Never change a running plot system

Although it might get used far too often
Instead of trying out new plots and ideas, Dickens keeps focusing on his main premises, recycling himself a bit and especially losing control over the inner logic, coherency, and credibility, not ever to talk about suspension of disbelief, because this thing feels so constructed.

Kind of a franchise of social critique
Not bad, but one of his weaker works, it reminds me a bit of a certain behemoth company always following the same scheme, adoring the running system, never changing much if it brings sweet money money. I do appreciate any kind of social criticism and that´s, along with all the ethics, moral, capitalistic evil, etc. what makes Dickens´work so special, but he just didn´t put that much effort into this one, maybe there were personal reasons or problems, maybe he needed to get it published, maybe he just mehed and thought
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...
, who knows.

Definitely did see it coming
I was pretty disappointed after about half to two thirds of the book, because I could guess that there won´t be space for more dynamic plotlines (as if Dickens would have used such) and the ending was the ultimate Deus ex machinagasm. I can´t get behind the fascination of this novel for some readers, it´s an uninspired, stale infusion of Dickens topics in an unmotivated attempt to make more money by using his position as a moral guardian, a kind of national symbol ("our great writer to be proud of BS patriotism", no matter what she/he writes), and progressive critic of society, and copying his tropes until they began to fall into pieces.

Not close to Oliver Twist and Chrismas Carol
Because the story isn´t that amazing, I would like to focus on dissecting Dickens, so let´s take a short look at the strengths and weaknesses of his writing in general, by comparing best and worst, instead of talking about a story close to redundancy. In contrast to Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist, there seems to be less real lifeblood and the true self of the author in it, instead, it becomes a kind of next part of the literary brand Dickens was able to establish himself as.

A bit more complex characters, please
Dickens writes stereotypically, overusing the good/bad ugly/beautiful, and simple characterization scheme without the second layer and avoids describing realistic inner conflicts and anything giving characters more depth and complexity. There are no real cliffhangers, second and third plotlines, dynamic changes of perspective, and a general lack of pace and suspense, it´s as if an ultra stoic person tells one a story without any mimic or emotion and one has to struggle not to fall asleep while listening.

Not everyone ages well toward ingenuity
What irritates me the most is that his 2 great classics weren´t that average, although many other authors get better and better while they age and become specialists in the game of writing, but he lost parts of his motivation and/or talent while getting older. Without his established name, the last few novels wouldn´t have sold in the way Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist did, he would probably even didn´t have had the option to write more novels without the money and success.

Without the positive intent of showing grievances and dysfunctions in civilizations, this would have been a 3 star.
I am the last one to say that activism, progressivism, etc., aren´t good, but as soon as money and economic interests become more important than the work itself and ethics are hypocritically used to boost sales, the writer has lost her/his street credibility. It just reminds me more of the daily, average „each year a new novel“ mainstream mentality, not of a real classic.

Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...

6.0 stars. This was the first Charles Dickens novel I have ever read and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT!!! After reading this, I immediately decided that I would plan on reading the rest of Dickens books (hopefully one every couple of months until I get through them all. I was completely amazed by his characters who came instantly to life for me and about whose hopes and fears I found myself truly caring. Equally impressive was Dickens' plotting and overall story-telling ability which I thought were nothing short of masterful. Dickens writing conveyed the passions and turmoil of the French Revolution like few other works of literature I have come across.

In sum, in between two of the most famous first and last lines of any English novel (i.e., "It was the Best of Times...." and "It is a far, far better thing I do...") is an incredibly entertaining and moving story. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!

