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

[Alexei]

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

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

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

[Janine]

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

[Alexei]

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

That's right

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

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

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

[Janine]

That's right

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

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

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

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

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

[manolia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alexei]

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

[Janine]

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

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

[Quark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Janine]

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

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



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

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

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

[manolia]

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

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

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

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

[Janine]

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

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

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

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

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

The Period

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

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

[Quark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[manolia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Janine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Quark]

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

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

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

Hopefully it's nothing too serious.

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

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