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

http://www.online-literature.com/authorpics/dickens.jpg

This year we are reading A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens during the Valentine's Day week.

Please post your comments and questions here.

From amazon.com:

Quote:

---

After eighteen years as a political prisoner in the Bastille the aging Dr Manette is finally released and reunited with his daughter in England. There two very different men, Charles Darnay, an exiled French aristocrat, and Sydney Carton, a disreputable but brilliant English lawyer, become enmeshed through their love for Lucie Manette. From the tranquil lanes of London, they are all drawn against their will to the vengeful, bloodstained streets of Paris at the height of the Reign of Terror and soon fall under the lethal shadow of La Guillotine.

---

Free Online Copy

I would like to participate. Not only did I enjoy A Tale of Two Cities very much, I would like to learn how the book club works.

I have read the first 3 chapters..sadly enough i have managed to buy one of those editions without notes :rolleyes:
Here's my first question (for anyone who has started reading)..
In the following paragraph, from the first chapter, D makes a parable (in lack of a better word) of the preparation of the Revolution (at least this is how i took it :D ). So what is monsieur Le Woodman making?

Quote:

---

It is likely enough that, rooted in the woods of France and Norway, there were growing trees, when that sufferer was put to death, already marked by the Woodman, Fate, to come down and be sawn into boards, to make a certain movable framework with a sack and a knife in it, terrible in history. It is likely enough that in the rough outhouses of some tillers of the heavy lands adjacent to Paris, there were sheltered from the weather that very day, rude carts, bespattered with rustic mire, snuffed about by pigs, and roosted in by poultry, which the Farmer, Death, had already set apart to be his tumbrils of the Revolution. But that Woodman and that Farmer, though they work unceasingly, work silently, and no one heard them as they went about with muffled tread: the rather, forasmuch as to entertain any suspicion that they were awake, was to be atheistical and traitorous.

---

sounds like a torturing device :D

Sounds like a reference to the guillotine to me.

Yep i thought that too..but the "sack" bit confused me :)

ntropyincarnate is precisely right in identifying the guillotine as the object being introduced very early in the story.

The sack has its own role - just like the knife that is also mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DickZ

ntropyincarnate is precisely right in identifying the guillotine as the object being introduced very early in the story.

The sack has its own role - just like the knife that is also mentioned.

---

Hi DickZ :)
So what was the sack for?

to be put over the head of the person sentenced to death

Ahhhh! Thanks :)

I've finished the first chapter :p

Manolia, in the notes in my copy of the book (it's the wordsworth classics edition) this passage was explained with the following sentence:
"Sneez[ing] into the sack" was one of the macabre euphemisms which grew up around the guillotine.

Thanks Alexei :)
Funny..i have a Wordsworth copy myself :p but i have a huge volume with 4 Dickens' novels (Oliver Twist, Hard Times, A Tale of two cities, Great Expectations) and no notes ;)
Hehehe Alexei i am ahead of you (but i bet that you'd have finished half the book by tomorrow :p ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Thanks Alexei :)
Funny..i have a Wordsworth copy myself :p but i have a huge volume with 4 Dickens' novels (Oliver Twist, Hard Times, A Tale of two cities, Great Expectations) and no notes ;)
Hehehe Alexei i am ahead of you (but i bet that you'd have finished half the book by tomorrow :p ).

---

Yes, I've seen this edition in the bookstore, but I like the single edition. I've started collecting them. They have good introductions, take little space, it's easy to carry them around (I read mainly while I traveling) and they are cheap - perfect for me :lol: There is only one thing I don't like - they are with paper cover, so I have to be very careful with the book.

Don't count on it, my school term finished today and I am finally going to get some sleep, probably I'll sleep till Saturday :lol:

Heh same for me..i have filled 2 and a half shelves with little blue books ;) The fact that they are so cheap is quite tempting ;)

Here's the part that made me laugh

Quote:

---

In the midst of them, the hangman, ever busy and ever worse than useless, was in constant requisition; now, stringing up long rows of miscellaneous criminals;

---

and there's more in the second and third chapter but i am not sure how far in the book everyone is ;)

Oooh, I so much wanted to read 'A Tale of Two Cities'. I just read an abridged version when I was a kid and I so much wanted to read it now. Wish I had a time turner! To just get a bit of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I have read the first 3 chapters..sadly enough i have managed to buy one of those editions without notes :rolleyes:
Here's my first question (for anyone who has started reading)..
In the following paragraph, from the first chapter, D makes a parable (in lack of a better word) of the preparation of the Revolution (at least this is how i took it :D ). So what is monsieur Le Woodman making?



sounds like a torturing device :D

---

Hi manolia, glad to see you in here and I finally found the correct thread for the discussion. I am ahead of all of you, that is if my memory holds up with all you smart people. I have read the book twice now, and I saw a wonderful adaptation by Masterpiece Theater (very true to the book) two or even 3 times now. I also have the Sparks notes study guide, so maybe it has something in there referring to the sigificance of the sack and the knife. I believe the sack used to put the heads into, but it maybe they put sacks over their heads, before they are beheaded. The knife I am not too sure of. Maybe to further decaptitate the heads. The revolutionists were not too nice when they executed the prisoners, nor were they too neat. I recall the heads drop off into a woven basket. The knife might be needed if they did not do a good job with the guillotine. The wooden carts they are referring to transported the prisoners to the gallows - the guillotine. They were constructed of the wood from the forest and looked quite rustic and innocent. I think the passage you quoted indicates they are being made without, any one suspecting their true purposes. This was a good way to introduce the reader early one to the instrument of death, a huge symbol of the cruelity and revengefulness of the revolution.
You all won't regret reading this book - it is amazing!

yay i finally started reading :D

I read that this particular Dickens' novel is very unlike his other novels in that it does not have his usual array of quirpy, funny characters. Even though he has incorporated two very humorous characters, Jerry Cruncher and Miss Pross, into the plot, these two provide the only shreds of real humor in the book; probably they provide the comic relief needed in such a serious and tragic story. I would like to add that both of these characters are very important to the plot and have quite serious roles at times. Jerry Cruncher and Miss Pross are two of my favorite characters - they add such color and humanity to this great work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Hi manolia, glad to see you in here and I finally found the correct thread for the discussion. I am ahead of all of you, that is if my memory holds up with all you smart people. I have read the book twice now, and I saw a wonderful adaptation by Masterpiece Theater (very true to the book) two or even 3 times now. I also have the Sparks notes study guide, so maybe it has something in there referring to the sigificance of the sack and the knife. I believe the sack used to put the heads into, but it maybe they put sacks over their heads, before they are beheaded. The knife I am not too sure of. Maybe to further decaptitate the heads. The revolutionists were not too nice when they executed the prisoners, nor were they too neat. I recall the heads drop off into a woven basket. The knife might be needed if they did not do a good job with the guillotine. The wooden carts they are referring to transported the prisoners to the gallows - the guillotine. They were constructed of the wood from the forest and looked quite rustic and innocent. I think the passage you quoted indicates they are being made without, any one suspecting their true purposes. This was a good way to introduce the reader early one to the instrument of death, a huge symbol of the cruelity and revengefulness of the revolution.
You all won't regret reading this book - it is amazing!

---

Ooops i didn't send you the link..sorry :blush:
Thanks for your explanation.
I have done much reading yesterday (it was cold and i spent a pleasant evening in front of the fireplace just reading..this is how life should be :D ).
There are two particular scenes that i really liked.
First the incident with the broken barel of wine and the famished and deprived residents of paris who devour the wine from the muddy street. D portrays very vividly their deprived state, their miserable lifes ;) That is why i truly adore Dickens compared to any other author of his age. He wrote about the simple poor people (and not high class and rich folks) and one can trace a deeply humane interest in his books (a sensitive man and very much interested in social reform). What can i say, i love the man :D
I came across a paragraph which i can't trace right now where he criticizes his forefathers and their adherance to their customs and principles and how they didn't want to chnage anything for the better in their world..

The second scene i liked was the one at the fountain where the snooty marquis runs over a girl with his coach. D uses all his skill to make the man very hateful (especially in portraying his attitude towards the poor people whom he sees like filthy rats).

This two scenes justify the revolution to the reader and explain why it happened and its necessity to happen ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I read that this particular Dickens' novel is very unlike his other novels in that it does not have his usual array of quirpy, funny characters. Even though he has incorporated two very humorous characters, Jerry Cruncher and Miss Pross, into the plot, these two provide the only shreds of real humor in the book; probably they provide the comic relief needed in such a serious and tragic story. I would like to add that both of these characters are very important to the plot and have quite serious roles at times. Jerry Cruncher and Miss Pross are two of my favorite characters - they add such color and humanity to this great work.

---

I don't think this books lacks humour. I really enjoyed the court room portrayal and the cross examination of the witnessess (the ones against C Darnay) :lol: :lol: And of course this is another D novel full of lawyers :thumbs_up ;)

Manolia, I want to answer your post later. I read somewhere about the wine in relation to the blood and how this signifies the ideas of redemption. I will explain later on. It really made so much sense to me since the scene when the wine spills in the street in front of the tavern is the same location, I believe as the child being killed, run-down ruthlessly by the carriage. Doesn't the father (earlier on), at the time of the spilling of the wine write on the wall 'revolution' or something like this, as though it was blood? I must go and review this part. The wine is suppose to signify the eminent shedding of the blood (a forshadowing) in the revolution and post revolution, also the idea of 'redemption', which will later become more clear as the story advances.

I will answer your post more extensively later. I have to go eat dinner now.

Yes, the courtroom did have it's humorous moments indeed, especially the part where Jerry was to relay the outcome and other such elements. I had forgotten about that. In a tense situation, how well Dickens interjected these bits of humor and it all works so perfectly. Life is humorous sometimes in the direst of situations.