Za głupia na to jestem

به نام او

اولین اثری که از دیکنز خواندم (هرچند دیر) مرا شیفته این نویسنده انگلیسی کرد، در مجموع با ادبیات کلاسیک انگلستان میانه چندانی ندارم، نه اینکه بدم بیاید در واقع چندان مورد پسندم نیست، ولی انگار دنیای دیکنز چیز دیگری‌ست و از آن رمانتیسیم مرسوم در آثار او خبری نیست، داستان دو شهر که چنین بود. داستانی درباره دو شهر لندن و پاریس در بحبوحه وقوع انقلاب کبیر فرانسه و استقرار دولت انقلابی پس از آن، تسلط دیکنز بر داستان، تالستوی را فرایاد من می‌آورد (گویا خود تالستوی هم دیکنز را بسیار می‌پسندیده است)، تسلط از این جهت که نویسنده به معنای تام و تمام دانای کل است و محیط بر داستان، او خیر و صلاح شخصیتها و درستی و نادرستی وقایع را بیش از دیگران می‌داند و به همین جهت به خود حق قضاوت می‌دهد. شاید خوانندگان امروزی از این وجه چندان خوششان نیاید و دنباله‌رو نویسنده‌ای باشند که با امور به صورت نسبی برخورد می‌کند و حتی اجازه کوچکترین قضاوتی به خود و مخاطب نمی‌دهد، ولی چه کنم که طبع من چنین است و این سنخ نویسندگان را بسیار دوست دارم و بسیار می‌ستایم.
دیکنز در این رمان بیشتر به علل وقوع انقلاب (ظلمهای اشراف به مردمان فرودست) و افراطها و ظلمهایی که نتیجه هر انقلابی‌ست و به سرعت مظلومان دیروز را به ظالمان امروز تبدیل می‌،کند می‌پردازد و با قلمی قوی و طنزی تند و تیز همه را یکسر از تیغ انتقاد خود می‌گذراند و آنگاه فضای روشنی برای قضاوت پیش روی خواننده قرار می‌دهد
نکته حائز اهمیت دیگری که در اینجا باید بگویم طنز بی‌نظیر دیکنز است، طنزی که من در کمتر نویسنده ای سراغ دارم، طنزی هوشمندانه و بسیار کارا که مهمترین ابزار نویسنده برای انتقاد از همه‌چیز و همه کس است که در ادامه سه بخش کوتاه از این نوع طنز را می‌آورم.
و در آخر اینکه مطالعه کامل این رمان خوب را به دوستان توصیه می‌کنم نه خلاصه‌هایی که بی جهت در رده رمان‌های نوجوان قرار گرفته است و حتی رنگ و بویی هم از شاهکار دیکنز ندارد. و از میان ترجمه ها، ترجمه بسیار خوب و نسبتا مهجور مرحوم مهرداد نبیلی را پیشنهاد می‌کنم که توسط نشر فرزان روز منتشر شده و از ترجمه آقای یونسی به مراتب بهتر، سبک دیکنز، خصوصا طنز منحصر به فرد او، را منعکس کرده است.

و اما بخشهایی از رمان:

«عالیجناب، پس از آنکه چهار خدمتکار خویش را از بار مسئولیت آزاد کرده کاکائویی مبارک را میل فرمود، فرمان داد تا دروازه‌های قدس الاقداس را بگشایند، و قدم بیرون گذاشت. و آن گاه چه خضوع، چه کرنش و چرب‌زبانی، چه اظهار بندگی، و چه مایه خاکساری که بر او ایثار نشد! ابراز بندگی جسمی و روحی چنان بود که سهمی برای خداوند باقی نمی‌گذاشت، و چه بسا این هم دلیلی بود که پرستندگان عالیجناب از این نظر ناراحتی و ترسی به خود راه نمی‌دادند.»

●
«در دهکده شایعه‌ای جان گرفته بود، یا بهتر بگوییم همانند اهالی دهکده نیمه‌جانی داشت.»

●
«گیوتین در میان همگان موضوع رایجی برای مزاح بود، می‌گفتند بهترین داروی سردرد است، بی‌برو برگرد از سفید شدن موی سر پیشگیری می‌کند، پوست را لطافت خاص می‌بخشد، تیغی ملی است که از بیخ می‌تراشد، و کسی که او را می‌بوسد از پنجره کوچکی به بیرون نظر می‌افکند و در سبدی عطسه می‌کند. گیوتین رفته‌رفته نشانه تجدید حیات بشر شده نزد بسیاری جای صلیب را گرفته بود، زیرا اینان صلیب معمول خویش را به کناری گذارده و به جای آن مدل‌هایی از گیوتین بر سینه حمل می‌کردند و به جای صلیب به این مدل اعتقاد داشتند و نسبت به آن مراسم احترام به جای می‌آوردند.»

