# Reading > Forum Book Club >  Valentine's Day Reading: A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

## Scheherazade

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

Please post your comments and questions here.

From amazon.com:


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


*Free Online Copy*

----------


## DickZ

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

----------


## manolia

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




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


sounds like a torturing device  :Biggrin:

----------


## ntropyincarnate

Sounds like a reference to the guillotine to me.

----------


## manolia

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

----------


## DickZ

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

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

----------


## manolia

> _ntropyincarnate_ is precisely right in identifying the *guillotine* as the object being introduced very early in the story. 
> 
> The sack has its own role - just like the knife that is also mentioned.


Hi DickZ  :Smile:  
So what was the sack for?

----------


## Niamh

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

----------


## manolia

Ahhhh! Thanks  :Smile:

----------


## Alexei

I've finished the first chapter  :Tongue:  

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

----------


## manolia

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

----------


## Alexei

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


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

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

----------


## manolia

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

Here's the part that made me laugh 




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


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

----------


## Hira

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

----------


## Janine

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


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

----------


## ntropyincarnate

yay i finally started reading  :Biggrin:

----------


## Janine

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

----------


## manolia

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


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

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

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





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


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

----------


## Janine

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

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

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

----------


## manolia

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

----------


## Janine

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


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

I found this under

SYMBOLS:




> 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:




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


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

----------


## manolia

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

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

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

----------


## Janine

> Yes that was quite informative  
> I have almost finished the second book now and i have a better idea of what D is trying to do. He criticizes both parties. In the first part he criticizes the aristocracy and how bad they handled poor people, how cruel and unjust they were and how indifferent (and sometimes eager) they were in keeping them reduced to an animal state.
> 
> When the revolution begins he criticizes the revolutionaries' fierceness and how they ended up being cruel and perhaps unjust (i say perhaps because i suspect that something will happen to C Darnay..) which means that they weren't able to discriminate between the bad and the good guys. There is a chapter where the french court is ridiculed but by C D's choice to oppose his uncle and lead a better life shows that not all of them were the same..hehe i'll say more when i make up my mind  As for the criticism towards the mob's mentality i admit that in the wine scene i didn't thought about that..as for the two other scenes..i haven't reached that part yet.
> 
> Perhaps D had in mind a society were all people (poor and rich) regardless of birth and social class could live together without each class fighting and trying to eliminate and manipulate the others.


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

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



> THEMES
> 
> THE EVER-PRESENT POSSIBILITY OF RESURRECTION 
> 
> With A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens asserts his belief i the possibility of resurrection and transformation, both on a personal level and on a societal level.


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




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


Again, I won't explain further; spoiler.




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


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



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


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





> SHADOW AND DARKNESS 
> 
> Shadows dominate the novel, creating a mood of thick obscurity and grave forbodding.


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




> 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.


Then my source material discusses:



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


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

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

----------


## manolia

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

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





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


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




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


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




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


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




> MADAME DEFARGE'S KNITTING
> 
> Even on a literal level, Madame Defarge's knitting constitutes a whole network of symbols. Into her needlework she stitches a registry, of the list of names, of all those condemend to die in the name of a new republic. But on a metaphoric level, the knitting constitutes a symbol in itself, representing the stealthy, cold-blooded vengefulness of the revolutionaries.
> 
> THE MARQUIS
> 
> The Marquis Everemond is less a believable character than an archetype of an evil and corrupt social order.


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

As for the Marquis i quite agree. He is the personification of evil  :Wink:  




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


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

----------


## Janine

Quote by manolia



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


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





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


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




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


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




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


Quote by manolia



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


Oh good, glad it was helpful.
Quote by manolia



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


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


Quote by manolia



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


Yep, you will see.  :Wink:  


Quote by manolia



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


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

Quote by manolia



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


Definitely so. Madame Defarge is his counter evil.

Quote by manolia



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


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

----------


## manolia

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


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




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


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

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





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


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




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


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

Oh, i have two more chapters and i am done with the book  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

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


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





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


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




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


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




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


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


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





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


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





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


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

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

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




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

----------


## manolia

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


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




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


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





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


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




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


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




> I have to try and get that film. Any ideas how? Would it be available in our video stores here? I have never seen it. How old is the film? I was just lucky "Mullholland Drive" has come into my library several times now. I will try and track it down.
> 
> Great! But I hope you will keep posting, even if you go onto a new book. I know we can have a great discussion on this book. If you wander off, I will come and get you...hahaha.


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

----------


## Pensive

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


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

----------


## Janine

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


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




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


The bolded up part I relate to the most!  :FRlol:  *manolia,* we would be murder in a room together for any length of time or on a telephone. We would both get cauliflower ear! :Wink:   :FRlol:  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!





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


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





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


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






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


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





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


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





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


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

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

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

----------


## 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!


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  You are too much  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  
yep better with pms  :Wink:  
Let's return to the book  :Smile:  




> 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  :Wink:  
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  :Goof:  




> 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  :Wink:  
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).  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

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


 :FRlol: 




> 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  :Wink:   :FRlol:  , 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  :FRlol:  (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)  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  kidding  :Tongue:  





> 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  :Wink:  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  :Wink:  so they never meet each other again (unless it is in heaven  :FRlol:   :Tongue:  ).




