The History Book Club discussion

For those of you who have completed the book and/or who want to discuss aspects of the book which are beyond our weekly assignments in the non spoiler threads, this thread is a spoiler thread where you can discuss those points.

If you have completed the book and would like to tell us what you thought about this selection, please feel free to discuss your opinions in a respectful way here.

However, please no links to personal reviews because we consider that self promotion. Simply post your thoughts here without the links.

Many folks read ahead of the weekly assignment and that is OK too; however, you must make sure that your posted comments on the other weekly non spoiler threads do not reflect reading ahead of the posted weekly assignment. If you would like to discuss aspects of the book further along, this is a spoiler thread where you can do just that.

We try to move along the discussion slowly on the weekly non spoiler threads but realize that some folks like to move along swiftly. So we have options for both groups of folks.

by Charles Dickens

So what do you think of A Tale of Two Cities as a whole? A great work of literature of historical schmaltz? One of Dickens' best works or the first one you've read?

Which character was most appealing, least?

Did all the pieces of this sometimes puzzling work finally fit?

What happened to our themes overall of footsteps or hard/light or political oppression?

If you were to rate it from A+ to F- what rating would it get?

This has been a great opportunity for me to really get to know this wonderful work of historical fiction - I hope you all got half as much out of it as I did.

Becky wrote: "So what do you think of A Tale of Two Cities as a whole? A great work of literature of historical schmaltz? One of Dickens' best works or the first one you've read? ...

I have read a few bits that actually did describe this text as a historical train wreck but I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps that is because I read it as literature and not a historical narrative.

On a whole, I don't feel that the characters are either very complex or dynamic. For the most part, they all seem rather one-dimensional. Sydney Carton is one of the few that appears to undergo any meaningful change. But I don't think that makes the narrative any less enjoyable and perhaps, given the layers of symbolism, setting, and narrative, the simplicity of character is preferable. Nonetheless, this remains one of my favorite texts. (I always cry through the last several chapters.) A+

Jayme wrote: I have read a few bits that actually did describe this text as a historical train wreck but I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps that is because I read it as literature and not a historical narrative.
>>>
On a whole, I don't feel that the characters are either very complex or dynamic. "

I've read and disliked this book several times. The time prior to this I also thought it was more or less an "historical train wreck." It felt like the French Revolution was just a convenient setting and really nothing more. I understood it to be a love story, basically because where's the philosophy? Where's Robespierre? Where's the Jacobin political mess?

This time I read more carefully, and I also read some of Carlyle's history (which Dickens used extensively) and other material and found that although there is not a whole lot of info about the "dead white men" aspect, the social history is spot on. Carlyle wrote in a very "excited" prose, too - almost purple.

About the characters - I agree that the major "good guys" - - Lucie, Darnay and Doctor Manette- didn't change much at all although the circumstances of Doctor Manette changed so much it's hard to tell about his own character changes. Basically he was a "good guy."

And I don't think the "bad guy" characters changed much - Madame Defarge may have hardened a bit while her husband started to soften?

But I think there is really quite a lot of change in some of the others - Carton changed dramatically of course, but Jerry Cruncher pledged never to dig bodies again (and I believe him). Mr. Lorry went from being a "man of business" and not much else, to being sincerely devoted to this family and recognizing that they would miss him if he were gone. Miss Pross went from being a devoted servant to being a murderer but that might not have been a change so much as being the depths of her devotion.

This time I appreciated Lucie a whole lot more. In prior readings I had her pegged for a Dickensian construct only, just too pure and good for any age. But this time I kind of saw beyond that (or I think I did) and came to admire her for her steadfastness and her loyalty. She did always try to do the right things for her family. She prized her little family above all else as she'd never had one. For her not to change is a lesson in perseverance.

by
Thomas Carlyle

Very solid review Becky and though I agree with some parts and not so much with some others; it is a terrific review which you back up with some convincing details. I am glad that with this reading you found more than a few redeeming qualities. It is a great classic.

Good job with getting through your first moderating experience here - way to go.

Thank you, Bentley - it was an interesting and mostly terrific experience. I loved getting to know the book better than I did, taking it more seriously. Also I really enjoyed the input of the members because it certainly enhanced my own observations.

Becky wrote: "So what do you think of A Tale of Two Cities as a whole? A great work of literature of historical schmaltz? One of Dickens' best works or the first one you've read?

Which character was most ..."

I need to learn how to use this site better. I wish I had known you were reading this book earlier! I have not read it recently but did in high school. I took the advanced courses in literature, and I boast about this novel a lot. When someone asks me my favorite novel from that period of my life, this is the one I tell them to read. I am glad that you all got to read this, and I will have to get my school books back from mom and re-read them for fun!

Jayme wrote: "Becky wrote: "So what do you think of A Tale of Two Cities as a whole? A great work of literature of historical schmaltz? One of Dickens' best works or the first one you've read? ...

I have rea..."

I rate this work an A. I enjoyed the story very much. Did anyone else catch the foreshadowing between the two characters that looked alike? I did not at the time I read it, so I was still surprised in the end.

Great comment! Dickens used a lot of foreshadowing in this book but I don't think he did that much with Carton's extreme change. We kind of knew there would be some change but to the extent he laid down his life was amazing if you didn't see it coming. I didn't see it beforehand until my second reading when I really looked for it.

Hi Becky

Well this is to you to thank you for your work sheparding us thru this book. I just finished - the last two sections on vacation with Kindle only and no access to the website.

The storyis better understood now. Miss Pross is a heroine. Charles is an honorable man. Dr. Manette is a man of human frailty and strength both. Carton confuses me because he seems to illustrate/personify the appeal that Lucie seemed to have for all. I didn't see her as so special but I have to accpet that many did. And then it seems she had character to go with an attractive appearence. Would Charles or Carton or others have been so supportive of her were she ordinary looking??

Anyway I really enjoyed it and the effort I am sure that Dickens made to correctly portray revolutionary France.

Well thank you Vince! :-) It was a pleasure and really quite rewarding. I'd read the book before but never really carefully like I did for this reading. I came to care for all the characters (something I don't usually do) and respect Dickens' work on the history.

I never completely understood Carton either, but something reformed him. I suppose in Victorian ideals it was his love for Lucie which did it. But rationally, could he have figured it would be better to execute a generally guilty man than a completely innocent one? - that's as far as I can get.