Mount TBR Reading Challenge 2012 discussion
This topic is about
A Tale of Two Cities
Mount TBR Buddy-Reads
>
Book the Second - chapters 1 - 24 *SPOILERS allowed*
Jeannette wrote: "SW of Osnabruck -- my in-laws are in Hildesheim, just south of Hannover. Germany is nice in many ways, but I can understand your wife's feelings, too. I felt it was easier for me to raise our daughter in the US..."Hildesheim is a nice town - it had a tank barracks (Tofrek Kaserne), which is now closed but for the guys I knew there it was a very popular posting away from the larger garrison towns/cities.
My husband's parents moved there 30 years ago. It's a nice city, but not too big. I love the area around there, too. My husband and I both lived and studied in Braunschweig for a while.
Jemidar wrote: "Because a few people I know love Bleak House, if I ever feel inclined to read another Dickens novel that would be it. I'm thinking I might at some stage in the very far off future because from what I've been reading AToTC isn't typical of Dickens so maybe not the best book to judge him by. However, I'm 100% certain I'll never touch Oliver Twist, David Copperfield or Great Expectations (the novels I was set at school and uni but was unable to finish) ever again! "That gave me a good laugh as I was shaking my head in agreement as I read along. I can totally understand, it will be a long time for me before I try another book of his. It was the subject matter of the French Revolution and the classic black and white film, with Ronald Coleman as Carton I believe, that made me want to read this.
I have finished book 2 and getting ready to start book 3. I have to admit the last few chapters were exciting and much better than the previous two I trudged through. Dickens captures the ruthlessness of the crowd "Rend Foulon to pieces, and dig him into the ground, that grass may grow from him!" When they stormed the Bastille, do we know what Defarge was looking for in Dr. Manette's old cell?
I was surprised he didn't wring more out of the passing of Lucie and Darnay's son in chapter XXI, but still manages to pluck some emotion from it "Dear papa and mamma, I am very sorry to leave you both, and to leave my pretty sister; but I am called, and I must go!"
"I know how hard it has grown for me, the wearer of this, to support life in myself; but do you know how easy it has grown for me, the wearer of this, to destroy life in you?"
I hope book 3 keeps a pace closer to the chapters XXI through XXIV because things are getting interesting, lets keep them that way, please!
I think you are in for a treat. Early death was such a common thing in Victorian England, particularly in children, that the people were quite use to it. It was part of their life as parents to know how easily their child/children could and did succumb to illnesses that today are easily treatable.
Dawn (& Ron) wrote: "I have finished book 2 and getting ready to start book 3. I have to admit the last few chapters were exciting and much better than the previous two I trudged through. Dickens captures the ruthles..."
Dawn, Book Three definitely keeps up the pace but unfortunately it still only touches on things superficially which is a shame. I too wondered what they were looking for (and did they ever find it?) and now I'm up to Book 3, Chapter 8 think I'm about to find out.
I saw the Ronald Coleman movie years ago and years ago and it is also because of it (although I don't remember much of it!) that I wanted to read the book!
Just finished book II last night God, I was sooo busy for a couple of days there, barely had time to read! First, I agree with both Kim and Dawn: the storming of the Bastille was brilliantly executed and chilling! Loved it. Now, this is my fifth Dickens novel and usually the way Dickens narrates a story (at least for me) you don't have much of a chance to form an opinion of a character that may or may not go against the author's opinion. Dickens tends to brow beat to death every single reason the character is either likable or not. However, with Mrs. Defarge, what I'm seeing so far is a woman caught up in a cause. Yes she participated in the violence brought up on the governor and also that man they made eat grass because he once told the peasants they could eat it. But how I've interpreted her so far is that this is, after all the revolution and with so much oppression on the poor they didn't have a chance to rise up without causing bloodshed. Especially when one considers how long bloodshed has been inflicted on them. To be perfectly honest, so far I'm finding Mrs. Defarge a little sympathetic.
Anyone else have an opinion on Mrs. Defarge? I did accidentally read a spoiler on her (but I won't share it) and I'm curious as to how Dickens will pull it off. Hopefully there will be a sufficient enough build-up to that spoiler so that when it happens I won't feel like WTF??
Mrs Defarge horrified me until I also accidentally read a spoiler about her (wonder if it was the same one?) which made her a little more sympathetic and I understood her better, although I'm still not sure how I feel about her obvious blood lust. It's something I just can't identify with.
I think once you know her story, you will be better able to judge her need for blood to flow.
I know her story, that was the spoiler I happened upon but I still can't condone it. I think I'm getting too old to be enthusiastic about a bloody revolution ;-).
