A Tale of Two Cities is one of the best written stories I have ever read. I know I’ve said this time and time again but this book is so well crafted it blows my mind-grapes. Right after I wrote that last piece, literally, one page later, Carton reappeared and made sense of his role in Dickens’ story. Just when I was wondering what had happened to him, fearing he had disappeared in some Wiseau-like fashion, he comes right back and answers all my questions. I must say, the ending is predictable a good 70 pages or so out but I don’t think that is the point here (in fact, I rarely thing the ending of a story is the most important part. Unless, of course it is a mystery and the plot is the most important thing in the book… or the only important thing in the book. Unless we are speaking of Holmes, Marple and Poe, I guess…). The world and characters are so well done, the predictable ending is a moot point. But are the characters so well done?
In my last post I griped a bit about Darnay and his lack of depth. I stand by that claim 100%. If you use that argument that the Protagonist of a story is the character that changes the most, you would have to argue that Carton, not Darnay is the Protagonist. But he isn’t. The book isn’t A Tale of Two Gentlemen. Much like Lope de Vega’s Fuenteovejuna, the protagonist is not a person but an entire village. Or a city. Or cities, in this case. No, let’s say city. Paris changes the most in this story above all else… London? Eh, we don’t really get a good feel for what happens to London during the course of this novel. The book should be called A Tale of a City or Paris: A REVOLUTION!
Back to Darnay. He is one of the only major characters that lack depth and psychology. Manette, Cruncher, Pross, Carton, Lorry and Stryver are all “better” characters than Darnay. It seems that the only two bland and 2-dimensional characters are Darnay and Lucie… a boring man and his boring wife. Sure, they’re pretty and noble and honorable and full of love but they’re like 2 ingenues in a musical: I don’t care about them. If this were Les Miserables they would be Marius and Cosette, two boring characters that pale in comparison to Eponine and Enjolras (and Jean Valjean, Javert, Fantine and… Gavroche). And, Dickens does not do a great job of making Darnay and Carton “rivals.” Maybe I’m just stupid, but I did not get the impression that Carton was as in love with Lucie as he was. It felt forced. It was necessary for his final redemption at the end of the novel but it didn’t seem real.
And surprisingly, that was the only thing in the novel that seemed forced to me. All the other little threads and connections, the way that all of these characters are so intertwined beyond their knowledge (like some 1990′s “edgy” film…) and control came off so well. None of it is trite or forced.
I blame my shitty english teachers in High School (really, just one. 9th grade. Mr. Turner) for dumbing down my literary diet when it comes to the classics, thus my complete ignorance of Dickens (and most of the classics for that matter). Nevertheless, this is my post-grad education.
Up Next: Monsieur Pain
