The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

First off, there is an awesome discussion going on in thread one of this novel. I truly enjoyed reading everyone's comment. I hope the same stream of emotions and passion about Dickens will gradually move to thread two and now three.

Now some questions for the next chapters.

1. The chapters are relatively short for Dickens. He tends to either combine longer ones with shorter ones or write long, detailed chapters that often include his tirades and passages exposing social vices. In this novel, on the contrary, Dickens relies mostly on chapters that fast-paced and somewhat smallish. If you have had previous Dickens experience, do you think it helps the narrative, strengthens it or makes it 'soupier', harder to follow or harder to see patterns?

2. In this selection, we deal with two very opposite moods and scenes. One of them has to do with Monseigneur and his haughty attitude, and the other part deals with the love triangle or even rectangle :-) Which of the two themes impressed you more? Why?

3. The next question might be a little bit of a stretch as we all know what kind of characters Dickens usually portrays in his novel. More than half of them are bigger-than-life ones. Still, taking everything above into your consideration do you think Monseigneur is a realistic figure? If yes, in what sense and if no, what does he represent?

4. Miss Mannette seems to have acquired a habit of inflaming the hearts of young men and and equally possessing their minds. Is she the typical Dickensian character - an angelic lady, all virtuous and kind?

5. Do you think romance will play a significant part in this novel? Why/Why not?

Happy reading.

The final chapter of this section, "The Fellow of Delicacy." Gave me pause. It seemed to be one of humor with the suitor offering HIS hands in marriage and do full of himself, but I certainly hope he will not become an enemy to the family as a result.

The scene involving “Darnay” and Monseigneur is certainly a teaser; makes me want to learn more about Darnay’s story! As for Monseigneur, he seems like a type, an embodiment of the aristos who inspired the French Revolution.

The appeal of Miss Manette for the male characters is starting to amuse me; it’s as if they all want to go back to lie in mommy’s arms. She creates a space of safety, peace, and acceptance, and they all want to curl up there. Darnay may be an exception; his interest may have more to do with attraction (or, considering the dénouement with Monseigneur, it may have a more sinister aspect). Time and further reading will presumably tell.

#2 'Monsieur' I agree seems a 'template' or generic' character representing nobility but now that I think it over, its really one of Dickens' most odiously-drawn figures. As an oppressor, he well befits his role. I like the seemingly conscience-less lifestyle of this guy.

#3 The longer chapters in his 'big' novels sure were daunting. In 'Our Mutual Friend'--boy! The chapters about the dining parties had some really interminable detail which dwarfed any real action of dining. I like the small chapters in 'Tale'.

We have indeed been chatting up a storm over Lucy Manette in the other thread. Glad everyone's okay with it.

Abigail wrote: "As for Monseigneur, he seems like a type, an embodiment of the aristos who inspired the French Revolution."

I agree with you, Abigail. I also think he represents the evil spirit that encapsulates everything bad that eventually triggered the French Revolution

Feliks wrote: "We have indeed been chatting up a storm over Lucy Manette in the other thread. Glad everyone's okay with it.
"

It was absolutely wonderful. Keep doing the same thing.

Zulfiya wrote: "The longer chapters in his 'big' novels sure were daunting. In 'Our Mutual Friend'--boy! The chapters about the dining parties had some really interminable detail which dwarfed any real action of dining. I like the small chapters in 'Tale'."

As for me, shorter chapters in this novel give the tighter weave to the story. It does not always work this way, but in this particular novel it does create this feeling.

#3 -- In my opinion, while Monseigneur may not be completely realistic, he is probably not too far off the mark. His wealth and station are effective insulators, protecting him from contact with the masses of the miserable poor. From the moment of his birth he is indulged, flattered, and courted. He is not raised in an environment in which he is encouraged to spend much time agonizing over the plight of the peasants. To such as him, their existence is more of an annoyance than anything else--when he even notices their existence. I think that his general attitude is representative of the careless disregard the nobles exhibited to the welfare of the poor. His debut, however, allows Dickens the opportunity for a scathing indictment of the selfishness, greed, arrogance, and criminal corruption of the aristocracy. The description of the serving of Monseigneur's morning chocolate is a stark contrast to the scene in front of the wine shop and highlights the almost unbelievable lavishness of the aristocratic lifestyle. Dickens is able to continue laying the backdrop for the coming of the Revolution, and fill the reader in on the factors influencing those events.

I like the metaphor of 'coming storm'
What are the other ones so far? 'Rushing feet of hundreds of people'? Start a list?