Interesting what you say..although i admit it wouldn't have crossed my mind..but it makes sense. And if you expand a bit it would make more sense i guess.
Yes the place where the two events take place is the same (to answer your first question)..and i think the man writes "blood" on the wall using wine and not "revolution"..but i am not so sure now..i'll check ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Interesting what you say..although i admit it wouldn't have crossed my mind..but it makes sense. And if you expand a bit it would make more sense i guess.
Yes the place where the two events take place is the same (to answer your first question)..and i think the man writes "blood" on the wall using wine and not "revolution"..but i am not so sure now..i'll check ;)

---

manolia, I don't take credit for this - just my research and something I read in this commentary book: Spark's Notes Study Guide, compiled by Harvard students:

I found this 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).

---

manolia, hope this expands the idea of the blood and wine for you. This study quide is quite helpful. I don't know if you can find this online. I actually was lucky to pick it up free from my library. It is quite enlightening and giving the whole novel more dimension and greater meaning to the symbolism and themes. I like the chapters addressing the Motifs and the Symbols. It was the word 'blood' that the peasant wrote on the wall; you were quite right. Been awhile since I read the text but I plan on the audiobook which is available from my library website.

Yes that was quite informative :nod:
I have almost finished the second book now and i have a better idea of what D is trying to do. He criticizes both parties. In the first part he criticizes the aristocracy and how bad they handled poor people, how cruel and unjust they were and how indifferent (and sometimes eager) they were in keeping them reduced to an animal state.

When the revolution begins he criticizes the revolutionaries' fierceness and how they ended up being cruel and perhaps unjust (i say perhaps because i suspect that something will happen to C Darnay..) which means that they weren't able to discriminate between the bad and the good guys. There is a chapter where the french court is ridiculed but by C D's choice to oppose his uncle and lead a better life shows that not all of them were the same..hehe i'll say more when i make up my mind :) As for the criticism towards the mob's mentality i admit that in the wine scene i didn't thought about that..as for the two other scenes..i haven't reached that part yet.

Perhaps D had in mind a society were all people (poor and rich) regardless of birth and social class could live together without each class fighting and trying to eliminate and manipulate the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Yes that was quite informative :nod:
I have almost finished the second book now and i have a better idea of what D is trying to do. He criticizes both parties. In the first part he criticizes the aristocracy and how bad they handled poor people, how cruel and unjust they were and how indifferent (and sometimes eager) they were in keeping them reduced to an animal state.

When the revolution begins he criticizes the revolutionaries' fierceness and how they ended up being cruel and perhaps unjust (i say perhaps because i suspect that something will happen to C Darnay..) which means that they weren't able to discriminate between the bad and the good guys. There is a chapter where the french court is ridiculed but by C D's choice to oppose his uncle and lead a better life shows that not all of them were the same..hehe i'll say more when i make up my mind :) As for the criticism towards the mob's mentality i admit that in the wine scene i didn't thought about that..as for the two other scenes..i haven't reached that part yet.

Perhaps D had in mind a society were all people (poor and rich) regardless of birth and social class could live together without each class fighting and trying to eliminate and manipulate the others.

---

manolia, glad that commentary was helpful and insightful to you. Yes, I fully agree with what you say about Dicken's criticizm of the fierceness of the revolutionaries. I think though, it is more than fierceness, and more like blantant vengefulness; not for all but for some. You are predicting well what will happen, but it is more involved than you realise yet. There is so much foreshadowing in the story and one knows that Charles Darney is definitely put into harms way the minute he arrives in Paris. You must be pretty far into the book to have been at the French courtroom scene with Darney or are you referring to the one in the English court at the beginning of the story? As with the past and revolutions such as this same one, revealed in Les Miserables - the revolutionaries sometimes show the same cruelity or revenge as their avengers. The swing towards the other direction is always evident, when violence is used, as the solution.

I was to my library last night trying to dig up more commentary material; I didn't come up with much but this one study guide is pretty good, I think. You might want to think of these elements when you do your reading, I found these in the Sparksnotes study guide, as above:

Quote:

---

THEMES

THE EVER-PRESENT POSSIBILITY OF RESURRECTION

With A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens asserts his belief i the possibility of resurrection and transformation, both on a personal level and on a societal level.

---

I won't go any further with this idea for now, it would be a spoiler.

Quote:

---

THE NECCESSITY OF SACRIFICE
Connected to the theme of possibiliy of resurrection is the notion that sacrifice is necessary to achieve happiness.

---

Again, I won't explain further; spoiler.

Quote:

---

THE TENDENCY TOWARD VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION IN REVOLUNTIONARIES
Throughtout the novel, Dickens approaches the revolutionary subject with some ambivalence. While he supports the revolutionary cause he often points to the eveil of the revolutionaries themselves. Dickens deeply sympathizes with the plight of the Frence peasantry and emphasizes their need for liberation. The chapters that deal with the Marquis Everemond successfully paint a picture of a vicious aristocracy that shamelessly exploits and opresses the nation's poor. Although Dicknes condemns this oppression, however, he also condemns the peasants' stategies in overcoming it. For in fighting cruelty with cruelty, the peasants effect no true revolution; rather, they only perpetuate the vioence that they themselves have suffered.

---

This is where the mob comes in and shows us what mobs are capable of.

Quote:

---

MOTIFS

DOUBLES

Dickens's doubling technique functions not only to draw opposition, but to reveal hidden parallels.

---

Examples: The book starts with one "It is the best of times, it is the worst of times...."
I will expound on that later on. Also, Darney and Carton, as being alike in appearance, is another double motif.)

Quote:

---

SHADOW AND DARKNESS

Shadows dominate the novel, creating a mood of thick obscurity and grave forbodding.

---

We can expound on that later. This would be one example, early on in the story:

Quote:

---

An aura of gloom and apprehension surrrounds the first images of the actual story -- the mail coach's journey in the dark and Jerrry Cruncher's emergence from the mist.

---

Quote:

---

IMPRISONMENT

Almost all of the characters in A Tale of Two Cities fight against some form of imprisonment.

---

Then my source material discusses:

Quote:

---

SYMBOLS

THE BROKEN WINE CASK

MADAME DEFARGE'S KNITTING

Even on a literal level, Madame Defarge's knitting constitutes a whole network of symbols. Into her needlework she stitches a registry, of the list of names, of all those condemend to die in the name of a new republic. But on a metaphoric level, the knitting constitutes a symbol in itself, representing the stealthy, cold-blooded vengefulness of the revolutionaries.

THE MARQUIS

The Marquis Everemond is less a believable character than an archetype of an evil and corrupt social order.

---

I imagine there are many more symbols than listed here, but these may be the main ones to focus on, or the most prominent.

manolia, this is so cool;;) you and I in a book discussion again. Can't wait to read your future comments/posts. :nod: (I like your nodding head guy!) Enjoy your reading!

I have reached the part where C D arrives at France.

Janine thanks for all these nice information :)
Well to tell you the truth i suspect that the ending will have to do with Carton and his resemblance to C Darnay. In fact i think about this since the introduction of the Carton character. And now that Darnay is in trouble it makes me think about what Carton told to both Lucie and Darnay (that he is their devoted friend and how he'd make anything to make them happy)..and since Carton is my favourite male character in this book (not sure why) i hope he won't do anything foolish :lol: Don't answer! We'll see ;) :)

Quote:

---

THE TENDENCY TOWARD VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION IN REVOLUNTIONARIES
Throughtout the novel, Dickens approaches the revolutionary subject with some ambivalence. While he supports the revolutionary cause he often points to the eveil of the revolutionaries themselves. Dickens deeply sympathizes with the plight of the Frence peasantry and emphasizes their need for liberation. The chapters that deal with the Marquis Everemond successfully paint a picture of a vicious aristocracy that shamelessly exploits and opresses the nation's poor. Although Dicknes condemns this oppression, however, he also condemns the peasants' stategies in overcoming it. For in fighting cruelty with cruelty, the peasants effect no true revolution; rather, they only perpetuate the vioence that they themselves have suffered.

---

Yes this expanation is very good :thumbs_up this is what i had in mind..thanks for quoting this.

Quote:

---

With A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens asserts his belief i the possibility of resurrection and transformation, both on a personal level and on a societal level.

---

This i don't quite get unless it is on a metaphorical level..like you said, we will expand on this when i finish

Quote:

---

THE NECCESSITY OF SACRIFICE
Connected to the theme of possibiliy of resurrection is the notion that sacrifice is necessary to achieve happiness.

---

This may confirm my suspicion :( Yeah, we'll see.

Quote:

---

MADAME DEFARGE'S KNITTING

Even on a literal level, Madame Defarge's knitting constitutes a whole network of symbols. Into her needlework she stitches a registry, of the list of names, of all those condemend to die in the name of a new republic. But on a metaphoric level, the knitting constitutes a symbol in itself, representing the stealthy, cold-blooded vengefulness of the revolutionaries.

THE MARQUIS

The Marquis Everemond is less a believable character than an archetype of an evil and corrupt social order.

---

Funny you provide information about the knitting..this is something i wanted to ask. Ok it is very clear what madame Defarge is doing (and it is explained in the book as well -hehehe what a woman, one of the best female characters i have come across;) ) but why knitting?:eek: Is there a reason why D chose the knitting to be the revolutionaries' method of encoding?

As for the Marquis i quite agree. He is the personification of evil ;)

Quote:

---

manolia, this is so cool; you and I in a book discussion again. Can't wait to read your future comments/posts. (I like your nodding head guy!) Enjoy your reading!

---

Yeah we are :) And it is always very nice to discuss a book with you :) We will have many opportunities this year ;)

Quote by manolia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I have reached the part where C D arrives at France.

