Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.72 AVERAGE
3.72 AVERAGE
7.5/10. This truly was both the best of times and the worst of times. I had "great expectations" for this book, given the incredible experience I had reading Great Expectations last year, and perhaps that was a bit unfair to A Tale of Two Cities. I had a sense before picking up this novel that it is somewhat of a black sheep in Dickens' body of work, in that the style and subject matter are very different from many of his other works. As a far of historical fiction, I did not think I would mind, but it ended up really taking a while for me to appreciate A Tale of Two Cities for what it is. In Great Expectations, I was blown away by the top-tier character work and the very close relationships between characters. This is largely absent in A Tale of Two Cities (with the notable exception of Sydney Carton, particularly in Book Three). Instead, the characters feel quite distant and flat, and much more emphasis is placed on plot.
The other big shift here is Dickens' prose. The truly iconic opening and closing lines of this novel need no description. However, at times, it can be really difficult to keep track of what is happening. Dickens often refers to characters by nicknames, pseudonyms, or vague titles (the prisoner; the doctor's daughter, etc.) and writes lengthy metaphorical musings that I definitely glazed over often enough that I felt confused, and needed to re-read whole sections to piece together what ultimately was a very basic plot.
Book Three (the last hundred-or-so pages) ultimately redeemed A Tale of Two Cities for me. The pacing got so much better, the writing so much clearer, and the emotional and thematic pay-off at the end was masterful. Sydney Carton's sacrifice is an all-time great moment in literature, and Dickens' nuanced representation of revolutionary politics is a poignant and timeless warning that it is easy for good political and social causes to be co-opted by opportunism, radicalism, excess, and self-destruction.
Overall, A Tale of Two Cities is by no means a bad book. I think it is certainly uneven and I the odd-one-out label definitely makes sense if I can assume that Dickens' other novels share much more DNA with Great Expectations. The first half is a bit tedious at times, but the ending truly leaves things on a very high note.
The other big shift here is Dickens' prose. The truly iconic opening and closing lines of this novel need no description. However, at times, it can be really difficult to keep track of what is happening. Dickens often refers to characters by nicknames, pseudonyms, or vague titles (the prisoner; the doctor's daughter, etc.) and writes lengthy metaphorical musings that I definitely glazed over often enough that I felt confused, and needed to re-read whole sections to piece together what ultimately was a very basic plot.
Book Three (the last hundred-or-so pages) ultimately redeemed A Tale of Two Cities for me. The pacing got so much better, the writing so much clearer, and the emotional and thematic pay-off at the end was masterful. Sydney Carton's sacrifice is an all-time great moment in literature, and Dickens' nuanced representation of revolutionary politics is a poignant and timeless warning that it is easy for good political and social causes to be co-opted by opportunism, radicalism, excess, and self-destruction.
Overall, A Tale of Two Cities is by no means a bad book. I think it is certainly uneven and I the odd-one-out label definitely makes sense if I can assume that Dickens' other novels share much more DNA with Great Expectations. The first half is a bit tedious at times, but the ending truly leaves things on a very high note.
I am amazingly glad that I did not have to read any Dickens for school, because that would have turned me off from classics in a millisecond. Fortunately, buddy reading this with a friend egged me on to finish the damn thing (ironic, had this been for school, I likely would have dnf'd it). And I'm glad I did, since the last third or so was quite good in terms of plot and characterization... but with many, many caveats...
The style of prose is UGH, NO, SHUT UP AND JUST TELL THE DAMN STORY CHARLES. Just because this is a classic, doesn't mean that I have to force myself to enjoy it and lull myself into a false sense of "omg, Dickens's style is dynamic and amazing!" Perhaps if I had I would have gotten more out of it, but that's just not my style--classic or not, if the prose doesn't captivate me in the first few pages, I have little hope for making through it.
The style just felt so.... anachronistic, and seemed more tailored and written in the American style of the time, rather than the British/European style (which I love). The American style is one that I hate deeply--I found myself comparing the writing of Tale to Cooper's Last of the Mohicans, which I had a very similar love-hate relationship with (the last third of that was excellent, but the style was terrible).
I couldn't get it out of my mind that Dickens was intentionally writing this in a more Americanized style to make this a hit in the States--and it must have worked, because it was apparently the most popular of his works in America.
Dickens's symbolism was also painfully obvious. He didn't try to hide the metaphors under other metaphors, or create any doubt that certain things weren't necessarily symbols, but just things that were discussed in detail as symbolistic red herrings. Everything was just OBVIOUS, there was no mystery to any of the symbols and it just made it almost juvenile in the way that Dickens assumed readers wouldn't be able to draw the parallels themselves.
He is also obsessed with foreheads... he focuses solely on many character's expressions through their foreheads, rather than through full facial or body expression. It's weird.
For all of the things I didn't like about this book (oh, did I mention that half the time it was never clear who was talking?) the overall plot of the story was quite interesting, and there were some fun characters. Not to mention Madame Defarge's knitting, which, as a knitter, was one of the main reasons I had to stick it out--it's practically canon to at least read the knitting parts. And the relationships (both romantic and friend/ally ones) forged between many of the main characters were actually ones I could get behind,
In the end, I am glad I stuck it out and finished it, but at the same time, this was a bad first impression for me, and I'm not at all enthusiastic to start any of Dickens' other works that I have on my to-read list (The Old Curiosity Shop, Pickwick Papers, and the ultimate tome of Bleak House) (as a side note, if any of these are an antithesis to Tale's style, please let me know in the comments!!)
Honestly, I think I would have gotten more out of it had I just watched a Masterpiece version of this...
