wasted his life.

So,

we have Lucie wronged by the Evremondes but sheltered, nurtured and loved. So we have a good Lucie in the end..a nice young lady.

On the other hand we have Mme Defarge wronged by the Evremonde family, no one to take care of her and turned to a ruthless lady who only seeks revenge.

We have Carton, a young man who we presume was very unlucky in his life and wasted his life.

On the other hand we have Darnay, a man with similar quality to Carton who obviously being richer, luckier blah blah blah turns out to be a much worthier fellow ;)

Ermmm..do you see my parallel (and why i thought that if Lucie is the 'counterpart' of Mme Defarge -or to put it in other words, if Lucie is the woman Mme Defarge could have been, if her life was different-perhaps Darnay is the "counterpart" of Carton-because Darnay is the man that Carton could have been-..but like i said i am not sure about this parallel either) :sick: I think that i just killed too many brain cells :lol: I really shouldn't think that hard :lol: I don't have many left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Thanks for your understanding and patience, manolia. Actually, I am feeling much worse today. I have a killer sore throatm which came on me last evening late. I was hoping to avoid that part of this virus/flu/infection. My sister had one for a day, but my mother seemed to escape that part. However, I got lucky:( . I don't think I have said 20 words today....yes, blabby Janine; you can imagine me, not talking - truly traumatic. Also, I was trying to rest and my neck started to hurt so much. I don't know what that is about. Probably too much computer and too much reading. I was trying to sleep, but it seemed impossible so here I am...but only briefly.

---

So, how are you today?? Any better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

This is the scene when he asked to have visiting rights at the house - correct? He is very honest in my eyes to straightforwardly approach Charles with this question. He even says something about Darney being lucky to have Lucy's love, doesn't he? He expresses now that he wants to be friends with the two of them. I think he is sincere and I think he is resigned to her choice and her marriage of Darney. He respects Lucy, out of his love for her, and he would not do anything to harm or interfere with her happiness. He wants to just be near to the family and Lucy. What did you feel about this - the months he hung around the family and stayed quietly in the background? Did you find it at all strange? It has been awhile, since I read this part of the novel, so it is vague to me, but I thought it interesting and like nothing really I had encountered in novels before. Darney was quite agreeable about his presense there. Did you feel that to be realistic? Just wondering.

---

Regarding the first highlighted part:
Carton never actually proposed to Lucy..when he declares his affection he never really hopes for a possitive answer. Quite the opposite. He thinks that he is so worthless and he doesn't deserve the love of Lucy. In fact, he believes that if Lucy was to be his wife he'd ruin her life ;) So i believe he declares his love for her beacuse he had to and not because he expected for a possitive answer.

Regarding the second highlighted part:
This part was quite sad, not strange, just sad ;)

Regarding the third highlighted part:
No it isn't unrealistic, simply for the fact that Darnay doesn't even know that Carton loves Lucy ;) When Carton declares his love, he tells Lucy to keep that declaration secret and we have good reason to believe that she did ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I don't accept it either - that other theory. If he devalued his own life so very much and abhored it - really hated it - he would have gone off and just committed suicide. Carton did not seem at all like the suicide type. No, he might drink himself to a point of death, but he would never do the ultimate and commit deliberate suicide - not in my mind. I think that when he meet Lucy, his life was transformed. In a way Lucy not only restored Darney and her father, but she restored Sidney. She restored him to his nobler self. It was by her love, and the love he expressed towards her that Sidney began his change. I think Lucy did love Sidney, in a certain way - a friendship sot of love, so to speak. Her tears make this evident at the end. She did care for him and was entirely grateful, for the sacrifice he made for her. The end is not so joyful, in my eyes, as it is dark and tragic, in those tears of Lucy's. One has mixed feelings at the end, don't you think?

---

Yes after Carton meets Lucy his life has a purpose, a reason to live, he focuses on her, thus you are quite right to say that she restored him to life ;) That's why he is willing to sacrifice himself for her happiness, because if she isn't happy then his (Carton's) life looses its purpose.
I am not romantic, but i admit that if there is a certain portion of romance in me it was tickled by this part of the book :D

Let's discuss the "ressurection" theme..

I'm sorry, I am joining so late in the discussion, but I've just managed to finish the book. I had high expectations and I wasn't disappointed at all. May be the only problem I had with the book was that somewhere from the end of the second part I knew what is going to happend in the end, but it happens quite a lot, so it's not a big deal. Anyway, it's wonderful. I don't like it because of the storyline, but because of the atmosphere Dickens creates in this work. It's amazing. There are passages where you can almost see and feel what is happening. Sometimes everything seems so mystical - I talk about chapters like Echoing footsteps or even Knitting (all this knitting of Madame Defarge remind me of the moirae in Greek mythology). I am not sure where to start from, so I will read everything you've written till now (I haven't read it yet, I didn't have the time needed) and I will join the discussion.

I tried to finish it today, but it's just too much. I have one page more to read.so probably I'll be here on Monday (I am afraid I have a lot to do again).

Nice to see you back Alexei :)
Yes you are right, the book was slightly predictable, but that happens a lot with classics, since their themes have been reproduced countless times both in cinema and books..i can remember, from the top of my head at least three movies where two characters look alike and this has a significance since they switch parts etc ;)
Interesting what you say about the Moirae..it didn't cross my mind, but now that i think about it, it makes sense :nod:
One of the Moirae (i think it was Κλωθώ -"Clotho" ) used to weave the string of life and there was no escape from fate..just like Mme Defarge and her knitted registry..no escape from the guillotine for the aristocrats whose names were woven ;) Good observation Alexei :thumbs_up

Hi, Manolia :wave: Thanks for the warm welcome. I am sorry I am so late, but I will try to catch up as fast as I can.

I am almost done reading your previous post and I agree with you almost everywhere. They set me thinking on the characters of Lucie and Charles and their simplicity. In the notes of my edition of the book (I think I have already mention exactly which on I use) is mentioned this:

Quote:

---

In 1855 Dickens had jotted down the curious name "Memory Carton" as a possible title for the novel he would wait years to begin to write.

---

This note makes me look on the whole "affair" with the characters from another point of view. I think that actually the main character is Carton and Lucie and especially Charles aren't so important. I think they are desperately needed to set the events of, because I don't think Craton could be relevant as a main character in novel as ATOTC. That's because he is a bit passive and may be a bit introvert, he prefers to be in the shadows, he isn't enough to set such a dynamic plot. If the novel was centred around him, the result would be so different. I think we would have read a long story about the reasons he is what he is first and than the one about his choice of saving Charles and it would have been given from a different point of view, I think more detailed and centred on his thought and the path leading to this decision.

I really hope I make any sense at all, I actually hope a have a few normal sentences in the whole paragraph *emoticon showing absolute desperation*

I think there is one more very important double in the book, it was mentioned by Manolia earlier but not when the discussion went in this direction. Sorry, I can't find the quote, but the idea was that in the different part of the books we can see different oppressors, in the beginning the oppressors are the aristocrats and in the end - the revolutionists. There are so much doubles but I can see why exactly D wanted it that way. May be it is some sense of harmony although the harmony isn't very likely cause for a book so new, I mean this could be seen more in the ancient texts.