---

Oh manolia, you make me want to read the book again so bady. I know it pretty well by now though - in my mind - strange the way it is had totally stuck in my mind. That atests to just how dynamic a novel it is I suppose. I recall that scene where you are in your reading. I actually did take the film version out of my library Monday, so I may watch that tonight to refresh my memory on the plot. In fact, this is what happened to me a few years back: I saw the film and I said - 'What? Did I really read this great story in high school?' I had such a different impression of it; all I could recall was it was boring and it was about the revolution...how one's perspective does change when we mature! So I just dove into my book and devoured every page enthusiatically - I loved the story!!! I did think the film so excellent that I had viewed prior, that at times with my late night reading, with one eye open ;, mind you), I felt a little bored, knowing what would come next. Now, since you have never read the book before, it is totally exciting and captivating, isn't it? It is like a good thriller!;) I won't give away that ending. No spoilers here! :D It will have more impact for you, if you don't know. This partly answered your next part below:

Quote:

---

Janine thanks for all these nice information :)
Well to tell you the truth i suspect that the ending will have to do with Carton and his resemblance to C Darnay. In fact i think about this since the introduction of the Carton character. And now that Darnay is in trouble it makes me think about what Carton told to both Lucie and Darnay (that he is their devoted friend and how he'd make anything to make them happy)..and since Carton is my favourite male character in this book (not sure why) i hope he won't do anything foolish :lol: Don't answer! We'll see ;) :)

---

You are welcome - so glad it adds more insight for you.
Yes, throughout the story my favorite character, also, has been Sidney Carton. I liked him from the beginning of the story, when he stood up for Darney. I find his character so interesting, because he keeps me wondering about him and what makes him tick.
According to these Sparksnote commentaries he is the most 'dynamic' of all the characters in the story. In fact, in this part listing the characters, it is said that actually Lucie and Charles are the least interesting of the characters; here is something I found in my the book notes:

Quote:

---

Novelist E.M.Forester famously criticized Dicken's characters as 'flat,' lamenting that they seem to lack the depth and complexity that make literary characters realistic and believable. Charles Darney and Lucie Manette certainly fit this description. A man of honor, repect, and courage, Darney conforms to the archetype of the hero but never exhibits the kind of inner struggle that Carton and Doctor Manette undergo. His opposition to the Marquis' snobbish and cruel aristocratic values in admirable, but, ultimately, his virtue proves too uniform, and he fails to exert any compelling force of the imagination.
Along similar lines, Lucie likely seems to modern readers as uninteresting and two-dimensional as Darney. In every detail of her being, she embodies compassion, love, and virtue: the indelible image of her cradling her father's head delicately on her breast encapsulates her role as the "golden thread" that holds her family together. She manifests her purity of devotion to Darney in her unquestioning willingness to wait at a street corner for two hours each day, on the off chance that he might catch sight of her from his prison window.

---

Then it goes on to point out the importance of these two characters and their role in the whole scheme of the story.

Quote:

---

While Darney and Lucie may not act as windows into the gritty essense of humanity, in combination with other characters, they contribute to a more detailed picture of the human nature." First they provide the light and counters to the vengeful Madame Defarge's darkness, revealing the moral aspects of the human soul so noticably absent from Madame Defarge. Second, throughtout the novel they manifest a virtuousness that Carton strives to attain and that inspires his very real and believable struggles to become a better preson.

---

Quote by manolia

Quote:

---

Yes this expanation is very good :thumbs_up this is what i had in mind..thanks for quoting this.

---

Oh good, glad it was helpful.
Quote by manolia

Quote:

---

This i don't quite get unless it is on a metaphorical level..like you said, we will expand on this when i finish

---

You will understand that at the end of the novel. It will all come clear to you.


Quote by manolia

Quote:

---

This may confirm my suspicion :( Yeah, we'll see.

---

Yep, you will see. ;)


Quote by manolia

Quote:

---

Funny you provide information about the knitting..this is something i wanted to ask. Ok it is very clear what madame Defarge is doing (and it is explained in the book as well -hehehe what a woman, one of the best female characters i have come across;) ) but why knitting?:eek: Is there a reason why D chose the knitting to be the revolutionaries' method of encoding?

---

Someone told me about this and then I truly understood it...duh, what a dummy I am. Anyway, I don't know where it came from either - the idea for it. It certainly is interesting and keeps it all so secretive. If you noticed in the beginning you had mentioned the carts and the knives and how these just blended in being everyday items; so I would imagine to keep a written registry on paper would be totally dangerous and could reveal their intentions. The knitting is brilliant - who would guess such an innocent skill was being used so vilely and for a list of those to revenge - a death list; sort of reminds me of the Nazi death lists. Wow! I wonder if there is any historical reference here - if this actually did happen where a registry was woven or written in the stitches of a piece of knitting. I think this image so astutely says so much - that one one hand knitting is so innocent and so pure - perhaps 'pure' as the intentions and values born in the breasts of the revolutionaries in the beginning stages of their campaign, 'pure intentions'; this is the way I am thinking. Eventually all this heroism has has turned to sheer revenge and hostility of the mob, and so the knitting is two-sided, another duality. It ends by representing pure revenge and evil. Defnitely Madame Defarge is a great character. She truly embodies this idea of the mob gone wild and ultimate revenge. She is a very strong character and wants blood. Eventually, you will find out much more about her. He is a mulit-faceted character.

Quote by manolia

Quote:

---

As for the Marquis i quite agree. He is the personification of evil ;)

---

Definitely so. Madame Defarge is his counter evil.

Quote by manolia

Quote:

---

Yeah we are :) And it is always very nice to discuss a book with you :) We will have many opportunities this year ;)

---

It is great to be again disgussing with you manolia... or even an intriguing movie (I have Lynch in mind of course;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Oh manolia, you make me want to read the book again so bady. I know it pretty well by now though - in my mind - strange the way it is had totally stuck in my mind. That atests to just how dynamic a novel it is I suppose. I recall that scene where you are in your reading. I actually did take the film version out of my library Monday, so I may watch that tonight to refresh my memory on the plot. In fact, this is what happened to me a few years back: I saw the film and I said - 'What? Did I really read this great story in high school?' I had such a different impression of it; all I could recall was it was boring and it was about the revolution...how one's perspective does change when we mature! So I just dove into my book and devoured every page enthusiatically - I loved the story!!! I did think the film so excellent that I had viewed prior, that at times with my late night reading, with one eye open ;, mind you), I felt a little bored, knowing what would come next. Now, since you have never read the book before, it is totally exciting and captivating, isn't it? It is like a good thriller!;) I won't give away that ending. No spoilers here! :D It will have more impact for you, if you don't know. This partly answered your next part below:

---

Yep, it is a great book :nod: I am up to my neck with work lately and nevertheless i have found time to read it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

You are welcome - so glad it adds more insight for you.
Yes, throughout the story my favorite character, also, has been Sidney Carton. I liked him from the beginning of the story, when he stood up for Darney. I find his character so interesting, because he keeps me wondering about him and what makes him tick.
According to these Sparksnote commentaries he is the most 'dynamic' of all the characters in the story. In fact, in this part listing the characters, it is said that actually Lucie and Charles are the least interesting of the characters; here is something I found in my the book notes:

---

Heh great minds think alike :D
I have realised by now why i like Carton..he is very silent and you don't know what he is thinking and why, he is a person with deep feelings but he never shows it and you have to get to know him for a considerable time (years perhaps) till you realise that he isn't insensitive but restraint..heh i have just described my boyfriend and the kind of men i like in real life :lol: :lol:

I agree with C Darnay's and Lucie's description. They weren't altogether bad but i don't much care about their fates ;) I know that D's books are filled with characters like these (they perhaps represent the gentle folk of the age) but i always liked D's villains :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Someone told me about this and then I truly understood it...duh, what a dummy I am. Anyway, I don't know where it came from either - the idea for it. It certainly is interesting and keeps it all so secretive. If you noticed in the beginning you had mentioned the carts and the knives and how these just blended in being everyday items; so I would imagine to keep a written registry on paper would be totally dangerous and could reveal their intentions. The knitting is brilliant - who would guess such an innocent skill was being used so vilely and for a list of those to revenge - a death list; sort of reminds me of the Nazi death lists. Wow! I wonder if there is any historical reference here - if this actually did happen where a registry was woven or written in the stitches of a piece of knitting. I think this image so astutely says so much - that one one hand knitting is so innocent and so pure - perhaps 'pure' as the intentions and values born in the breasts of the revolutionaries in the beginning stages of their campaign, 'pure intentions'; this is the way I am thinking. Eventually all this heroism has has turned to sheer revenge and hostility of the mob, and so the knitting is two-sided, another duality. It ends by representing pure revenge and evil. Defnitely Madame Defarge is a great character. She truly embodies this idea of the mob gone wild and ultimate revenge. She is a very strong character and wants blood. Eventually, you will find out much more about her. He is a mulit-faceted character.

---

I was thinking the same thing..if it is based on true incidents although it seems quite unlikely..
It is a very clever idea though and it gives a very humouristic touch to the first part of the book (the fact that Mme Defarge is always knitting and sees nothing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

It is great to be again disgussing with you manolia... or even an intriguing movie (I have Lynch in mind of course;)

---

Like i told you before, do watch "Inland Empire"..we will be discussing this movie for the next few years if you do watch it :lol:

Oh, i have two more chapters and i am done with the book ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Yep, it is a great book :nod: I am up to my neck with work lately and nevertheless i have found time to read it ;)

---

manolia, isn't that always the way? Just when you really want to do one thing you get bogged down with work or something needs to be done. Hey, we have time; don't stress out. Bye the way, where is everyone else on this thread who voted? Are they still all reading the book? Hello, calling all readers - anybody there:smash:

Quote:

---

Heh great minds think alike :D
I have realised by now why i like Carton..he is very silent and you don't know what he is thinking and why, he is a person with deep feelings but he never shows it and you have to get to know him for a considerable time (years perhaps) till you realise that he isn't insensitive but restraint..heh i have just described my boyfriend and the kind of men i like in real life :lol: :lol:

---

Yes, they(we) surely do! :lol:)
The kind of guys I am attacted to, also. The trouble is,
usually, by the time I have them somewhat figured out, I also figure out they are not what I thought they were, nor what I want in a man.
Of course, there is always the exception to that rule. I guess I keep hoping to find it. Still, the silent types are not that easy to live with.

