Nick Beck
A Tale of Two Cites Entry 1:
Charles Dickins starts off this story by first explaining the setting, “it was the best of times it, it was the worst of times”. France was extremely bloody, the revolution would start in about 10 years, America was about to break away from Britain, and Britain had their own problems. Mr. Lorry when he is riding in a carriage gets a message telling him to wait for a woman and he replies with “Recalled to Life”. Later we find out that this is what he has been called to do to a man named Manette, who has been locked away for a number of years with the help of Manette`s daughter Lucie, who had thought he was dead. Why do you think that they are going to recall this man to life? Is he important? I mean he obviously must be if all of this is done in secret and he has been locked away all of this time. Why do you think that when Manette was asked what his name was he replied, “One hundred and five, North Tower? I think that he must have been locked away in prison or something even before he was locked up in the wine shop. Speaking of the wine what do you think was the deal with the man who when the wine was spilled dipped his finger in and wrote “blood” on the wall of a building? The only answer I could think of was that it had to do with the revolution that was about to start in France, only a few years in the future. I only say that because of the three revolutionaries all referred to as Jacques in the wine shop looking at Manette. Do you think that Manette will have anything to do with the revolution?
Charles Dickins starts off this story by first explaining the setting, “it was the best of times it, it was the worst of times”. France was extremely bloody, the revolution would start in about 10 years, America was about to break away from Britain, and Britain had their own problems. Mr. Lorry when he is riding in a carriage gets a message telling him to wait for a woman and he replies with “Recalled to Life”. Later we find out that this is what he has been called to do to a man named Manette, who has been locked away for a number of years with the help of Manette`s daughter Lucie, who had thought he was dead. Why do you think that they are going to recall this man to life? Is he important? I mean he obviously must be if all of this is done in secret and he has been locked away all of this time. Why do you think that when Manette was asked what his name was he replied, “One hundred and five, North Tower? I think that he must have been locked away in prison or something even before he was locked up in the wine shop. Speaking of the wine what do you think was the deal with the man who when the wine was spilled dipped his finger in and wrote “blood” on the wall of a building? The only answer I could think of was that it had to do with the revolution that was about to start in France, only a few years in the future. I only say that because of the three revolutionaries all referred to as Jacques in the wine shop looking at Manette. Do you think that Manette will have anything to do with the revolution?
A Tale of Two Entry 2:
ReplyDeleteWell if they are going to “recall this man to life” I would hope that he is important. Why do you think that he was locked away for all this time? Why do you think that even his daughter thinks he is dead? As far as the wine goes, I believe that it might have something to do with the revolution. Perhaps it acts as a symbol or maybe it is just the crazy writings of a man who wants to scare some people. However this quote leads me to believe that my first assumption is correct, “The wine was red wine, and had stained…and the forehead of the woman who nursed her baby.” Now I know that you also used this quote, but when I read it there was no doubt in my mind that this will have something to do with the revolution. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the revolution will affect all people, no matter who they are. As for Manette, I think it might be too early to say but I do not think that he will play a major part FOR the revolution however he might get sucked up into it in some way or form. Next Dickens moves on to talk about a certain bank that prides itself on being “very small, very dark, very ugly, and very incommodious” why do you think that one Dickens moves on to talk about this bank and why does this bank “pride” itself on all these horrible things? What is your first impression of Jerry Cruncher? To me he seems like a horrible human being, or is it just the circumstances that he is living in that cause him to live such a terrible life? Next Cruncher gets thrown into this whole legal mix about Charles Darnay and his trial. Where does this come from? Do you think that Darnay is guilty of anything or are some people just trying to make him go away?
A Tale of Two Cites Entry 3:
ReplyDeleteWell, in answer to why Lucie thought Manette was dead all this time was because he disappeared for a long time while he was locked up. I have no idea why he was locked up and I do not think we have enough information to speculate why just yet. I do think I know how Manette would be useful though, when they hear about the prisoner who carved DIG into the dungeon wall he acted strange and I think he may know something either about what the piece of paper said or if something was buried. As for the revolution, I think it is coming very soon, “Driven home into the heart of the stone figure attached to it, was a knife. Round its hilt was a frill of paper, on which was scrawled” ‘Drive him fast to his tomb. This, from JACQUES.’” (134). I do believe that Darnay was the one to kill him, and that he will have a large part to do with the revolution. What do you think of that? Who do you think killed him? As for what I think of Jerry Cruncher, I do indeed think he is a terrible man, and I bet it will be made even clearer as we continue reading. Now what do you think of Darnay`s ideas of marrying Lucie, and that his real name really is not even Charles Darnay? Why do you think it is and why do you think he even has a fake name? Stryver also decides that he will marry Lucie in these chapters, what do you think of that? Which one do you think will end up marrying her? I think it will be Charles Darnay because of the way Lucie talked about him during the trial. Unless he ends up getting killed first.