The style of prose is UGH, NO, SHUT UP AND JUST TELL THE DAMN STORY CHARLES. Just because this is a classic, doesn't mean that I have to force myself to enjoy it and lull myself into a false sense of "omg, Dickens's style is dynamic and amazing!" Perhaps if I had I would have gotten more out of it, but that's just not my style--classic or not, if the prose doesn't captivate me in the first few pages, I have little hope for making through it.
The style just felt so.... anachronistic, and seemed more tailored and written in the American style of the time, rather than the British/European style (which I love). The American style is one that I hate deeply--I found myself comparing the writing of Tale to Cooper's Last of the Mohicans, which I had a very similar love-hate relationship with (the last third of that was excellent, but the style was terrible).
I couldn't get it out of my mind that Dickens was intentionally writing this in a more Americanized style to make this a hit in the States--and it must have worked, because it was apparently the most popular of his works in America.
Dickens's symbolism was also painfully obvious. He didn't try to hide the metaphors under other metaphors, or create any doubt that certain things weren't necessarily symbols, but just things that were discussed in detail as symbolistic red herrings. Everything was just OBVIOUS, there was no mystery to any of the symbols and it just made it almost juvenile in the way that Dickens assumed readers wouldn't be able to draw the parallels themselves.
He is also obsessed with foreheads... he focuses solely on many character's expressions through their foreheads, rather than through full facial or body expression. It's weird.
For all of the things I didn't like about this book (oh, did I mention that half the time it was never clear who was talking?) the overall plot of the story was quite interesting, and there were some fun characters. Not to mention Madame Defarge's knitting, which, as a knitter, was one of the main reasons I had to stick it out--it's practically canon to at least read the knitting parts. And the relationships (both romantic and friend/ally ones) forged between many of the main characters were actually ones I could get behind,
Spoiler
especially the switchero-sacrifice at the end.In the end, I am glad I stuck it out and finished it, but at the same time, this was a bad first impression for me, and I'm not at all enthusiastic to start any of Dickens' other works that I have on my to-read list (The Old Curiosity Shop, Pickwick Papers, and the ultimate tome of Bleak House) (as a side note, if any of these are an antithesis to Tale's style, please let me know in the comments!!)
Honestly, I think I would have gotten more out of it had I just watched a Masterpiece version of this...
This book was very good and very well written, but also long and relatively boring. I had to read it for English, and I don't know whether I would have been able to finish it otherwise. I gave it 4 stars because of the writing.
There's a reason Dickens' books are classics. This one took awhile to get my attention, but after it did I was hooked. The language is beautiful, if a bit dense for my slow brain (it didn't help that I was listening to the book at 1.5x speed). I also recommend this edition of the audiobook, the narrator was excellent. I will definitely be looking into more Dickens - embarrassing, but this is the first Dickens novel I've ever read outside of A Christmas Carol. I blame the public education system (not really).
I thought I'd read this years ago, but when we started rehearsing a stage adaptation I thought I'd refresh my memory. I don't think I'd actually ever read it.
It's excellent Dickens, well-observed, strong characters, often incredibly funny, everything you'd expect. The problem is that it should really have been A Tale of One City - Paris. The London scenes slow things up somewhat, and it's a great relief when the heads finally start rolling.
I'm glad I finally read it, wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, but with the best will in the world, that first half does drag somewhat.
It's excellent Dickens, well-observed, strong characters, often incredibly funny, everything you'd expect. The problem is that it should really have been A Tale of One City - Paris. The London scenes slow things up somewhat, and it's a great relief when the heads finally start rolling.
I'm glad I finally read it, wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, but with the best will in the world, that first half does drag somewhat.
A little slow start and thoroughly enjoyed this book and the twist and weaves that dickens makes of all the story threads
Another Dickens banger! I enjoyed the style of not following just one individual character even if it took me a minute to figure out who anybody was, but once we hit Part 2 of the book I got the hang of it and honestly loved the vibes. I'm fairly sure everything I could say about this book has been said but 10/10 should have read it sooner.
Because Dickens was born 200 years ago and because Tim Burns is my friend.
Me voilà une nouvelle fois confrontée à Dickens et un de ses romans dans le cadre universitaire. Ma rencontre initiale me voyait abandonner Oliver Twist après 2 mois et 50 pages seulement. Cette fois-ci, armée d'un peu plus de maturité et de maîtrise de la langue, je viens à bout de Tale of Two Cities !
Bon, j'admet que le style n'est pas particulièrement à mon goût et a considérablement ralenti ma lecture, mais les thèmes et le contexte historique m'ont certainement fait tourner les pages.
La justice (les injustices) sociale de l'époque, en Angleterre et en France, la prise de la Bastille, la Terreur et ses tribunaux sont présentés de manière aussi terrifiante que captivante. Malgré leur caractère plutôt unidimentionnel (favorisant leur mise en opposition), les personnages sont intéressants et attachants.
Un livre à relire et approfondir ? Et là, je me surprend et je dis "très certainement !".
Bon, j'admet que le style n'est pas particulièrement à mon goût et a considérablement ralenti ma lecture, mais les thèmes et le contexte historique m'ont certainement fait tourner les pages.
La justice (les injustices) sociale de l'époque, en Angleterre et en France, la prise de la Bastille, la Terreur et ses tribunaux sont présentés de manière aussi terrifiante que captivante. Malgré leur caractère plutôt unidimentionnel (favorisant leur mise en opposition), les personnages sont intéressants et attachants.
Un livre à relire et approfondir ? Et là, je me surprend et je dis "très certainement !".
adventurous
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No