I'm so glad to see Dickens and I are friends again. From being my biggest disappointment of 2021, to being a great, pleasant experience after finishing A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens has caught my attention again, though he is far from being my favorite Victorian author, I'm really interested in reading some of his other novels from now on.
A Tale of Two Cities was not the book I was expecting at all; actually, I wasn't expecting to find anything so good as what I read here since my previous experience reading the author had ended up being really disappointing, however, now I can tell I probably made a mistake picking up Our Mutual Friend as my first Dickens, or perhaps this book wasn't for me at all. Either way, this compelling, sometimes intriguing historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities, published in 1859 and set before and during the French Revolution, that depicts directly and vividly the life of a group of characters who end up being involved in the social problems that they are living as a society, has been an impressive journey as a reader.

Now, I must confess I found both the characters main plot and subplots poorly developed and superficial. Don't get me wrong, in my view this was not a mistake at all. The characters are following one, and only one direction from beginning to end: one of them is kind and sympathetic towards everyone at the begging, in the middle and at the end of the book; another one is wicked, super evil, again, throughout the whole novel; the third one is just the voice of wisdom, and so on and so forth. Theirs personalities are basically the same, perhaps—and just in a few cases—changing slightly towards the last one third of the book (for the record, if you are a character reader, this book might not be for you).
Is this a problem? Absolutely not! Because Dickens doesn't seem to be interested in developing his characters, but interested in the background, in developing the historical context. And it's just there, in those descriptions, passages of the French Revolution where the soul of this novel is. The first lines of the novel are so memorable, and so are the last chapters; I'm certainly not exaggerating when I say I got the goosebumps reading those final chapters, overall the whole part 3, whose descriptions are still stuck in my head; it is here where also the pace of the novel is going really fast and eventually the ending turns into the most remarkable and even heartbreaking part of the book.
The middle of the novel, nonetheless, is kind of disappointing. At times confusing, other times slow and repetitive; fortunately, Dickens knows what the reader wants—I'm just assuming this based on my own experience—and suddenly is back to those important events that took place during the French Revolution. By the way, I'd highly recommend an edition with explanatory notes, or al least footnotes in order for you to understand those events that are implicit in the narrative. For instance, this edition of Penguin Classics is indeed a great option to get a great, historical experience.

Finally, if you are interested in listening to the audiobook for this novel, considering there are about ten audiobooks available right now, I encourage you to pick up the Martin Jarvis' one; he was perfect in this narration, one of the best audiobooks ever. It was not only the tone of his voice as well as his pace what amazed me so much, but also the fact that you can feel every dialogue, every scene, every characters' thought so vividly and so profoundly. In my opinion, a wonderful job by this narrator.

Favorite quotes:

“The wind is rushing after us, and the clouds are flying after us, and the moon is plunging after us, and the whole wild night is in pursuit of us; but, so far we are pursued by nothing else.”

“I am not afraid to die, ... but I have done nothing. I am not unwilling to die, if the Republic which is to do so much good to us poor, will profit by my death; but I do not know how that can be, Citizen Evrémonde. Such a poor weak little creature!”

“But, the glorious sun, rising, seemed to strike those words, that burden of the night, straight and warm to his heart in its long bright rays.”

“If you could say, with truth, to your own solitary heart, to-night, ‘I have secured to myself the love and attachment, the gratitude or respect, of no human creature; I have won myself a tender place in no regard; I have done nothing good or service-able to be remembered by!’ your seventy-eight years would be seventy-eight heavy curses; would they not?”

“Above all, one hideous figure grew as familiar as if it had been before the general gaze from the foundations of the world—the figure of the sharp female called La Guillotine.”

“Ghosts all! The ghost of beauty, the ghost of stateliness, the ghost of elegance, the ghost of pride, the ghost of frivolity, the ghost of wit, the ghost of youth, the ghost of age, all waiting their dismissal from the desolate shore, all turning on him eyes that were changed by the death they had died in coming there.”