As for the imprisonment I think Carton could be discussed there too. I think he is imprison by his own fate, by the decisions that had made him what he is. After all there is more than one passage when C is talking about his life and he states that he can't change. I think this is a form of imprisonment too.

I agree with Quark the novel is actually a comedy. Janine, don't be shocked :lol: The novel could be defined that way by the traditional definition for comedy (I think it was Aristotle who gave it, but I am not so sure) - it's a work in which the events go from bad to good, so there is a happy end. By the way that's the tragedies by Euripides are considered as the predecessors of the present comedy.

Quote by Janine:

Quote:

---

If he devalued his own life so very much and abhored it - really hated it - he would have gone off and just committed suicide. Carton did not seem at all like the suicide type. No, he might drink himself to a point of death, but he would never do the ultimate and commit deliberate suicide - not in my mind.

---

And yet there is some logic in it. That's a lot better think to do that suicide - there was some point in it. The reason suicide is so much frowned upon is that the one who commits it doesn't only kills himself, he kills everything. With this act he (In sentences like this I really miss the french "on") makes a statement in which he condemned all the world, that isn't good enough to make him esteem his life. So, considering this, Carton isn't the suicidal type, but this doesn't mean he really enjoy his life, he just doesn't blame the world for his failure.

Oh!!! Manolia, I have only your previous post to read, but I just don't have the time now, I am sooo sorry :( I will read it soon I promise!

Hi Alexei, Good to see you hear - never too late! I wanted to welcome you here also, but I have been in bed sick with the flu/cold/virus, whatever(?). I just read your post, but that is about as far, as I can get for now. It all sounds well thought out well and I agree upon the good points you presented or commented on; thanks for explaining the definition of comedy. I had not thought, in those terms, before. I suppose some of Shakespeare's works, considered comedies, often miff me also, since they contain elements of the tragic as well. But usually, as you pointed out ,the ending is basically a happy one.

I appreciate that you read all our former posts on this novel discussion. I think that there were things mentioned that would definitely get you thinking in new ways, so I am glad they were helpful.

Manolia and I have the understanding that this thread really has no time limit, so if you get 'side-tracked' again with other concerns, just pop back in, when you can to post more comments. I know I won't be here myself, too much, until I get better.

Quote:

---

As for the imprisonment I think Carton could be discussed there too. I think he is imprison by his own fate, by the decisions that had made him what he is. After all there is more than one passage when C is talking about his life and he states that he can't change. I think this is a form of imprisonment too.

---

I like this part of what you suggest and fully agree with it. I was thinking of this the other day, laying in bed reading some of my notes, of which I did not progress very far...was too ill to really concentrate. I was also thinking that although Dr. Manette gets released from the Bastille, he still remains at times imprisoned within his own mind. Charles is imprisoned within the past he cannot fully disregard or shed. I think there are many ways one can think of the word 'imprisonment' - don't you?

I will try to check in later to see if anything has been added. I have been reading all of your posts, even though I have remained behind the scenes for a few days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

This note makes me look on the whole "affair" with the characters from another point of view. I think that actually the main character is Carton and Lucie and especially Charles aren't so important. I think they are desperately needed to set the events of, because I don't think Craton could be relevant as a main character in novel as ATOTC. That's because he is a bit passive and may be a bit introvert, he prefers to be in the shadows, he isn't enough to set such a dynamic plot. If the novel was centred around him, the result would be so different. I think we would have read a long story about the reasons he is what he is first and than the one about his choice of saving Charles and it would have been given from a different point of view, I think more detailed and centred on his thought and the path leading to this decision.

I really hope I make any sense at all, I actually hope a have a few normal sentences in the whole paragraph *emoticon showing absolute desperation*

---

Don't worry Alexei you do make sense ;)
Yes you are right, if the novel was more focused on Carton we'd have a quite different novel or a much bigger novel where Carton's own story would be the first part of the book or something.

Quote:

---

In 1855 Dickens had jotted down the curious name "Memory Carton" as a possible title for the novel he would wait years to begin to write.

---

Now that's weird, isn't it? "Memory Carton"??? I don't comprehend the title..i wish somebody would come up with more information about this..very interesting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

I think there is one more very important double in the book, it was mentioned by Manolia earlier but not when the discussion went in this direction. Sorry, I can't find the quote, but the idea was that in the different part of the books we can see different oppressors, in the beginning the oppressors are the aristocrats and in the end - the revolutionists. There are so much doubles but I can see why exactly D wanted it that way. May be it is some sense of harmony although the harmony isn't very likely cause for a book so new, I mean this could be seen more in the ancient texts.

---

Yes that's correct. The "main" double, or we can safely say that this book is so much based on doubles that the main theme, the force that drives this novel is "duality"!
(Now, i hope i make sense) :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

As for the imprisonment I think Carton could be discussed there too. I think he is imprison by his own fate, by the decisions that had made him what he is. After all there is more than one passage when C is talking about his life and he states that he can't change. I think this is a form of imprisonment too.

---

Yes another good observation. Carton is imprisoned by his own bad self, his sense of failure and although we are made to understand and believe (he seems to believe it too) that he has good traits as a person he never seems to be able to escape from his bad self and actually use his traits to be a better person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

I agree with Quark the novel is actually a comedy. Janine, don't be shocked :lol: The novel could be defined that way by the traditional definition for comedy (I think it was Aristotle who gave it, but I am not so sure) - it's a work in which the events go from bad to good, so there is a happy end. By the way that's the tragedies by Euripides are considered as the predecessors of the present comedy.

---

Yep i agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

And yet there is some logic in it. That's a lot better think to do that suicide - there was some point in it. The reason suicide is so much frowned upon is that the one who commits it doesn't only kills himself, he kills everything. With this act he (In sentences like this I really miss the french "on") makes a statement in which he condemned all the world, that isn't good enough to make him esteem his life. So, considering this, Carton isn't the suicidal type, but this doesn't mean he really enjoy his life, he just doesn't blame the world for his failure.

---

Yes this is true. Carton only blames himself for his failure ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

Oh!!! Manolia, I have only your previous post to read, but I just don't have the time now, I am sooo sorry :( I will read it soon I promise!

---

Take your time Alexei, there is no rush :)

Finally I finished reading. It was a long one :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I appreciate that you read all our former posts on this novel discussion. I think that there were things mentioned that would definitely get you thinking in new ways, so I am glad they were helpful.

---

They were helpful, Janine, you and Manolia have written so many interesting things. Your ideas helped to understand some of the passages in the book better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I like this part of what you suggest and fully agree with it. I was thinking of this the other day, laying in bed reading some of my notes, of which I did not progress very far...was too ill to really concentrate. I was also thinking that although Dr. Manette gets released from the Bastille, he still remains at times imprisoned within his own mind. Charles is imprisoned within the past he cannot fully disregard or shed. I think there are many ways one can think of the word 'imprisonment' - don't you?