Quote:

---

I agree with C Darnay's and Lucie's description. They weren't altogether bad but i don't much care about their fates ;) I know that D's books are filled with characters like these (they perhaps represent the gentle folk of the age) but i always liked D's villains :D

---

Who Lucie and Charles? Don't you really care if they get guillotined? I don't want to see that, but I think they are really naive to enter Paris during these dangerous times; don't you think it? They all seem to be in some kind of a 'dreamworld' or uninformed as to the dangers. No sooner does Charles enter the city, and he is dedained/arrested, right? Yes, true the bad guys do get the greatest attention in Dicken's books and are the most interesting, but somehow good always does prevail. I can't think of any real tragedies in Dickens, unless this one comes close. There is always an upside though, unlike say, Thomas Hardy or even Shakespeare tragedies.

Quote:

---

I was thinking the same thing..if it is based on true incidents although it seems quite unlikely..
It is a very clever idea though and it gives a very humouristic touch to the first part of the book (the fact that Mme Defarge is always knitting and sees nothing).

---

manolia, I was going to try to research that but not sure how. I will poke around on the internet. I think I read about it having some historic origin, but not sure where now. Yes, humorous in a sick way, maybe black humor...you've been watching too many Lynch movies, M. ;) :lol: I may be wrong about it being historical fact, so don't quote me on that idea.


Yes, great thought, with Mme. Defarge seeming to see nothing; she sees more than you would imagine and she not only records this in the stitches, but in her in her screwd mind. She is out for blood. She doesn't miss a trick, believe me. She has one goal and that is blood - revenge. Any obstacles in her way, get mowed down.

Quote:

---

Like i told you before, do watch "Inland Empire"..we will be discussing this movie for the next few years if you do watch it :lol:

---

I have to try and get that film. Any ideas how? Would it be available in our video stores here? I have never seen it. How old is the film? I was just lucky "Mullholland Drive" has come into my library several times now. I will try and track it down.

Quote:

---

Oh, i have two more chapters and i am done with the book ;)

---

Great! But I hope you will keep posting, even if you go onto a new book. I know we can have a great discussion on this book. If you wander off, I will come and get you...hahaha.

I can't wait to see how you like the ending. manolia, you sure do read fast! I still want to listen to the audiobook - it is available online from my library and will better refresh my memory. I have to finish up my L book soon - a few more chapters, then I will download ATOTC to my MP3 player. I am currently also listening to the audiobook for the monthly book read on here. Whew, I am busy too!

Here is a tidbit I found in several book sources, but this is briefly stated here in the Sparksnotes under:

Quote:

---

PREFACE:

In a brief note, Dickens mentions the source of inspiration for A Tale of Two Cities: a play in which he acted, called The Frozen Deep, written by his friend Wilkie Collins. He adds that he hopes that he can further his readers' understanding of the French Revolution --"that terrible time" --but that no one can truly hope to surpass Thomas Carlyle's The French Revolution (published in 1837)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

manolia, isn't that always the way? Just when you really want to do one thing you get bogged down with work or something needs to be done. Hey, we have time; don't stress out. Bye the way, where is everyone else on this thread who voted? Are they still all reading the book? Hello, calling all readers - anybody there:smash:

---

I was wondering the same thing ;) Perhaps they are busy with the other reading or have exams (Alexei popped in the conversation but said something about exams).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, they(we) surely do! :lol:)
The kind of guys I am attacted to, also. The trouble is,
usually, by the time I have them somewhat figured out, I also figure out they are not what I thought they were, nor what I want in a man.
Of course, there is always the exception to that rule. I guess I keep hoping to find it. Still, the silent types are not that easy to live with.

---

After a while you get to know them very well and are able to figure out the different kinds of silence..besides it is nice since you get to do most of the talking :p :lol: (and i talk a lot, mind you) :lol: And when they get to know you better they start to open up (eventually) and to my experience guys that don't talk too much and don't express themselves easily have deeper emotions (of course i can be wrong about that but it works so far ;) ). Carton is a good example :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Who Lucie and Charles? Don't you really care if they get guillotined? I don't want to see that, but I think they are really naive to enter Paris during these dangerous times; don't you think it? They all seem to be in some kind of a 'dreamworld' or uninformed as to the dangers. No sooner does Charles enter the city, and he is dedained/arrested, right? Yes, true the bad guys do get the greatest attention in Dicken's books and are the most interesting, but somehow good always does prevail. I can't think of any real tragedies in Dickens, unless this one comes close. There is always an upside though, unlike say, Thomas Hardy or even Shakespeare tragedies.

---

Yep i wasn't much interested in their fates. This doesn't mean that i wanted them dead ;) but:
Charles seems to me to be a very naive person (like you said)..first he's been travelling undercover to Paris and London in order to take care of the Evremonde affairs, to be faithfull to the promise he has given to his mother and convince his hellish uncle to handle the peasants better :rolleyes: something he never actually accomplishes because he meets Lucie and is infatuated with her :rolleyes:. Doesn't this show how irresponsible and self centered he is? As soon as he meets Lucie he forgets about his promise and all and leaves poor Gabele behind with a few instructions to make the most out of them..When he realises that he must take action he chooses the worst time ever, going headlong to a desperate expedition and endagering not only himself but his entire family ;) And Carton and the doctor (not to mention Mr Lorry and Jerry and Mrs Pross) are being draged along to Paris and combine their efforts to save his butt :lol: which leads to the inevitable secrifice of Carton :(
As for Lucie..she is infatuated with Charles..but why?? Ok the submissive part of her character and her sweetness and all can be attributed to the Victorian models of proper behaviour etc etc
I like both Charles and Lucie, don't get me wrong. They are essential to the book and they also serve as a contrast for the stronger characters. Carton's superiority of character (and the doctor's) is made more prominent by Charle's deficiency. Same goes for Mrs Pross and Mme Defarge when compared to Lucie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, great thought, with Mme. Defarge seeming to see nothing; she sees more than you would imagine and she not only records this in the stitches, but in her in her screwd mind. She is out for blood. She doesn't miss a trick, believe me. She has one goal and that is blood - revenge. Any obstacles in her way, get mowed down.

---

Mme Defarge is definately one of the bad guys. In the first part of the book (book 1 and half of the second book) prior to the beginning of the revolution, she is a likeable character, because in the first part we get to see how evil the aristocracy is and how bad they treated the poor folk, so even the slight hints that are given to us which somehow show what will take place next, isn't enough to make one dislike her.
On the second part when we get to see that she is one of the leading figures of the revolution and that she is a very bloodthirsty person, we get to think differantly about her. But towards the end when we learn about her family history we may again sympathise ;) .
I really enjoyed the "catfight" between Mrs Pross and Mme Defarge towards the end when Mrs Pross confronts Mme Defarge and they eye each other :lol: and i was a bit sad when she died..she may be a ruthless person and totally uncapable of mercy but she was the most interesting female character of the book (she reminded me of My lady from "The three Musketeers" by Dumas). ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I have to try and get that film. Any ideas how? Would it be available in our video stores here? I have never seen it. How old is the film? I was just lucky "Mullholland Drive" has come into my library several times now. I will try and track it down.

Great! But I hope you will keep posting, even if you go onto a new book. I know we can have a great discussion on this book. If you wander off, I will come and get you...hahaha.

---

I saw "Inland Empire" in a theater last year. It is a 2006 film..i am sure you'll find it ;) He is an american director so i bet it is quite easy to find his films in the US if i can find them here :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I really enjoyed the "catfight" between Mrs Pross and Mme Defarge towards the end when Mrs Pross confronts Mme Defarge and they eye each other :lol: and i was a bit sad when she died..she may be a ruthless person and totally uncapable of mercy but she was the most interesting female character of the book (she reminded me of My lady from "The three Musketeers" by Dumas). ;)

---

This is one of my favourite scenes from the whole book. Very very interesting. Oh and I did feel bad for Madam Defarge too. At places, she even managed to convince me a bit that there was nothing wrong with the revenge... A very strong character about whom everything I felt like reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I was wondering the same thing ;) Perhaps they are busy with the other reading or have exams (Alexei popped in the conversation but said something about exams).

---

There does seem to be a lot of exams this time of year. Perhaps that is the reason. There are two main book discussions going on also this month.

Quote:

---

After a while you get to know them very well and are able to figure out the different kinds of silence..besides it is nice since you get to do most of the talking :p :lol: (and i talk a lot, mind you) :lol: And when they get to know you better they start to open up (eventually) and to my experience guys that don't talk too much and don't express themselves easily have deeper emotions (of course i can be wrong about that but it works so far ;) ). Carton is a good example :D

---

The bolded up part I relate to the most! :lol: manolia, we would be murder in a room together for any length of time or on a telephone. We would both get cauliflower ear!;) :lol: But seriously, we must discuss this other part in PM's or emails. I could tell you an earful and you me...probably. I might just be suffering now from man 'cynicism' in my old age!