This novel has so many problems, yet somehow it still works?? Like, I am so confused about my enjoyment and engagement in this story? I really shouldn’t have liked this because its execution is a mess and towards the end there’s an ever-increasing number of coincidences (hello there, deus ex machina) … but I was still sobbing on the floor like the basic bitch that I am. I mean, I spoiled myself (unintentionally), so going into this book I knew exactly what was going to happen at the end … but that still didn’t keep me from spiralling into a crisis that I have still not overcome. Like, I am not over the ending; I probably never will be. Argh. So, yes, I had to give this a high rating (I always do when books elicit strong emotions from me), but don’t be surprised if I give you many, many reasons why this book sucks. Lmao.

n  “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.”n

A Tale of Two Cities is an 1859 historical novel by Charles Dickens, set in London and Paris before and during the French Revolution. It spans a time period of roughly 36 years, with the (chronologically) first events taking place in December 1757 and the last in either late 1793 or early 1794. I feel like this time span was one of the downfalls of the novel. By trying to write a historical novel, Dickens sacrificed his characters to the historical scope of the novel. A Tale of Two Cities lacks, to say it quite frankly, believable and round characters. It’s hard to engage with the catastrophes in the lives of our main characters because we barely know them.

At first, I wanted to root for Lucie and Charles’ blossoming love … until, all of a sudden, Dickens robbed me of that by hitting us with a time jump of five years, basically glossing over the time period in which Lucie and Darnay grow found of each other. All of a sudden, we have to accept that they are deeply in love and will be married soon. Like, what? And if that wasn’t enough we only get one mention of their honeymoon and then, boom, they have a daugher, and then, another boom, the daughter is already three years old. The reader has no chance to be let in on their romance because we are simply told that all of these things happen, we are shown none of it.

A Tale of Two Cities is structured around a central conflict between Charles Darnay’s desire to break free of his family legacy, and Madame Defarge’s desire to hold him accountable for the violent actions of his father and uncle.

This conflict embodies conflicting aspects of the French Revolution in general: on the one hand, the Revolution led to the deaths of many people who hadn’t done anything wrong, and were likely good people on a personal level. On the other hand, the Revolution was a response to generations of well-documented injustices. Like Darnay, many French aristocrats could be considered guilty by association, or as a result of profiting from systems of exploitation. The plot is set in motion years before the action of the novel begins, when the Evremondé brothers participate in a series of violent and cruel actions toward members of Madame Defarge’s family, and then unjustly imprison young Dr. Manette in order to conceal their crimes.

n  “Is it possible!” repeated Defarge, bitterly. “Yes. And a beautiful world we live in, when it is possible, and when many other such things are possible, and not only possible, but done—done, see you!—under that sky there, every day. Long live the Devil. Let us go on.”n

The violence of the Revolution doesn’t just come out of nowhere: it breaks out because of the accumulation of decades of unjust treatment and abuses of power. Similarly, crimes committed generations earlier continue to haunt and threaten Darnay, Lucie, and Dr. Manette. Key events like Darnay building a career for himself in England, getting married, and starting his own family seem to be taking him closer to his desire of living a good and honest life without exploiting or hurting anyone. However, as Darnay eventually realizes, he hasn’t actually resolved the conflict because he has never taken responsibility for the suffering his family has caused: he has only run away from it.

Personally, I found Dickens’ reflections of aristocracy and French and English society fascinating, albeit he played it quite safe in his portrayal of revolutionaries as being fundamentally corrupt. Dickens believed that an era must be destroyed before a new one could thrive. Although he acknowledged the evils and oppressions that motivated the revolutionaries, he never idealised their caused. He has a clear stance against violence (in any shape or form). Of course, Dickens himself is writing from an immense place of privilege that goes unacknowledged in his observation of the higher classes.

Sometimes it felt like he was making it a little too easy for himself. He works a lot with doubles (light versus darkness … ya’ll know Dickens loves that shit) and, since he wanted to make the point that as fiercer and wilder a revolution may be, a social order is stronger and steadier (this can also be seen in the showdown between Mme Defarge and Miss Pross at the end), some of his characters are unbelievable and exaggerations; they are simply caricatures of the higher moral concept that they should present. Quite frankly, I hated that.

This may be an unpopular opinion but I found Lucie Manette to be an insufferable character. I cannot even with her. Lucie is loving and nurturing. Her love initiates her father’s spiritual transformation and renewal, proving the possibility of resurrection. She is the "golden thread” that ties all characters together. She’s a perfect wife and mother. There’s never tension between her and her husband. Her loyality (if you ask me, ABSURDITY) reaches such heights that when her husband rots in prison for over a year, she stands outside of the prison every day for a couple of hours (“IN THE SNOW AND FROST OF WINTER”) with the hope that her husband might catch a glimpse of her from prison cell?? Excuse me? I don’t believe it.

