We’re back with another conversation on Charles Dickens’ classical novel, and this time we discuss the introduction of Sidney Carton and Charles Darnay—and the way Dickens employs doubling to develop them as characters alongside the key themes of the book.
Ok, maybe he’s so controversial a writer because even his “bad” writing, as Heidi shared with us during the episode, is really well written. He puts words together beautifully, just doesn’t really know when to stop.
I was thrilled to hear Heidi highlight the scene from chapter 4, Congratulatory, since that was the scene that made me fall in love with this book in high school. The picture of Carton's glass shivering to pieces against the wall will always be one of the most vivid images impressed on my imagination by a book. After listening to the episode, I had to go re-read that chapter again just for fun!
Only 4 mins in but humours theory has been overlaid with Winnie the Pooh characters! Per Art & Laraine Bennet’s “The Temperment God Gave You”: Sanguine=Tigger, melancholic=Eeyore, choleric=Rabbit, & Phlegmatic=Winnie the Pooh. They have a quote from each character at the beginning of those chapters. I’m re-organizing my bookshelves at the moment but will post if I find it
I’ve struggled with reading Dickens, I couldn’t get through a novel, but am listening to this one and very much enjoying it. I am also enjoying the podcast. I find the negativity refreshing! I’m suspect of any podcast where everyone claims to love the book.
Anyone read Evelyn Waugh’s “Handful of Dust”? I felt justified in my distaste for Dickens when seeing Waugh use him used as a torture device.
Omg Sean I laughed out loud with that Dickens trauma dad joke 🤣 Thanks for that
All the talk about adaptations and theater made me wish Tim was here for this book!! I also want him to answer the WtP question (is he a Tigger guy??)
I appreciate Heidi’s perspective on Dickens. I hadn’t read this since high school (Great Expectations too), and I’m realizing there’s stuff I love about his writing and stuff that’s annoying - it is confusing!
Can the narrator be the author himself? I think Dickens is such an astute observer of people that he can't stop talking about everything he notices or thinks, and I feel I'm just sitting in a bar listening to a master storyteller give his opinions about people and events. Sometimes it's a little ho-hum, but mostly it's entertaining. It may be both a strength and a weakness, but I agree with Sean that it's a quirk of his. But I love it and think that even when he gives, for example, a scathing look of British justice, he does so in a way that lessens the tension. I prefer that to the heaviness and mushy translated English of the Russian writers.
OK, so if I pretended that I was in a bar and listening to my very long winded great uncle tell this story, I think I would like it because I’d be in a bar and I can listen to long winded stories if it’s from a person I love. But I am not in a bar with my long winded uncle. I am just trying not to fall asleep on the couch, so I just really don’t enjoy it!!! I love that there are so many people who do love it and I wish I could be one of you
Great conversation! In looking at adaptations, I wanted to let people know that there is a musical adaptation that I highly recommend. It’s one of the rare musicals that gets the heart of it and doesn’t alter the story or characters. It actually quotes directly from the book several times as well.
And I want to push back just to hair on the idea that Dickens can’t write women. I find Madame Defarge to be incredibly interesting and complicated in this novel, but also characters like Nancy in Oliver Twist. I think in this book Lucy represents a type rather than a real person.
A friend introduced me to the musical adaptation several years ago and it is now one of my absolute favorites! I agree, they do an excellent job preserving the story and characters.
I would submit that Dickens can't write heroines very well. In some ways he even talks about that himself when you see who David marries in David Copperfield. And what happens to her. It is a doubling of his awful stepfather and David's mother actually. Except that David chooses a different route.
But he writes secondary women so well - Madame Defarge, of course, and Miss Pross. But also Betsy Trotwood, Mrs. Jarley, etc.
Also, the Selznick version of A Tale of Two Cities is fantastic. Mostly because of Ronald Colman who just knocks it out of the park as Sydney Carton. Do give it a try.
Also, in the paragraph that Heidi hated because Carton is looking in the mirror and revealing that he hates Darnay, I always found it revelatory. I never until that moment realized that Carton hates himself. And then when he tops it off with wine (possibly one of the reasons he hates himself?) it was perfect for me.
Re: the graph that Heidi hated… I actually think you probably understood more than you give yourself credit for. Even if just subconsciously. So much of creating drama is based on impressions, things you can’t put into words. I bet that was there more than you realize.
This was great! I love the disagreement and controversy. Honestly, I've been asking myself a lot recently whether I care a bit more about writing or character, at least to get into a book initially. I definitely care about both. I've read TOTC once before, and even still I struggled with the first book. Last week's conversation helped me realize that's in large part because of the writing. But, (and I agree with Sean here) now that I have Sydney Carton to engage me, I am more forgiving of Dickens' long-windedness and over explaining. So, maybe I land on the side of needing characters to pull me in. Anyway, really enjoying the conversation!!
If all the authorial narration could be delivered by Gonzo, a la "Muppet Christmas Carol," it would work just fine.