---

Yes, you are absolutely right. There are quite a lot imprisonements and being on diferent levels is logical. So we have the real one and the one in the mind. I wonder if it's quite the same with the resurrection. Manolia suggested to discuss it, but I am not sure I am able to - I keep thinking only for Dr. Manette and the way he was "recalled to life".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Now that's weird, isn't it? "Memory Carton"??? I don't comprehend the title..i wish somebody would come up with more information about this..very interesting!

---

Yes, I know, I would like to find something more too, but that's everything I have. Tomorrow I will try to find more about it on internet. I hope there is something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Yes that's correct. The "main" double, or we can safely say that this book is so much based on doubles that the main theme, the force that drives this novel is "duality"!
(Now, i hope i make sense) :lol:

---

You do, don't worry. I was thinking that may be that's way D to say that the story is complete. The duality is something like a frame and it separates and finish the whole chain of events.

Quote:

---

You do, don't worry. I was thinking that may be that's way D to say that the story is complete. The duality is something like a frame and it separates and finish the whole chain of events.

---

I can only add this thought briefly, for now...(I am still not feeling very well). It came to me, last night that definitely you are right Alexei in that the story comes full circle. Dr. Manette is indeed recalled to life at the beginning and Charles is recalled to life at the end, thus closing the frame or the circle. Lucy brings back Dr. Manette, in the beginning; Sidney brings back Charles, at the end. They both make some sacrifices to do so, but of course, Sidney's is the most significant with the ultimate sacrifice of his own life.

In the beginning, also, in this frame of yours - Alexei - is Charles on trial and to be executed. At the end it is Sidney imprissoned and awaiting execution. Again, the frame closes with the ending scene in the story, which completes the novel. It could be no other way.

Glad you found all the posts helpful. I will post more when I feel better. Sorry for the delays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

Yes, you are absolutely right. There are quite a lot imprisonements and being on diferent levels is logical. So we have the real one and the one in the mind. I wonder if it's quite the same with the resurrection. Manolia suggested to discuss it, but I am not sure I am able to - I keep thinking only for Dr. Manette and the way he was "recalled to life".

---

I was also thinking about Carton..you know, Carton is leading such a worthless life but when he meets Lucie he is somehow "resurrected" back to life. He begins to focus on her, his life becomes interesting. For the first time he has friends, people who cares about even love. And when a sacrifice is needed, in order to preserve their happiness he is willing to make it. Thus his life has a purpose ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

Yes, I know, I would like to find something more too, but that's everything I have. Tomorrow I will try to find more about it on internet. I hope there is something.

---

Ok. I was hoping someone following this thread, apart from us, might know :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

You do, don't worry. I was thinking that may be that's way D to say that the story is complete. The duality is something like a frame and it separates and finish the whole chain of events.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I can only add this thought briefly, for now...(I am still not feeling very well). It came to me, last night that definitely you are right Alexei in that the story comes full circle. Dr. Manette is indeed recalled to life at the beginning and Charles is recalled to life at the end, thus closing the frame or the circle. Lucy brings back Dr. Manette, in the beginning; Sidney brings back Charles, at the end. They both make some sacrifices to do so, but of course, Sidney's is the most significant with the ultimate sacrifice of his own life.

In the beginning, also, in this frame of yours - Alexei - is Charles on trial and to be executed. At the end it is Sidney imprissoned and awaiting execution. Again, the frame closes with the ending scene in the story, which completes the novel. It could be no other way.

Glad you found all the posts helpful. I will post more when I feel better. Sorry for the delays.

---

:nod: Yes very well said both of you.

Hey, Alexei and Manolia, You two are doing great! I am so far behind now but I will try and post something tomorrow. Sorry for my delay. Presently my brain feels like a pot of mush; I really can't think that straight to post anything intelligent. I will go back and gather your posts tomorrow and post some comments.

I just went on the net searching for anything on 'Memory Carton' and I came up with this from an article at answers.com:

Quote:

---

Memory and Reminiscence

A Tale of Two Cities is a historical novel, about events approximately seventy years past when Dickens wrote the work. For the author in A Tale of Two Cities, memory is often a trap, pulling people into an abyss of despair. Madame Defarge's hatred of aristocrats in general and St. Evremonde in particular is based on her memory of the rape and deaths of her siblings at his hands. However, it can also be a force for redemption. It is Dr. Manette's memory of his dead wife, seen in his daughter's face, that begins his process of resurrection from the grave of his prison and madness. "Darnay listens to the voices from his past," states Ruth Glancy in A Tale of Two Cities: Dickens's Revolutionary Novel; "his desire to right the wrongs of his family is primarily due to his mother's reliance on him to do so." Perhaps most interesting, however, is Sydney Carton and his relationship to memory. His colleague C. J. Stryver calls him "Memory Carton" for his brilliant legal mind. Dickens's portrayal of Carton, however, shows him inspired by the memory of his love for Lucie to renounce his passive life. "When Carton dies with the words 'It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done,' he is renouncing the mental prison that has prevented him from making something of his life," writes Glancy; "he is living dynamically, as Doctor Manette does, and even if for him the action will soon be over, its repercussions wil be felt for as long as the Darnay family survives."

---

I found some other sites that state that when Dickens was deciding on a name for his novel this idea came to him "Memory Carton"....kind of a strange name for a book, don't you think? Glad he decided on "A Tale of Two Cities" instead....sounds more intriguing.

I came back to edit this because I just found this at another site:

Quote:

---

Since this is a story primarily designed to move the reader emotionally through a sympathetic identification with its characters, A Tale of Two Cities is not the collective memoirs of the Cruncher family, the Manettes, the Defarges, Sydney Carton, and Charles Darnay. As Forster points out, "A memoir is history, it is based on evidence. A novel is based on evidence + or -x, the unknown quantity being the temperament of the novelist" (55). A Tale of Two Cities is not a history of the French Revolution--that is partly why no historical characters actually appear in the story (the other reason is that Dickens distrusted the ideallism of such revolutionary leaders as Marat and Robespierre because of the monstrous deeds they justified in the name of Liberty); rather, it is the revelation of what Forster terms "the hidden life" of certain imagined characters who are reflections of the temperament of Dickens himself (notice, for example, that one of the book's protagonists has the initials "C. D." and that the model for Lucie was not merely Lucy Crayford in the melodrama The Frozen Deep, but also Dickens's extra-marital liaison, Ellen Ternan; furthermore, Dickens originally intended his chief protagonist to be named "Dick Carton").

---

The full commentary at this site is quite good:http://victorian.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp...va/pva212.html

This is something I had thought of, but thought the idea wasn't backed up enough to post, however apparently my thoughts were in the right direction - about the name Evremonde (Everyman):

Quote:

---

Even Darnay's real name, D'Evrémonde, suggests that he is an Anglo-French Everyman ("every" plus "tout le monde"). As Alter notes, Dickens probably intended that "Charles Darnay's French name, Evrémonde, should sound like an English name of a different sort: he is the Everyman who is drawn to the heart of destruction, virtually gives up his life there, in legal fact and physical appearance, to be re-born only through the expiatory death of another self, and so to return to his beloved, whose name means 'light'" (138). From a memorial plaque in Westminster Abbey's South Transept (the "Poets' Corner" where Dickens himself would one day be buried) Dickens might have been familiar with the French poet-soldier of the seventeenth century, Charles de Marquetel de Saint Denis de Saint Evrémond (1613-1703), the period in which through his excesses and his denial of even modest democratic rights the Sun King of France, Louis XIV, was driving future generations inexorably towards violent revolution.

