This article mainly discusses early reviews and influences for A Tale of Two Cities. Believe it or not, this novel was not alway so renowned or valued by the literary world. Critics such as Sir James F. Stephen and Aldous Huxley discredited Dickens saying that his work was "disjointed" as well as "insincere and artificial". Stephen complained about how the book engaged the reader more emotionally than logically. Because of this he did not consider Dickens an intellectual writer. When I read this part and shared it with my group we thought it was funny because none of us considered it an easy read but we certainly did not write it off so easily. It seemed absurd that one could criticize the book in its entirety. Sure, there were parts we were not in favor of but every little piece contributed to this puzzle of a book. We would read so far only to realize that one little detail that did not seem that important at first actually meant more than we ever expected. I know personally that I never expected the motif of blood and wine to continue all the way until the end. The reviews by Stephen and Huxley were almost comical because of the fact that Dickens is so highly praised today. Not all the reviews, however, we negative. George Henry Lewes applauded Dickens for imagination and vividness in his works. The group could all agree that that amount going on in the novel had to require an immense amount of imagination. When we started the book, we never thought that certain characters (I do not want to spoil the ending) would die that way they did. As the book progressed, the most prominent emotion in our discussions was shock. A Tale of Two Cities was certainly not predictable in most of its plot points. Overall, this article made us realize that not everything is a master piece from the beginning; that certainly did not stop Charles Dickens!
Spoiler Alert
This article discusses different literary arguments about Dickens and A Tale of Two Cities. Gyorgy Lukacs claims that the French Revolution becomes a "romanticized background" for the story. I have to respectfully disagree. The majority of the novel is about the Revolution and about thousands of people dying via La Guillotine in the hands of Madame Defarge. Nothing about their deaths are romanticized. Nothing about the war is romanticized. And it certainly isn't the background. It's the first and foremost conflict of the novel; it lends to other conflicts between the characters as well.
The article goes on to discuss Sydney Carton and his role in the novel. Frances Ferguson believes that Carton's sacrifice "[looks] like a celebration of the merely personal and generally domestic affections," (Ferguson) for Lucie. I personally believe that Carton's sacrifice was for the happiness and safety of his loved ones. I think his sacrifice was heroic and alludes to Christ's sacrifice for humanity.
Ferguson goes on to discuss how the end of the book did not sum up the historical events that occurred during the Revolution, but rather comments on them. Sydney Carton's last words were a prophecy for France after the Revolution. Dickens didn't end the book with just a timeline of the war; he appealed to the emotions of his audience to end his novel.
This article discusses different literary arguments about Dickens and A Tale of Two Cities. Gyorgy Lukacs claims that the French Revolution becomes a "romanticized background" for the story. I have to respectfully disagree. The majority of the novel is about the Revolution and about thousands of people dying via La Guillotine in the hands of Madame Defarge. Nothing about their deaths are romanticized. Nothing about the war is romanticized. And it certainly isn't the background. It's the first and foremost conflict of the novel; it lends to other conflicts between the characters as well.
The article goes on to discuss Sydney Carton and his role in the novel. Frances Ferguson believes that Carton's sacrifice "[looks] like a celebration of the merely personal and generally domestic affections," (Ferguson) for Lucie. I personally believe that Carton's sacrifice was for the happiness and safety of his loved ones. I think his sacrifice was heroic and alludes to Christ's sacrifice for humanity.
Ferguson goes on to discuss how the end of the book did not sum up the historical events that occurred during the Revolution, but rather comments on them. Sydney Carton's last words were a prophecy for France after the Revolution. Dickens didn't end the book with just a timeline of the war; he appealed to the emotions of his audience to end his novel.