The Storming of the Bastille |
Upon finishing Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities, something unique
happened. I mean, other than the fact that I bawled my eyes out, which rare
enough in itself. But as I turned the last pages, I wanted to sit down and read
the whole thing again. Right there. Right then. Several times. I’ve actually had to force myself not to do so, in the month since,
because I have other things to do.
Christopher Lee in A Tale of Two Cities (1958) |
The first of
these is love. In some ways, it’s a sappy romance, complete with love triangle
(or quadrangle if you count a certain lion). Two Cities is a historical novel, set about a hundred years before
it was written, during the lead-up to the French Revolution (France and it rulers seem to be the number one catalyst for drama - see Hornblower, the Pimpernel, Aubrey and Maturin, Les Miserables).
In a classic
Dickensian fashion, the tale starts in the fog, with darkness and distrust, but
quirky characters and a beautiful heroine. Mr. Jarvis Lorry—of Tellson’s Bank—travels
to meet young Lucie Manette, with news of her long-lost father. Their
subsequent journey intersects with that of Charles Darnay, a Frenchman
suspected of treason. Throw into the mix Lucie’s father, Dr. Manette, who has
some pretty dark secrets, Jerry, a wild-haired bank messenger, and Sydney Carton,
a tragic ne’er-do-well lawyer. Their path careens onward into the dark days of
the revolution, punctuated with the interweaving of old secrets, long-held vendettas,
and new romances.
I hesitate to
detail more of the plot, as the gradual unfolding of mystery after mystery is
part of the fun. But that’s not the final word on its success. After all, if the solutions to the mystery were the best part, I would only read it once. However, despite the fact that I’d already
had the most important plot twist spoiled, I finished it a week earlier than
scheduled. I devoured it. It’s a masterpiece of plotting and organization
alone. There’s not a stray sentence, not an unnecessary chapter or character—it
all ties in. Though it was written in 1859, it reads like it was written
yesterday, with the caveat that some faults are just Dickens being Dickens. Some
have said the novel lacks humor, but I found it quite hilarious at moments, despite
the over-arching melodrama. The prose dips and soars with far better metaphors than I can think of at the moment, and the symbolism is rich and intricate.
Ronald Coleman in A Tale of Two Cities (1935) |
So, a great
page-turner, a love story, a mystery, the French as bad guys—these things tend
to appeal universally, but I still don’t think that’s the whole story. There
are some things that the world desperately wants, even if it won’t admit
it: redemption, sacrifice, and resurrection. Two Cities has these things by the boatload, just as Rings does.
Amid the black bloody
dancing evil of the revolution is the purity of love, the nobility of
sacrifice, and the promise of ultimate renewal. But unlike the covert symbolism of Tolkien’s
masterpiece, Dickens overtly ties these ideas to Christianity, taking as his
theme the verse from John 11: “I am
the resurrection and the life.” He works the theme throughout the entire story, both figuratively and literally.
As I said, I don’t
want to spoil it, but once again I’ve discovered the way that the glory of
the Gospel can shine through stories of grace. It should be the purpose of all Christian fiction to point people to Christ, directly or indirectly. I think that Two Cities, and Rings, for that matter, both do that. And while I come away with a
resounding respect for Dickens’s prose and plotting, I was more moved by the
beauty of this idea of resurrection which pervades the story, despite the horrendous carnage of the Revolution—I wept for the fact that there is an afterlife to write about. I came away having been pointed to Christ. Fiction slipped under the door and made these two books the best-selling novels of all time. The world knows what it needs.
Happy Easter,
Longish
Oh great. Now I have to move Two Cities up my list, in front of all those other ones I just put there.... But thanks for the review! Now I know it will definitely be worth reading, and not simply for the fact that it's a classic. (And a Dickens). Sigh...all these books I'm trying to read!
ReplyDeleteI guess it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it immediately jumped onto my favorites list. Great tale of good and evil and grave-robbery. ;D
DeleteOoh...now I'm even more intrigued.... ;D And honestly--it's so odd to see Christopher Lee young!! I saw you put that it was him, and I was like, "W-what?!" and had to look. It's so interesting!
ReplyDeleteThe movie was good, but not as good as the book. I'm meaning to look up the other adaptations when I have time. Christopher Lee was extreeeeeemely young in that 1958 film, and he didn't have The Voice. Ian Bannen was in it too, one of my favorite actors, and Dirk Bogarde, who was much cuter than in A Bridge Too Far (which I watched right before that).
DeleteA wonderful review of my favorite novel!
ReplyDeletePersonally, the 1958 movie is my favorite adaptation. Ronald Colman is a very good Carton, but (in my opinion) he can't hold a candle to Bogarde.
The 1958 is the only one I've seen so far, and it was pretty good. Bogarde was very smooth and sarcastic a la Richard E. Grant's Scarlet Pimpernel, but didn't really cover the deep sadness of Carton imho. Coleman (from the clips on YouTube) did seem a little bit more sober and tragic, but for some reason the production reminded me of A Wonderful Life. I kept expecting Jimmy Stewart to dash across the screen.
DeleteIn the mean time, I want to read the novel again. It was one of the last novels of my senior year, and I just graduated, so I'll have some free time.