---

Interesting, isn't it? Well, mull these things over until I get specifically, back to your great posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I came back to edit this because I just found this at another site:

The full commentary at this site is quite good:http://victorian.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp...va/pva212.html

This is something I had thought of, but thought the idea wasn't backed up enough to post, however apparently my thoughts were in the right direction

---

I think to some extent it's always true that the author is forming the characters with pieces of their own personality. I guess if we applied that thinking to this novel we could say that Dickens sacrifices his own cynical side (Carton) to save his charming and attractive side (Darnay) all to score with hot women (Lucie). It sort of makes sense. I would probably do the same in his situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I think to some extent it's always true that the author is forming the characters with pieces of their own personality. I guess if we applied that thinking to this novel we could say that Dickens sacrifices his own cynical side (Carton) to save his charming and attractive side (Darnay) all to score with hot women (Lucie). It sort of makes sense. I would probably do the same in his situation.

---

:lol: Quark, nice way of paraphrasing that. Q - you always do make me laugh!;) :lol: I bet you would...I bet you would.....

Quote:

---

A Tale of Two Cities is a historical novel, about events approximately seventy years past when Dickens wrote the work. For the author in A Tale of Two Cities, memory is often a trap, pulling people into an abyss of despair. Madame Defarge's hatred of aristocrats in general and St. Evremonde in particular is based on her memory of the rape and deaths of her siblings at his hands. However, it can also be a force for redemption. It is Dr. Manette's memory of his dead wife, seen in his daughter's face, that begins his process of resurrection from the grave of his prison and madness. "Darnay listens to the voices from his past," states Ruth Glancy in A Tale of Two Cities: Dickens's Revolutionary Novel; "his desire to right the wrongs of his family is primarily due to his mother's reliance on him to do so." Perhaps most interesting, however, is Sydney Carton and his relationship to memory. His colleague C. J. Stryver calls him "Memory Carton" for his brilliant legal mind. Dickens's portrayal of Carton, however, shows him inspired by the memory of his love for Lucie to renounce his passive life. "When Carton dies with the words 'It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done,' he is renouncing the mental prison that has prevented him from making something of his life," writes Glancy; "he is living dynamically, as Doctor Manette does, and even if for him the action will soon be over, its repercussions wil be felt for as long as the Darnay family survives."

---

We have already discussed about mme Defarge and her hatred towards aristocrats and about Charle's promise to his mother, so i haven't anything more to add.

As for Dr Manette i'll have to say that, for him, memory works both ways. A force of redemption as it is stated in the paragraph you quoted (above) but as a trap as well..we see in two instances that although Dr Manette has recovered his former self, when he is stressed and is reminded of his imprisonment he turns to his shoemaking and relapses to the state he was right after his release from prison.

As for Carton, if you check my previous post you'll see that i agree with what you quoted here ;)

Quote:

---

(the other reason is that Dickens distrusted the ideallism of such revolutionary leaders as Marat and Robespierre because of the monstrous deeds they justified in the name of Liberty); rather, it is the revelation of what Forster terms "the hidden life" of certain imagined characters who are reflections of the temperament of Dickens himself (notice, for example, that one of the book's protagonists has the initials "C. D." and that the model for Lucie was not merely Lucy Crayford in the melodrama The Frozen Deep, but also Dickens's extra-marital liaison, Ellen Ternan; furthermore, Dickens originally intended his chief protagonist to be named "Dick Carton").

---

Yes we have said about Dickens attidute towards the revolutionists ;) and towards the aristocrats ;)
As for the initials C.D i haven't noticed ;) heheh and i didn't know he had an affair :lol:

Quote:

---

Even Darnay's real name, D'Evrémonde, suggests that he is an Anglo-French Everyman ("every" plus "tout le monde"). As Alter notes, Dickens probably intended that "Charles Darnay's French name, Evrémonde, should sound like an English name of a different sort: he is the Everyman who is drawn to the heart of destruction, virtually gives up his life there, in legal fact and physical appearance, to be re-born only through the expiatory death of another self, and so to return to his beloved, whose name means 'light'" (138). From a memorial plaque in Westminster Abbey's South Transept (the "Poets' Corner" where Dickens himself would one day be buried) Dickens might have been familiar with the French poet-soldier of the seventeenth century, Charles de Marquetel de Saint Denis de Saint Evrémond (1613-1703), the period in which through his excesses and his denial of even modest democratic rights the Sun King of France, Louis XIV, was driving future generations inexorably towards violent revolution.

---

That was very interesting ;) Especially the last part (the french poet whose name must have been an inspiration to D).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I think to some extent it's always true that the author is forming the characters with pieces of their own personality. I guess if we applied that thinking to this novel we could say that Dickens sacrifices his own cynical side (Carton) to save his charming and attractive side (Darnay) all to score with hot women (Lucie). It sort of makes sense. I would probably do the same in his situation.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: I like the way you think :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now seriously, you are right. I too believe that authors use pieces of their real lives in their novels (either to shape characters, or events that happen etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I was also thinking about Carton..you know, Carton is leading such a worthless life but when he meets Lucie he is somehow "resurrected" back to life. He begins to focus on her, his life becomes interesting. For the first time he has friends, people who cares about even love. And when a sacrifice is needed, in order to preserve their happiness he is willing to make it. Thus his life has a purpose ;)

---

Yes, you are right, it's exactly like resurrection for him.
I keep thinking though that the two scenes in the beginning with the spilled wine has something to de with this theme too. I think it is because of the blood that it symbolized. I think it is the blood that is shed before the resurrection of Dr. Manette.More or less I think that resurrection and blood are usually close as symbols in literature.

Janine, thank you for the information, I think it is very useful and interesting. I think after this we can think about discussing "memory" later as a separate theme in the book. And the info about Darnay's name is great. very good idea to check it out :thumbs_up Thank you :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I think to some extent it's always true that the author is forming the characters with pieces of their own personality. I guess if we applied that thinking to this novel we could say that Dickens sacrifices his own cynical side (Carton) to save his charming and attractive side (Darnay) all to score with hot women (Lucie). It sort of makes sense. I would probably do the same in his situation.

---

Nice! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

Yes, you are right, it's exactly like resurrection for him.
I keep thinking though that the two scenes in the beginning with the spilled wine has something to de with this theme too. I think it is because of the blood that it symbolized. I think it is the blood that is shed before the resurrection of Dr. Manette.More or less I think that resurrection and blood are usually close as symbols in literature.

---

Janine wrote a few things about the spilled wine..but i understand that you are actually approaching the scene from a different perspective..you know what? Sounds interesting...i'd like to hear what you think if you make up your mind :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Janine wrote a few things about the spilled wine..but i understand that you are actually approaching the scene from a different perspective..you know what? Sounds interesting...i'd like to hear what you think if you make up your mind :)

---

Since it is hard to wade back through all we wrote I looked this up and will repost it, to refresh your memories; I will also look up the symbol in another commentary/notes book I have. I posted this earier on Pg 2.

