Monday, October 27, 2008

A Tale of Two Cities Week 1

I found that this week's reading was a little easier to understand than last week's. The section again begins by setting the scene for what was happening at this time. One part really stuck out to me: Accordingly, the forger was put to death; the utterer of a bad note was put to death; the unlawful opener of a letter was put to death; the purloiner of forty shillings and sixpence was put to death;.....Etc etc etc. As we have already read in the first section the guiatine was a big part of the time. Seeing as how this section is 5 years later and people are still being executed for various crimes, time must not be progressing very much. The people under rule of the king must feel so oppressed and scared to do anything out of order, but many things cannot be helped. For example, another crime to be put to death for was "stealing a horse outside of the bank." Well, if a father doesn't have money to buy food for his family, he would probably be coerced to steal it.

As the section progresses, we are introduced to a man named Cruncher. Cruncher doesn't appear to be a man of any education and he also comes across as angry / mean. He also thinks that the Christian religion is just something made up. This in combination with his personality and name lead me to believe that he is not the most humane man and would have no problem killing another person. One thing that is interesting about him is how he treats his wife and raises his son. His son is growing up to be just like him and that is only going to continue on the tradition of the "King with a strong jaw, Queen with a fair face" principle that men hold the power and women have no opinion. Another thing I wonder about him is why his boots are muddy and his thumb rusty. What is he doing that would cause that? He's an odd job man for the bank, so why does he come home with mud on his boots???

Chapter 2 begins with Cruncher entering a court to find a trial for a man on treason. When he speaks to a spectator, it's said that the man on trial is definitely guilty and a gruesome punishment is described. The way the man describes it, with such furver, is some what sickening. The punishment is horrible, yet he seems to be taking a sadistic pleasure in the thought of watching it. He also wants the man on trial to be found guilty, and expects that Cruncher wants the same, which he probably does. Something that strikes me about the whole situation is that the punishment for treason is well known and obviously brutal. This is a good way for the king to keep people from rebelling. I can only imagine the fear instilled withing the people because if they even slightly implicate to a rebellion they will be tortured to their death.

When they brought the prisoner in, I was quite surprised when his appearence was described. He's only 25 years old and looks like a fair young gentleman - definitely not the stereotype of the typical criminal for this time or any. When I picture most people getting executed, I picture a pauper in dirty rags, but he appears to be doing okay financially by the way he's dressed and how his hair is. Even by his demeanor, he seems to be smarter than the average man because of how he listens to the case so attentively. However, the one thing he lacks in his demeanor is humanity. He doesn't come across as a warm person and that would probably be the deciding factor that puts him to death. However, he is truly saved when Miss Manette testifies in his favor.

Miss Manette, five years from when we last saw her, is in the court room and the spectators are drawn to her. She gives off a comfort and warmth that is so abundant, it compensates for his lack of charm. The questioning given to him and other testifiers prove nothing beyond reasonable doubt for the crime, yet it still doesn't look good for him. Then Miss Manette testifies about his kindness and it's her heartfelt testimony that saves him from a grotesque death. Though he is acquitted, I do question if he's innocent or not. But I'm in favor of the crime he's committed because change needs to happen for the people. Something that strikes me about him is that he seems to have some money and live a stable life, yet the people he's committing treason for (if he really is) are quite poor. This shows that he must be a very noble man.

Chapter 4 begins with a description of how Miss Manette makes the prisoner, Mr. Darnay, feel. "...The sound of her voice, the light of her face, the touch of her hand, had a strong beneficial influence with him almost always." So it's clear that he posesses strong feelings toward her, but what does she think of him? I'm guessing by her testimony that she has feelings for him too, but I don't know if that's the case or if she just thinks of him as a friend.

The next part of Chapter 4, I had a difficult time understanding. There seems to be conflict between Mr. Darnay, Mr. Lorry, Mr. Carton, and Mr. Stryver. They keep talking about business, but I'm having a hard time reading between the lines and figuring it out on this one. Was the trial fixed in favor of Mr. Darnay? I don't know if this is one of the parts that I'm not supposed to understand yet, or if I'm just missing something... One thing I did get out of it is that Mr. Darnay and Mr. Carton are definitely enemies and I took something Mr. Carton said as foreshaddowing: "Don't let your sober face elate you, however; you don't know what it may come to. Good-night!" That cannot mean anything good for Mr. Darnay's future.

In the first sentence of chapter 5 I notice that Dickens is personifying Time as if it is a person, and this is the same thing he did with "Death." Other than that little tidbit, the chapter goes on to describe Mr. Stryver. It's said that Mr. Carton who is idle and unpromising is one of Mr. Stryver's greatest allys. That being said, I don't think Mr. Stryver is one of the nicest people we'll see in this book. It's also stated that the two men drink very heavily together whether it be night or day, so they're probably not the most responsible lawmen.

Something that I find kind of ironic about these men are the nick-names they bear. Mr. Carton is the Jackal and Mr. Stryver, the Lion. Neither of these two animals symbolize anything bad - a Jackal stands for a guide of souls and is associated with cemetaries, and a lion is considered powerful, majestic, and noble. These are not exactly traits that either man seems to posess, but I suppose it could be foreshaddowing to something farther down the line.

One night the men get together as usual and drink and go over papers when Stryver makes the comment that Carton is lame and serves no energy or purpose. That doesn't seem like they're friends to me and I have yet to fully understand them or their relationship.

No comments: