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

[manolia]

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

[Alexei]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote by Janine:

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

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

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

[Janine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[manolia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep i agree.

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

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

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

Take your time Alexei, there is no rush

[Alexei]

Finally I finished reading. It was a long one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Janine]

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

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

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

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

[manolia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes very well said both of you.

[Janine]

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

[Janine]

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

Memory and Reminiscence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Quark]

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

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

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

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

[Janine]

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

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

[manolia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alexei]

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

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

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

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

Nice!

[manolia]

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

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

[Janine]

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

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

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

under -
SYMBOLS:

THE BROKEN WINE CASK

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

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


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

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

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