Yet, I found the re-reading of this book to be hard-going. I suppose I am too used to modern writing and the popular fiction of the day. It was work to follow the words and get at the heart of what Dickens was trying to communicate. The first fifty pages made me wonder how I could have changed so because I really wasn't enjoying it at all.
Thankfully, the further I read, the closer I got to those old sentiments (although, I will admit, I never got back to the full-out love I used to hold for this writer). Having finished the book, I can see again why his works were so appealing. Dickens is a master at weaving together various characters and wrapping them all up into a neat little package in the end. This is something Maeve Binchy also mastered (I was sad to discover recently that she has passed away and we will no longer be able to look forward to further novels chock full of Irish characters and intensely vivid settings from her hand).
He is also a master at social commentary. He took the ills of society and portrayed them fully enough to cause a reader to think about what should be done to rectify these situations (whether it be rote-learning in education, long drawn-out legal cases, or revolutions where the revolutionaries become as despicable as those they are revolting against).
If you haven't ever read A Tale of Two Cities, I would encourage you to read without giving up because once you are fully drawn into the story and the characters, you will not regret slogging along to get to the gold. The book tells the story of two men, Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton, who both love the same woman, Lucie Manette. It is set in two cities, London and Paris, during the time of the French Revolution. At the beginning of the tale, we are introduced to Doctor Manette who is "recalled to life," after a lengthy imprisonment in the Bastille. By the end, we are introduced to an even larger concept of resurrection and redemption.
Of course, the novel is best known for it's two famous passages at the beginning and end of the book. Both of these passages show an intense dichotomy and both stir immense feeling in the reader. The first sentence: "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 ...." And the final sentence of Sydney Carton's: "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known."
There were images I could easily recall from when I read the book almost thirty years ago: the wine spilling like blood in the beginning of the book, the women of the French Revolution knitting away while heads are chopped off by La Guillotine, Madame Defarge knitting in the names of those she deems deserving of La Guillotine, and the final moments of heroic sacrifice. This is evidence of the book's enduring qualities. So, even though the language is old and sometimes difficult to follow, the story is timeless and beautiful and well worth the work involved.
2 comments:
I struggle with Dickens. He uses 50 words to say something that could be said in 10! I know, though, that I am missing out on such great stories. I'm working on building a "year of classics" reading list for next year and perhaps I'll make room for Dickens...Which one is your favorite?
Amy - My favorite Dicken's book is GREAT EXPECTATIONS. The characters are rich and the story packed with mystery. However, that was my impression back when I was in high school and still in my initial Dickens-loving phase. A CHRISTMAS CAROL would be good, as well, although you probably already know the story. I agree entirely that he uses too many words to get to what he is trying to say. Sometimes, the over-abundance of words becomes noteworthy (like the opening and closing lines of TOTC), but often is just tedious.
Post a Comment