Quote:

---

Yep i wasn't much interested in their fates. This doesn't mean that i wanted them dead ;) but:
Charles seems to me to be a very naive person (like you said)..first he's been travelling undercover to Paris and London in order to take care of the Evremonde affairs, to be faithfull to the promise he has given to his mother and convince his hellish uncle to handle the peasants better :rolleyes: something he never actually accomplishes because he meets Lucie and is infatuated with her :rolleyes:. Doesn't this show how irresponsible and self centered he is? As soon as he meets Lucie he forgets about his promise and all and leaves poor Gabele behind with a few instructions to make the most out of them..When he realises that he must take action he chooses the worst time ever, going headlong to a desperate expedition and endagering not only himself but his entire family ;) And Carton and the doctor (not to mention Mr Lorry and Jerry and Mrs Pross) are being draged along to Paris and combine their efforts to save his butt :lol: which leads to the inevitable secrifice of Carton :(

---

I pretty much agree with the things you said here, but I think I cared a little more about their fates. However, I did definitely think Charles risked a lot going back to Paris, but it seemed he was being noble doing so and also feeling quilty he had abandoned the keeper of his estate there. What was he thinking? To be honest with you, considering this is a much different time and word probably traveled so slowly without any modern day communications devices, I therefore feel he was probably not getting a realistic view of exactly what was going on in Paris and just how bad it had become. Lucy and their daughter going to Paris did not make much sense to me, but I just read that he was imprisoned for a year and a half. I had not realised that it was that long before he came up to trial. I would think the family would have be tormented about going, but then Mr. Lorry had made frequent trips to Paris from London to conduct business, so I suppose Lucy felt some security in that and the fact that Dr. Manette had been a prisoner in the Bastille for those 18 yrs. They all would have been safe in the end, had it not been for the discovery of Dr. Manette's manuscript he wrote in his cell and stashed away in the fireplace or wall. Who would have quessed that would be found. I was wondering how Monsieur Defarge knew to look for the document. Had Manette told him about it or perhaps mumbled in to him when he was not in his right mind? I forget this part of the story, so maybe someone can help restore my memory on this point.
I read that really, none of the characters are anything less than somewhat shallow (not totally fleshed out perhaps) and it was how Dickens intended them to be, so we have to take that in to account, as well. I would imagine going into more depth with each character, would have made the book of epic length and Dickens wanted to get to his point sooner and to drag out particulars would have detracted from the intricate plot and the plot twists. The book is more 'plot' driven work and deals with so many social questions and moral questions, that the characters are somewhat seen as caracatures of real people. I don't mind this in this book. There are so many colorful characters, that I think it works well with one set of characters, off-setting the drama of other characters. It works very much like a play actually, now that I think about it. So how much can you reveal about a charcter in a few hour's time, as in a play? How many pages are devoted to just one character in this book, since the book has so many? Not that many really. I think what I am saying it the amount of depth Dickens uses to convey the characters in this book is well balanced with the plot and not in excess. We get a small window into each character and perhaps have to fill in the blanks for ourselves. I think the most fleshed out character is Sidney Carton. Someone one can see directly into his soul but one wonders how he got to be as he is in the beginning of the story. We also find out more about Madame Defarge since her past has been revealed sometime during the trial and we can find some sympathy in our hearts for this person who is very damaged by what she has endured. Sidney Carton also appears to be a damaged individual but unlike Madame Defarge, we never find out what made him as he was. Ultimately we see him heroic and unselfish and sacrificing. Some scholars have argued did he really make the ultimate sacrifice when he seemed to value his own life so little. This is an interesting question but I tend to think otherwise. I don't take being guillotined too lightly, do you?

Quote:

---

As for Lucie..she is infatuated with Charles..but why?? Ok the submissive part of her character and her sweetness and all can be attributed to the Victorian models of proper behaviour etc etc
I like both Charles and Lucie, don't get me wrong. They are essential to the book and they also serve as a contrast for the stronger characters. Carton's superiority of character (and the doctor's) is made more prominent by Charle's deficiency. Same goes for Mrs Pross and Mme Defarge when compared to Lucie.

---

I truly wondered why she went for him, as well; except that in the beginning, she had noted his kindness on the ship with her father coming back from Paris. I don't know just what else transpired between them, but I think they had great admiration and respect for each other. I think that they truly loved each other and were attracted right away - chemistry perhaps. I think Dickens leaves their romantic life to our own imaginations and that is fine. They both seem of the same temperament and suite each other well, or compliment each other. These calmer characters do definitely contrast with the more dynamic characters, even Miss Pross and Jerry Cruncher, who both are quite excitable and very humorous at times. But most notably they do contrast with Sidney Carton and Madame Defarge.

Quote:

---

Mme Defarge is definately one of the bad guys. In the first part of the book (book 1 and half of the second book) prior to the beginning of the revolution, she is a likeable character, because in the first part we get to see how evil the aristocracy is and how bad they treated the poor folk, so even the slight hints that are given to us which somehow show what will take place next, isn't enough to make one dislike her.
On the second part when we get to see that she is one of the leading figures of the revolution and that she is a very bloodthirsty person, we get to think differantly about her. But towards the end when we learn about her family history we may again sympathise ;).

---

I think probably the one character who is less one dimensional is Madame Defarge. We get to see both sides of her character, although the blood-thirsty, revengeful side wins out; yet even when she dies we feel it is a tragedy unfolding. I think that the fact, that we are given background information on her at the trial makes us feel more like she is a human-being who has been terribly wronged; therefore, we can relate to her a little easier. Throughout the book, there is much emphasis on Madame Defarge, don't you think? One of my commentary books point to the fact that she ultimately ends up representing the chaos of the revolution, most notably the mob.

Quote:

---

I really enjoyed the "catfight" between Mrs Pross and Mme Defarge towards the end when Mrs Pross confronts Mme Defarge and they eye each other :lol: and i was a bit sad when she died..she may be a ruthless person and totally uncapable of mercy but she was the most interesting female character of the book (she reminded me of My lady from "The three Musketeers" by Dumas). ;)

---

Wasn't it great? It was like all hell broke loose in Miss Pross and Madame Defarge was on the warpath. Miss Prose summoned up all her maternal protective energy to fight the heck out of Madame Defarge. If you get a chance to see the film version this is an amazing scene. It makes one almost laugh but then it does turn quite ugly and it is very sad when the bullet goes off. At first one does not know which is hit and then the reality sinks in. It is a brilliant scene and part of the book, pitting the two charcters directly at each other for the showdown.

Quote:

---

I saw "Inland Empire" in a theater last year. It is a 2006 film..i am sure you'll find it ;) He is an american director so i bet it is quite easy to find his films in the US if i can find them here :)

---

You know, I think I was thinking of "Lost Highway" - I still need to see that film by Lynch. So this newer film is not by Lynch. I get it now. Yes, not doubt I will get to see it soon. My library buys them pretty quickly after the DVD's are released. They have a nice collection by now. I will just wait and soon it will probably be in. I will check their video list online tonight. They may have it already. Who stars in it?

I wondered what anyone thought of the 'spy' who seems to change sides at his advantage. He is the man who gets Sidney into the prison, Barsad. He starts out at the trial in the begining (England), then crops up midway at Defarge's Tavern and then he is especially significant to the ending of the story. I thought he was a real snake playing both sides of the coin at once, or so it seemed to me he did this. I had forgotten he was the actual long lost brother of Miss Pross; interesting.

Note:I did go back and edit this after watching the miniseries which I know is quite close to the actual text and plot, and very true to the characters.

Quote:

---

The bolded up part I relate to the most! manolia, we would be murder in a room together for any length of time or on a telephone. We would both get cauliflower ear! But seriously, we must discuss this other part in PM's or emails. I could tell you an earful and you me...probably. I might just be suffering now from man 'cynicism' in my old age!

---

:lol: :lol: You are too much :lol: :lol:
yep better with pms ;)
Let's return to the book :)

Quote:

---

I pretty much agree with the things you said here, but I think I cared a little more about their fates. However, I did definitely think Charles risked a lot going back to Paris, but it seemed he was being noble doing so and also feeling quilty he had abandoned the keeper of his estate there. What was he thinking? To be honest with you, considering this is a much different time and word probably traveled so slowly without any modern day communications devices, I therefore feel he was probably not getting a realistic view of exactly what was going on in Paris and just how bad it had become. Lucy and their daughter going to Paris did not make much sense to me, but I just read that he was imprisoned for a year and a half. I had not realised that it was that long before he came up to trial. I would think the family would have be tormented about going, but then Mr. Lorry had made frequent trips to Paris from London to conduct business, so I suppose Lucy felt some security in that and the fact that Dr. Manette had been a prisoner in the Bastille for those 18 yrs. They all would have been safe in the end, had it not been for the discovery of Dr. Manette's manuscript he wrote in his cell and stashed away in the fireplace or wall. Who would have quessed that would be found. I was wondering how Monsieur Defarge knew to look for the document. Had Manette told him about it or perhaps mumbled in to him when he was not in his right mind? I forget this part of the story, so maybe someone can help restore my memory on this point.
I read that really, none of the characters are anything less than somewhat shallow (not totally fleshed out perhaps) and it was how Dickens intended them to be, so we have to take that in to account, as well. I would imagine going into more depth with each character, would have made the book of epic length and Dickens wanted to get to his point sooner and to drag out particulars would have detracted from the intricate plot and the plot twists. The book is more 'plot' driven work and deals with so many social questions and moral questions, that the characters are somewhat seen as caracatures of real people. I don't mind this in this book. There are so many colorful characters, that I think it works well with one set of characters, off-setting the drama of other characters. It works very much like a play actually, now that I think about it. So how much can you reveal about a charcter in a few hour's time, as in a play? How many pages are devoted to just one character in this book, since the book has so many? Not that many really. I think what I am saying it the amount of depth Dickens uses to convey the characters in this book is well balanced with the plot and not in excess. We get a small window into each character and perhaps have to fill in the blanks for ourselves. I think the most fleshed out character is Sidney Carton. Someone one can see directly into his soul but one wonders how he got to be as he is in the beginning of the story. We also find out more about Madame Defarge since her past has been revealed sometime during the trial and we can find some sympathy in our hearts for this person who is very damaged by what she has endured. Sidney Carton also appears to be a damaged individual but unlike Madame Defarge, we never find out what made him as he was. Ultimately we see him heroic and unselfish and sacrificing. Some scholars have argued did he really make the ultimate sacrifice when he seemed to value his own life so little. This is an interesting question but I tend to think otherwise. I don't take being guillotined too lightly, do you?