This novel is really different from the other novels and short stories I’ve read. For example, I really loved “Pickwick Papers” and ”David Copperfield.” One of the reasons I love Dickens is all the little details and “The Old Curiosity Shop” is my favorite because of how Dickens describes the store inside and out. I don’t mind long chapters. I don’t really pay too much attention to chapter divisions when I’m reading and rarely stop at the end of a chapter, because it is a chapter ending. However, I think Dickens may have had different reasons for writing this novel and perhaps even a different experience in mind for his audience. I read somewhere that the primary theme is mystery and secrets, so the short chapters and less detail make sense. The short chapters will propel a reader onward and keep them turning the pages, so he would have wanted more of a thriller format – short chapters, less detail, etc. I did want to add that without all the other details crowding them out, it is a lot easier to find and appreciate the subtlety of his metaphors, as well as his hints about the questions and mysteries of the novels.

This also comes across as the most serious novel I’ve ever read. Although, I really miss the comedy, especially when it comes to those larger-than-life characters.

A prevailing theme in all Dicken’s novels seems to be the importance of family and the love and devotion between a parent and child. Lucie embodies this perfectly, especially when she lies down on the floor with her father in the attic room, a scene I found touching as if the long separation had no impact on the strength of her love for him. I think Lucie is going to be a central force in the plot, because of the love “rectangle;” as for textural evidence that she will play an essential role is the conversation between everyone while watching the rain. In that scene Darnay asks Lucie “Are all those footsteps destined to come to all of us, Miss Manette, or are we to divide them among us?” Lucie concludes her answer by saying “I have been alone and have imagined then the footsteps of people who are to come into my life and my father’s,” to which Mr. Carton responds “I take them into mine. . .I ask no questions and make no stipulations.” Mr. Carton’s response seems to be eagerness for Lucie to play an important role in his life, and I have a feeling Darnay feels that similar excitement. This particular passage seems also to serve as foreshadowing for something big to come – something that will encompass all of them.

I think Monseigneur represents the extravagance and opulence of high class society. He would be larger than life, because he is made of everything that is wrong with the upper classes. I will say that I was very surprised that Darnay was connected to him and even more curious to learn more about that. I especially loved how Dickens wrote the scene of Monseigneur running over the child. It illustrates how the upper class believes that all life’s problems can be solved with money, but there is no monetary value on love, especially that between a parent and child. Then, when the old woman asks for a tombstone (a situation where Monseigneur’s money would make a difference), he refuses. This seems to imply that not much thought goes into spending money on things and a reluctance to give up one’s own comforts for the comfort of others. I don’t care for Monseigneur, but that was probably Dickens intention.

Renee wrote: "The final chapter of this section, "The Fellow of Delicacy." Gave me pause. It seemed to be one of humor with the suitor offering HIS hands in marriage and do full of himself, but I certainly hope ..."

The thing about it is that Darnay might already be an enemy of the family. Dickens suggests this in Dr. Manette's reaction to the proposal. The doctor tells Darnay to "stop" and Dickens writes: "For an instant, the Doctor even had his two hands at his ears, for another instant, even had his two hands laid on Darnay's lips." The chapter ending reinforces this connection when Lucie finds her father making shoes. This action suggests that something Darnay said brought Dr. Manette back to his imprisonment, although, I do not think Darnay knows of the connection himself - it's another mystery and more secrets.

Renee wrote: "The final chapter of this section, "The Fellow of Delicacy." Gave me pause. It seemed to be one of humor with the suitor offering HIS hands in marriage and do full of himself, but I certainly hope ..."

Yes, it is humorous as he pats himself on the back for his generosity in bestowing the honor of a marriage proposal on one who has so little in the way of material possessions to offer. He is firmly convinced that she will be overcome by her good fortune, and that it is impossible that she could turn him down. Even when poor Mr. Lorry tries to save him from the inevitable rejection, he cannot comprehend that he could meet with a refusal. I've always thought that when he lays in the bed, "winking at the ceiling," that he is fighting back or shedding tears. The next chapter is "The Fellow of No Delicacy," and is meant as a comparison to this one. No spoilers!!

Similar character in 'Our Mutual Friend' I recall..!

I found it funny that the story is about both London and Paris as the title suggests, yet you can clearly see it was an Englishman who wrote the novel. So far, the only French protagonist sufficiently characterised (apart from Darnay who decided to live in England) is Monseigneur, who in the first scene causes death of a baby and shows no remorse. This is not what I expected, for a book with French Revolution in the background.

In addition to Monsieur, how about the DuFarges and their friends and customers? The crowd who lapped at the wine? The man who's son was killed? Doctor Manette? I found them all French enough.

Nicole wrote: "The chapter ending reinforces this connection when Lucie finds her father making shoes. This action suggests that something Darnay said brought Dr. Manette back to his imprisonment, although, I do not think Darnay knows of the connection himself - it's another mystery and more secrets. "

A very good catch!

Teanka wrote: "I found it funny that the story is about both London and Paris as the title suggests, yet you can clearly see it was an Englishman who wrote the novel. So far, the only French protagonist sufficien..."

Add the Defarge couple, but you are definitely right! It is mostly English in its nature and mostly for the English public.