> 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  :Smile:  

I'll respond to your next post tomorrow  :Smile:

----------


## 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


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






> 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? :Wink:

----------


## 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.


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

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  :Wink:  

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  :Wink:  
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  :Wink:  Have in mind that "The count of Monte Cristo" by Dumas is my second favourite book (the first being Lord of the rings  :Wink:  ). 




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



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




> 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  :Biggrin:  
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  :Wink:  




> 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  :Wink:  
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.  :Wink:  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  ).


 :FRlol:  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.  :Wink:  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. :Frown:  




> 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.


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




> 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... :FRlol:

----------


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

*Janine* you make a good point here  :Wink:  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.  :Frown:  
Take your time..like you said this discussion doesn't have a dead line  :Wink:  




> 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  :Wink:  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  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  
Congrats for the 1000 posts  :Thumbs Up:  




> 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...


 :FRlol:  Thanks  :Smile:

----------


## 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 :Frown:  . 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!!! :Wink:   :FRlol:  
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? :Wink:   :Biggrin:

----------


## 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  :Wink:  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  :Wink:  

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

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




> 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  :Wink:  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  :Biggrin:  

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).

----------


## manolia

Nice to see you back Alexei  :Smile:  
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  :Wink:  
Interesting what you say about the Moirae..it didn't cross my mind, but now that i think about it, it makes sense  :Nod:  
One of the Moirae (i think it was Κλωθώ -"Clotho" ) used to weave the string of life and there was no escape from fate..just like Mme Defarge and her knitted registry..no escape from the guillotine for the aristocrats whose names were woven  :Wink:  Good observation Alexei  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Alexei

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

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




> 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  :FRlol:  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  :Frown:  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  :Wink:  
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)  :FRlol:  




> 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  :Wink:  




> 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  :Smile:

----------


## Alexei

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




> 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  :Wink:  





> 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  :Frown:  




> 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.


 :Nod:  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.


 :FRlol:  *Quark,* nice way of paraphrasing that. *Q* - you always do make me laugh! :Wink:   :FRlol:  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  :Wink:  





> (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  :Wink:  and towards the aristocrats  :Wink:  
As for the initials C.D i haven't noticed  :Wink:  heheh and i didn't know he had an affair  :FRlol:  





> 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  :Wink:  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.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  I like the way you think  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  
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  :Thumbs Up:  Thank you  :Smile:  




> 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!  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## 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  :Smile:

----------


## 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* ... :Wink:  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.

----------


## 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  :Wink:

----------


## 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  :Nod:  




> 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  :FRlol:  

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  :Tongue:

----------


## 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. :Wink:  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  :Biggrin:  ). 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  :Wink:  ). 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  :Wink:  There was something quite tragic about that scene (the tragic father, the women that circle the dead girl, the proud people and their reactions)  :Wink:  
Yes, but later on we have a relapse and the mob is again described as evil  :Wink:  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  :Thumbs Up:  
As for the names, i only thought that the "Jacques" were just code names so the revolutionists wouldn't be easily recognised (oh, yes i see your point now, they won't be easily recognised because they somehow lose their identity by being characterised as "Jacques"  :Smile:  ).

----------


## 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  :Wink:  

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  :Wink:  Thanks for the invitation, though. Hehe we will discuss "The rainbow" this year so we will have the opportunity of another L discussion  :Smile:  




> *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.

----------


## manolia

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


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

----------


## Quark

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


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

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

----------


## Janine

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

Quote by Alexei,



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


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

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




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

----------


## Janine

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

----------


## Alexei

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

----------


## Janine

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


Hi *Alexei,* Hope you had a fun time. Egypt sounded so neat. Did you see the pyramids? Glad you are back. The discussion is at a sort of lull for now but of course, that does not mean much. As we said we can all post at random. I have not devoted enough time, myself to this thread, getting more involved in the Lawrence and Chekhov short stories of late. That would be just great if you were to review the threads and post some comments. I still need to read this other commentary to see what new ideas on the story I can come up with.

On idea that has now become evident to me is something in this commentary book about the correlation between Tellson's bank and the French prison. It seems in both instances, young men enter and grow old, so that both are like a prison of sorts. I will expound on this idea more, when I can - hopefully tonight or tomorrow. I thought it was an interesting thought. Also, the fact that Jarvis Lorry and Miss Pross act as surrogate parents for Lucy, since she has hardly known any parents in her life, up until her father is 'restored to life'. They both take over as parents with a sense of protectiveness which is quite endearing.

Ok, more on this later...I have to go and check my other busy threads for now.

Again - welcome back, *Alexei*  :Smile:  Glad to have you in this discussion.

----------


## manolia

Popping my head to say hi to all and a warm welcome back to Alexei (I hope you had a great time  :Smile:  ). Unfortunately i am quite busy lately but i'll come back as soon as i can  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

> Popping my head to say hi to all and a warm welcome back to Alexei (I hope you had a great time  ). Unfortunately i am quite busy lately but i'll come back as soon as i can


Hi *manolia,* glad you made an appearance and I can well understand the word 'busy' - same here!!! It is good you posted, since it brings the page back up onto my first page. We don't want to forget it exists, right?  :Biggrin:  
Anyway, I have (two nights ago) been reading a commentary on TOTC, that I had printed out awhile ago (and was meaning to read). I am finding it quite interesting in some new ideas. However, I shifted gears again (last night) and was trying to continue my listening to an audio MP3 file of "Women in Love" - *manolia,* you would love these CD's. It is odd, but I am actually picking up things about the WIL text, that I had not noticed before, by listening to this great narration. I wish this narrator also read "The Rainbow", because I think I would invest in her CD set, and listen to the book instead of re-read it. I will have to look into it. When you have the time to, PM me and tell me when you think we should read the book - TR - and discuss it. I am in no hurry myself, being involved in 3 short story discussion presently and then in May, or sooner, I expect my first grandchild.
So here is where I stand with this thread (sorry to run off-topic). I will keep reading this commentary and then post something concrete and no doubt 'new', when I can find the time, hopefully in the next week.
 :Thumbs Up:  keeping this thread going!

