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

[manolia]

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!

You are too much
yep better with pms
Let's return to the book

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).

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

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?

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).

[Janine]

You are too much
yep better with pms
Let's return to the book

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?

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.

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 , 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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

[Janine]

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 -

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.

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:

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.

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.

[manolia]

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 (or at least there wouldn't be as many twists to the plot).

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) kidding

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 , 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 ).

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

[Janine]

true true..and of course there would be no book if Darnay was a responsible gentleman to begin with (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.

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

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

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 ).

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.

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://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.

I'll respond to your next post tomorrow

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

[manolia]

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.

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).

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.

[Janine]

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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?

[manolia]

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 ).

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.

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

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
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

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*

[Quark]

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.

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.

[Janine]

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.

[Janine]

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 ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[manolia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

[Janine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[manolia]

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

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

So,

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, how are you today?? Any better?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's discuss the "ressurection" theme..

[Alexei]

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

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