I read in the commentary book: Spark's Notes Study Guide, compiled by Harvard students:

under -
SYMBOLS:

Quote:

---

THE BROKEN WINE CASK

With his dipiction of a broken wine cask outside DeFarge's wine-shop, and with his portrayal of the passing peasants' scrambles to lap up the spilling wine, Dickens creates a symbol for the desperate quality of the people's hunger. This hunger is both the literal hunger for food -- the French peasants were starving in their poverty -- and the metaphorical hunger for political freedoms. On the surface, the scene shows the peasants in their desperation to satiate, these hungers. But it also evokes the violent measures that the peasants take in striving to satisfy their more metaphorical cravings. For instance, the narrative directly associates the wine with blood, noting that some of the peasants have acquired "a tigerish smear about the mouth" and portraying a drunken figure scrawling the word "blood" on the wall with a wine-dipped finger. Indeed, the blood of aristocrats later spills at the hands of the mob in these same streets.

Then it goes on to point out the significance of the 'mob' idea to the story:


Quote:
Throughout the novel, Dickens sharply criticized the mob mentality, which he condemns for perpetrating the very cruelty and oppression from which the revolutionaries hope to free themselves. The scene surrounding the wine cask is the novel's first tableau of the mob in action. The mindless frenzy with which these peasants scoop up the fallen liquid prefigures the scene at the grindstone, where the revolutionaries sharpen their weapons (Bood the Third, Chapter2), as well as the dancing of the macabre Carmagnole (Book the Third, Chapter 5).

---

I stressed the parts of most significance with bold type - your method, Manolia ...;) Always works so well.

OK, I reviewed that other book briefly and found something interesting on the three basic mob scenes. I will either have to scan those pages or type them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Janine wrote a few things about the spilled wine..but i understand that you are actually approaching the scene from a different perspective..you know what? Sounds interesting...i'd like to hear what you think if you make up your mind :)

---

Well, I am afraid it is a long shot, but I keep thinking about it so... My idea was that to have resurrection you have to have a dead man to begin with, so you have to have death. And the wine symbolise blood and death. So I was thinking that this wine comes to replace the death that should precede the resurrection. The problem is that I can't find similar passages that precede the other resurrections, so it's probably irrelevant.

Janine, I completely agree with you. I just wanted to try another approach to the passage, although it seems a bit unlikely. I decided i's better to try after all ;)

Alexei, I definitely agree with you. You do indeed have to have blood and death before there is a resurrection. I don't think you need to back up that exactly but just having the idea is fine. I agree with that idea wholeheartedly and I think the whole blood-bath of the Revolution also will prove someday to involve a resurrection of the people. I think that the mob is now controlling all and so it is total mayhem and destruction and in someway the mob is what controlled the crucifixion of Christ - correct? So, when the mob becomes a total chaos only death can follow. In this case cruelity and death has only spurred more cruelity and death, but not the perpetrators are the revolutionists who were suppose to be fighting this viciousness - can you understand my meaning here? But before Sidney Carton goes to his doom he sees in a dream the new day that will eventually dawn when all things are put to right....post revolution. I think this is the true resurrection idea in the book. Resurrection does not occur with the spilling of the blood but long after when all blood and sin is absolved. When this novel ends there is only the hint and the promise of that day to come in the future. They are still far from achieving the true revolution which will actually be a resurrection of the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I think the whole blood-bath of the Revolution also will prove someday to involve a resurrection of the people. I think that the mob is now controlling all and so it is total mayhem and destruction and in someway the mob is what controlled the crucifixion of Christ - correct?

---

That's right :nod:

Quote:

---

So, when the mob becomes a total chaos only death can follow. In this case cruelity and death has only spurred more cruelity and death, but not the perpetrators are the revolutionists who were suppose to be fighting this viciousness - can you understand my meaning here? But before Sidney Carton goes to his doom he sees in a dream the new day that will eventually dawn when all things are put to right....post revolution. I think this is the true resurrection idea in the book. Resurrection does not occur with the spilling of the blood but long after when all blood and sin is absolved. When this novel ends there is only the hint and the promise of that day to come in the future. They are still far from achieving the true revolution which will actually be a resurrection of the people.

---

I see what you mean and I agree with it. I think here we can link it with the "memory" motif, because may be it comes to say, that everything in this novel is the memory of the world before the post revolution, before the resurrection, after all it is a historical novel. So may be that's why Carton is so important - he doesn't only see the dream about the post revolution world, he has seen the world before and remember it, so he can make the comparison and understand this resurrection coming.

I am still intrigued by the "Memory Carton" idea. I thought about it and I think Carton is actually the only one character in the book without past, without something to remember. For all the characters there are at least a few passages with some "flashback" - we read the whole story of Dr. Manette, the story of Lucie's childhood (well, it is little one, but it is there), or about Darnay's life in France and etc., but with Carton there is nothing. Than why he is "memory"? Is it because he is supposed to remember only these events, to be the memory of the revolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

That's right :nod:

---

Alexei, glad you understood my point. We seem to be on the same wave-length.

Quote:

---

I see what you mean and I agree with it. I think here we can link it with the "memory" motif, because may be it comes to say, that everything in this novel is the memory of the world before the post revolution, before the resurrection, after all it is a historical novel. So may be that's why Carton is so important - he doesn't only see the dream about the post revolution world, he has seen the world before and remember it, so he can make the comparison and understand this resurrection coming.

---

Yes, interesting idea and how Carton sees the world that once was and now can be in France - post revolution.

Quote:

---

I am still intrigued by the "Memory Carton" idea. I thought about it and I think Carton is actually the only one character in the book without past, without something to remember. For all the characters there are at least a few passages with some "flashback" - we read the whole story of Dr. Manette, the story of Lucie's childhood (well, it is little one, but it is there), or about Darnay's life in France and etc., but with Carton there is nothing. Than why he is "memory"? Is it because he is supposed to remember only these events, to be the memory of the revolution?

---

This is a good point and an interesting idea. It is true that Carton seems to have no past, that is ever revealed to us, unlike the other characters in the story. I do think when Dickens had in mind the 'memory' part of his possible title, he was referring to the nickname that Stryer gave to Carton, because his memory solved many of their courtroom cases and won those cases for the defense. In the end of the story his keen 'memory' is what saves the day, since he recalls just who Barsad is and was in London. If it were not for this key factor, he would not have been able to acquire access into the prison to switch places with Darney. His keen intellect and sharpness of memory, is what saves all involved actually. He master-minds the whole scheme to get all of the Darney party safely out of France and secure again in their native England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

So may be that's why Carton is so important - he doesn't only see the dream about the post revolution world, he has seen the world before and remember it, so he can make the comparison and understand this resurrection coming.

I am still intrigued by the "Memory Carton" idea. I thought about it and I think Carton is actually the only one character in the book without past, without something to remember. For all the characters there are at least a few passages with some "flashback" - we read the whole story of Dr. Manette, the story of Lucie's childhood (well, it is little one, but it is there), or about Darnay's life in France and etc., but with Carton there is nothing. Than why he is "memory"? Is it because he is supposed to remember only these events, to be the memory of the revolution?

