A day wasted on others is not wasted on one's self in 'A Tale of Two Cities' by Charles Dickens

It was the best of times,

it was the worst of times...

Hello, fellow readers!

Today I am going to introduce to you one of the last books I read - 'A Tale of Two Cities' by Charles Dickens. There is a lot to be said for this story - firstly because it's a classic from one of the most famous English writers, secondly because it is the first book by Dickens that I read and last but not least - because I really enjoyed it. The style of writing made me feel cozy, like coming back home after a very long travel. However, I don't want to bore you. That's why I will make my point really clear in the main part of my post.

↱↲

A multitude of people and yet a solitude.

A dream, all a dream, that ends in nothing, and leaves the sleeper where he lay down, but I wish you to know that you inspired it.

Lucie Mannet and her father have been separated for 18 years while he languished in Paris' most feared prison - the Bastille. Finally reunited, the Manettes' fortunes become inextricably interшwined with those of 2 men, the heroic aristocrat Charles Darnay and the dissolute lawyer Sydney Carton. Their story, which encompasses violence, revenge, love, faith and redemption, is played out against the backdrop of the terrifying brutality of one of the bloodiest times in the history - The French Revolution (1789).

↔

Vengeance and retribution require a long time; it is the rule.

I'm glad to know that from now on I know something about Charles Dickens' style of writing. I chose 'A Tale of Two Cities' because I love this period of time in the history and I was thrilled when I learned that the main course of action take place around 1789. To be fair while I was reading it, I was also making some kind of link between this book of Dickens and 'The Knight of Maison-Rouge' by Alexander Dumas (one of my favorite books). The stories are quite similar. But I must say that there were moments when it was quite difficult to understand the meaning of some parts of the story. Maybe because there isn't really much action. 

There is prodigious strength in sorrow and despair.

The entire story is like some kind of a picture of the French Revolution. It gives the idea of the reasons why it happened. On the one hand we see all peoples and their rising against all of their miserable existence and on the other hand the nobility that doesn't care about it and doesn't see any worth in one's life. It made me empathetic as a human being. It charged me with all kinds of emotions and that is priceless (the last few months I was really stuck when it came to reading books).

Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death; 

- the last, much the easiest to bestow, O Guillotine!

I enjoyed the idea of the book and the characters but I must say that some of the actions of the characters (for example when Darnay, because of his pure heart and kindness, decides to return in Paris) made me really frustrated. And the whole thing about the pure love and platonic connection that inspires some kind of lunatic suicide for nothing than some kind of posthumous thanks is too naive for my taste.

There is a man who would give his life to keep a life you love beside you.

No matter all the minuses, I must say that I was interested of the idea when I started reading the book. Therein the book gave me what I needed. That's why I'm sure that someday, maybe when I'm a little bit less cynical about the reasons behind the actions, I will probably re-read it all again. Until then 'A Tale of Two Cities' will remain in my mind like a resource of pure love and hate - maybe exactly what life is, who can say...?