Talk:A Tale of Two Cities/Archive 1

Note about text removal
I should have mentioned this earlier, but I decided to remove the incident about Jerry Cruncher attempting to dig up Roger Cly's body and about him later confronting John Barsad (Solomon Pross) for having removed it, as these events are not crucial to the outcome of the story. - Conrad Devonshire 02:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you guys have noticed, but the article got ... owned. Just a heads up. --A faithful Wikipedian.

i have a question is it possible to get a list of the characters in this novel and what chapters they get introduced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.175.30 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

EDIT
Afterwards, he goes back into his shop and talks to a group of fellow revolutionaries, who call each other (for anonymity) "Jacques"

changed to

Afterwards, he goes back into his shop and talks to a group of fellow revolutionaries, who call each other "Jacques"

Them being called Jacques is Dickens' way of emphasising the collective...it's not really for anonymity.
 * It is a matter of opinion (not fact) what Dickens's intention was here; I'd say it's both for anonymity and to underline the collective, but I do not believe this can be proved either way. --DiderotWasRight (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've slightly re-written the opening sentence of the second book's description to include that five years have passed. Maybe somebody could word it a little better than I did? Darkmeerkat 15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Big text

I do believe That this novel have three books: "Recalled to Life", "The Golden Thread", and "The Track of a Storm". Please Add the third book into the page. A.K.F.

The closing line of the book, "It is a 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." is also equally famous as the opening line. Binand

I would concur. I'll add it in. john k 22:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be nitpicking, but Sidney Carton doesn't actually speak those words. If you read the last chapter carefully ([|Charles Dickens Online]), you will realise that the mood of the chapter is that had he spoken or written down his last thoughts, then he'd probably have said or penned this line (and most of the chapter as well). Binand

I agree, but how do you put that in the article without making it a "Rosebud"-type spoiler? Ellsworth 22:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The last line may well be famous, but nowhere near as much as the opening line. People who have never heard of A Tale of Two Cities or even Charles Dickens can recite it, which is not the case with the closing. I have made an amendment.Tellkel 14:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"The novel covers a period in history between 1757 and 1793, from the Seven Years War until the middle period of the French Revolution." Yet the first chapter cleary tells us that "It was the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five." Countmippipopolous

Right, but the way it is now, you get the historical backdrop of the novel. If you just write "1795", some people might not know that it was during the Revolution. Peaceman 29 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)


 * No, the fellow with the long name is correct - the novel starts in 1775 (as Dickens alludes to the American Revolution and other such events). By the way, you can sign your name with, or use ~ to sign and date - like this. 140.247.23.18 1 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)
 * In the Penguin Classics edition, there is a useful timeline. While the narration begins in 1775, the first event mentioned in the novel (in what we would today call a "flashback") is when the Evremonde brothers hire Dr. Manette--this occurs on December 22, 1757.DiderotWasRight (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And someone needs to finish the article - as it is now, it seems like the book ends on a massive cliffhanger (he's put into jail... and then...?) :-). I would suggest not quite spoiling the ending - stop the summary before you know who does you know what :-). 140.247.23.18 1 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

Heading text
Is "like a true Dickensian patsy" properly neutral language? Orbst 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am removing references to "Ms." Manette, as the title Ms. was not invented until the 20th century; until then, women were either "Miss" (if unmarried) or "Mrs." (if married).DiderotWasRight (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias
It seems that some of the article has opinions or bias in certain areas. -kirby145
 * Unless you can point out specific problems, I'm removing the NPOV tag on the article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Analysis
Is the novel really balanced? It may depict the atrocities of both 'sides', but it's also a classic case of a British depiction of all French being psychos. 163.1.99.26 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I diagree. The novel does not target the French in particular, but humankind in general: I suggest you read Chapter 1, paying attention to the paragraph about England.Reimtus (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes; Charles Dickens shows how the human spirit can thirst for revenge so much that they sink to and below the level of those they take revenge against. Fooglemaster (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The critic Ruth Glancy makes an argument that convinced me to the effect that France and England are seen as equivalently bad at the beginning of the novel, but as the novel progresses, the British look better and better in comparison to the French.--DiderotWasRight (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly England as much as the English characters. But remember that both Darnay and Lucie, important protaganists, are of French descent. While the French do look worse, it doesn't mean to belittle the country: rather, it is to portray the atrocities of the time. Also, note that the majority of the novel after Book One takes place in France; we are not updated of the affairs of the British. So technically they could be equally bad, just not explained in the novel. 71.193.160.181 (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of paragraph in Themes - Recalled to Life
I rewrote a paragraph in the "Themes - Recalled to Life" section to clarify and correct the following:

Corrected the timeline to show that the message "Recalled to Life" is actually the first appearance of the theme of "Resurrection".

