Charles Dickens
1859
Around 250 pages
I am currently in bed after a rather serious surgery on my leg and foot. It is uncomfortable as hell and I am not allowed to put weight on the right foot for six weeks. That's right fellas: I am hell on wheels. In any case, I expect to be reading a lot this summer and updating this blog frequently.
I was willing to give Dickens another chance after Nicholas Nickelby and David Copperfield. However, I am forced to realize that giving a man a second chance is always a stupid thing to do. This was one of the dullest books I have ever read.
If you haven't read the book, the only part you are probably familiar with is the opening sentence, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." For those of you don't understand this quote, it means that its the best of times when you are not reading this novel and the worst of times when you are. That is my interpretation at least.
Basically, this book is about the start of the French Revolution. While this might sound interesting, there are so many boring characters thrown into the mix and it becomes exceedingly dull. Lucie Manette is a character we all seen roughly 500 times? She is a perfect, meek angel that everybody falls in love with. Groan.
Overall, one of my least favorite Dickens' novel. Hopefully the next one will serve as a better distraction.
RATING: *----
Interesting Facts:
Most of the characters in this novel are flat.
A Tale of Two Cities is considered the least humorous of Dickens' novels.
UP NEXT: Max Havelaar by Multatuli. Huh?
5 comments:
I truly enjoyed this book when I read it many years ago. The history, London, revolutionaries...I liked it all. Now that I have more books behind me in life, I may not feel the same way, but it was one of my favorite Dickens novels.
A friend told me how a guy at work was explaining that he often started to read books but never got around to finishing them. Whereupon another colleague piped up "So, for you, it was the best of times and the worst of times but f*** knows why."
This is the only Dickens novel I've read and I couldn't connect with it at all. Too much seemed to be based upon coincidences which were neither captivating nor remotely plausible. But seeing that you disliked it so much also and yet liked other Dickens so much makes me think I should take a taste of him again some time.
I'll be interested to see if you like David Copperfield as much as I did. Some authors need many chances! That's why I keep trying Salman Rushdie even though I hate it.
Not the autobiography of the magician?
OK, I'll try and get a copy. There's a long queue on my bookshelf though, so it'll be at least a couple more years after that before it gets to the front to be read.
Right, I'm talking about the hot David Copperfield. I'm just kidding, my literary crush was on Steerforth in this novel.
Post a Comment