----------


## manolia

> On idea that has now become evident to me is something in this commentary book about the correlation between Tellson's bank and the French prison. It seems in both instances, young men enter and grow old, so that both are like a prison of sorts. I will expound on this idea more, when I can - hopefully tonight or tomorrow. I thought it was an interesting thought. Also, the fact that Jarvis Lorry and Miss Pross act as surrogate parents for Lucy, since she has hardly known any parents in her life, up until her father is 'restored to life'. They both take over as parents with a sense of protectiveness which is quite endearing.


Hi Janine!
That sounds interesting. Indeed! The description of Tellson's bank and employees is one of the funniest aspects of the book. It reminded me (the bank) of a sketch - comment on society, how it was in those days. How nothing ever changes (like the bank, which is always the same old bank, with the same old employees and despite the fact that bussiness is flourishing and the owners are prosperous noone cares for a change in scenery). Think about it. This bank is in London and is always the same, like the society surrounding it. No changes of personel, no changes in the building which is always dirty and is slowly decaying.

Now the bank in France is described as a quite different place, is it not? A better building, modern etc. It signifies change and reform, does it not? (ok, i am an engineer and i always find significance in building descriptions  :FRlol:  ).




> Hi *manolia,* glad you made an appearance and I can well understand the word 'busy' - same here!!! It is good you posted, since it brings the page back up onto my first page. We don't want to forget it exists, right?  
> Anyway, I have (two nights ago) been reading a commentary on TOTC, that I had printed out awhile ago (and was meaning to read). I am finding it quite interesting in some new ideas. However, I shifted gears again (last night) and was trying to continue my listening to an audio MP3 file of "Women in Love" - *manolia,* you would love these CD's. It is odd, but I am actually picking up things about the WIL text, that I had not noticed before, by listening to this great narration. I wish this narrator also read "The Rainbow", because I think I would invest in her CD set, and listen to the book instead of re-read it. I will have to look into it. When you have the time to, PM me and tell me when you think we should read the book - TR - and discuss it. I am in no hurry myself, being involved in 3 short story discussion presently and then in May, or sooner, I expect my first grandchild.
> So here is where I stand with this thread (sorry to run off-topic). I will keep reading this commentary and then post something concrete and no doubt 'new', when I can find the time, hopefully in the next week.
>  keeping this thread going!


Congrats Janine. You must be so happy about your grandchild. I hope everything goes as you wish  :Smile:  
As for the rainbow, i am ready when you guys are ready. In fact i can start as soon as i finish the book i am currently reading  :Wink:  (In a week or two). So go on, pick a date and i'll follow  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

> Hi Janine!
> That sounds interesting. Indeed! The description of Tellson's bank and employees is one of the funniest aspects of the book. It reminded me (the bank) of a sketch - comment on society, how it was in those days. How nothing ever changes (like the bank, which is always the same old bank, with the same old employees and despite the fact that bussiness is flourishing and the owners are prosperous noone cares for a change in scenery). Think about it. This bank is in London and is always the same, like the society surrounding it. No changes of personel, no changes in the building which is always dirty and is slowly decaying.
> 
> Now the bank in France is described as a quite different place, is it not? A better building, modern etc. It signifies change and reform, does it not? (ok, i am an engineer and i always find significance in building descriptions  ).


Hi *manolia!* Yes, with you being in an engineer, you would be interested in that aspect of the book and notice the differences in the two banks. I had not even noticed the mention of the French bank, but maybe since I read the entire book a few years ago and not recently and had just forgotten that part. The commentary notes point to the fact that the two institutions - the English bank and the French prison (The Bastille) have similarities. I think if I worked at Tellson's for as many years as poor Mr. Lorry had I too would think I was imprisoned. Now that you mention it - both of the places are stuck in time and decaying away. If you are caught inside you just wither, too. Both places the characters are in a sort of limbo state and never can progress onward with their lives.

I must correct myself here and say that the notes say that Miss Pross and Mr. Lorry act as fairy-godmother and fairy-godfather. I still think surrogate fits as well, or protector, since Lucie was left parentless. I felt in reading parts with both interacting that they seemed to form a sort of invisible bond and lent much warmth and humor to the story...Pross and Lorry. I liked the way Miss Pross would complain about all the visitors to Lucie (actually there was only Carton and Darney) and then Mr. Lorry would question her about it in a way that made it so funny. I think they worked like a comedy team at times, 'straight man, funny man' sort of device.




> Congrats Janine. You must be so happy about your grandchild. I hope everything goes as you wish


Thanks! I thought I told you before. Remember, wasn't it you who thought of Lawrence names for the baby? Well, most likely (if the doctors are correct) I am expecting a grand-daughter and her name will be Brook Elise. Time is flying by and the date will be here soon. I am very happy and excited, too. Baby shower is the 30th of this month. What fun that will be!