---

I agree with all your points.
Yes Darnay is doing a noble thing (apart from his duty and his promise to the mother) in going to Paris. Instead of chosing to remain safely in London he goes to help Gabele. But, like i said, this is something he should have done earlier, thus the irresponsible of his behaviour ;)
You are quite correct in saying that being far from Paris and living in an age where communication between cities was being accomplished by post chases and letters he couldn't have a complete picture of what was going on.
Lucie feels relatively safe in going to Paris with her father and Mr Lorry (although i am not sure whether she was thinking about her own safety at the moment) but she arrives there right after Darnay is captured (so she couldn't possibly know for how long her husband was bound to be detained there).
I am not sure either how Defarge found the letter of Dr Mannete. I have the impression that he searched everywhere in his cage and found it by accident. So either he was very lucky or one may imagine that indeed Dr Mannete may have said something when he was first released from prison.
Again you are right. it was Dr Mannete's letter that prolonged their agony.
I don't know about the characters being shallow. To tell you the truth the novel was so fascinating that i didn't care much about character depth. Besides some of the characters are very well crafted (Carton, the Doctor, Mme Defarge).

Quote:

---

I think probably the one character who is less one dimensional is Madame Defarge. We get to see both sides of her character, although the blood-thirsty, revengeful side wins out; yet even when she dies we feel it is a tragedy unfolding. I think that the fact, that we are given background information on her at the trial makes us feel more like she is a human-being who has been terribly wronged; therefore, we can relate to her a little easier. Throughout the book, there is much emphasis on Madame Defarge, don't you think? One of my commentary books point to the fact that she ultimately ends up representing the chaos of the revolution, most notably the mob.

---

Yes the chaos of revolution.
I think that D wanted to point out something else as well. He wanted to point out that no matter how just their cause was (poor people being oppressed and wronged for centuries by the aristocracy -Mme Defarge's family history vividly shows this) if people when they come to power only care about revenge (to guillotine as many aristocrats as possible) and not social reform (to fight for a better society, to try and organise themselves and create a new form of government where everyone regardless of his/hers descent has his/hers place..in other words a democracy) then their struggle is doomed to fail. I hope i make sense :goof:

Quote:

---

Wasn't it great? It was like all hell broke loose in Miss Pross and Madame Defarge was on the warpath. Miss Prose summoned up all her maternal protective energy to fight the heck out of Madame Defarge. If you get a chance to see the film version this is an amazing scene. It makes one almost laugh but then it does turn quite ugly and it is very sad when the bullet goes off. At first one does not know which is hit and then the reality sinks in. It is a brilliant scene and part of the book, pitting the two charcters directly at each other for the showdown.

---

Janine, which adaptation is that?

Quote:

---

I wondered what anyone thought of the 'spy' who seems to change sides at his advantage. He is the man who gets Sidney into the prison, Barsad. He starts out at the trial in the begining (England), then crops up midway at Defarge's Tavern and then he is especially significant to the ending of the story. I thought he was a real snake playing both sides of the coin at once, or so it seemed to me he did this. I had forgotten he was the actual long lost brother of Miss Pross; interesting.

---

Yes a very interesting character ;)
This is another proof of how well read D is in everything that concerns human nature. This type of people existed always..the type of person who has no ideology, no country etc and are always willing to change sides for profit and survival.

Now, i think is the time we could start adressing all the points you made earlier (the parts you quoted earlier). ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

:lol: :lol: You are too much :lol: :lol:
yep better with pms ;)
Let's return to the book :)

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

I agree with all your points.
Yes Darnay is doing a noble thing (apart from his duty and his promise to the mother) in going to Paris. Instead of chosing to remain safely in London he goes to help Gabele. But, like i said, this is something he should have done earlier, thus the irresponsible of his behaviour ;)

---

This is true, but knowing his past I think he was trying hard to leave this behind him. I don't think he cared much about his estate, in his estranged country. He had emigrated and I guess, now having found such happiness with Lucy and his daugther, he ignored his past, avoided it and did not look back, unless required to. It was somewhat irresponsible, but then again, perhaps he just wanted to be cut free from the Paris, he had known. But you are right in that he did promise his mother some things and he apparently, had not done as he had promised. He never found the wronged family or any members. Would things have been different for him had he - would the outcome/his fate have been different? This I don't know, because Madame Defarge was out for revenge from the beginning, even though she spiraled totally out of control, by the end of the novel. In ways, Darney lived a split life. He was one person disguised, yet he was also another very much living in his present. He was not truly responible for the sins of his father, although his inclination was to furfill his mother's wishes to help that family. I don't know how he would have found out Madame Defarge as the injured party, do you? What was the something he should have done earilier?

Quote:

---

You are quite correct in saying that being far from Paris and living in an age where communication between cities was being accomplished by post chases and letters he couldn't have a complete picture of what was going on.
Lucie feels relatively safe in going to Paris with her father and Mr Lorry (although i am not sure whether she was thinking about her own safety at the moment) but she arrives there right after Darnay is captured (so she couldn't possibly know for how long her husband was bound to be detained there).

---

True, but if you loved someone as dearly, as Lucy loved her husband, I suppose she wanted to go to him. I don't know about taking along the child. But remember, Lucy, herself, was left parentless at an early age, so that might have played into the fact, she was trying to keep her family together and support her husband. In those days people could easily give up and die in those rotten prisons. If no wife appeared or there was not connection to the outside world and family, very easily Charles could have perished in the prison. They say despair can kill a person faster than anything else. When people are stranded in remote places and trapped, the most important thing is to keep up their spirits or morale, or they will perish.

Quote:

---

I am not sure either how Defarge found the letter of Dr Mannete. I have the impression that he searched everywhere in his cage and found it by accident. So either he was very lucky or one may imagine that indeed Dr Mannete may have said something when he was first released from prison.
Again you are right. it was Dr Mannete's letter that prolonged their agony.
I don't know about the characters being shallow. To tell you the truth the novel was so fascinating that i didn't care much about character depth. Besides some of the characters are very well crafted (Carton, the Doctor, Mme Defarge).

---

I would asume Dr.Manette did utter some word indicating the whereabouts of the writing he had left behind. It has been awhile since I read the book so I thought maybe specifically it did state how he knew. Maybe he just assumed he might leave something behind in writing; but according to the film I saw last night ;) :lol: , he did not know the contents of that writing or his wife's history until he read it with her together after discovery. Do you know if that is true to the book plot? Again I can't recall it specifically.

Quote:

---

Yes the chaos of revolution.
I think that D wanted to point out something else as well. He wanted to point out that no matter how just their cause was (poor people being oppressed and wronged for centuries by the aristocracy -Mme Defarge's family history vividly shows this) if people when they come to power only care about revenge (to guillotine as many aristocrats as possible) and not social reform (to fight for a better society, to try and organise themselves and create a new form of government where everyone regardless of his/hers descent has his/hers place..in other words a democracy) then their struggle is doomed to fail. I hope i make sense :goof:

---

That does make perfect sense to me and it is so true. Without the organisation of a new government what is left - chaos. The mob took it upon themselves to govern in a terrible way - all on the side of revenge - ruthless, senseless revenge. Most payed for the sins of their ancestors and so I think that Charles Darney's case demonstrates this to us. They did not care about his character or his family members or decendents - who all were innocent. To the mob they were guilty and therefore when chaos took over all were endanger.

Quote:

---

Janine, which adaptation is that?

---

The Masterpiece Theater Production - very good, James Wilby plays Sidney Carton and I think it was one of his best performances ever. I will send you the details and a link to Amazon and the film in a PM. I have seen this film countless times and I really like it. The suberb Anna Massey plays Miss Pross -she is a scream! The guy who plays Jerry is quite good but I don't know that actor. The woman playing Defarge is superb! She can look really scary and the funny thing is she is really a beautiful woman. I watched it in two nights -it is two disks and pretty long, but it goes quickly keeping ones full attention.

Quote:

---

Yes a very interesting character ;)
This is another proof of how well read D is in everything that concerns human nature. This type of people existed always..the type of person who has no ideology, no country etc and are always willing to change sides for profit and survival.

---

Truly!

Quote:

---

Now, i think is the time we could start adressing all the points you made earlier (the parts you quoted earlier). ;)

---

That would be great, manolia. I threw it out there to get people thinking and try to give us a direction or criteria of discussing. I could have added what the book said, about the various things, such as symbols, motifs, but better we all think on these and discuss our own ideas first and then I can add more that the book says or points out.

Ok, since no one is starting I skipped Theme for now and went right to Motifs. I am reposting some of my former post, and if anyone wants to discuss these, please jump in anytime. Anyone out there...what happened to the 7 people who voted on this novel?

Ok, here goes -

Quote:

---

MOTIFS

DOUBLES

Dickens's doubling technique functions not only to draw opposition, but to reveal hidden parallels.