A Tale of Two Cities Entry 4:
ReplyDeleteTo expand on the question(s) regarding Manette, do you think that his imprisonment had anything to do with the upcoming revolution? Or do you think it was something else that really has no significance. Personally I think that it is not about the revolution then it must be something equally as important to keep him locked up for so long. I don’t think that Manette, at this point knows anything about the DIG story and the paper, I believe that he is just a man with a broken mind who is trying to recover, however I could be dead wrong. Do you think that the paper really holds any significance to the rest of the story or the revolution? If Manette does know what the letter is about could that be what got him arrested? Darnay does seem like a pretty radical character that will have some kind of impact on the revolution. I’m not certain who killed who just yet, but like the revolution I believe answers are close by. I’m also not 100% certain about whom Lucie will be marrying, but I think right now Darnay has the best chance. However the fact that he won’t reveal his true name might cause some problems between them later on. “I don’t want dozens of people who are not at all worthy of Ladybird, to come here looking after her,” said Miss Pross. Miss Pross seems to think that none of the men that come by are worthy of Lucie, do you agree with Miss Pross? Moving on, what are your thoughts about this whole Marquis Evremonde killing that kid with his carriage and then getting mad at the kid and the people? Do you think that this event is one of if not the last straw that leads to the revolution? Or do you think that this event was thrown in there by Dickens as a distraction and to just show how bad the aristocracy is to the common people?
A Tale of Two Cites Entry 5:
ReplyDeleteNow, I do believe Manette knows something about the DIG carving and papers because he was locked up in the Bastille, but when Defarge goes there in order to check his cell he does not find anything and then mutilates the guard. I do believe that Manette did something with the government or revolution in order to get himself locked up for so long, but I have no idea what. I mean what else was the French government worried about at the time? If the paper does have anything to do with the rest of the story I bet it is what Mr. Lorry and Jerry Cruncher go to go and find in France. I actually do think that is what they are going to do and I also think that it will relate back to Manette in some way. As for who killed the Marquis, I do believe it was Darnay and that another man was killed in his place either by mistake or because the government wanted to make an example of someone. What do you think of Darnay`s decision to go back to France? Is it worth going back at all? I think it will end up getting him killed and I think that Defarge and his wife will be the ones to kill him because she knit his name in the registry. As for my quote and another question for you, it is when Darnay decides to go back, “’that he has received the letter and will come’ ‘Any time mentioned?’ ‘He will start upon his journey tomorrow night.’” (253). What do you think he will be able to do for Gabelle when he gets back to France, and why does he want to risk all that he has in order just to help him?
A Tale of Two Cities Entry 6:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading along more I would have to agree with you that Manette knows what the DIG message means and had/has something to do with the government and or revolution. Although it would make more sense that he had something to do with the revolution which would cause the government to lock him up for the amount of time that they did. I’m still not one hundred percent certain that it was Darnay that killed the Marquis, that doesn’t really seem like his character to kill the man especially since he has said that he wants nothing to do with the inheritance that follows the Marquis’ death. I will say though that the timing of the Marquis’ death is fairly “convenient” don’t you think? Hard to say for sure if it is the right thing for Darnay to go back to France or what he hopes to gain and or what he could do to help, but I definitely think that it will put him at a greater risk of being killed. However I do not believe, at this point, that Darnay will be killed I believe that he will live through the rest of the novel. I believe this because I get this kind of vibe from Dickens that he admires people with Darnay’s characteristics and wants to show the world that you don’t have to be a terrible person to live a happy life. I believe that Dickens wants to use Darnay as an example and hold him up with a large amount of regard. When Darnay is asking for Manette’s permission to marry his daughter, “I know that when she is clinging to you, the hands of baby, girl, and woman…and in your blessed restoration” (201). What do you think about Darnay’s character? Do you think that Dickens is trying to use him as an example of an idea gentleman? Or is he just a rich guy who happens to be nice to most everyone? Moving on from Darnay, what is the deal with Doctor Manette? Do you think that the DIG message is what’s messing him up and causing him to go a little crazy again? Or do you think that he is right and it is nothing to really worry about? Also do you believe that Miss Pross and Lorry were in the right when they destroyed the cobbler bench and tools? What message, if any, do you think that Dickens is trying to convey through that?