> As for the rainbow, i am ready when you guys are ready. In fact i can start as soon as i finish the book i am currently reading  (In a week or two). So go on, pick a date and i'll follow


Ok, good,* manolia,* I will let you know. I don't think much is going to happen in the one SS book discussion on here, but the other two are on-going, monthly. I don't think I shall enter any novel discussions next month, but maybe we could start up TR then. Also, I will speak to *Virgil* about it and see if he would be ready soon. But do keep in mind, when we begin reading, I am a super slow reader and so is *V*, actually. Maybe we can take it slowly and again have no deadline. Do you think *Alexei* will participate? I think she read the book already. I can think of a few others, but they may be too busy with school and exams.

----------


## manolia

> Thanks! I thought I told you before. Remember, wasn't it you who thought of Lawrence names for the baby? Well, most likely (if the doctors are correct) I am expecting a grand-daughter and her name will be Brook Elise. Time is flying by and the date will be here soon. I am very happy and excited, too. Baby shower is the 30th of this month. What fun that will be!


Hehe it was i indeed that suggested Lawrence names for the baby  :FRlol:   :Smile:  
Brook Elise is really nice  :Smile:  




> Ok, good,* manolia,* I will let you know. I don't think much is going to happen in the one SS book discussion on here, but the other two are on-going, monthly. I don't think I shall enter any novel discussions next month, but maybe we could start up TR then. Also, I will speak to *Virgil* about it and see if he would be ready soon. But do keep in mind, when we begin reading, I am a super slow reader and so is *V*, actually. Maybe we can take it slowly and again have no deadline. Do you think *Alexei* will participate? I think she read the book already. I can think of a few others, but they may be too busy with school and exams.


Hehe i know you both are slow readers..i am not very fast either  :Wink:  
This time i won't personally invite anyone..lets start the thread when you two are ready and post a public invitation and everyone who sees it and feels like reading the book is welcome to join  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

> Hehe it was i indeed that suggested Lawrence names for the baby   
> Brook Elise is really nice


 :FRlol:  It was you, right after I told you. I didn't think I was loosing my mind.  :Wink:  Yes, I like the name now that they added Elise. I hope I am spelling that correctly. 




> Hehe i know you both are slow readers..i am not very fast either  
> This time i won't personally invite anyone..lets start the thread when you two are ready and post a public invitation and everyone who sees it and feels like reading the book is welcome to join


*manolia,* glad you accept us as slowpoke readers. I like to fully absorb what I read. I never skim a book, I would feel I was being cheated. I have to read every work, and I never read the last page first.  :Wink:  Glad to hear you are not so speedy yourself. Now *Alexei* reads about 10 books by the time we read one, I think. She is stuns me. That is why I said "I think she already read it." 
Sure, lets just post the thread for say, next month, and see who shows up. That should work out well. We might attract some newcomers, who knows. One thing is for certain, it will be another great Lawrence book discussion. I can't wait. Been years since I read "The Rainbow" and I only vaguely remember it. Also, I will understand so much more now; my perspectives have been broadened.

----------


## Alexei

Hi, once again. I am sorry I wasn't here these days, but I was busy in school.

I like the discussion on the name "Jacques". There is something that I can't ignore. I think it could be interpret as a symbol of equality, they have the same name, they are all equal, they are all the same. That brings me to the disutopian literature and here I have a hypothesis - I few years ago when we studied The French revolution we talked about it in comparison with the Renaissance and the idea was that in France there is revolution because there is no Renaissance. I know that when it is in one sentence it seems a bit strange, but actually there is some sense in it, because there are some results that make this comparison probable. The first example is the people - if you open Decameron you will see that there are some "scenes" that are as decadent as some after the Revolution. So, the resemblance with the Renaissance, got me once again round the idea of utopia, after the revolution wants a better and more fare government, so it is going for a kind of utopia too. So may be the name "Jacques" is used once to mark the idea of equality and better life in it and once again as the absurd of this equality that robes you of your own identity. Or may be it is another long shot?

As for the L's coming discussion on TR I would like to participate, but I am not sure if I will be able to. I can start, but then there will be a period in which I would be out of my country and without a computer, so I can't be here for the whole discussion and who knows if I will be able to catch up? I will try to come up with something, but I doubt I will be able to  :Sick: 

I didn't know there is a discussion on Aeneid, I wanted to join it, but may be the next time  :Wink:  I am interested in the Chekhov thread too, so could you tell me when you start another story, please?  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

> Hi, once again. I am sorry I wasn't here these days, but I was busy in school.


*Alexei,* it is ok. I can well understand. School must come first. I commend you on all the participation you have achieved on Lit Net. I can't believe you can do so much, but then again, you are that rapid reader, I envy... :Wink:  I have been lagging somewhat lately anyway. I am still not feeling so very well; I seem not to be able to fully shake off this cold I have had the last month or so. I am in super-slow mode so you must put up with me as well - that applies to all of you. I have not abandoned this thread, just put it on hold for now.