Changed a sentence to clarify that Jerry is the messenger, not the one receiving the message, and moved "He [Lorry] regards himself as the vehicle for Dr. Manette's revival" to another part of the paragraph because this is not implied until after he gives the message to Jerry.

Changed sentence because Lorry does not actually repeatedly think of the words "buried alive" (he says that phrase just once at the end of the chapter), rather he imagines a conversation with that implied theme.

Removed "He sees the candles on the table in the inn as being buried 'in deep graves of black mahogany'", since this image does not relate to the topic of this paragraph, "Resurrection", although it may be useful later in this section when the theme of "Death" is treated.

Changed "He believes that he will physically "dig" Dr. Manette from his grave", because he does not literally think that he will do so, as this would imply, but rather imagines himself digging - "the passenger in his fancy would dig" (from the text) - during his imaginary conversation with Dr. Manette.

Katsmeowie (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Second Book, Chapter XVIII "Nine Days"
I am reverting this section from Book 2, Chapter 18 from...

"On the morning of his marriage to Lucie, Darnay reveals to Dr Manette that his true last name is Evrémonde, a fact which Dr Manette had asked him to withhold until then.Dr Manette is grieved that his daughter is getting married and leaving him, which causes him to revert back to his obsessive shoe making. He eventually recovers after 'Nine Days' the title of Chap. 18. Mr Lorry and Miss Pross, who nurse Dr Manette back to health, realise he was unhinged by the loss of his daughter to a husband; neither they nor the reader yet know the significance of the Evrémonde family to Dr Manette."

...to this older version from early 2008:

"On the morning of the marriage, Darnay, at Dr. Manette's request, reveals who his family is, a detail which Dr. Manette had asked him to withhold until then. This unhinges Dr. Manette, who reverts to his obsessive shoemaking. His sanity is restored before Lucie returns from her honeymoon; to prevent a further relapse, Lorry destroys the shoemaking bench, which Dr. Manette had brought with him from Paris."

Dr. Manette admits in the next chapter that Darnay's secret revived the memories that led to his original malady in prison. It seems misleading to suggest that he's relapsed due to his daughter's wedding.Grmagne (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The novel was published in weekly instalments (not monthly, as with most of his other novels).
This is false, as the novel was published simultaneously in monthly editions of the work, in order to satisfy his audience that wanted more content as opposed to 'reading in teaspoons'. 193.61.255.86 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ISBN and page numbers
About the ISBN and page numbers: could I add these from the 2004 Barnes and Nobles publishing or must it be from the original publishing? If it must be from the original, would we keep the ISBN row in the info box as N/A or would it be better if that were removeed? Chandra K-R (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
I would be useful to include the famous "best of times, worst of times" opening sentence, perhaps even the entire opening paragraph, from the novel. I'm not sure how to insert it, though, since it would probably be best to include a couple of sentences of summarization or analysis (and citations) as well. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC) "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

Justin Bieber is credited as an author of this work, and appears as such in abstract delivered with Google search results. Recommend deletion of Bieber's name from article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.149.243.137 (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Simpsons
The simpsons have a reference to Tale of Two Cities when showings the infinite monkey theorem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.202.142 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How wonderful. Let's make sure the NY Times runs a piece about this at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.196.2 (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How does one "allay frogs"?
Quote from article: "He orders Madame Defarge's sick brother-in-law to heave a cart all day and allay frogs at night..."

I'm very competent in English, but this is a usage I've never encountered before. I understand one can allay fears, suspicions, concerns, etc... But how in hell does one ally frogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.111.155 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is quite a quirky usage. The text of the novel says this: "You know that it is among their Rights to keep us in their grounds all night, quieting the frogs, in order that their noble sleep may not be disturbed." DiderotWasRight (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Allay, as in to remedy; the peasants are required to walk around the grounds and gardens all night removing or chasing frogs away from the chateau, or simply walking about since their movement and proximity stops the frogs from croaking. Walking around in cricket-infested areas will produce the same effect.219.101.196.2 (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Article is too long and needs references
The article needs to be streamlined and references need to be added.--Bing Norton 10:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)

check the first paragraph for vandalism
I am not sure that the page was completely restored. Look at the first paragraph of the article:

