And so we come to the end of Charles Dicken’s A Tale of Two Cities! In this episode, we discuss the sometimes complicated nature of reading and writing historical fiction, the way Dickens ratchets up the drama in the section, the wonderful confrontation between Miss Pross and Madame Defarge, and much more! As always, thanks for listening and happy reading!
The way Dickens writes women drives me a little crazy. Lucie is indistinguishable from Agnes in David Copperfield and Rose in the Mystery of Edwin Drood. Only his side women characters like Miss Pross and Mme Dufarge have a personality.
I have spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about the podcast on this book. I want to state that I do stand on the shoulders of the CR podcasters. I started listening about 5 years ago and went though many of the older episodes as a way of catching up on "overdue classics." What I really loved about this podcast was that there seemed to be an objective approach to literature. This was in contrast to a reading group I had started, where so much discussion time went to listening to how a work was not to someone's taste. I noticed that when someone became overly critical toward a work a person would inevitably shut off his soul to that work.
In fact, I remember in one of the CR podcasts on a work I shall not mention by name, by an author that was a "heart" author for many of us--one of the early podcasters could not shut about about how much *this particular podcaster* did not like the book. David ended up telling the person, "I don't think it matters (your personal preferences)." I think he did this because the attitude of this person was killing the mood of the discussion. I remember this so well, as that was a statement that I decided to use on my own reading group!
Listening to an audiobook of The Tale of a Two Cities had me weeping at its close, over the substitutionary atonement analogy. I find that Dicken's novel endings stay with me. It's been many years since I've read David Copperfield, but I remember a deep warmth at the conclusion of that novel. This was my first reading of A Tale of Two Cities. Thank you CR for guiding us through!
I was one of those defensive people after episode one since I love this book so much. I appreciate your discussions of what worked and what didn’t in the novel (even when I didn’t agree). I am glad we re-read the novel together.
I think the question about the ethics of historical fiction is such a good one. I actually gave up on Wolf Hall early on simply because I couldn't get past the characterization of Thomas More, who is a favorite of mine. Maybe it gets better, I don't know, but mess with my man St Thomas and I have no time for you, Hilary Mantel.
But I love Hamilton, for example, even though Lin Manuel Miranda takes enormous liberties with the story-- like the whole treatment of Angelica, who was married when she met Hamilton. I like what Heidi says about taking each on its own terms and judging on a case by case basis.
I still don't get Heidi's frustration with the fragility of Lucie and the Manette family; but it was very satisfying to see how that modulated in the final analysis. I think it's correct that Dickens is subverting the ideal Victorian family in the way, because they aren't really the heroes, they're the foils while Carton and Pross and Crusher are the real heroic figures-- hooray for the comic characters who come into their own as heroes.
Yeah, I haven't read Mantel but agree with your take. Writing historical fiction to make a political point while knowing the historical basis is materially wrong is like calling a witness to the stand that you know is going to lie.
The tragedy of the French Revolution is not only was it all so evil, it was completely pointless. Even as soulless as the French aristocracy was to let things devolve to the point they did, any sympathy for the people quickly runs out because of the sheer brutality of the reign of terror. I loved Sean's (I think?) description of the wickedness of the mob as vengeance posing as ideology. The Russian Revolution was the same way, the ends always justified the means to the revolutionaries and some of the lines in this book seemed straight out of Lenin.
I think Dickens captures the dynamics of the revolution fairly and I think it's also pretty clear that the revolutionaries are meant to be the villains of the story even as Dickens is usually pro-proletariat. Folks of a certain political persuasion (or people who just love Les Mis) can idolize the revolutionaries but they always seem to ignore the fact that the end result was literally Napoleon. It was all for nothing and France and the world were worse for it. Maybe Dickens is biased against the French because he's English but he's still right.
I really liked Heidi's comment about Lucy not needing to be saved because of the way she's written as constanty being saved by everyone else. That was a nice reframe.
And if Dickens was conscious of Lucy and Charles being dull heroes and did that to point us to the much more interesting and heroic Miss Pross and Sydney Carton — yeah, that just might be brilliant.
If you were writing a melancholy paper in your doleful cell in the Bastille where you were wrongfully imprisoned, using an iron pick and knowing you had extremely limited time in which to write in secret, how many paragraphs would you use for the preamble? Is 10 sufficient or would you go with enough to make the audiobook version 30 minutes long?
Ironically if you had been placed in the Bastille, you definitely had pen and paper. It was essentially a white collar prison where families would send their trouble-makers. De Sade had a mistress and multiple rooms. Many people wrote about the food being better than outside the Bastille. But that’s not good for revolutionary propaganda haha.
It’s not the existence of the letter it’s its verbosity that I find ridiculous. letter from a Birmingham. Jail is great because it is tightly constructed.
