My primary goal when I'm teaching A Tale of Two Cities to my sophomores is to make them realize that Charles Dickens didn't write creaky, dusty long novels that teachers embraced as a twisted rite of passage for teenagers. Instead, I want them them to understand why Dickens was one of the most popular writers in England and America during his time. I want them to see the book as the suspenseful, comedic, and sentimental piece of entertainment that it is. Because, while A Tale of Two Cities is masterfully written with sly humor, densely meaningful descriptions, a cast of quirky characters only Dickens could create, an endless series of telling binaries and foils, and relevant social commentary about the French Revolution as well as Dickens' time, it is also simply a damn good story. By a damn good storyteller.

I have a difficult time writing reviews about books that I adore because, when I'm not reading them, I hug them too closely to be very critical. (BTW - I frequently hug A Tale of Two Cities in front of my students... and write Charles Dickens' name with hearts around it... They think I'm crazy, but it intrigues some of them just enough to make them doubt the derisive comments of upperclassmen.) I reluctantly admit that Dickens does oversimplify the causes of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror; however, in doing so, he successfully captures the spirit of a tumultuous period and helps readers sympathize with characters on every side of the developing conflict. I also think that the characters of Roger Cly and John Barsad get a bit messy and may have worked better as a single character. Perhaps the confusion is a result of serialization restructuring. But, really, I read A Tale of Two Cities like a costumed Lord of the Rings fan at a movie premier. I cheer when my favorite characters enter scenes and I knowingly laugh when Dickens cleverly foreshadows future events.

Though I don't think that A Tale of Two Cities is Dickens' best novel--that title I would reserve for either Bleak House or David Copperfield--I do agree with Dickens, who claims that it was his best story. It is artfully written. Dickens introduces a cast of characters, sprawled across two nations and spanning varied social classes and political affiliations, and then effortlessly weaves their stories and secrets together in a masterful way. The Modernist movement painstakingly forced literature to reflect the ambiguities and uncertainties of the real world and that's great, but sometimes it is a real joy to read a story that ends with such magnificent closure. All mysteries are solved and everything makes sense. It is beautiful.

(I have to admit that I was overjoyed when a group of my fifth period girls persistently voiced their disdain for Dickens' angel in the house Lucie and backed Madame Defarge. I think they may have created a Madame Defarge myspace, actually. Oh how the times have changed.)

"Ms. R--, you got me." "What?" "At the beginning of this book, you said you would get some of us. And that we would love it. You got me." I didn't get you G--. Charles Dickens did. I just introduced you.

Quote:

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

Предвидим и не особено добре написан роман за френската революция от 1789 година, който на няколко пъти щях да оставя недочетен. Не ми хареса и превода на български…

Свобода, братство, равенство или смърт!

Моята оценка - едва 2,5*.

"IT IS A FAR, FAR BETTER THING..."
Antes que todo: ¡Que pedazo de final!
Dickens está en el podio de mis escritores favoritos, pero si hay algo que le faltó es un poco más de claridad al expresarse en oraciones largas, y eso se refleja claramente en esta novela.
A pesar de eso, es encantadora. Los personajes están muy bien hechos, la trama de las dos ciudades (París y Londres) están bastante claras: los comentarios que hay sobre la Revolución Francesa son los perfectos para hacer de esta novela algo genial, y siempre en el estilo muy característico de Dickens. También se mezcla el amor (algo muy común en esos tiempos), sacrificio y venganza, lo que hace a esta novela incluso más oscura, teniendo en cuenta el contexto histórico. ¡Simplemente genial!
Hablando de su estilo de escritura, siempre hay que estar concentrado para poder entender lo que dice, ya que su lenguaje nunca fue el más fácil de entender.
¿Recomendable leer? Absolutamente sí, siempre y cuando tengas la disposición a concentrarte 100% en la lectura, ya que, como dije antes, no es fácil de entender, pero se disfruta mucho.

“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,”

With the iconic opening lines in “The Tale of Two Cities” we begin a story of love, sacrifice, and honour set against a period in French history that brought with it so much change and uncertainty in a revolution that raged for almost 10 years.

A true classic, a masterpiece in storytelling and a novel that was so perfectly balanced in all its themes that I had to sit back and admire the sheer genius of the author and this work of art. One of my favourites classics.

The Plot

The book begins with the release of the French Doctor Manette, who was imprisoned in the Bastille in Paris, and after 18 years is released to live in London with his daughter Lucie who he has never met. The book then alternates between two cities; Paris and London, and between two men, Charles Dranay and Sydney Carton and their love Lucie.

1780. Charles Darnay stands accused of treason against the English crown and is acquitted by the argument presented by Carton that he himself bears an uncanny resemblance to the defendant, and therefore we can not be sure of the identity of the culprit. Darnay on his acquittal returns to Paris to live with his uncle but after seeing the treatment of his country people, returns to England and asks, Manette, for permission to marry Lucie.

Meanwhile, Carton also pledges his love to Lucie, admitting that, though his life is worthless, she has helped him dream of a better, more valuable existence. Remembering that “this is a desperate time, when desperate games are played for desperate stakes”, we continue through a web of deceit, honour, and love as one “… man who would give his life, to keep a life you love beside you.” And this is an important line but to reveal more would spoil the element of surprise as identities remain hidden.

Review and Comments

A Tale of Two Cities written in 1858, was believed to have propelled Dickens into the high ranks of great Romance novelists of the period, combine that with a book that is described as his best work of historical fiction, and we have a true classic. However, for me it was neither, but what it did bring was a beautiful and perfectly balanced story that weaves the threads of romance, revolution, tragedy, sacrifice, love, and honour so well that not one thread is allowed to dominate, unlike many of his other works and therefore one of my favourites. That said don’t pick up a Charles Dickens novel if you do not want your heart broken by something in the story, because where we have Dickens, tragedy is sure to follow and lurk somewhere in the coming pages.