---

Interesting idea..i was thinking whether it is possible that by "Memory Carton"
Dickens' was trying to create a word game..memory carton...a box(=carton) full of memories..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

Well, I am afraid it is a long shot, but I keep thinking about it so... My idea was that to have resurrection you have to have a dead man to begin with, so you have to have death. And the wine symbolise blood and death. So I was thinking that this wine comes to replace the death that should precede the resurrection. The problem is that I can't find similar passages that precede the other resurrections, so it's probably irrelevant.

---

Well you have a dead girl after the wine spilling scene and then you have a ressurection (metaphorically speaking).

Or you can say that the death before the wine spilling scene are all the everyday deaths that the people had to suffer from the aristocrats..ok :lol:

Speaking of the wine spilling scene i can't help thinking about holy communion (ermm is that the correct term?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I do think when Dickens had in mind the 'memory' part of his possible title, he was referring to the nickname that Stryer gave to Carton, because his memory solved many of their courtroom cases and won those cases for the defense. In the end of the story his keen 'memory' is what saves the day, since he recalls just who Barsad is and was in London. If it were not for this key factor, he would not have been able to acquire access into the prison to switch places with Darney. His keen intellect and sharpness of memory, is what saves all involved actually. He master-minds the whole scheme to get all of the Darney party safely out of France and secure again in their native England.

---

Yes that's for sure. But perhaps there is more to the title ("Memory Carton"), i am too thinking about it.

OK, I've read your posts, but I won't comment now, because I just don't have enough time. Tomorrow I am going to Egypt for a week so I won't be able to participate in thread for a while. Still, I will be back soon and with new ideas I hope :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

OK, I've read your posts, but I won't comment now, because I just don't have enough time. Tomorrow I am going to Egypt for a week so I won't be able to participate in thread for a while. Still, I will be back soon and with new ideas I hope :p

---

Wow, Egypt; how very cool! Say hello to the pyramids for me.;) I am so so jealous. Egypt is one of my dreams. Have a great time, Alexei, and we will see you when you get back. Take photos if you can. I want to hear all about your trip when you return. Have fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Well you have a dead girl after the wine spilling scene and then you have a ressurection (metaphorically speaking).

Or you can say that the death before the wine spilling scene are all the everyday deaths that the people had to suffer from the aristocrats..ok :lol:

Speaking of the wine spilling scene i can't help thinking about holy communion (ermm is that the correct term?)

---

We've looked at a lot of way the wine on the streets could be interpreted, but I don't know if we've really thought about the people involved in the episode yet. They create quite a mob. And, if their is one thing that Dickens opposed more than the violence the mob creates, it's the mob itself. Perhaps it was his own experiences, but there is something that just turned Dickens off about mass gatherings like this. You can see some of that coming out in the characterization of the wine-gathers in Ch. 5. The "tigerish" appearance that Janine pointed out seems to indicate that the crowd is somehow predatory. As the feed on blood and spectacle, though, they become inebriated. The deadened sensations are similar to the deadened sympathies we'll get later on. Finally, everyone in the crowd seems to loss their dignity. The image Dickens gives us of a horde of people sucking wine out of the dirty cracks in the road is not too appealing. He mentions that "All people within reach had suspended their business, or their idleness, to run to the spot and drink the wine." This makes it sound like the crowd loses some of it's identity, too, in the revel.

Maybe this loss of identity is what scared Dickens the most. Remember the beginning of chapter 3:

Quote:

---

A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration, when I enter a great city by night, that every one of those darkly clustered houses encloses its own secret; that every room in every one of them encloses its own secret; that every beating heart in the hundreds of thousands of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest it! Something of the awfulness, even of Death itself, is referable to this. No more can I turn the leaves of this dear book that I loved, and vainly hope in time to read it all. No more can I look into the depths of this unfathomable water, wherein, as momentary lights glanced into it, I have had glimpses of buried treasure and other things submerged. It was appointed that the book should shut with a spring, for ever and for ever, when I had read but a page. It was appointed that the water should be locked in an eternal frost, when the light was playing on its surface, and I stood in ignorance on the shore. My friend is dead, my neighbour is dead, my love, the darling of my soul, is dead; it is the inexorable consolidation and perpetuation of the secret that was always in that individuality, and which I shall carry in mine to my life's end. In any of the burial-places of this city through which I pass, is there a sleeper more inscrutable than its busy inhabitants are, in their innermost personality, to me, or than I am to them?

---

Dickens makes something holy out of each person's identity. The mob seems to wipe away personal differences and stifle the sympathy between people. Later in the book he refers to characters as Jacques 1 and Jacques 2. While it's true these are stock names for French peasants, it's odd that Dickens of all people would resort to stock names. His characters almost always have those quicky names which are somewhat suggestive of their qualities. Here, though, they turn into Jacques #. I think the wine spillage episode doesn't just foreshadow the violence, but it also foreshadows the mob. It explains what the mobs that are to come will look like, and what of their humanity they will lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

We've looked at a lot of way the wine on the streets could be interpreted, but I don't know if we've really thought about the people involved in the episode yet. They create quite a mob. And, if their is one thing that Dickens opposed more than the violence the mob creates, it's the mob itself. Perhaps it was his own experiences, but there is something that just turned Dickens off about mass gatherings like this. You can see some of that coming out in the characterization of the wine-gathers in Ch. 5. The "tigerish" appearance that Janine pointed out seems to indicate that the crowd is somehow predatory. As the feed on blood and spectacle, though, they become inebriated. The deadened sensations are similar to the deadened sympathies we'll get later on. Finally, everyone in the crowd seems to loss their dignity. The image Dickens gives us of a horde of people sucking wine out of the dirty cracks in the road is not too appealing. He mentions that "All people within reach had suspended their business, or their idleness, to run to the spot and drink the wine." This makes it sound like the crowd loses some of it's identity, too, in the revel.

Maybe this loss of identity is what scared Dickens the most. Remember the beginning of chapter 3:



Dickens makes something holy out of each person's identity. The mob seems to wipe away personal differences and stifle the sympathy between people. Later in the book he refers to characters as Jacques 1 and Jacques 2. While it's true these are stock names for French peasants, it's odd that Dickens of all people would resort to stock names. His characters almost always have those quicky names which are somewhat suggestive of their qualities. Here, though, they turn into Jacques #. I think the wine spillage episode doesn't just foreshadow the violence, but it also foreshadows the mob. It explains what the mobs that are to come will look like, and what of their humanity they will lose.

---

I know I did quote some passages about the significance of the mob and how that breeds total chaos. It is helpful, however, the way you have expanded on this idea; I had been wanting to bring up the question of the obscurity of the name Jacques for all the revolutionaries. I think this is very significant and I think by pointing out this previous paragraph from the text, you have made it more clear as to just what Dickens intended by using the one name for all the men involved, as opposed to individuals. The wine spillage definitely does more than forshadow the violence and spilling of blood to come, but also shows the mob when left to it's own devices and chaotic - out of control. As you say as they drink feverishly from the dirty cobblestones, the peasants also become inebriated, with the wine and are further in control of their human characteristics. They lose themselves to the crowd and to the mob mentality. They subconsiously follow the crowd and the individual is lost in the throng of the crowd and they take on the personality of the crowd. This is the way mobs work and how they create followers, often to perform violent acts. You are absolutely right in saying when a mob is involved, the individual's sense of humanity is lost.