> I like the discussion on the name "Jacques". There is something that I can't ignore. I think it could be interpret as a symbol of equality, they have the same name, they are all equal, they are all the same. That brings me to the disutopian literature and here I have a hypothesis - I few years ago when we studied The French revolution we talked about it in comparison with the Renaissance and the idea was that in France there is revolution because there is no Renaissance. I know that when it is in one sentence it seems a bit strange, but actually there is some sense in it, because there are some results that make this comparison probable. The first example is the people - if you open Decameron you will see that there are some "scenes" that are as decadent as some after the Revolution. So, the resemblance with the Renaissance, got me once again round the idea of utopia, after the revolution wants a better and more fare government, so it is going for a kind of utopia too. So may be the name "Jacques" is used once to mark the idea of equality and better life in it and once again as the absurd of this equality that robes you of your own identity. Or may be it is another long shot?


I very much like this theory of yours, *Alexei.* It is a good comparison and observation. I wish I knew more about the other book on the Renaissance, however, I do get the general idea you are presenting here. I, too, have been quite interested in the use of the one name "Jacques" and was wondering when someone would bring up the subject in greater depth. I think it is an irony here in this novel that "Jacques is used to mark the idea of equality/better life and then it also robes one of their individual identity and they become part of the mob. This becomes the mob mentality - this absurd equality. I did not think your theories on this at all a long shot. They are quite plausible and we can discuss them further. There is mention of them in both sets of notes I have so I will look this idea up and post more soon. Perhaps I will quote the books.




> As for the L's coming discussion on TR I would like to participate, but I am not sure if I will be able to. I can start, but then there will be a period in which I would be out of my country and without a computer, so I can't be here for the whole discussion and who knows if I will be able to catch up? I will try to come up with something, but I doubt I will be able to


I can well understand that. Perhaps we can delay it a month, if you would be more available in May, instead of April. What do you think? And also, *Manolia,* could you hold off for another month; would you be awfully disappointed? I feel kind of pressured right now if we begin in April. There is so much going on in my family presently to prepare for the arrival of my grandchild. Also, I feel really tired out from this horrid flu/cold lingering and the damp/cold/windy weather we have been having here. I wish 'spring' would arrive soon, but it feels more like December here. :Frown:  




> I didn't know there is a discussion on Aeneid, I wanted to join it, but may be the next time  I am interested in the Chekhov thread too, so could you tell me when you start another story, please?


I did not even try to enter it. I have not read the book, long poem. I seem to have trouble comprehending long epic poems such as the Aeneid. Did you read it already, *Alexei?* I did look in on several posts and pages to see what was being written. It was quite interesting but I felt too lost to participate, plus I had enough to handle on this forum at that time. We all do have to make selections and choices and as you say, you can always pursue it later on your own. 
The next two shorter Chekhov stories will begin the first of the next month I believe. Usually, *Quark*, will post something on the first story. I like to think I have helped him, to model the presentation after the Lawrence thread. I try also to post some photo or photos to get everyone interested. *Quark* is now participating in the Lawrence short story thread as well. We arranged it that way - I participate in his thread and he participates ours. It would be utterly great if you were to join us in the Chekhov thread. The stories are shorter and somewhat simplier than the Lawrence ones. You could fit them in more easily I would imagine. Hope to see you over there.  :Smile:

----------


## Quark

> I like the discussion on the name "Jacques". There is something that I can't ignore. I think it could be interpret as a symbol of equality, they have the same name, they are all equal, they are all the same... So may be the name "Jacques" is used once to mark the idea of equality and better life in it and once again as the absurd of this equality that robes you of your own identity. Or may be it is another long shot?


Hey, Alexei. I hope your classes are going well. Your discussion of the French Revolution sounds interesting, and I like your comparison. Just as the Renaissance replaced the religious and intellectual dogma of the Middle Ages, the French Revolution tried to get rid of the monarchy and class divisions of 18th century France. Equality was one of the new virtues of this movement. Rosseau, one of the major writers associated with the French Revolution, believed that there is a "general will" which will naturally tend toward equality. In his view only the oppression of rulers or the corruption of society could divide people into classes. A reader of "A Tale of Two Cities" who is sympathetic to these ideas could view the Jacqueses as progress toward utopia. I think that reader would have to be quite a partisan to come to that conclusion, though. The way Dickens frames the Revolution and its Jacqueses is quite different. Remember that paragraph I quoted earlier. I think it shows how much Dickens sanctified individuality--at least his definition of it. Plus, philosophy aside, Dickens also goes to great lengths to individualize his characters. People sometimes criticize him for his love of caricature, but I interpret this more as Dickens' need to make his characters distinct. It was his way of humanizing his characters. He didn't want them to be a bunch of Jacqueses. Even though "A Tale of Two Cities" shows some compunction about the conditions of the lower class, I don't think that it welcomes the kind of equality we find after the Revolution. That doesn't mean we can't support equality or even see some positives in the Revolution. It just means that the novel itself doesn't lead us to those conclusions. Good post, though, Alexei. Hope you have fun out of the country. 




> I didn't know there is a discussion on Aeneid, I wanted to join it, but may be the next time  I am interested in the Chekhov thread too, so could you tell me when you start another story, please?


The Aeneid discussion is kind of at an ebb right now, but I think/expect/hope Virgil will start it up again soon. The best thread on LitNet, the Chekhov short story discussion, does a story every month. Right now we're finishing up one called "Oh! The Public." Next month (April 1st) we'll start doing another one. I keep changing my mind on what story we should do, though. Rest assured it will be a good one, but I'm still not sure which to do. I'll know by next week. You should check it out. We're here at: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=17728&page=12




> Also, I feel really tired out from this horrid flu/cold lingering and the damp/cold/windy weather we have been having here. I wish 'spring' would arrive soon, but it feels more like December here.