A Tale of Two Cities (1859) is a novel by Charles Dickens, set in London and Paris before and during the French Revoluinon It's about a lonely old housewife, who just wants to make it to Baltimore, but is stuck in Alabama. I don't know enough about the topic to change it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.236.211 (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Jerry => Jeremiah?
The article states Jerry stands for Jeremiah, but this is not explicitly mentioned in the book. The article on the name states one of 5 etymologies are possible 5.102.238.27 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Inline Citations
Hello! I have attempted to verify claims and add inline citations for the Wikipedia article on "A Tale of Two Cities". As mentioned on the project page of Core Content Policies, articles must be: verifiable (V), written in a neutral point of view (NPOV), and void of original research (NOR). I checked that statements were properly attributed to reliable sources and removed any that cannot be verified. I consulted and cited these reliable sources when required, which include the novel and other published sources that the author may have possibly referred to in their work.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jay_Thiru/sandbox Jay Thiru (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hey Jay,

It appears to be fine, though you should be using the same source to cite quotes from ATOTC. It is a minor though, so don't worry.

Best wishes! Synergy028 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the lead
I'm thinking that the lead is not the ideal place for the detailed discussion of the novels publication history as a serial work; it seems possibly the least germane information in the entire article, relative to the needs and interests of our average reader.  S n o w  talk 01:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

More Detail on characters, Please
I don't think Jarvis Lorry has a satisfactory amount of information about asforesaid character within this article. Ciao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racooon (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see (2 Feb 2010) Charles Darnay's family name as "Evremonde" in some places in the article, "St. Evremonde" in other places; (neglecting the diacritical marks). Which one is his true family name? Can someone determine the correct name and fix the article? C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the character articles, how is it that The Seamstress (a minor character featured only in 4 pages throughout the novel) has a more complete article than any of the other characters? Can somebody edit and revamp the character articles so that they're more complete? Also, can somebody add articles to the other characters, please?

Thanks, Chandra K-R (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference to Miss Pross becoming "permanently deaf" in the summary of Book III is incorrect. There is no suggestion of permanence nor additional information about what happens to her subsequently. Indeed, if anything, the short passage after Madame Defarge's death might imply a passing and temporary condition.219.101.196.2 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)TexxasFinn


 * No, the reference is correct. "The Knitting Done" ends with Jerry commenting that if she cannot hear the tumbrils rolling through the streets, she never will hear again - followed by the sentence, "And indeed she never did."67.197.38.247 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps St. Antoine should be added as a character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memeri (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

200 m copies
This extraordinary claim was added a good few years ago, supported by a somewhat dubious source, to whit a review of a Broadway production:

"Broadway.com on A Tale of Two Cities: "Since its inaugural publication on 30 August 1859, A Tale of Two Cities has sold over 200 million copies in several languages, making it one of the most famous books in the history of fictional literature." (24 March 2008)"

This claim has been questioned several times over at Talk:List_of_best-selling_books, and the source was eventually replaced with:

"Mitchell, David. (8 May 2010) "David Mitchell on Historical Fiction", The Telegraph: "Charles Dickens’ second stab at a historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities, has sold more than 200 million copies to date, making it the bestselling novel — in any genre — of all time....""

This source, unfortunately, was written long after the claim was included both here and in the list (and indeed copied all over the Internet). I have raised this issue at the RS noticeboard and the talk page of the list.

Moreover the figure of 200m for one Dickens book does not tie in with what we do know about the total sales of his entire oeuvre.

For these reasons I am removing the claim until and unless better sourcing can be found.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC).


 * Hmm I just readded it based on Reuters article (2012) before seeing this here. I guess one can be concerned that new articles might have picked up the figure from Wikipedia, but i don't think we simply can exclude all newer because Wikipedia was already around. Other sources I found were BBC (2014) Sydney Morning Herald (2014), Interational Business Times (2014), [Irish Times (2014), Daily Mail (2012), The Star (2012), book (2010). Though there are plenty none of them is really a strong source and all from 2010 or later and i couldn't find any earlier source, which might indeed suggest that the 200 million is an urban myth that was started by that broadway site and probably spread through Wikipedia. However since I only did a superficial source without access the various (academic) libraries and archives, there still might be a scholarly article that came up with that figure. One link I found that might be a week hint in that direction was the following test question: GMAT. Overall I think you are right that without a hard source this 200 million claim might be too iffy.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-removed. I have "reached out" to David Mitchell to see if he can remember his source. Other sources I have contacted have either not responded or have confirmed that they used Wikipedia as a source. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC).