She’s boring and predictable, and I’ve honestly had it with Dickens and his need to portray certain women as angelic and pure and without flaws. Lucie is constantly belittled by the men around her, i.e. they don’t want to discuss “harsh” topics around her, for fear that she might not take it, and faint (which she actually does on multiple occasions in this novel) … and I just found it insufferable. Sorry, not sorry.

The two women who I absolutely adored in this tale – none of you will be surprised – are Mme Defarge and Miss Pross (whom I call Prossie because she’s just my bae). In the case of Prossie, my case is quickly made: she’s just a sass queen. She’s the funniest character in this whole entire novel and her dialogue was always golden.

n  “I began it, Miss Pross?”
“Didn’t you? Who brought her father to life?”
“Oh! If that was beginning it—“ said Mr. Lorry.
“It wasn’t ending it, I suppose?”n

I honestly shipped her with Mr. Lorry. Their banter was just that great. Her complete and total disgust of Paris and the French language had me rolling on the floor with laugher. Prossie was really out here bargaining with French merchants with hand signs, and she gave zero fucks. When she killed Mme Defarge at the end I wasn’t surprised at all. Prossie is a baddie. However, I don’t appreciate the notion that she had to go deaf at the end (by the gunshot with which she called Mme Defarge) to atone for her sins. Dickens, you are a coward. There was nothing sinful about her murder lmao.

It’s of course very on brand for me that my favorite female character is murdered by Prossie. Lmao. Mme Defarge was just as much of a badass as Prossie and I will defend her until the end of my days. First of all, Dickens did her dirrrttttyy by depicting her as this ruthless, relentless, soul-less bitch. Mme Defarge is depicted as hateful and bloodthirsty. Her vengefulness only propagates an infinite cycle of oppression, showing violence to be self-perpetuating. The vengeful Madame Defarge casts a shadow on Lucie and all of her hopes. Bla bla bla. Miss me with that bullshit. That’s just complete and utter bull.

n  “Then tell Wind and Fire where to stop,” returned Madame; “but don’t tell me.”n

I love Madame Defarge. She was fighting in the front row of the revolution, willing to die for a cause she believed in. She wielded a fucking axe. She’s basically one of the Three Fates (her knitting contains in its stitching an elaborate registry of those whom the revolutionaries intend to kill) … you cannot be more badass than her. She was strong and fearless and her determination is unmatched in this tale. Her sister was raped and mutilated and killed by fucking aristocrats (Darnay’s uncle and father) … if I were her, I would want revenge as well.

A Tale of Two Cities is written in a grandiose style. The omniscient narrator can see both into the past and the future, and uses this perspective to make sweeping pronouncements about human nature and what lies ahead. This style contributes to the effect of recounting history, because singular events are shown to cause major shifts in society. Another reviewer has put into perfect words what I felt during my reading of this novel: “I was in it for the words, not the tale.” I couldn’t agree more. Dickens is a master of his craft. There are so many quotable moments in A Tale of Two Cities, it made my literary heart sing. Dickens treats us to wonderful dialogue and atmospheric descriptions of time and place.

But even the beautiful writing couldn’t hide the fact that the tale at hand was actually quite messy. It took me such a long time to get situated in the story that even by the end of it, I still wasn’t quite sure of certain key events. Let’s be real, I still don’t know who killed Darnay’s uncle. I also don’t know who set his castle on fire. Lmao. And what’s up with all the grave digging? For the first time in a while I actually had to consult SparksNotes to understand what was going on in the chapters. Everything was so obscure and confusing, I honestly didn’t get it. Most of notes from the first 100 pages of this story are a variation of “what tf did just happen”, “I don’t recall any of this”, “I’m totally confused”, “apparently that happened”, “I don’t know what’s going on”. So for the first quarter of the book, I had no clue what was going on.

n  “Good could never come of such evil, a happier end was not in nature to so unhappy a beginning.”n