Are you still sick, Janine? That must be a horrid flu/cold. Feel better, obviously.




> I like to think I have helped him, to model the presentation after the Lawrence thread. I try also to post some photo or photos to get everyone interested. *Quark* is now participating in the Lawrence short story thread as well. We arranged it that way - I participate in his thread and he participates ours.


The Lawrence thread is our model over there. I would be quite happy if we could get the same kind of participation over there as we do in the Lawrence thread.




> It would be utterly great if you were to join us in the Chekhov thread. The stories are shorter and somewhat simplier than the Lawrence ones. You could fit them in more easily I would imagine. Hope to see you over there.


Simpler? I prefer the word approachable. They're short--even for short stories. And, they don't require a lot of added explanation. I don't think that makes them simple, though. We just read "The Lady with the Dog" last time. How can you say that one is simple? One could write (and people have written) an entire article just on the ambiguities in that story. That's not to mention the subtlety of characterization and the extent of the symbolism. It was hardly simple. These last two have been a little simple, I guess, but how can they not be? They're two pages long. I'll let this slide since you're still convalescent, but c'mon. Simple?

----------


## Janine

> Hey, Alexei. I hope your classes are going well. Your discussion of the French Revolution sounds interesting, and I like your comparison. Just as the Renaissance replaced the religious and intellectual dogma of the Middle Ages, the French Revolution tried to get rid of the monarchy and class divisions of 18th century France. Equality was one of the new virtues of this movement. Rosseau, one of the major writers associated with the French Revolution, believed that there is a "general will" which will naturally tend toward equality. In his view only the oppression of rulers or the corruption of society could divide people into classes. A reader of "A Tale of Two Cities" who is sympathetic to these ideas could view the Jacqueses as progress toward utopia. I think that reader would have to be quite a partisan to come to that conclusion, though. The way Dickens frames the Revolution and its Jacqueses is quite different. Remember that paragraph I quoted earlier. I think it shows how much Dickens sanctified individuality--at least his definition of it. Plus, philosophy aside, Dickens also goes to great lengths to individualize his characters. People sometimes criticize him for his love of caricature, but I interpret this more as Dickens' need to make his characters distinct. It was his way of humanizing his characters. He didn't want them to be a bunch of Jacqueses. Even though "A Tale of Two Cities" shows some compunction about the conditions of the lower class, I don't think that it welcomes the kind of equality we find after the Revolution. That doesn't mean we can't support equality or even see some positives in the Revolution. It just means that the novel itself doesn't lead us to those conclusions. Good post, though, Alexei. Hope you have fun out of the country.


*Quark,* I like what you have added here to Alexei's comments and observations. The two put together make for an interesting set of ideas. I think I agree on both and I always think the humorous characters were written to give more plausability and human characteristics to the story. I agree with that idea.




> The Aeneid discussion is kind of at an ebb right now, but I think/expect/hope Virgil will start it up again soon.


I am sure he will continue with the Aeneid discussion. He loves that thread and that book. He just got sidetracked this month with personal concerns, his mother, job, and trip out to Ohio. He is very dedicated to that thread; just give him time.





> The best thread on LitNet, the Chekhov short story discussion, does a story every month.


The 'best' thread???A hummmmm....what say, *Quark*? I think the best thread has been the 'Lawrence Short Story' thread - remember we reached over 1000 posts in under a year. But if we continue to work hard on the Chekhov thread, it might equal it someday :Wink:  , at least in response and participation. I am liking Chekhov more and more. In fact, I just downloaded the first CD in my computer and I am listening to all the stories again. I really enjoy them, the more I hear them. They are so entertaining and thought-provoking, and this time around I picked up on some new things to point out about "Oh! The Public". Alexei, we have been doing two stories a month but then there were the months we did do only one, since it was much longer. Quark, wait till Alexei sees your array of emoticons to describe the story....oh my gosh....*Quark* was having a silly moment, A. and being quite creative, if you think in those terms....or was it taking short-cuts,* Q*?




> Right now we're finishing up one called "Oh! The Public." Next month (April 1st) we'll start doing another one. I keep changing my mind on what story we should do, though. Rest assured it will be a good one, but I'm still not sure which to do. I'll know by next week. You should check it out. We're here at: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=17728&page=12


*Quark,* can you email me about the selection - can we collaborate a bit? I have been reading so many of the stories, you mentioned. I read "The Student" and liked it very much and I thought the story "A Story Without a Title" was great. There are others I like, too. I emailed you in here (PM) but you did not respond...*grrrr*.... and also, you did not answer my post questions on the topic. I need to know what you have in-mind for next month, so I can search for the story in the library or online. I am going there tonight. I like to be prepared ahead. I would rather do two shorter stories, like we did this month; plus some of the younger students can handle this right now with exam time coming up. I don't have the time this coming month for a long involved story. I don't feel well enough either to tackle one of those; not right now.




> Are you still sick, Janine? That must be a horrid flu/cold. Feel better, obviously.


Yes, actually I still am kind of sick, dragging. I have been forcing myself to go out and do minimal things around the house, but I tire so easily and sleep badly. :Bawling:  This flu/cold was/is horrid!