This is so interesting to me because recently I read a more obscure book by D.H. Lawrence which deals with this very concept. The book is "Kangaroo", where a revolution may be brewing at the time. When the mob finally takes over, the mentality of the individuals is lost and the consequences are disasterous. There is good exploration in this book as to how mobs operate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

And, if their is one thing that Dickens opposed more than the violence the mob creates, it's the mob itself. Perhaps it was his own experiences, but there is something that just turned Dickens off about mass gatherings like this.

---

Hmmmm...i agree up to a certain part. I think that Dickens' stance throughout the novel is somehow ambivalent (now i hope i used the correct term :D ). He criticizes both the aristocracy and the people (during my reading i changed my mind a couple of times as to what D's message was and then i decided..well i have already said that a few pages back ;) ). Same goes for the mob gatherings. As for the scene you describe, it is quite clear what Dickens' felt and thought about the mob. But during the second gathering, when the little girl is run over by Marquis's chase, i got a quite different idea ;) There was something quite tragic about that scene (the tragic father, the women that circle the dead girl, the proud people and their reactions) ;)
Yes, but later on we have a relapse and the mob is again described as evil ;) So i quite agree with you, but with one exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Dickens makes something holy out of each person's identity. The mob seems to wipe away personal differences and stifle the sympathy between people. Later in the book he refers to characters as Jacques 1 and Jacques 2. While it's true these are stock names for French peasants, it's odd that Dickens of all people would resort to stock names. His characters almost always have those quicky names which are somewhat suggestive of their qualities. Here, though, they turn into Jacques #. I think the wine spillage episode doesn't just foreshadow the violence, but it also foreshadows the mob. It explains what the mobs that are to come will look like, and what of their humanity they will lose.

---

Yep, well said :thumbs_up
As for the names, i only thought that the "Jacques" were just code names so the revolutionists wouldn't be easily recognised (oh, yes i see your point now, they won't be easily recognised because they somehow lose their identity by being characterised as "Jacques" :) ).

manolia, sorry I have been so vacant in here lately. I am moving with little speed these days being still pretty weak and tired from this virus infection. I did print out much of this commentary from my library since I had to take the book back and had wanted to read it. This does go into some more interesting ideas and aspects of the novel. I will try hard to read it today and then present some of these in the next couple days.

We still do not have a time limit in this thread - right? I hope you are in agreement and we can just pop in from time to time if we think of more things. I like 'open-ended' discussions like this. I see the Aeneid is the same - it is still going on and seems to have had a revival this week.

Hey manolia, if you can possibly fit it in we would love to have you included in the new Lawrence short story - it is a short one and available here online. It is called "The Blind Man"; I think you would find this one particularly interesting. You are such a smart and intelligent participant I hope you can take the time out from your busy schedule for the short story, if only to post briefly.

We might also discuss the opening lines to the novel and exactly what they embody and suggest. These are such famous lines and indeed some of the best written in history of the novel.

Chapter 1
________________________________________
From Book the First -- Recalled to Life, Chapter I:

Quote:

---

The Period

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

---

manolia, I think the word you used 'ambivalent' in a sense fits this paragraph. It is a good word and one I often use as well. The way the opposites are presented here right away, we get the sense this novel will have no easy answers or pat solutions. Also, I think we get the sense that determining who is right and who is wrong will also be a challenge. This introduction almost seems to me to embody how Sidney Carton would feel about the times. Also, I read, that actually, even though Dickens is writing of an earlier time than his own time, all that he writes here in this introduction to the story, is true of Dicken's time as well, and probably true of today for that matter. So that these opposites and contrasts encompass all times, in actuality. The choices we make are our own and which paths we choose to follow are our own, but the circumstances of the world, which we are daily presented can be cause for puzzlement and ambivalence, before we can decide which paths to follow. I hope that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Hmmmm...i agree up to a certain part. I think that Dickens' stance throughout the novel is somehow ambivalent (now i hope i used the correct term :D ). He criticizes both the aristocracy and the people (during my reading i changed my mind a couple of times as to what D's message was and then i decided..well i have already said that a few pages back ;) ). Same goes for the mob gatherings. As for the scene you describe, it is quite clear what Dickens' felt and thought about the mob. But during the second gathering, when the little girl is run over by Marquis's chase, i got a quite different idea ;) There was something quite tragic about that scene (the tragic father, the women that circle the dead girl, the proud people and their reactions) ;)
Yes, but later on we have a relapse and the mob is again described as evil ;) So i quite agree with you, but with one exception.

---

Ambivalent is a good description of Dickens stance on the politics of the French Revolution. He doesn't approve of radicalism of the mob, but he views the aristocracy as callous. That's why I think we have to find a reason for Dicken's characterization of the crowd outside of politics. In the wine spillage episode, I think Dickens, politically, would see the crowd as the victim. They're desperation makes them resort to the ugly scramble for wine. But, his characterization of the crowd is very negative, and he makes them somehow the aggressors. The reason for this has to be apolitical then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

We still do not have a time limit in this thread - right? I hope you are in agreement and we can just pop in from time to time if we think of more things. I like 'open-ended' discussions like this. I see the Aeneid is the same - it is still going on and seems to have had a revival this week.

---

I don't think there is any real time limit on any of these threads. Particularly this one, since, if we took the name seriously, we'd only have one day to talk about it. I say we just go until we run out of either interest or ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Hey manolia, if you can possibly fit it in we would love to have you included in the new Lawrence short story - it is a short one and available here online. It is called "The Blind Man"; I think you would find this one particularly interesting. You are such a smart and intelligent participant I hope you can take the time out from your busy schedule for the short story, if only to post briefly.

---

Not to be outdone, I have to mention that there's a short story thread on Anton Chekhov, as well: http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=17728&page=9. We're doing two stories this month. But, really, they're very short short stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

We might also discuss the opening lines to the novel and exactly what they embody and suggest. These are such famous lines and indeed some of the best written in history of the novel.

---

So you're saying that the first lines embody Dickens' own views on the French Revolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

manolia, sorry I have been so vacant in here lately. I am moving with little speed these days being still pretty weak and tired from this virus infection. I did print out much of this commentary from my library since I had to take the book back and had wanted to read it. This does go into some more interesting ideas and aspects of the novel. I will try hard to read it today and then present some of these in the next couple days?

