Dicken’s Sympathy in A Tale of Two Cities A Tale of Two Cities, written by Charles Dickens, follows the French Revolution against the oppression of the French aristocracy in the 1700’s. By reading the novel, the reader can sense the obvious sympathy that Dickens displays for both the French revolutionaries and the French aristocrats in his writing. Sympathy for the revolutionaries is shown through Dicken’s emphasis of the ghastly poverty, pestilence, and oppression that the citizens of France, destined to be revolutionaries, faced for decades. On the other hand, Dickens makes clear the overzealous thirst for blood and brutality of the French revolutionaries who brought unnecessary terror upon the aristocrats. Although Charles Dickens shows
…show more content…
In the novel, Dickens writes, “All the air around was so thick and dark, the people were so passionately revengeful and fitful, the innocent were so constantly put to death on vague suspicion and black malice” (297). This powerful quote strikes the audience with the hard fact that people, innocent people, were put to death by the revolutionaries based on mere suspicion. These revolutionaries whom are supposed to inspire reason and justice instead jump to conclusions and ultimately caused the death of numerous innocent people, more deaths than even the aristocrats before the revolution could be blamed. Also, these revolutionaries were so perverse in their beliefs and accusations that others stood no chance against them or even surviving them. This idea is supported by Sarpparaje, who stated, “Hence, she generalizes that all aristocrats are wicked and deserve to be put to death” (127). Obviously, there are exceptions to the aristocrats’ wicked reputation, represented by Dickens’ character, Charles Darnay, who renounced his claim to the family inheritance for the betterment of the poor (Sarpparaje 127). Still though however, even after witnessing these exceptions, they stayed steadfast in their claim and, in turn, the aristocrats paid the ultimate …show more content…
One article claimed “The people were so poor that the very chance to drink wine, even off the dirty street was too tempting to pass up” (Dickens’ View 1). They argue that Dickens emphasizes how the people suffered while the aristocrats ruled over them and therefore, he is more sympathetic to the revolutionaries. While this point may seem valid, there is evidence to refute it. For example, when the revolutionaries took power in France, they never made an attempt to fix these issues in France. Instead, their sole focus was the executions of those they deemed to be opposing the republic. After the killing of Foulon in the story, all of the revolutionaries returned to celebrate their brutal murder of an aristocrat in their poverty and hunger (Dickens 232). If the revolutionaries truly were suffering these horrible conditions, should that have been their primary objective? Furthermore, if the revolutionaries suffered these conditions and called them unbearable, why should they themselves put those same conditions on their prisoners in La Force (Dickens 266)? Instances like these refute the claim that Dickens is more sympathetic toward the
In the novel, Dickens writes, “All the air around was so thick and dark, the people were so passionately revengeful and fitful, the innocent were so constantly put to death on vague suspicion and black malice” (297). This powerful quote strikes the audience with the hard fact that people, innocent people, were put to death by the revolutionaries based on mere suspicion. These revolutionaries whom are supposed to inspire reason and justice instead jump to conclusions and ultimately caused the death of numerous innocent people, more deaths than even the aristocrats before the revolution could be blamed. Also, these revolutionaries were so perverse in their beliefs and accusations that others stood no chance against them or even surviving them. This idea is supported by Sarpparaje, who stated, “Hence, she generalizes that all aristocrats are wicked and deserve to be put to death” (127). Obviously, there are exceptions to the aristocrats’ wicked reputation, represented by Dickens’ character, Charles Darnay, who renounced his claim to the family inheritance for the betterment of the poor (Sarpparaje 127). Still though however, even after witnessing these exceptions, they stayed steadfast in their claim and, in turn, the aristocrats paid the ultimate …show more content…
One article claimed “The people were so poor that the very chance to drink wine, even off the dirty street was too tempting to pass up” (Dickens’ View 1). They argue that Dickens emphasizes how the people suffered while the aristocrats ruled over them and therefore, he is more sympathetic to the revolutionaries. While this point may seem valid, there is evidence to refute it. For example, when the revolutionaries took power in France, they never made an attempt to fix these issues in France. Instead, their sole focus was the executions of those they deemed to be opposing the republic. After the killing of Foulon in the story, all of the revolutionaries returned to celebrate their brutal murder of an aristocrat in their poverty and hunger (Dickens 232). If the revolutionaries truly were suffering these horrible conditions, should that have been their primary objective? Furthermore, if the revolutionaries suffered these conditions and called them unbearable, why should they themselves put those same conditions on their prisoners in La Force (Dickens 266)? Instances like these refute the claim that Dickens is more sympathetic toward the