Yes, I forgot the Defarge couple, sorry (though by this section it was mostly Mr Defarge back in 1775, his wife is better described in the next part). As for the Manettes, they live in London and are central to the story there. The crowd constitutes the background of the story. Anyway, my point is, how Zulfiya put it, that it is mostly English in its nature and mostly for the English public , and not the way I tend to think about the French revolution either. (at least so far in the book).

I was also wondering how could the Englishmen accuse Darnay of treason committed to the English king if he was a Frenchman. Obviously he hides his origins.

Treason has many fine points in English law. It depends on quite a number of factors, and is very complicated when a native of one country happens to reside in a neighboring country. There were crude passports in the time of the novel, but the basic principle is that (unless you are registered as a foreign agent) you cannot participate in any action against the country where you take up residence because while you reside there, you are receiving benefits and protections of that 'adopted' king and that 'adopted' legal system. I happen to be reading up on it lately. If I find a relevant passage I will post it.

Thanks for the information on treason. I always thought that being tried as a spy was just because it was an action against another country. Like aggression but without the blood. I appreciate the nuance of having accepted the hospitality of the country spied upon. That is more like betrayal. Therefore, the term treason makes more sense now.

You're welcome. Yes it is really a fascinating topic. I'm sure a lot of people found out too late--but it is true that if a country issues you their protection and then you--in turn--do something which hurts or damages that country, that is the basis upon which they can try you in court, imprison you, and even take away your life. Citizenship (even temporary citizenship) is a contract. You can't just walk away when you've done something bad.

I manually entered a quote from Ms. West into the quotes engine..

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7133...

I am trailing far behind all of you, but for some reason this book kept getting in my line of sight (like an Everyman hardcover copy with its elegant marking ribbon sitting on the library display table, like an inexpensive Audible version keyed to a Kindle version, like an annotated Kindle version already purchased, ...), so gave up resisting and have been listening to and reading it. After all, one day I do want to read Hilary Mantel's book about the French Revolution.

In the meantime, annotation 310, on this passage, has me confused. (Warning: It does contain information not yet revealed in the text.) Hopefully it will clear.

"The show being over, the flutter in the air became quite a little storm, and the precious little bells went ringing downstairs. There was soon but one person left of all the crowd, [310] and he, with his hat under his arm and his snuff-box[311] in his hand, slowly passed among the mirrors on his way out."

Alleyn, Susanne; Dickens, Charles (2014-05-03). A Tale of Two Cities: A Reader’s Companion: With Embedded Notes (Kindle Locations 3241-3244). Spyderwort Press. Kindle Edition. (in Chapter 7)

Annotation 310: (view spoiler)[
[310] "This gentleman, who will shortly be labeled 'Monsieur the Marquis' and who we will soon find out is the uncle of Charles Darnay, is clearly not, as some analyses and study guides mistakenly claim, the same person as 'Monseigneur,' the great unnamed lord of princely status who is holding court in the previous paragraphs. (This confusion probably stems from the two parallel but contrasting chapter titles, 'Monseigneur in Town' and 'Monseigneur in the Country,' which make it easy to assume that 'Monseigneur' is the same person in each, when in fact the two titles refer to two different people.) The marquis — though we do not learn his name or title until much later — is usually addressed in the customary manner as 'monsieur the marquis' by underlings, but (incorrectly) as 'monseigneur' (the much more deferential term properly used only toward very high-ranking aristocrats, usually with royal connections) by the peasants on his country estate."

Ibid., (Kindle Locations 3244-3252).
(hide spoiler)]

Hi, Lily, that is a curious annotation! It’s hard for me to believe that it is correct—if only because Dickens did not include a lot of extraneous characters in his book, and having two different monseigneurs would be untidy and unnecessary. Also, I’m not sure it would be inappropriate to address a marquis as “monseigneur”—in England, at least, a marquis is right below a duke, and so very high up on the scale of nobility.

Lily wrote: "I am trailing far behind all of you, but for some reason this book kept getting in my line of sight (like an Everyman hardcover copy with its elegant marking ribbon sitting on the library display t..."

My reading of the monseigneurs is that the first is a general description of "monseigneur" as a class. It is non-specific and could be any "monseigneur". The second is specifically the marquis, Darney's uncle.

Sara wrote: "My reading of the monseigneurs is that the first is a general description of "monseigneur" as a class. It is non-specific and could be any "monseigneur". The second is specifically the marquis, Darney's uncle. ..."

That seems credible to me, given the content of the two chapters.

Don't mean to cut you off, but I must confess that all this discussion is just a little over my head!


Heh. A little Revolution humor...

Feliks wrote: "Don't mean to cut you off, but I must confess that all this discussion is just a little over my head!


Heh. A little Revolution humor..."

ha, ha.

:)

Yep, taking a little liberty there..I got a million 'of 'em!