A Tale of Two Cites Entry 7:
ReplyDeleteI think we now know why Manette acted the way he did when he found out about the letter that disintegrated in another man`s cell over time, it was him remembering the letter he wrote with rust and his own blood that he hid in his cell. DeFarge found and read aloud at the court for Charles Darnay`s life. He reads in the court, “In a hole in the chimney, where a stone has been worked out and replaced, I find a written paper. This is that written paper.” (330). When Manette reacted that way he remembered this letter that was left there. As for who killed the Marquis, I think it was either Darnay or Jaques, the one who worked on roads. This is really important because if Darnay killed the Marquis then it could be used to get him back out of prison and not be put to death but if Jaques did then I believe that Darnay will die. What do you think will happen to Darnay, will he die at the hand of the revolution? I think Mr. Lorry and Mrs. Pross had the right idea in destroying the shoe workbench so he will no longer work. I believe it is a symbol. It represents not going back to what it once was, how Manette can no longer make shoes, how when the king of France was killed they could no longer have their king. I think it can be easily seen, the idea of not going back, with the Russian Revolution where the Czar and all his bloodline was killed, that idea is what I think the chopping up, burning, and burying of the workbench and tools represent. Do you think it was a good idea? Do you also see the symbol of what I think it represents?
A Tale of Two Cities Entry 8:
ReplyDeleteMr. Lorry and Mrs. Pross definitely had the right idea in destroying the bench, even Manette says that in this his analogy with the blacksmith. So there is not much more that needs to be said about that. I do see the symbol and agree with you that it can be seen as a way of “destroying the past and killing it if you have to” (Kylo Ren) and that in this case it was the right thing to do. As far as the Marquis goes, it really isn’t that important as to who killed them. Even if Darnay had been the one to kill them both, he still would have had to “pay for the sins of his father” because in the end it looks like Madame Defarge has the final say on who is to die and who may live. Charles Darnay’s reaction to the sentence is truly remarkable, in that he is willing to die for something awful that his father and uncle did after denouncing them and rejecting his own inheritance. His reaction to the sentence is why I stand by my earlier prediction that nothing bad will happen to him in the end and how Dickens wants to show that go people can succeed/survive this world. I can understand, in a way, where The Vengeance (Madame Defarge) is coming from in that she knows that who killed her family and wants revenge. However I believe that revenge is not the way per say, justice is what she should look for and what she is enacting is nothing even remotely close to justice. You cannot use injustice to fight injustice. All that being said, I believe that Dickens wrote this novel not only to illustrate that good people can thrive in this world without having to throw away their integrity, but also that “bad” people may redeem themselves/find redemption. Dickens shows this perfectly with Sydney Carton. When asked by the woman who is to die with him if Carton is dying for Darnay, Carton replies by saying that he is also dying for Lucie and Doctor Manette and Lucie’s daughter. After reading this my opinion of Carton, who really had done nothing with his life, changed dramatically and my hope is that this is the intended effect that Dickens was going for. “It is far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known” (441). Only in death does this man find true peace, because he can now say that his life was not wasted on himself. Yes, Charles Darnay is a model that most people should live their lives by, but personally I wish to have the strength and courage of Sydney Carton. That is why through Dickens novel I find the message of redemption rings the loudest and clearest in my mind. It makes me look at my own life and seek out instances in which I was or could have been like Sydney and it makes me look forward to those moments when I can be like him, but in the meantime the novel challenges us to act as Darnay until our Carton time arrives.
Fascinating: "Act as Darnay until our Carton time arrives." Great job seeking symbolism throughout. Remember, when in doubt everything is meaningful! Also, Jaden, please remember to quote coherently (don't use ellipses that diminish the meaning or grammar of the quote). Thanks!
ReplyDelete