> The Lawrence thread is our model over there. I would be quite happy if we could get the same kind of participation over there as we do in the Lawrence thread.


Glad it is your model and I think you can learn much from our format or attempt at format. I do think we can build up the Chekhov and noticed that some of my avid Lawrence people are becoming quite interesting. Who knows - we might lose them to Chekhov in the end.  :Wink:   :Frown:   :FRlol:  - that is mixed emotions or mixed emoticons!




> Simpler? I prefer the word approachable. They're short--even for short stories. And, they don't require a lot of added explanation. I don't think that makes them simple, though. We just read "The Lady with the Dog" last time. How can you say that one is simple? One could write (and people have written) an entire article just on the ambiguities in that story. That's not to mention the subtlety of characterization and the extent of the symbolism. It was hardly simple. These last two have been a little simple, I guess, but how can they not be? They're two pages long. I'll let this slide since you're still convalescent, but c'mon. Simple?


"Simplier" was not the right word for me to use. I think the reading of them is simplier,but the actually discussion is not. I was referring more to the very short,short stories we have done last month. By the way, *Quark,* get yourself over there and answer my thread, will you?  :Wink: ...oh, and my PM message...

----------


## Alexei

> *Alexei,* it is ok. I can well understand. School must come first. I commend you on all the participation you have achieved on Lit Net. I can't believe you can do so much, but then again, you are that rapid reader, I envy... I have been lagging somewhat lately anyway. I am still not feeling so very well; I seem not to be able to fully shake off this cold I have had the last month or so. I am in super-slow mode so you must put up with me as well - that applies to all of you. I have not abandoned this thread, just put it on hold for now.


Janine, this flu is awful, I think it has been more than three weeks since you caught it  :Sick:   :Bawling:  




> I can well understand that. Perhaps we can delay it a month, if you would be more available in May, instead of April. What do you think? And also, *Manolia,* could you hold off for another month; would you be awfully disappointed? I feel kind of pressured right now if we begin in April. There is so much going on in my family presently to prepare for the arrival of my grandchild. Also, I feel really tired out from this horrid flu/cold lingering and the damp/cold/windy weather we have been having here. I wish 'spring' would arrive soon, but it feels more like December here.


I am going to be out of the discussion for the end of April or the beginning of may, so don't think about it, I will just skip part of it or I will take a week to read the posts  :Wink:  Still I don't think I will manage not to take any part of it  :FRlol:  Don't better moving it because of me. 




> I did not even try to enter it. I have not read the book, long poem. I seem to have trouble comprehending long epic poems such as the Aeneid. Did you read it already, *Alexei?* I did look in on several posts and pages to see what was being written. It was quite interesting but I felt too lost to participate, plus I had enough to handle on this forum at that time. We all do have to make selections and choices and as you say, you can always pursue it later on your own.


I've tried reading it a few years ago, but I didn't have the time and I didn't like the translation. The truth is I want to give it a try in Latin and I thought it could be useful for the discussion, but since I've missed the beginning of the thread and I have a lot to do with the trip coming, I will leave it for the next time.




> The next two shorter Chekhov stories will begin the first of the next month I believe. Usually, *Quark*, will post something on the first story. I like to think I have helped him, to model the presentation after the Lawrence thread. I try also to post some photo or photos to get everyone interested. *Quark* is now participating in the Lawrence short story thread as well. We arranged it that way - I participate in his thread and he participates ours. It would be utterly great if you were to join us in the Chekhov thread. The stories are shorter and somewhat simplier than the Lawrence ones. You could fit them in more easily I would imagine. Hope to see you over there.


I've read some of his short stories for my classes this year and I like them. In fact I wanted to continue the reading, but the only copy of his works I managed to find was a Russian one and I was too lazy to give it a try. Still, you've managed to get me even more interested so may be I will try this time  :FRlol:  

I want to write a lot more, but I am short of time, so I will finish it tomorrow. I've read the two following post, but I will write my comments later.

----------


## Janine

> Janine, this flu is awful, I think it has been more than three weeks since you caught it


It is a tough one. My brother-in-law told me his daughter-in-law caught it back, 3 times this year. I just feel I have not ever gotten thoroughly rid of it. One day I am better and then next I am all congested again. It just keeps lingering on. I go to my specialist tomorrow for IBS (another thing that plagues me), so I will ask him about the cold, too.




> I am going to be out of the discussion for the end of April or the beginning of may, so don't think about it, I will just skip part of it or I will take a week to read the posts  Still I don't think I will manage not to take any part of it  Don't better moving it because of me.


No problem at all, *Alexei.* I think *manolia* is probably real busy right now, too. I know *Quark* is busy, with the two short story threads; think he is in the Aeneid discussion, too. Let us just agree to keep this thread open indefinitely, maybe till eternity :Wink:   :FRlol:  Anyway, I forsee a busy month ahead, so I will have to put this and other things on hold. I too might post now and then, but can't promise big things at this busy time. 




> I've tried reading it a few years ago, but I didn't have the time and I didn't like the translation. The truth is I want to give it a try in Latin and I thought it could be useful for the discussion, but since I've missed the beginning of the thread and I have a lot to do with the trip coming, I will leave it for the next time.


