Welcome back to our ongoing series on Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities! This week we’re chatting about scenes that make this section exciting, the political context of the story, what Dickens’ worldview seems to be based on some of the metaphors he uses in the book, and much more. Happy listening!
I'm commenting late because I'm behind on episodes due to finding this book such a drag to get through (sorry all Dickens lovers). I have to say I'm definitely in David's camp of just not thinking the drama paid off. The plot is compelling! The themes are compelling! but the way it's written killed all the drama for me. The ending was the best part, for sure, but even there I felt like it didn't really work as a novel. I was never really able to be invested in what happened because the characters either felt flat or spent so little time on the page that I never had a chance to connect to them. I guess I'm just posting this to say, that despite all who found the episodes too negative, I was right there with you guys, and definitely appreciated knowing I'm not the only one to find the drama in the telling of the story lacking.
When you guys were discussing the purpose of the quick character appearance of the dying baby, I just wanted to raise my hand and say, “I think I know why!”
Dickens has a clear agenda with this book (as he does with most of his books) and all random moments point to the overarching theme or tragedy. He caricatures just about everyone and everything! So I think he includes the baby’s death to remind us that the real tragedy’s of “normal” life are still happening in spite of the revolution AND those victims are not to be pitied compared to the victims and the souls inciting the revolution. The baby reminds us that the bloodshed of the revolution is the greater tragedy even compared to child loss. What do you think?!
Also, I think Jerry’s spiked hair from the beginning is supposed to “point” us to the heads on stakes. See what I did there? ;)
Most, if not all, of the characters in Dickens' books, are not true-to-life. In both the good and the bad, they seem more caricature than real. However, they embody in a colorful way the vices and virtues that real people have, and I think this is what makes them memorable. I believe what sets Dickens apart is that we need value more the themes Dickens is portraying in both his plots and his characters. So, this is probably a different way of reading him than of other authors, but if you want a Victorian author with more realistic people, try Elizabeth Gaskell.
Heidiiii, did you really ask if the author is doing something on purpose? 😂
I actually think it’s a reasonable question when discussing art (clearly). Because as y’all have preached (I think), once it’s out of the creator’s hands, it’s fair game. I don’t know - do y’all think that? I think the question then actually becomes concerned with the process of art’s creation and the creator’s skill and “happy accidents”.
Dickens’s neat plot callbacks and tie-ins in this section felt Shakespearean and theatrical and murder-mystery-esque.
I’m interested to read more thinking about power and gender - concerning Lucy’s feminine weakness and Sydney Carton’s meekness (I’m thinking of Jordan Peterson’s definition, something like a warrior who is capable but merciful and intelligent), and what Dickens might be doing, intentionally or unintentionally :)
I have some of the same mixed feelings about Dickens that y’all do but the first several episodes came across almost as a roast at times. This episode was much more compelling because it wasn’t as negative
It seems pretty clear that for some of the audience the earlier episodes came across as more negative than we felt when recording them. We didn’t feel like it as purely negative as others do. That’s on me.
If we do want to roast books I have a few suggestions. Infinite Jest, for one. “Week 1, pages 1-850. Feel free to read some of it. All of it. None of it. You won’t miss much.”
It's an incredible podcast coincidence for me -- The Rest is History just released a podcast on these EXACT historical events! I highly, highly recommend close readers checking it out. Note bene-- The Rest is History features Tom Holland of Dominion fame.
I'm commenting late because I'm behind on episodes due to finding this book such a drag to get through (sorry all Dickens lovers). I have to say I'm definitely in David's camp of just not thinking the drama paid off. The plot is compelling! The themes are compelling! but the way it's written killed all the drama for me. The ending was the best part, for sure, but even there I felt like it didn't really work as a novel. I was never really able to be invested in what happened because the characters either felt flat or spent so little time on the page that I never had a chance to connect to them. I guess I'm just posting this to say, that despite all who found the episodes too negative, I was right there with you guys, and definitely appreciated knowing I'm not the only one to find the drama in the telling of the story lacking.
When you guys were discussing the purpose of the quick character appearance of the dying baby, I just wanted to raise my hand and say, “I think I know why!”
Dickens has a clear agenda with this book (as he does with most of his books) and all random moments point to the overarching theme or tragedy. He caricatures just about everyone and everything! So I think he includes the baby’s death to remind us that the real tragedy’s of “normal” life are still happening in spite of the revolution AND those victims are not to be pitied compared to the victims and the souls inciting the revolution. The baby reminds us that the bloodshed of the revolution is the greater tragedy even compared to child loss. What do you think?!
Also, I think Jerry’s spiked hair from the beginning is supposed to “point” us to the heads on stakes. See what I did there? ;)
Most, if not all, of the characters in Dickens' books, are not true-to-life. In both the good and the bad, they seem more caricature than real. However, they embody in a colorful way the vices and virtues that real people have, and I think this is what makes them memorable. I believe what sets Dickens apart is that we need value more the themes Dickens is portraying in both his plots and his characters. So, this is probably a different way of reading him than of other authors, but if you want a Victorian author with more realistic people, try Elizabeth Gaskell.
Yep! I agree. I am always reminded to be in this mindset when reading Dickens.
I like the English folks better when they are in France.
Hooray for the Bandersnatch Books shoutout and their poetry anthology! So excited about the possibility of this book.
Heidiiii, did you really ask if the author is doing something on purpose? 😂
I actually think it’s a reasonable question when discussing art (clearly). Because as y’all have preached (I think), once it’s out of the creator’s hands, it’s fair game. I don’t know - do y’all think that? I think the question then actually becomes concerned with the process of art’s creation and the creator’s skill and “happy accidents”.
Dickens’s neat plot callbacks and tie-ins in this section felt Shakespearean and theatrical and murder-mystery-esque.
I’m interested to read more thinking about power and gender - concerning Lucy’s feminine weakness and Sydney Carton’s meekness (I’m thinking of Jordan Peterson’s definition, something like a warrior who is capable but merciful and intelligent), and what Dickens might be doing, intentionally or unintentionally :)
I have some of the same mixed feelings about Dickens that y’all do but the first several episodes came across almost as a roast at times. This episode was much more compelling because it wasn’t as negative
It seems pretty clear that for some of the audience the earlier episodes came across as more negative than we felt when recording them. We didn’t feel like it as purely negative as others do. That’s on me.
If we do want to roast books I have a few suggestions. Infinite Jest, for one. “Week 1, pages 1-850. Feel free to read some of it. All of it. None of it. You won’t miss much.”
It's an incredible podcast coincidence for me -- The Rest is History just released a podcast on these EXACT historical events! I highly, highly recommend close readers checking it out. Note bene-- The Rest is History features Tom Holland of Dominion fame.
Thanks for posting, I was feeling I needed a refresher on the French Revolution.
Me too!!
Yes! That series has been incredible.
Huge fan of their show.