Geeked About Tale of Two Cities

Before I get too deep on this classic novel, I wanted to say that it is obvious I have no education in Literature, no experience in the field and no qualifiers to allow me to talk about this on any professional level. I write about these books because I love a good story.

A Tale of Two Cities is exactly that, a dang good story. Like I mentioned before, I am not going to add anything to the critical canon about this book, but I can add my flavor to it, and what it meant to me.

As an American student, I did not get more than a page on the French revolution, and seeing it in novel form, and a story that intertwines with historical events and matches the mood and culture of the characters was a blast. I enjoyed getting some perspective on one of the bloodiest times in France’s history. The guillotine becomes a living, breathing thing in this novel, and I never fully appreciated the weight of the method of execution till I read through this book.

Is this an easy read? I don’t think so. I was constantly referencing my notes in the back of my Barnes and Noble edition, trying to get some background on the historical references (which are plenty) and the sayings used back then which have zero meaning today.

Sydney Carlton is the anti-hero mold of all time. The loser who gives all to save those he loves, especially our dear heroine, Lucie.

In fact, I have heard that the character (Carlton) is loved so much, that a modern writer had put his story on page, as there is a huge chunk of book not devoted to him, however he is the central focus, the hero, the proverbial gunslinger, the knight in shining armor, although strangely enough, he does no fighting. Dickens leaves that up to one of his more humorous characters in the story, Miss Pross.

And that brings me to one of the best bad guys I have read about in a while, Madame Defarge. I don’t want to go into any further detail, but know this: you do not want her to sew anything for you.

And this story has such subtle and over the top humor that somehow this combines and works so well. I laughed out loud while reading it at times, and I came through on the other side seeing Dickens as a man who was not criticizing one historical group or the other, but trying to show the humanity on both sides, rich and poor, vengeful and hopeful, the revolutionists and the leaders of the status quo—each side is represented in a human distinction, with the victims being shown for what they were, not some type of political ploy, but humans who have suffered much.

I am looking forward to getting some more Dickens under my belt, and I recommend this read, especially if you don’t mind trudging through the older English language.