Good for you - with the goal of reading it in Latin! Someday you will get to it; what is the rush, right? You have tons of time, being young. I felt too overwhelmed when I saw the length of it. I am sure it is a great work, but one that was not on my priority list. At my age, one needs a realistic list. I still have too many books to read and I read so slowly; thoroughly, but slowly.




> I've read some of his short stories for my classes this year and I like them. In fact I wanted to continue the reading, but the only copy of his works I managed to find was a Russian one and I was too lazy to give it a try. Still, you've managed to get me even more interested so may be I will try this time


Oh, good *Alexei*; glad they interest you. *Quark* will like to hear of your interest, too. I told him I would try recruiting people; I think I am good at that. :Wink:  Anyway, so far I haven't a book of my own of the Chekhov short stories. Occasionally, I take one from the public library, but so far we only read one of the stories that was in that book, so it is quite limited. Mostly, I have copied the ones off this site, and printed them out, since they have been quite short this month, and will probably continue that way - with 2 stories a month. At least, I hope we continue in that way, so I don't feel overwhelmed.






> I want to write a lot more, but I am short of time, so I will finish it tomorrow. I've read the two following post, but I will write my comments later.


That is ok; I am short of time also, since tomorrow is Easter, and I desire to send out some e-cards today. 
I hope you have a great trip. Where to this time? When do you go? It is so much fun to travel.

----------


## PierreGringoire

So is The Tale of Two Cities BETTER than Great Expectations.
I was just wondering because I'm trying to decide which one to read. I like really mezmirizing books like count of monte cristo and les miserables-- melodramatic even... I was just wondering which one you would reccomend over the other?

----------


## DapperDrake

Definatly, I would definately say Tale of two cities is better than Great Expectations. I read a tale of two cities several years ago so I can barely remember the plot, but I do remember thinking that it was superb at the time - if a little blunt with its sensibilities.

----------


## Janine

> So is The Tale of Two Cities BETTER than Great Expectations.
> I was just wondering because I'm trying to decide which one to read. I like really mezmirizing books like count of monte cristo and les miserables-- melodramatic even... I was just wondering which one you would reccomend over the other?


*Hi PierreGringoire,* I absolutely agree with *DapperDrake*; and from what you say that you enjoy reading, you will love "A Tale of Two Cities". I read it twice and I would read it again. It is a wonderful book! :Thumbs Up:  I also read the full-length 5 volume version of "Les Miserables" - that one, I only read once. :Wink:  I think it was the most amazing book I have ever read. 
I adore "A Tale of Two Cities" and highly recommend the Masterpiece Theater Production, as well (comes on DVD), as a companion to your exposure to this fine Dicken's novel and story.

----------


## icandoit

thanks god. So lucky that i am reading this book. I am newbie and new in reading fiction too. So help me ^ ^

----------


## Captain_Kuchiki

According to my brother, A Tale of Two Cities wasn't much good. It was meandering and was spread too thin over a lot of random people and didn't have coherence. (I have other books to read, anyway).

----------


## Janine

> According to my brother, A Tale of Two Cities wasn't much good. It was meandering and was spread too thin over a lot of random people and didn't have coherence. (I have other books to read, anyway).


Don't listen to your brother. The book is incredible. I read it when I was young in high school and then I did not appreciate it as well. I read a few years ago before we started this thread and I loved every minute of it. It is history - how can history and revolutions be boring. The book is a masterpiece of literature. It might not be for you if you are looking for fast-paced action packed books such as the movies now empart; but to say a "Tale of Two Cities" wasn't good is personal opinion and most people would not agree with you on that thought since the book is probably Dickens' most famous works.

----------


## wilbur lim

Charles Dicken is my protangonist and the dominant writter ever.His works are perfect for me.

----------


## optimisticnad

I suppose I'm too late? ;-) I don't suppose you meant valentine's day 2009? Anyway I'm going to stick to the point because i never do....where was i? I've not read this yet but it is next on my reading list and I look forward to adding my insipid contribution to this thread. On Valentine's day 2009. 
Just out of curiosity - why are we reading this on this momentous day? Without giving too much away? Is there some grand love story? A simple nod of the head will do.

----------


## Quark

It's a good book, but the discussion for it ended last year. There is a romance in it, but the book seems more concerned with personal redemption and social upheaval. I guess it was an odd choice for Valentine's day, but I think we still enjoyed it anyway.

----------


## RG57

Even though I've missed the discussion on the book, I found it an excellent read. I love Dickens' work and this one ranks in the top five.

----------


## optimisticnad

> Even though I've missed the discussion on the book, I found it an excellent read. I love Dickens' work and this one ranks in the top five.


I see no reason why we can't continue discussing it. I'm sure there are many people who have not read the book and are interested in doing so. Discuss away.....

----------


## Eugenie

I realize this is rather out there from what has been discussed, but I would like to talk about the mob mentality. It is horrendous to me to think that one person can whip up a crowd to do what no sane person would think of doing normally.That a person could sit by and watch unspeakable acts and then eat and drink and live to do it all again is beyond my comprehension. When humanity goes without manners or civility,when they trade dialogue or at least bloodless actions for bloodthirsty acts that no animal would do, I tremble. Because at that point all reason has fled and what is to prevent the instigators from taking a look at me or you and deciding the color of our hair or eyes is unacceptable and a threat and we too must be eliminated. shiver.
Charles Dickens was beautifully able to take us right into the foray and feel and smell and see what the characters saw. Wonderful

----------