A Tale of Two Cities is not a slumber read and a level of concentration is needed. The language does not roll off the tongue, although grammatically perfect and underlying themes and vital pieces in the story are often subtly nuanced so can be easily overlooked. If I can offer this, I read a number of books by Charles Dickens in the last 6 months, and I have to confess connecting with the earlier books and style took effort, however, by the time I read this novel I was more accustomed to the style and knew the subtleties to watch for, and what a difference it made because I loved it. What do they say about practice!!!

Another brilliant story with excellent characterisation and poignant themes that draws on the historical background of the period to create the perfect atmosphere for a towering classic like this. Stunning, dramatic, captivating and mesmerising, and now I will end with a favourite quote from
a book that offers so many!!!

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

An outstanding historical novel! set in the time of french revolution. This is my second read, written by the literary genius Charles Dickens after christmas carol. The language is very poetic and literary with a

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.

"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."

I still remember being assigned to read this book in the 11th grade by Mr. Stahler. I can still see him up there in front of the room, leaning on the lectern, talking about Dickens and this particular book. Thinking back on this time, I can say this is the first Classic book that I loved. I loved the romance, heroism, the courage, the sacrifice. As a teenage girl this book seemed so sad yet so romantic. When I think of Dickens I think of Mr. Stahler and the discussions of this book in his classroom.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.." Really, it was the time of the French Revolution. A time of intrigue, bloodshed, danger, love, romance, terror, betrayal, hunger, and vengeance. The social classes in France are at war. The poor seeking revenge against the aristocracy. Dickens explains this in a simple fashion. His gift is giving us people on both sides of the battle. We can be sympathetic to the individual characters. Who is innocent? Who is guilty? And at the end of the day, does it even really matter?

Mr. Mancette is released from prison. He has been wrongly/unjustly imprisoned for 18 years and is now free to unite with his daughter, Lucie. They go to England where they hope to live and be free of the past. But their plan is not to be as the pair is summoned back to Paris where they have to testify agains Charles Darnay. Darnay, like Mancette, has been wrongly accused of treason. Let it be said that Darney also looks almost exactly like another man in the proceedings, Sydney Carton.

Today we might say "really looking exactly like another person? how contrived? How cheesy!" But it works in this book. Boy does it work.

True, this was written years and years ago. Yes, some of the language and writing might seem hard to digest. But perhaps, if you give this a go, stick with it, you will see the beauty of this book. Brilliant tale with brilliant storytelling. A Pleasure. I have read this three times, each time enjoying it more and more. Each time finding something else to love about it. Each time I am in awe.

A favorite!

تحفة رائعة ...
لولا أن الكتاب مكانه الرفوف لكانت يجب أن توضع في إحدى الساحات العامة كمثال للإبداع

جمال الوصف للأحوال والشخصيات وانسيابية التنقل بين المتناقضات لندن وباريس & جوع وفقر & ثورة وارستقراطية

شجون وذكريات اثارتها الرواية ... آآآه ... لكم اشتقت للمدرسة ولمعلمتي التي كانت تحكيها لنا فكانت متعة قراءتها مضاعفة لدي .. تطن اذني عند مرور جملة قد سمعتها قبل اكثر من عشرين سنة من فم معلمتي الجميلة وهي تشرح القصة من منهج اللغة الانكليزية

تحفة تشجعني على أقرأ لتشارلز ديكنز مزيدا من روائعه

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...

Za głupia na to jestem

Most satisfying ending in the English language.

Yes, the last line is a classic ("It is a far, far better thing ..."), concluding, in astonishingly concise language (for Dickens), the peace and redemption of the story's most poignant romantic hero. But this novel delivers such a gratifying experience because there are, in fact, many characters who cover significant emotional ground in their journey to love one woman as best they can.

Lucie's father battles his way back from madness under the gentle protection of his daughter. Lucie's childhood nursemaid evolves from a comical stereotype to an embattled force to be reckoned with. Lucie's husband's well-meaning (if bland) n  noblesse obligen culminates in -- not his hoped-for heroic moment, but a moment of quiet dignity that is most moving for its humility. Even Lucie's banker reaches dizzying heights of heroic accomplishment when Dickens appoints the quiet businessman the vehicle for an entire family's escape from the guillotine.

It is true that Lucie herself engages the reader less than her brutal counterpart -- the broken but terrifying Madame Defarge -- is able to, as modern readers are less moved by the swooning heroines who populate the period's "literature of sensibility." But we can certainly respond to Dickens' powerful and vivid claim: love is not only what makes us human, it is what allows us to be, at times, superhuman.

And when Sydney Carton, in equal parts love and despair, tells Lucie that "there is a man who would give his life to keep a life you love beside you" ... ?

I go to pieces. Every damn time.

Despite caveats, I am awarding full recognition. There are such long stretches of gorgeous writing here. What an astonishing writer Dickens can be when he keeps away from cloying sentiment, his hobbyhorse.

I kept girding for the saccharine heroine (à la Little Dorrit). She never appeared but the novelist hews closest to his chief indulgence in Chapter 17: "One Night."

Here young Lucie, who has rescued her father from Louis XVI's Bastille, speaks with him — years after their safe return to England — about her upcoming marriage to Charles Darnay, a Frenchman also involved in the father's rescue.

Lucie in her immoderate selflessness is guilty about sidelining her father, who until now has received all her personal attentions after his great suffering. So here father and daughter expatiate at wearying length on their love for one another. This goes on for many pages until Lucy is convinced her father won't hold her marriage against her. In fact, he welcomes it.

Quite a slog when you consider how the preceding and succeeding chapters fly by. But it is a small inconvenience compared to what remains.