---

So how are you today? Any better?
We don't have a time limit. Like Quark said we can always come back here if we think of something ;)

I am not sure if i can participate Janine and Quark, in the short story thread. As i have already told you i am reading "Anna Karenina" and usually when i read a book i pretty much read that only ;) Thanks for the invitation, though. Hehe we will discuss "The rainbow" this year so we will have the opportunity of another L discussion :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

manolia, I think the word you used 'ambivalent' in a sense fits this paragraph. It is a good word and one I often use as well. The way the opposites are presented here right away, we get the sense this novel will have no easy answers or pat solutions. Also, I think we get the sense that determining who is right and who is wrong will also be a challenge. This introduction almost seems to me to embody how Sidney Carton would feel about the times. Also, I read, that actually, even though Dickens is writing of an earlier time than his own time, all that he writes here in this introduction to the story, is true of Dicken's time as well, and probably true of today for that matter. So that these opposites and contrasts encompass all times, in actuality. The choices we make are our own and which paths we choose to follow are our own, but the circumstances of the world, which we are daily presented can be cause for puzzlement and ambivalence, before we can decide which paths to follow. I hope that makes sense.

---

Yes it makes sense, but how do you relate these opening lines to the rest of the novel. Can you expand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Ambivalent is a good description of Dickens stance on the politics of the French Revolution. He doesn't approve of radicalism of the mob, but he views the aristocracy as callous. That's why I think we have to find a reason for Dicken's characterization of the crowd outside of politics. In the wine spillage episode, I think Dickens, politically, would see the crowd as the victim. They're desperation makes them resort to the ugly scramble for wine. But, his characterization of the crowd is very negative, and he makes them somehow the aggressors. The reason for this has to be apolitical then.

---

Apolitical? Can you expand on that? ?Do you have anything specific in mind?

Quote:

---

I don't think there is any real time limit on any of these threads. Particularly this one, since, if we took the name seriously, we'd only have one day to talk about it. I say we just go until we run out of either interest or ideas.

---

Quote:

---

So how are you today? Any better?
We don't have a time limit. Like Quark said we can always come back here if we think of something

---

Thanks manolia and Quark, actually, M, I am not feeling that great but I want to go out for a short time. I need to get back to normal life and living.

I can't answer these two posts right now but will later on. To Quark, I say that last statement in your post is not what I meant at all - about the French Revolution and Dicken's attitude. At least I don't think that was what I was getting at.

manolia, I can try to expand on that thought I had. I don't know though - I might have just been rambling on and thinking out loud.

See you all later and glad we have no time limit. Enjoy your reading of AK. It is a great book!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Apolitical? Can you expand on that? ?Do you have anything specific in mind?

---

Yeah, I was saying something about Dickens' appreciation for individuality. The mob destroys that, and that may have been what made Dickens wince.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Thanks manolia and Quark, actually, M, I am not feeling that great but I want to go out for a short time. I need to get back to normal life and living.

---

Hopefully it's nothing too serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I can't answer these two posts right now but will later on. To Quark, I say that last statement in your post is not what I meant at all - about the French Revolution and Dicken's attitude. At least I don't think that was what I was getting at.

---

Oh, sorry about that: I was thinking of something else. I understand now (maybe?). You're right that Dickens is pointing to the confusing circumstances of the story. There is a certain chaos involved when opposite extremes are contradicting each other. And, yes, this could be a description of all times and not just the time of the story. I would say that much of this is implied in the opening lines, but I also think that that might be the more abstract reading. The more literal reading is just a commentary on the extreme emotions people felt about the French revolution and the ideas of the time. Dickens' opening lines could be read more as a commentary on the commentators than as a sincere description of the age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Yeah, I was saying something about Dickens' appreciation for individuality. The mob destroys that, and that may have been what made Dickens wince.

---

Yep that was clear enough. But what i meant is that how we experience our individuality (or merely whether we are able to have any individuality at all) depends up to a certain point on the political system and how society works. In a strict dictatorship, you aren't allowed to have any individuality. That's why i asked about the "apolitical" part..but anyway, this has little to do with the book ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Yep that was clear enough. But what i meant is that how we experience our individuality (or merely whether we are able to have any individuality at all) depends up to a certain point on the political system and how society works. In a strict dictatorship, you aren't allowed to have any individuality. That's why i asked about the "apolitical" part..but anyway, this has little to do with the book ;)

---

I don't know. I think Dickens was referring more to a person's particularly quirks or their secret desires and memories rather than to their ability to participate in political decisions. Yeah, I suppose autocratic government do place limits on expression. But, I don't think that repression would eliminate the individuality that Dickens' is talking about--although it may silence it's voice and curb it's effect on policy.

Sticking to the novel, though, I think the characterization of the wine scavengers comes more directly from Dickens' antipathy for the mob than for the politics of the mob, or even the actions of the mob. The unappealing and somewhat threatening view we get of the mob wouldn't vary if they were Royalist or Jacobins. And, it doesn't change even if the mob is peaceful as opposed to violent.

Hi everyone, Ok, I have been reading most of your posts, trying to catch up and get my footing again. I realise I have been somewhat behind, on some aspects that were presented prior to this discussion, on the mob and the spilled wine scene. I like what Alexei said in her prior post:

Quote by Alexei,

Quote:

---

Yes, you are right, it's exactly like resurrection for him.
I keep thinking though that the two scenes in the beginning with the spilled wine has something to de with this theme too. I think it is because of the blood that it symbolized. I think it is the blood that is shed before the resurrection of Dr. Manette.More or less I think that resurrection and blood are usually close as symbols in literature.

---

Therefore, in considering this idea and this theme throughout the story, I think that this wine spilling scene has several aspects and is a very significant part of the 'forshadowing' of the novel's conclusion. The 'wine and blood' is often used in novels to represent the religious symbol of holy communion and the forgiveness of sins, as Alexei has pointed out. I think that by presenting it here in this way, we definitely see the marriage of the two elements as that symbol of resurrection. In the scene of the mob devouring the spilled wine (spilled blood of Christ?) we also see the man scrawling on the wall the word 'Blood' - therefore the two very important images - both red - are presented in our mind's perception and we tend to relate to the Last Supper and the idea of resurrection that will follow. I think Dickens very intentionally, set this scene up this way to imply this idea. It is quite brilliant writing. Also, the reference to Christ himself when Carton thinks the lines from the bible "I am the resurrection and the light" - Christ's very own words to the common people, is presented at the end of the novel, through Carton. Only with death and the spilling of blood, can resurrection occur.

Now I would like to go back to the opening lines of the story again. I posted them already so I will just post this commentary from the Spark's Notes:

Quote:

---

These famous lines, which open A Tale of Two Cities, hint at the novel's central tension between love and family, on the one hand, and the oppression and hatred, on the other. The passage makes marked use of anaphora, the repetition of a phrase at the beginning of consecutive clauses --for example, "it was the age....it was the age" and "it was the epoch....it was the epoch...."This technique, along with the passage's steady rhythm, suggests that good and evil, wisdom and folly, and light and darkness stand equally matched in their struggle. The opposing pairs in this passage also intitiate one of the novel's most prominenet motifs and structural figures --that of doubles, including London and Paris, Sidney Carton and Charles Darney, Misss Pross and Madame Defarge, and Lucie and Madame Defarge.

---

Hello, where is everybody hiding? I was hoping to keep this thread on page one. So I will post a few times to bring it back up if necessary. Post when you all can.

Hi! :wave: I am back and soon I will join the discussion again, I need a few days to read everything you've written.