Ok, maybe he’s so controversial a writer because even his “bad” writing, as Heidi shared with us during the episode, is really well written. He puts words together beautifully, just doesn’t really know when to stop.
If Sean only gets one pun an episode, should it be scored à la Withywindle-style? This one was pretty good.
I was thrilled to hear Heidi highlight the scene from chapter 4, Congratulatory, since that was the scene that made me fall in love with this book in high school. The picture of Carton's glass shivering to pieces against the wall will always be one of the most vivid images impressed on my imagination by a book. After listening to the episode, I had to go re-read that chapter again just for fun!
Only 4 mins in but humours theory has been overlaid with Winnie the Pooh characters! Per Art & Laraine Bennet’s “The Temperment God Gave You”: Sanguine=Tigger, melancholic=Eeyore, choleric=Rabbit, & Phlegmatic=Winnie the Pooh. They have a quote from each character at the beginning of those chapters. I’m re-organizing my bookshelves at the moment but will post if I find it
I’ve struggled with reading Dickens, I couldn’t get through a novel, but am listening to this one and very much enjoying it. I am also enjoying the podcast. I find the negativity refreshing! I’m suspect of any podcast where everyone claims to love the book.
Anyone read Evelyn Waugh’s “Handful of Dust”? I felt justified in my distaste for Dickens when seeing Waugh use him used as a torture device.
Omg Sean I laughed out loud with that Dickens trauma dad joke 🤣 Thanks for that
All the talk about adaptations and theater made me wish Tim was here for this book!! I also want him to answer the WtP question (is he a Tigger guy??)
I appreciate Heidi’s perspective on Dickens. I hadn’t read this since high school (Great Expectations too), and I’m realizing there’s stuff I love about his writing and stuff that’s annoying - it is confusing!
Haha same- that joke was hilarious 😂
Can the narrator be the author himself? I think Dickens is such an astute observer of people that he can't stop talking about everything he notices or thinks, and I feel I'm just sitting in a bar listening to a master storyteller give his opinions about people and events. Sometimes it's a little ho-hum, but mostly it's entertaining. It may be both a strength and a weakness, but I agree with Sean that it's a quirk of his. But I love it and think that even when he gives, for example, a scathing look of British justice, he does so in a way that lessens the tension. I prefer that to the heaviness and mushy translated English of the Russian writers.
OK, so if I pretended that I was in a bar and listening to my very long winded great uncle tell this story, I think I would like it because I’d be in a bar and I can listen to long winded stories if it’s from a person I love. But I am not in a bar with my long winded uncle. I am just trying not to fall asleep on the couch, so I just really don’t enjoy it!!! I love that there are so many people who do love it and I wish I could be one of you
I know. I just want everybody to love my uncle.
Great conversation! In looking at adaptations, I wanted to let people know that there is a musical adaptation that I highly recommend. It’s one of the rare musicals that gets the heart of it and doesn’t alter the story or characters. It actually quotes directly from the book several times as well.
And I want to push back just to hair on the idea that Dickens can’t write women. I find Madame Defarge to be incredibly interesting and complicated in this novel, but also characters like Nancy in Oliver Twist. I think in this book Lucy represents a type rather than a real person.
A friend introduced me to the musical adaptation several years ago and it is now one of my absolute favorites! I agree, they do an excellent job preserving the story and characters.
I would submit that Dickens can't write heroines very well. In some ways he even talks about that himself when you see who David marries in David Copperfield. And what happens to her. It is a doubling of his awful stepfather and David's mother actually. Except that David chooses a different route.
But he writes secondary women so well - Madame Defarge, of course, and Miss Pross. But also Betsy Trotwood, Mrs. Jarley, etc.
Also, the Selznick version of A Tale of Two Cities is fantastic. Mostly because of Ronald Colman who just knocks it out of the park as Sydney Carton. Do give it a try.
Also, in the paragraph that Heidi hated because Carton is looking in the mirror and revealing that he hates Darnay, I always found it revelatory. I never until that moment realized that Carton hates himself. And then when he tops it off with wine (possibly one of the reasons he hates himself?) it was perfect for me.
Glad you mentioned Ronald Coleman as Sydney! I agree that he was superb in the role!
Re: the graph that Heidi hated… I actually think you probably understood more than you give yourself credit for. Even if just subconsciously. So much of creating drama is based on impressions, things you can’t put into words. I bet that was there more than you realize.
I meant to say I've read it before and loved it!! Even still the first book was a struggle for me.
This was great! I love the disagreement and controversy. Honestly, I've been asking myself a lot recently whether I care a bit more about writing or character, at least to get into a book initially. I definitely care about both. I've read TOTC once before, and even still I struggled with the first book. Last week's conversation helped me realize that's in large part because of the writing. But, (and I agree with Sean here) now that I have Sydney Carton to engage me, I am more forgiving of Dickens' long-windedness and over explaining. So, maybe I land on the side of needing characters to pull me in. Anyway, really enjoying the conversation!!