Jemidar wrote: "I know her story, that was the spoiler I happened upon but I still can't condone it. I think I'm getting too old to be enthusiastic about a bloody revolution ;-)."Oh I agree. she was over the top for sure.
Jemidar wrote: "Mrs Defarge horrified me until I also accidentally read a spoiler about her (wonder if it was the same one?) which made her a little more sympathetic and I understood her better, although I'm still..."Have started Book 3 and will move on to that thread but wanted to say that Mrs Defarge is a mighty creepy lady.
More than creepy....
Jemidar wrote: "Dawn, Book Three definitely keeps up the pace but unfortunately it still only touches on things superficially which is a shame. I too wondered what they were looking for (and did they ever find it?) and now I'm up to Book 3, Chapter 8 think I'm about to find out.I saw the Ronald Coleman movie years ago and years ago and it is also because of it (although I don't remember much of it!) that I wanted to read the book! "
I should have some good reading then tonight I'm starting chapter 5 of book 3, I just hope we really do find out what that search was all about.
And wow what a change in Dr. Manette, although understandable, it was awfully quick. But people can change when confronted by such horrors.
So, it is all Ronald Coleman's fault, he of the wonderful voice, well at least we had a very good reason, ha-ha. Of course I imagine his voice and image (he never looked as bad as Darnay is described that's for sure) when reading his character's scenes.
Margaret wrote: "Dickens tends to brow beat to death every single reason the character is either likable or not." And since these were serialized initially he would need to re-explain the character's personality and traits to remind readers and help new readers. That makes sense.First of all, where is this spoiler and how do we avoid it? Sounds like a big one.
Not being 'spoiled' yet, I can understand some of Madame Defarge's motivations but can't condone going down to another level. If you do to a person what you hate to see them do to others, then how are you better for doing that same thing? You then succeed in becoming the thing you hated. I'm not saying don't do anything but things can be handled differently. I have a saying, the biggest power we posses is how we react to a situation. Look at the differences in how the Americans revolted and the French people revolted (granted their oppression lasted longer and was worse).
I found the bit about Mme Defarge on Wikipedia. I tripped over it while I was looking up something else.
Dawn, on your last point, I think that there is a big difference between a war of independence and a revolution. The Americans had the former and the French had the latter. If a war of independence is won, the oppressors pack up and go home. There may be reprisals against those who are perceived to have collaborated with them, but that's generally where it ends. In the case of a revolution, the oppressors are overthrown, but most of them remain within the society. The oppressors and those who are seen to represent them form a bigger and more readily accessible target for those within society who, for political or personal reasons, have a desire for revenge. The pattern of the oppressed becoming the oppressors has been repeated in a number of countries which have been through a revolution. It's very ugly, but it happens.
ETA: The "spoiler" about Mme Defarge is well into Book III.
Dawn (& Ron) wrote: "Look at the differences in how the Americans revolted and the French people revolted..."Does that make the French more revolting than Americans then? ;-D.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Kim wrote: "Dawn, on your last point, I think that there is a big difference between a war of independence and a revolution. The Americans had the former and the French had the latter. If a war of independence..."Kim, great explanation.....
I guess it all boils down to how much one follows the eye for eye philosophy. People want their pound of flesh usually and it takes a very unusual person to walk away and truly forgive and forget.
I also have to think of how a group mentality can effect what goes on. People who would normally be the most peace loving often get caught up in with the mob and find themselves in places they thought they would never go. I guess we all would like to think we would never react the way the Madame Defarges of the world do, but pushed hard enough I guess we just might.
Jemidar wrote: "Does that make the French more revolting than Americans then? ;-D...."Most def! ;D
Marialyce wrote: "I guess it all boils down to how much one follows the eye for eye philosophy. People want their pound of flesh usually and it takes a very unusual person to walk away and truly forgive and forget. ..."I think that's right, Marialyce. The awareness that such a thing can so easily happen was part of the background for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission set up by the Government of National Unity in South Africa. That change in South Africa with the downfall of the apartheid regime was in the nature of a revolution.
I don't think it's oversimplification to say Dickens used Mme Defarge to personify the mob mentality and to confront the reader by having a woman act so out of character from what was normally expected, as Marialyce points out can often happen in a mob situation. While he was obviously criticizing the aristocracy and clergy for their treatment of the poor, he obviously felt there were faults on both sides. If anything, I think Dickens was warning us of the dangers of extremes, or alternatively pointing out that extreme action on one sides leads to extreme action on the other.