But, by the end of the novel, I overcame all the apprehensions that I had with it … and I just cried and cried and cried. Mainly because Sydney Carton deserves better! SYDNEY FUCKING CARTON DESERVES SO MUCH BETTER! UGH! I’m not even mad that he didn’t end up with the woman that he loved (because Lucie is honestly not good enough for me, fight me on this), but the fact that he “had to” sacrifice himself, only because Charles fucking Darnay was a dumb fuck and went to Paris on his own … I can’t even.

n   “When you see your own bright beauty springing up anew at your feet, think now and then that there is a man who would give his life, to keep a life you love beside you!”n

I honestly don’t understand the people who say that Carton had a great character development in this novel, like … my boy was great from the start? His profession of love to Lucie was so much more heartfelt that Charles’ talk with Doctor Manette (don’t get me started on that one)… he promised to lay down his life for her and her loved ones if need be … and ugh, then, at the end, when time came to prove that, he fulfilled his promise. I have still not recovered from the fact that upon his farewell to Lucie, he whispered into her ear: “A life you love.” I CANNOT. I CRY. I AM TEARS. I AM A RIVER OF TEARS. LEAVE ME ALONE.

n   “I would ask you to believe that he has a heart he very, very seldom reveals and that there are deep wounds in it. My dear, I have seen it bleeding.”n

I am not a hopeless romantic but somehow, Carton sacrificing his life for the woman he loved (and who doesn’t even deserve that sacrifice) has me dead. On a cheerier note, the fact that little Lucie prefers Carton over her own daddy is so relatable … like I honestly can’t blame her. The ending (like the beginning) is one of the most beautiful passages I have ever read: “I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss. I see the lives for which I lay down my life, peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy. I see that I hold a sanctuary in their hearts, and in the hearts of their descendants, generations hence. 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.”

It’s such a hauntingly beautiful notion that Carton will keep living through the people who love him and hold him in their memory, the people who are eternally indebted to him. Ugh, my baby boy.

قصة مدينتين

استعرت هذه الرواية من مكتبة الجامعة في بداية الألفية، كان ذلك قبل عالم الانترنت، عندما كنا لا نلتقي ولا نتعرف على الكتب ومشاهير المؤلفين إلا من خلال الصحف أو الكتب التي تسقط بين أيدينا اتفاقاً، ديكنز كان مألوفاً لي حينها، كنت قد قرأت له دايفد كوبرفيلد، وأعرف موقعه كروائي إنجليزي عظيم.

حصلت على الكتاب الضخم، المغلف من قبل الجامعة بغلاف صلب، والمختوم مراراً كجواز سائح كوني، كنت غراً حينها، جديد على كل العوالم التي أمامي، فلذا حملت النسخة الضخمة محاولاً قراءتها خلال مهلة اليومين التي تمنحها الجامعة للكتب النادرة – قبل أن تبدأ الغرامات القاسية -، ولكن هذه المهمة كانت أكبر مني، فلذا اضطررت لإعادة الكتاب بعدما عبرت بداياته فقط، فيما بقيت صفحات طويلة وعدت نفسي بقراءتها يوماً ما.

وجاء... ذلك الـ (يوماً ما) جاء، صحيح أنه تأخر قليلاً، ولكن لم يكن ذلك لأن يدي قصيرة عن الوصول إلى مدينتي ديكنز، وإنما لأن نهراً من الكتب جرفني من يومها، لقد تفتق العالم لي بعدها كما يتفتق لطفل قروي، لا يعرف أبعد من بيت أهله، ووجوه أهله، ثم يحمل ذات ليلة ليرمى في ميدان عاصمة، كل تلك الوجوه، كل تلك الألوان، الروائح، الناس الذاهبة والآيبة، كل تلك الأحداث، تربكه، تنزع توازنه، وفهمه لما حوله.

وفي ذاكرتي، وعلى مر كل تلك السنوات، تداعت كلمات الكتاب وصوره ومشاهده، تحلل كل ما قرأته، بقي في ذاكرتي فقط وأنا أجذبه من رقدته بين مؤلفات كل أولئك الإنجليز العظماء، وصف مذهل لشارع قديم، كان ديكنز يأخذنا عبره، ليصعد بنا علية ما، حيث يقبع عجوز ما !! كان هذا كل ما بقي.