---

Examples: The book starts with one "It is the best of times, it is the worst of times...." I will expound on that later tomorrow.
Also, Darney and Carton, as being alike in appearance, is another double motif. Sidney looks at Charles and sees the man he knows he could have been but feels he never will be. To see into the other man is like being forced to look into a mirror.
I was thinking also of the title of the book and the two cities, London and Paris, and how different they are, yet how alike - another double.
Sidney Carton embodies a double in his own being, he sees his life as hopeless and useless, and yet he is the whole reason Charles is saved, through his love for Lucy and his self sacrifice. Not only does his actions save Charles once, but then again.
There are two defining incidents in front of the wine shop: the spilling of the barrel of wine and the death of the child who is run down by the Marquis' carriage. The first incident of the wine represents the desperatation of the peasants to overcome their hungar and poverty; the second incident (with the spilling of the blood of the child) marks the beginnings of the revolution, wherein the greater spilling of human blood will be realised. Also, blood and wine are symbols of the Last Supper, Holy Communion and the death of Christ and therefore, embody the sacrifice and ideology of eternal life.
Jerry Cruncher appears to be a poor but respectable errand man for the Tellson's bank and yet at night he leads a second covert existence as a grave digger. In day he appears to be one type man and at night he lurks in shadows.
I will think of more doubles in the story.

Quote:

---

SHADOW AND DARKNESS

Shadows dominate the novel, creating a mood of thick obscurity and grave forbodding.

---

We can expound on that. This would be one example, early on in the story:

Quote:

---

An aura of gloom and apprehension surrrounds the first images of the actual story -- the mail coach's journey in the dark and Jerrry Cruncher's emergence from the mist.

---

Quote:

---

IMPRISONMENT

Almost all of the characters in A Tale of Two Cities fight against some form of imprisonment.

---

The most obvious is, of course, the imprisonment of Dr. Manette. Even after his release, he is still fighting against his own imprisonment, within his own mind, which is evident when he reverts back to making shoes, as he did in the Bastille. He is imprisoned within his own being and memory of the dreadful prison. Only Lucy, with her unfailing love, helps him to become restored to himself. But later, he does have relapses and eventually, Mr. Lorry and Miss Pross convince him to let them bury his tools, because they have become as a crutch to maintaining his sanity.

I hope all this makes some sense. I am quite tired and will continue with this tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

This is true, but knowing his past I think he was trying hard to leave this behind him. I don't think he cared much about his estate, in his estranged country. He had emigrated and I guess, now having found such happiness with Lucy and his daugther, he ignored his past, avoided it and did not look back, unless required to. It was somewhat irresponsible, but then again, perhaps he just wanted to be cut free from the Paris, he had known. But you are right in that he did promise his mother some things and he apparently, had not done as he had promised. He never found the wronged family or any members. Would things have been different for him had he - would the outcome/his fate have been different? This I don't know, because Madame Defarge was out for revenge from the beginning, even though she spiraled totally out of control, by the end of the novel. In ways, Darney lived a split life. He was one person disguised, yet he was also another very much living in his present. He was not truly responible for the sins of his father, although his inclination was to furfill his mother's wishes to help that family. I don't know how he would have found out Madame Defarge as the injured party, do you? What was the something he should have done earilier?

---

true true..and of course there would be no book if Darnay was a responsible gentleman to begin with :lol: (or at least there wouldn't be as many twists to the plot).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

True, but if you loved someone as dearly, as Lucy loved her husband, I suppose she wanted to go to him. I don't know about taking along the child. But remember, Lucy, herself, was left parentless at an early age, so that might have played into the fact, she was trying to keep her family together and support her husband. In those days people could easily give up and die in those rotten prisons. If no wife appeared or there was not connection to the outside world and family, very easily Charles could have perished in the prison. They say despair can kill a person faster than anything else. When people are stranded in remote places and trapped, the most important thing is to keep up their spirits or morale, or they will perish.

---

If i were Lucie i'd let him rot in prison (for keeping secrets from me) :lol: :lol: kidding :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I would asume Dr.Manette did utter some word indicating the whereabouts of the writing he had left behind. It has been awhile since I read the book so I thought maybe specifically it did state how he knew. Maybe he just assumed he might leave something behind in writing; but according to the film I saw last night ;) :lol: , he did not know the contents of that writing or his wife's history until he read it with her together after discovery. Do you know if that is true to the book plot? Again I can't recall it specifically.

---

What wife? Defarge's wife? In the book we learn that Defarge finds the letter but the letter is read aloud in the court room (when Darnay is tried)..of course we can assume that the Defarges have already read the letter and are very well acquainted with its contents ;) so if this is what you meant, i don't think it is that far from the book plot.
In case you meant Dr Manette's wife, according to the book, she died during the first years of Dr Manette's imprisonment ;) so they never meet each other again (unless it is in heaven :lol: :p ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

The Masterpiece Theater Production - very good, James Wilby plays Sidney Carton and I think it was one of his best performances ever. I will send you the details and a link to Amazon and the film in a PM. I have seen this film countless times and I really like it. The suberb Anna Massey plays Miss Pross -she is a scream! The guy who plays Jerry is quite good but I don't know that actor. The woman playing Defarge is superb! She can look really scary and the funny thing is she is really a beautiful woman. I watched it in two nights -it is two disks and pretty long, but it goes quickly keeping ones full attention.

---

Thanks..i guess i'll have to look this up :)

I'll respond to your next post tomorrow :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

true true..and of course there would be no book if Darnay was a responsible gentleman to begin with :lol: (or at least there wouldn't be as many twists to the plot).

---

manolia, I am going to answer these briefly for now, so you won't have to answer this post - only the other one I wrote about 'Motifs'.

Yes, that is a good one. There would be no plot at all without Charles.

Quote:

---

If i were Lucie i'd let him rot in prison (for keeping secrets from me) :lol: :lol: kidding :p

---

:lol: You are something else....tough gal, manolia! Poor Charles, if you were his wife! ;) :lol:

Quote:

---

What wife? Defarge's wife? In the book we learn that Defarge finds the letter but the letter is read aloud in the court room (when Darnay is tried)..of course we can assume that the Defarges have already read the letter and are very well acquainted with its contents ;) so if this is what you meant, i don't think it is that far from the book plot.
In case you meant Dr Manette's wife, according to the book, she died during the first years of Dr Manette's imprisonment ;) so they never meet each other again (unless it is in heaven :lol: :p ).

---

I am referring here to Defarge's wife. She stated, by questioning her husband in front of the a few other revolutionists, in the wineshop, that they had read the writing of Manette's together one night. This was before Monsieur Defarge presented it at the trial. It seemed she revealed to her husband that night who she was in connection to the denouncement of the Evremondes. I wasn't sure if this actually took place in the novel or was it just for the sake of the film? It is not that significant - only for the fact that her husband had been appealing to her, to stop at Charles and not involve his family - Lucy and their child and Lucy's father. He wanted her to stop here at the violence. This might only have been in the film version.

Quote:

---

Thanks..i guess i'll have to look this up :)

---

I will go and find you the link and be right back after I post this. Ok, here is the link to the listing on Amazon. Read all the reviews to see what they say about it. I also liked the way they used French and English actors for the appropriate parts.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...fTwoCities.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Tale-Cities-Ma...RH/ref=sr_1_3?

Note: there is a newer version out last year I believe and a 1935 version. I read all the reviews. I always do.

Quote:

---

I'll respond to your next post tomorrow :)

---

That would be great. Take your time, m, we don't have a deadline, right?;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Examples: The book starts with one "It is the best of times, it is the worst of times...." I will expound on that later tomorrow.
Also, Darney and Carton, as being alike in appearance, is another double motif. Sidney looks at Charles and sees the man he knows he could have been but feels he never will be. To see into the other man is like being forced to look into a mirror.
I was thinking also of the title of the book and the two cities, London and Paris, and how different they are, yet how alike - another double.
Sidney Carton embodies a double in his own being, he sees his life as hopeless and useless, and yet he is the whole reason Charles is saved, through his love for Lucy and his self sacrifice. Not only does his actions save Charles once, but then again.
There are two defining incidents in front of the wine shop: the spilling of the barrel of wine and the death of the child who is run down by the Marquis' carriage. The first incident of the wine represents the desperatation of the peasants to overcome their hungar and poverty; the second incident (with the spilling of the blood of the child) marks the beginnings of the revolution, wherein the greater spilling of human blood will be realised. Also, blood and wine are symbols of the Last Supper, Holy Communion and the death of Christ and therefore, embody the sacrifice and ideology of eternal life.
Jerry Cruncher appears to be a poor but respectable errand man for the Tellson's bank and yet at night he leads a second covert existence as a grave digger. In day he appears to be one type man and at night he lurks in shadows.
I will think of more doubles in the story.

---

:nod:
More doubles: The double life Darnay is leading. In Paris he is the sole heir of the Evremonde legacy, the only descendant of the Evremonde line. In London he is a teacher and the loving husband of Lucie. In Paris he is a member of the aristocracy. In London he is just this fellow who teaches french ;)

The double life, double play of Barsad and Cly who work at the beginning of the novel for the aristocracy and then change sides and work for the revolutionists ;)

Also Barsad in real life is the brother of Miss Pross and he has the assumed name of Barsad and works as a spy, another double.

Another, less obvious double is Mme Defarge. Prior to the revolution she is just the wife of a wine merchant while in secret she is organising the revolution and eventually becomes one of the leaders. Another double is revealed when we learn her family history (and Mme Defarge appears to be the wronged victim of the Evremonde family).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

The most obvious is, of course, the imprisonment of Dr. Manette. Even after his release, he is still fighting against his own imprisonment, within his own mind, which is evident when he reverts back to making shoes, as he did in the Bastille. He is imprisoned within his own being and memory of the dreadful prison. Only Lucy, with her unfailing love, helps him to become restored to himself. But later, he does have relapses and eventually, Mr. Lorry and Miss Pross convince him to let them bury his tools, because they have become as a crutch to maintaining his sanity.

I hope all this makes some sense. I am quite tired and will continue with this tomorrow.