France became a secular state during the Revolution so it seems the people were in revolt against them as well. Apparently the church had too many connections with the aristocracy to be thought impartial so even if the church had wanted to step in it may not have had the authority or the influence to do so. Also the upper echelons of the the church was mostly filled with aristocrats so they were probably too busy fleeing for their lives!The chilling scene for me with Mme Defarge was when she put her foot on that guys throat and hacked off his head. It was not something I ever imagined a woman doing nor would I have thought it would be an easy task for a woman to do physically. For me it said lots of stuff about how strong the mob was and how it empowered everyone but it also pointed out it's shocking excesses. So yes, I would agree the imagery was strengthened by Defarge being a woman.
Could you ladies move this over to the discussion of Book III, please? Or enclose this in spoilers? As Kim pointed out, this happens well into the Third Book. Thanks! :)
Nope, the bit I talked about was towards the end of Book Two. What Kim was referring too was the bit where you find out Mme Defarge's motivation/history and that comes out around the court case in Book 3. So far none of us have revealed anything to do with that.
Good, thanks! I thought the revolution all played out in Book III.
They storm the Bastille before the end of Book 2 :-).
I wasn't expecting so much to happen in such a small chunk of the book!
He packs a lot into the end of Book 2. Perhaps he felt guilty for boring us to death until then ;-D.
I finally read the bit about Mme Defarge and the knitting... Now all is clear!!
We finally see what they are all about, at least in a much more direct way.
Yes Jemidar and Marialyce! Definitely the mob mentality. The Defarges, as leaders of the revolution fed the mob and the mob fed them right back. I know I've gone the majority of the day without eating before (who hasn't?) and I'm well aware of how famished I was by the end of the day: Hunger, the best seasoning. To just imagine that one day as a way of life for these people, whose only means of satisfying (using that term generously) their appetites was with a few bites of stale bread and then to have that guy tell these people they could eat grass?? I'm sorry but I could see myself easily being one happy member of that mob. I'd be right there on the front lines screaming at the top of my lungs Let's see if he can eat grass!Jemidar, yes, part of the spoiler was reading Madame Defarge's background. But I'm thinking that I would have sympathized anyway simply because she and her husband are leaders in the revolution and also because Madame Defarge was well aware of the You can always eat grass comment and then the opportunity knocked to change roles?? Mob or not, I would have fantasized about a role reversal the moment he had the audacity to say such a thing.
Dawn, I did like what you said about how we become what we hate. That tends to be the end result when revenge is the motive and very, very few can rise above such a temptation. (I am sooo NOT one of those rare ones!) I think the main motive behind revenge is wanting that person to "see how it feels".
It's just, to me, in a war there will be killing in a battlefield. In a revolution they have to overthrow their oppressors; the surest method is by killing them. I know it was shocking when Madame Defarge stepped on the guy's throat and cut off his head but woman or not, to me this is the revolution and behaving in a civilized manner sort of flies away.
On a lighter note: Remember the last chapter of book 2 when Monseigneur was at the bank whining about all the injustices committed against him, considering what a great swell guy he's been all along? Rrriiiight...That gave me another fit of chuckles. How typical of the narcissists to never see their own faults but then turn around and project themselves onto others.
But also that same chapter, at the end showed just how far the mob mentality had deteriorated with Gabelle. They completely forgot that *somebody* has to have the job and if not Gabelle, it would be someone else and more than likely that someone else would be far worse. They forgot that man in power was going far easier on them, not even taking rent. They failed to see beyond "man in power".
Dawn, the spoiler came from two places: My character keys and I also Googled "Madame Defarge knitting" because at the time I wanted an expanded explanation behind her little registry. So my advice is don't Google that character name at all; I didn't even have to follow any links - their little contexts underneath the links told it all!
Jemidar wrote: "Dawn (& Ron) wrote: "Look at the differences in how the Americans revolted and the French people revolted..."Does that make the French more revolting than Americans then? ;-D."
Jemidar, I did think of that when I wrote it and had the word revolting in the second portion, instead of revolted, but wasn't sure anyone would get the joke. Glad I was wrong.
Kim, I agree there is a distinct difference in a war for independence (don't forget the 2nd go around in 1812, sometimes referred to as the Second War of Independence) and a revolution and you could add civil wars too. But they are each done for essentially the same purposes (except our U.S. one, one of the few to protect what they had), overthrowing/getting rid of the oppressors.
I used the French and American Revolutions as they were used in the book, two peoples/citizens rising up in revolt to throw off the yoke of monarchy. I wasn't referring to the eventual or hoped for outcome and its effects but how the rising up itself was done. The French admired the American accomplishment but something went off course. The mob mentality went to cruel extremes, using fear to rule (some of the same things used against them for centuries) during the French revolt, but this mob mentality was better controlled and used more constructively in the American revolt. I by no means say that there were things the colonials didn't screw up and meant no offense, only trying to explain my answer to Margaret's question on Madame Defarge. I guess I didn't explain myself well.