عانى ديكنز في طفولته كثيراً، لم يتلق تعليماً جيداً، وحتى المدرسة المتواضعة التي ذهب إليها، سحب منها على عجل ليعمل لعشر ساعات يومياً، بعدما سجن والده لتراكم الديون عليه، والتحقت به والدته في السجن، وهو نظام غريب مطبق حينها !! هذه الأم ديكنز يشعر بأنها لا توليه العناية والاهتمام الكافيين، من هذه الظروف، ومن هذه المشاعر نلمس رؤية ديكنز ومواقفه تجاه الفقراء، وحقوق الأطفال، وتجاه المرأة.

في هذه الرواية يبدو ديكنز مقارناً، بين مدينتين، باريس ولندن، نظامين ثوري وملكي، قضاءين ثوري ورسمي، وفي روايته التي كتبها مسلسلة، ونشرها في الصحف كما كان يفعل كتاب عصره، والتي لها سمات وميزات ذاك العصر وأدبه المليء بالأبطال الفروسيين، والنساء الجميلات المعشوقات من الجميع، والمصادفات التي تقبلها بصدر رحب لتستمتع، لتمضي قدماً.

إنه عصر الثورة، تبدأ الأحداث قبل الثورة الفرنسية بقليل، حيث نتعرف على الدكتور مانيت، المسجون ظلماً في الباستيل ولسنوات طويلة – 18 عاماً -، والذي نتابع في الفصول الأولى لقائه بابنته لوسي والتي لم يكن يعلم بوجودها، وها هي تستنقذ والدها بمساعدة الثوري الفرنسي دوفارج وزوجته، وتأخذه إلى إنجلترا.

بعد 5 سنوات يستعيد فيها الأب عقله، وتتزوج لوسي من تشارلز دارني، وهو نبيل فرنسي تخلى عن نبالته وذهب ليعيش في إنجلترا، تقوم الثورة في فرنسا، ويعرض لنا ديكنز حال الفرنسيين قبل الثورة وطريقة تعامل النبلاء معهم بأسلوب مذهل، ديكنز مذهل بحق في سرده، ساخر عظيم، لا ريب أن قراءه كانوا يتشوقون لكل فصل من فصول روايته.

ترد تشارلز دارني وهو هناك في أمان إنجلترا، رسالة من خادم سابق له سجن في الباستيل، فيهرع إلى باريس لينقذه، فيقع بيد الثوريين ويقدم للمحاكمة والإعدام، تسرع لوسي ووالدها لاستنقاذه، خاصة والدكتور مانيت أحد نزلاء الباستيل المخضرمين، وهذا ما يكسبه الاحترام بين الثوار، هذا خلاف خبرته الطبية المفيدة لهم، وشخصيته العظيمة.

تدور القصة، وتتشابك الأحداث ويلتقي ويتصارع الأبطال في تلك البقعة من باريس، وتنكشف الألغاز، وتقدم التضحيات، ويتركك ديكنز في النهاية وفي ذهنك وروحك ذلكم الشعور الملحمي الجميل.

Maybe this should be called An Unbelievable Tale of Underdeveloped Characters

I feel a bit cheated on this one as it started off with a great deal of promise. A fine cast of characters, poor and rich, clever and thick, good and evil all set in late 18th Century London and Paris. Oh, and there was a bonus, the French Revolution became more prominet as the story developed.

I did bring my 'best reader' to this story - I promise. I was on Dickens' side. "Go Charlie" - my 3 pups heard me shout after 30 or 40 pages. Yes, this could be as good as The Count of Monte Cristo!!

The conclusion I have come to is this. No matter how interesting the characters of a story are initially, no matter how promising the premise, no matter how much you are looking forward to the experience - it doesn't matter a hoot if the characters are like cardboard cut-outs and the author does't seem to care about them resulting in this reader caring about thm even less.

This glaring fault was majestically combined with a storyline that had so much promise, but ended up being so unfathomably unbelievable it was yes........unbelievably unfathomable.

I'm not trying to be funny, nor am I trying to be overly negative. In some way I think Dickens was trying to be too clever by half, I'm yet to read the reviews of others yet - surely I can't be the only one?