The way Dickens writes women drives me a little crazy. Lucie is indistinguishable from Agnes in David Copperfield and Rose in the Mystery of Edwin Drood. Only his side women characters like Miss Pross and Mme Dufarge have a personality.
…Should stop. 😉
Hi! I am looking for the history podcast mentioned in this episode ( I think you mentioned one?)
Thanx so much!
The Rest is History podcast!
I have spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about the podcast on this book. I want to state that I do stand on the shoulders of the CR podcasters. I started listening about 5 years ago and went though many of the older episodes as a way of catching up on "overdue classics." What I really loved about this podcast was that there seemed to be an objective approach to literature. This was in contrast to a reading group I had started, where so much discussion time went to listening to how a work was not to someone's taste. I noticed that when someone became overly critical toward a work a person would inevitably shut off his soul to that work.
In fact, I remember in one of the CR podcasts on a work I shall not mention by name, by an author that was a "heart" author for many of us--one of the early podcasters could not shut about about how much *this particular podcaster* did not like the book. David ended up telling the person, "I don't think it matters (your personal preferences)." I think he did this because the attitude of this person was killing the mood of the discussion. I remember this so well, as that was a statement that I decided to use on my own reading group!
Listening to an audiobook of The Tale of a Two Cities had me weeping at its close, over the substitutionary atonement analogy. I find that Dicken's novel endings stay with me. It's been many years since I've read David Copperfield, but I remember a deep warmth at the conclusion of that novel. This was my first reading of A Tale of Two Cities. Thank you CR for guiding us through!
I was one of those defensive people after episode one since I love this book so much. I appreciate your discussions of what worked and what didn’t in the novel (even when I didn’t agree). I am glad we re-read the novel together.
I think the question about the ethics of historical fiction is such a good one. I actually gave up on Wolf Hall early on simply because I couldn't get past the characterization of Thomas More, who is a favorite of mine. Maybe it gets better, I don't know, but mess with my man St Thomas and I have no time for you, Hilary Mantel.
But I love Hamilton, for example, even though Lin Manuel Miranda takes enormous liberties with the story-- like the whole treatment of Angelica, who was married when she met Hamilton. I like what Heidi says about taking each on its own terms and judging on a case by case basis.
I still don't get Heidi's frustration with the fragility of Lucie and the Manette family; but it was very satisfying to see how that modulated in the final analysis. I think it's correct that Dickens is subverting the ideal Victorian family in the way, because they aren't really the heroes, they're the foils while Carton and Pross and Crusher are the real heroic figures-- hooray for the comic characters who come into their own as heroes.
Yeah, I haven't read Mantel but agree with your take. Writing historical fiction to make a political point while knowing the historical basis is materially wrong is like calling a witness to the stand that you know is going to lie.
The tragedy of the French Revolution is not only was it all so evil, it was completely pointless. Even as soulless as the French aristocracy was to let things devolve to the point they did, any sympathy for the people quickly runs out because of the sheer brutality of the reign of terror. I loved Sean's (I think?) description of the wickedness of the mob as vengeance posing as ideology. The Russian Revolution was the same way, the ends always justified the means to the revolutionaries and some of the lines in this book seemed straight out of Lenin.
I think Dickens captures the dynamics of the revolution fairly and I think it's also pretty clear that the revolutionaries are meant to be the villains of the story even as Dickens is usually pro-proletariat. Folks of a certain political persuasion (or people who just love Les Mis) can idolize the revolutionaries but they always seem to ignore the fact that the end result was literally Napoleon. It was all for nothing and France and the world were worse for it. Maybe Dickens is biased against the French because he's English but he's still right.
To comment negatively about an author please, at least, learn how to pronounce their name.
What is this referring to?
Ayn Rand
I really liked Heidi's comment about Lucy not needing to be saved because of the way she's written as constanty being saved by everyone else. That was a nice reframe.
And if Dickens was conscious of Lucy and Charles being dull heroes and did that to point us to the much more interesting and heroic Miss Pross and Sydney Carton — yeah, that just might be brilliant.
If you were writing a melancholy paper in your doleful cell in the Bastille where you were wrongfully imprisoned, using an iron pick and knowing you had extremely limited time in which to write in secret, how many paragraphs would you use for the preamble? Is 10 sufficient or would you go with enough to make the audiobook version 30 minutes long?
Ironically if you had been placed in the Bastille, you definitely had pen and paper. It was essentially a white collar prison where families would send their trouble-makers. De Sade had a mistress and multiple rooms. Many people wrote about the food being better than outside the Bastille. But that’s not good for revolutionary propaganda haha.
It's been done although probably without the iron pick. https://www.history.com/news/8-works-of-literature-written-from-prison
It’s not the existence of the letter it’s its verbosity that I find ridiculous. letter from a Birmingham. Jail is great because it is tightly constructed.
Pross: I am an Englishwoman.