Well the Madame Defarge spoiler is just another reason for me not to look up things online before finishing the book, if I can help it. I try not to do it anymore, after coming across big spoilers that messed up a read for me.I agree Madame is a representation of the mob but don't forget what the women did when they marched on the Palace (can't remember which one) hoping to find the Queen. Thinking of that scene where Madame Defarge cuts off the head, remembering it was a small knife made the image worse.
Margaret, you help to clear up some of the points I was trying to make. I understand you have to kill to affect changes, and agree with it in these situations. I'm not saying to just stand there, thank and forgive the person and move on. Heck, I would love to be able to put the people in a taped up cardboard box with no water or food as they did to the abandoned 5-6 week old kittens we found, for just one full afternoon. I still stand by my statement that the biggest decisions we make is how we react to a given situation but I will add don't be a doormat either. Yes, get rid of the people known to be the cause, it's when it crosses that line, in the case of Gabelle, Darnay and the many innocents (anyone who knew, had business with aristocrats was subject to arrest and execution and many were) where this went wrong. I also feel the new found power was a part of it and having no solid leadership to guide these people in the right direction. The saddest part is how bad the people had it after the revolution, it undermined so much.
I'm in chapter IX of book 3 am going to check in on the book 3 thread now.
I'm not reading any of these comments until I finish book 2... just saying! And Wikipee is dangerous for spoilers. I do wish they would mark them, or hide them or something, although I know how difficult that would be.
ETA: I loved this bit about Mme Defarge, however:
(view spoiler)
ETA: I loved this bit about Mme Defarge, however:
(view spoiler)
Hayes! I agree. Absolutely brilliant, wasn't it?
Margaret wrote: "Hayes! I agree. Absolutely brilliant, wasn't it?"
I agree, too! She's a cool customer, Mme Defarge.
I agree, too! She's a cool customer, Mme Defarge.
Jeannette wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Hayes! I agree. Absolutely brilliant, wasn't it?"I agree, too! She's a cool customer, Mme Defarge."
(view spoiler)
I wasn't so shocked by Madame Defarge's brutality. The first image that springs to mind is Queen Boudica (Boadicea), riding out into battle against the Romans. (And, probably more sensational, fictional accounts of someone like her.) So, Mme Defarge and her knitting warrior-women set forth into the fray for revenge and justice, meeting cruelty with cruelty.
I finished Book II, and will finish the remaining book by Monday. I hope it picks up again.....
So, I have finally finished book two.
(view spoiler)
I will now go read all the comments that I had been avoiding.
(view spoiler)
I will now go read all the comments that I had been avoiding.
Hayes, get ready for a one heck of a ride in book 3!
I'm at chapter 21, but as I think I've missed the meaning I've downloaded both the audiobook and the translation in Dutch.At first I thought: what is this when I listened to the first chapter, but after checking more closely the audiobook is a librivox inclusion of a Dutch translation of 1880. Not only I'm reading Dickens, but also Dutch from more than a century ago.
Luckily I've found a PDF of the same translation, so now I listen and read alongside.
I want to continue with the English ebook, but for thorough understanding Dutch is easier.
That's impressive, Sylvia. Are you noticing much difference in the language from 1880?
Sylvia, maybe you will be able to give all of is a better understanding of the book with your 1880 Dutch versions.
Dawn (& Ron) wrote: "Sylvia, maybe you will be able to give all of is a better understanding of the book with your 1880 Dutch versions." LOL, the Dutch language around 1880 is a verbose as is Dickens' Victorian English. The translation is perfect, but I would love to read a more modern Dutch translation.
BTW I have finished AToTC and have given it a 4-star. Here's my review
Jeannette wrote: "That's impressive, Sylvia. Are you noticing much difference in the language from 1880?"Dutch in the 19th century was as verbose as Dickens' Victorian English. I read a lot of Dutch literature during my studies and the use of 19th Dutch is so different of 21th Dutch. Not only the spelling of words, but also the building of sentences. So sentences take half a page between the beginning capital and the period. It's all mix of adjectives and adverbial clauses. So even in Dutch I'm sometimes lost LOL
Mount TBR Reading Challenge 2012
Books mentioned in this topic
Der Tunnel (other topics)A Rogue's Life (other topics)
The Haunted Hotel: A Mystery of Modern Venice (other topics)
No Name (other topics)
The Moonstone (other topics)
More...
Well with all the recommendations Collins looks a must and just leaves me to mull over which book to start with; my thanks to all for the comments.