Now I write all of this knowing, there are much, much cleverer readers out there than I, and there are literary academics who would die in a ditch and fight me over the vitriol written in this 'review' (of sorts - well it's more about an experience really, or lack of it).

I started at rating this story at 3 Stars, but after writing this 'review' - I'll give it 2 Stars

“A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other" p.47

I feel guilty for not liking this book for the first 50-100 pages or so. I don't know what it is with me and "classics", it takes me so long to get into them and I get frustrated and impatient too quickly. For a book with one of the greatest opening paragraphs ever written ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...") I felt duped. It was a set up. How can the first page be so wonderful and then lead me into a fast descent towards snooze-city? A couple of times I was ready to throw in the towel, but I told myself I was going to finish it. It's Dickens, by damn, I want to finish it! And I want to like it! So I made myself keep going, a chapter a day, maybe two chapters... The frustrating thing was that there were so many lush passages but they all seemed to be crushed and overshadowed between endless overly long descriptive paragraphs. My mind wandered. I admit I became lost at times and had to pull in the reigns and slow down...I'm a notoriously over-eager fast reader. I just needed to concentrate a little more closely.

And then it started to come together for me. Finally! Not only that, but it started to become profound and beautiful. And I started to lose sleep and delay meals unable to put it down.

“The beach was a desert of heaps of sea and stones tumbling wildly about, and the sea did what it liked, and what it liked was destruction. It thundered at the town, and thundered at the cliffs, and brought the coast down madly." p.53

“Sadly, sadly, the sun rose; it rose upon no sadder sight than the man of good abilities and good emotions, incapable of their directed exercise, incapable of his own help and his own happiness, sensible of the blight on him, and resigning himself to let it eat him away." p.122

In the final few chapters the story climaxes so spectacularly, so unexpectedly emotional and dramatic and poetic that I actually gasped aloud. How many books can do that? The final few pages might just be among my favorite final pages ever read. I read them several times with goosebumps. Such a satisfying and poignant end to what was a complex, multi-layered and brilliantly constructed story.

I think I fell in love with Carton just a little.

“I am like one who died young. All my life might have been." p. 181

“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.” p.401

Be still my heart.

In a Nutshell: This Dickens classic isn’t for all, with its complicated plotline that comes together slowly but neatly. However, to those who enjoy classics based on historical and political events, it offers plenty of satisfaction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Skipping my usual ‘Story Synopsis’ as I am sure most people already know this book. To those who don’t, please read the blurb.


Just like ‘David Copperfield’, this book also was one of my childhood reads, courtesy my school’s classic reading list. The abridged version I read was enough to keep me fascinated, right until the end, which, I still remember, caught me by surprise. Until then, I hadn’t realised that *young* main characters could die in books! (A reading of ‘Little Women’ a few months later confirmed that authors could be brutal with their creations.)

When I saw this audiobook come up on NetGalley, it offered a great way of checking out the complete version of the classic. Moreover, I have been reading one unabridged classic every year since 2020, so I might as well get done with the 2024 classic right at the start of the year.

I guess I remembered the childhood version of this story with too much optimistic nostalgia. The unabridged version is far more convoluted in its journey, with extended social comments about the history, the society, and the politics of France and England in the 1770s. The story is set in the late 18th century against the background of the French Revolution, and it seems to critique both extremes: the indifferent royals and the wild revolutionaries.

Dickens is known to be a character-focussed author, so the character development is as impeccable as always. But his plotting skills are truly visible and proven through this work. So many intricate arcs and varied characters, and yet, the culmination of the story does justice to all threads, though not necessarily in a happy way. The way Dickens recreates the setting and atmosphere of the era is almost true to life.

That said, this Dickens work has never been my top favourite and I don't think I'll reread this full-length edition in future. I am glad I read it, but I am equally glad that it is done and dusted with. The slow-developing story with its strong political tone was very much a test of my patience. What also doesn’t help is that some of the elements haven’t aged well. The representation of women characters, as with most Dickens novels, is typical of his time, and keeping your eyes from rolling while reading those words in 2023 is a chore.

Regardless, this book has one of the all-time best opening lines! I have always loved the way this book sets off its journey, and hearing those words even umpteen times later gives me goose bumps. For my own rereading pleasure, pasting those lines here:
“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.”