---

Charles is also imprisoned twice. Once in London, at the beginning of the novel where he faces the possibility of death and is saved by Carton's intervention and towards the end where he is a prisoner in La Force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

:nod:
More doubles: The double life Darnay is leading. In Paris he is the sole heir of the Evremonde legacy, the only descendant of the Evremonde line. In London he is a teacher and the loving husband of Lucie. In Paris he is a member of the aristocracy. In London he is just this fellow who teaches french ;)

---

Right, and well put, manolia. The 'double life of Darney is leading' and the story, being plot driven, this one factor advances the plot from the beginning. Like you said before - without Darney there would be no story. He has stepped down from being an aristocrat; thrown off that false lifestyle, and assumed a more 'true' existence, as an average middle-class type citizen, who teaches school, not a 'lofty' profession, but a 'respectable' one, I would assume. Yet lurking in his mind, is his past and he cannot fully escape the ties that bind him to it, as the story demontrates.

When I wrote 'true' I also thought - what an irony that is. Since he is now being 'true' to himself and his innate nature - a decent human being, he is also being covert in hiding his past. I just love this story personally, because my father also had two actual names and his first name, oddly enough, was Charles. No doubt he loved this book, knowing he had a real father somewhere, that he had not known. How strange now to read this book and to think of that. But I am glad I have this personal connection, because somehow it gives me more insight into how Darney must have felt at times harbouring this secret identity. Of course, my father's story was much different, but the fact of having two names and of a past and a father he knew of, but one kept secret/concealed by he and my grandmother. I can feel the 'isolation' that Darney must feel, in keeping secret his past life.

Quote:

---

The double life, double play of Barsad and Cly who work at the beginning of the novel for the aristocracy and then change sides and work for the revolutionists ;)

---

Quote:

---

Also, Barsad in real life is the brother of Miss Pross and he has the assumed name of Barsad and works as a spy, another double.

---

Yes, that is a good one, especially since Barsad turns out to be Miss Pross' real brother. He too, must have a real name other than Barsad. Also, in England he is presumed dead and buried, although Jerry Cruncher, knows otherwise. It is like he emerges from the shadow of death (his false death) into the light of the revolution and back lurging again amongst the shadows of death eventually.

Both of the spies play both sides and so are almost like 'double' or 'split' personalities. Yes, highly interesting to me, that they first work for the aristocracy and then turn sides to be loyal to the winning party; the revolutionaries. I suppose we could say they are opportunists. Whatever, will profit them, they will follow that side. Both men are quite shallow and covert. Sidney can immediately see through Barsad, having been in the practice of law and on the streets, taverns - he no doubt had come into contact with this type man. In the beginning, he has contact with him from the first courtroom scenes, and sees through his shallow veneer, immediately. Therefore, Sidney is able to recognize a 'rat' when he sees one, and sees through to the articificality of Barsad right away, when he again encounters him in Paris. Yet the other side of the coin, is that Carton sees this as his golden opportunity to acquire access to the prison; Sidney becomes the opportunist here. Another double might be that from the corruption of one person (Barsad) springs the opportunity for the other, Carton, to do good. Sidney Carton can turn that access into Charle's prison cell, accomplished in secret with a spy, into something admirable and redeeming in the end. How ironic is that?

Quote:

---

Another, less obvious double is Mme Defarge. Prior to the revolution she is just the wife of a wine merchant while in secret she is organising the revolution and eventually becomes one of the leaders. Another double is revealed when we learn her family history (and Mme Defarge appears to be the wronged victim of the Evremonde family).

---

Quote:

---

Charles is also imprisoned twice. Once in London, at the beginning of the novel where he faces the possibility of death and is saved by Carton's intervention and towards the end where he is a prisoner in La Force.

---

Exactly, and some of these: 'Doubles', 'Shadows and Darkness' and 'Imprisonment' themes can cross-over, so they are apparent in several aspects of the story. Such as Madame Defarge, who is lives in the shadows of the wineshop and doesn't reveal herself, as a major force in the revolution, until the revolution begins. Who would suspect a woman doing her innocent knitting? Knitting becomes another double image - usually we think of knitting something to warm our bodies or a baby garment but now the knitting is a registry of death and ruthlessness and unjustice - pure revenge - an eye for an eye. The stitches are seen now as the most vile of forshadowing of what will come.

Also, in the 'light' of day, the 'shadow' of death falls over the victims going to the guillotine. They go from their shadowly prison to the light of morning, to be executed and sent to their eternal sleep/rest/darkness/eternal light.

Jerry Cruncher almost acts as a 'forshadowing' device, I believe of what will come. In the day he is just an ordinary courier for the Tellson's bank and at night he lurks in shadows and deals with death. I think from the beginning of the story in Paris death is lurking in shadows beneath the surface of the ordinary peasant life - the carts, the knives, baskets, even the cutting of trees for the carts - all daily everyday life occurances, that none-the-less do embody a shadow of death; for the carts will carry the doomed to their deaths and the baskets collect their heads. Hard to imagine such a innocent rural place as France and the natural beauty surrounding Paris, turned into a virtual factory for the instruments of the revolution and the death machine of the mob.

Dr. Manette is another double himself. Unconsicously, he holds the dark secret of the past and he had written the paper which condemns Charles. Although the paper is malicious, in condemning along with the guilty parties any 'decendants' of the Evremonde line (the innocents), we know Manette is truly a good man that is ceased with a fit of frustration and anger and is showing an act of aggression - even though probably only momentary, this is a striking out and revengefulness against the innocent decendants of the brothers Evremonde who have committed the true crimes, but not only that he includes the innocent decendents. The sons and daughters are not responsible for the sins of their fathers and even mothers. So, in some ways, even subconsicously, Dr. Manette also is harbouring this deep dark secret of what he has written and done in hast, and his denouncement and his hiding it away in his former cell sealed in a written contract/document. This comes back to 'bite' him so to speak. Of course, he sincerely regrets what he wrote, in his hour of despair and desperation. I think this shows the human side of revenge and how if even kind gentle Manette could be revengeful, then we can sympathise somewhat with Madame Defarge, who was greatly wronged and seeks revenge as well on the Evremondes. It is an interesting idea of the two being show side by side, and yet Dr. Manette embodying 'good' and Madame Defarge 'bad'. One has control over their actions at last - Manette and the Defarge does not, because she is swept into the mob and the mob mentality at this point - Madame Defarge can no longer restrain her actions - she is as mechanical in her revenge. She has gone to far. She personifies the mob mentality of certain and ultimate revenge, with no exceptions. This a mob is driven by it's own ruthlessness and desire for blood alone.

manolia, I hope all that mades sense. I will write more later on the opening lines to the novel. I feel that they say so much.

Quote:

---

Charles is also imprisoned twice. Once in London, at the beginning of the novel where he faces the possibility of death and is saved by Carton's intervention and towards the end where he is a prisoner in La Force.

---

So true! Do you notice a difference in Charle's feelings when he is imprisoned the second time? He seems to later express to Dr. Manette that he now understood just how Manette must have felt, locked up for those 18 yrs in that horrid cell. There is now a greater understanding between father and son-in-law.

Aren't the 'doubles' interesting and the 'shadow and light' - 'contrasts'? Is this a great novel or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Dr. Manette is another double himself. Unconsicously, he holds the dark secret of the past and he had written the paper which condemns Charles. Although the paper is malicious, in condemning along with the guilty parties any 'decendants' of the Evremonde line (the innocents), we know Manette is truly a good man that is ceased with a fit of frustration and anger and is showing an act of aggression - even though probably only momentary, this is a striking out and revengefulness against the innocent decendants of the brothers Evremonde who have committed the true crimes, but not only that he includes the innocent decendents. The sons and daughters are not responsible for the sins of their fathers and even mothers. So, in some ways, even subconsicously, Dr. Manette also is harbouring this deep dark secret of what he has written and done in hast, and his denouncement and his hiding it away in his former cell sealed in a written contract/document. This comes back to 'bite' him so to speak. Of course, he sincerely regrets what he wrote, in his hour of despair and desperation. I think this shows the human side of revenge and how if even kind gentle Manette could be revengeful, then we can sympathise somewhat with Madame Defarge, who was greatly wronged and seeks revenge as well on the Evremondes. It is an interesting idea of the two being show side by side, and yet Dr. Manette embodying 'good' and Madame Defarge 'bad'. One has control over their actions at last - Manette and the Defarge does not, because she is swept into the mob and the mob mentality at this point - Madame Defarge can no longer restrain her actions - she is as mechanical in her revenge. She has gone to far. She personifies the mob mentality of certain and ultimate revenge, with no exceptions. This a mob is driven by it's own ruthlessness and desire for blood alone.

---

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 ;) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

manolia, I hope all that mades sense. I will write more later on the opening lines to the novel. I feel that they say so much.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

So true! Do you notice a difference in Charle's feelings when he is imprisoned the second time? He seems to later express to Dr. Manette that he now understood just how Manette must have felt, locked up for those 18 yrs in that horrid cell. There is now a greater understanding between father and son-in-law.

---

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 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Aren't the 'doubles' interesting and the 'shadow and light' - 'contrasts'? Is this a great novel or what?

---

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

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*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Aren't the 'doubles' interesting and the 'shadow and light' - 'contrasts'? Is this a great novel or what?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

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

---

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 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.

---

Quark, good to see you stop in and make some comments. I promised I would not 'skip over' you ever. ;) I will have to answer manolia's later since I only have the energy for one right now - I have a cold.

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, Lucie does resurrect two people - Defarge kills two - which two? Oh, you refer to Sidney Carton - true. Miss Pross only looses her hearing, when the pistol goes off, killing Madame Defarge. She never again can hear as she could before that incident. Jerry is known as a 'resurrection' man. This story is actually very much about resurrection.