 * It should be mentioned that Rich's fine work is mentioned in this May 2016 article in The Times Literary Supplement/ .  Though I think the author's claim that "we have no remotely reliable sales figures for books published more than a couple of decades ago" is not entirely true.  We may not have consistently reliable information to make bestsellers lists before 1900 (though scholars have tried), but some publishers did keep good records even 100 years ago.  The problem is many others freely embellished their numbers, and unauthorized copies abounded in the 1800s.--Milowent • hasspoken  22:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on A Tale of Two Cities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928035806/http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=611 to http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=611

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Collapse chat
Madame Defarge as a victim

To my mind it is obvious that madame Defarge must be wieved and should be portrayed as a victim. More specifically of marquis d´Evremonde(= "marquis Anyone"). He is the true villain of the piece whose evil makes itself felt even long after his own death! Who could go through what Therese later Defarge has suffered without becoming hardened and vengeful?Therese Defarge is an Antagonist but not a Villain" Her actions towards Charles and Lucie should not be exscused or defended - but well Herself! L´Ancien regime as portrayed by Dickens only get what they deserves! Miss Pross becoming permanently deaf must be almost a divine punishment for her role in madame Defarges demise.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Characters
I have expanded the thumbnail sketches of the characters and reordered them, but now I'm wondering if efficiency wouldn't be better served by merging the independent articles on each character back into the main article. Any strong feelings on the topic?

Hungrydog55 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The independent articles on some characters have a focus on who portrayed the character in adaptations. That is not so interesting for this article, about the novel. Thus I would let the separate articles stand, to cover the adaptations and the actors. There are nice illustrations for the characters in those free-standing articles; including a few of the illustrations might be good. The Literary Significance section is way too thin; that needs work. Someone could translate "Accueil et critique" section in the French Wikipedia article on this novel as one way to expand the Literary significance section in this article. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourced Material
There is an issue with some editors deleting sourced material, probably needs monitoring as it comes across as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.63.199 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Editor 79.66.63.199, can you explain further and give full details for the sources and prove their worth. Why the fuss, the fact that the novel has been very popular is clearly stated in the lede? Rwood128 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

How can a source be unworthy? surely the fuss is the constant removal of sourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.63.199 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Also I've just checked both the Guardian and Telegraph sources and they both corroborate the sources I was adding and I've found one fromt the BBC as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.63.199 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, 79.66.63.199, for providing full and reliable sources. As far as I can see this is what User talk:Paige PG was asking for, so I don't see any vandalism. I have deleted the two contentious citations, as you provided two sound examples. Rwood128 (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But see A Tale of Two Cities, which suggest that such a claim in newspaper articles can well be unreliable. Anyhow the number of copies actually sold is a trivial (unverifiable) matter: the main point is the high popularity of the novel. I will delete the contested matter. I hope that this will end, what really is a storm in a teacup! Rwood128 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask why Peter Thonemann word should be considered enough to discredit multiple academics? and why thiscois source is considered overriding? I genreally understood that NewsCorp wasn't considerable reputable other than for sports reporting etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.63.199 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You have a point, but surely it would be impossible to arrive at any true figure, and this article does clearly indicate the popularity of the novel The 200 million is obviously just a guess. Rwood128 (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

200 million copies
Chris PTR, I don't understand your recent revert. The 200 million copies sold is both trivia and obviously one person's wild guess. Can you reconsider? Rwood128 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note also the suggestion that this figure may well originated in a dubious Wikipedia entry. Anyhow guesses and trivia don't have a place in a lede. Rwood128 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you commenting on this line under the heading "Publication History"?:
 * The Telegraph and The Guardian[2][3] claim that it is one of the best-selling novels of all time, and quote a fictitious figure of 200 million copies sold since its first publication."
 * If so, my input is that I came here to create a Talk section pointing out that this line and in particular the adjective "fictitious" seems, how should I say? ... unhelpful in an encyclopedic article and unsupported by credible citations. Just sayin'. But as there is obviously a mature and reasonable discussion already underway on this topic I need say no more.
 * Wayne 10:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Wayne, in light of your comment I have replaced "fictitious". Hope this settles things. Rwood128 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the effort, Rwood128, but my response is: "Not really". Note that I don't really like those sources for that statement either.1 But if the number can't be reliably attributed to an authoritative source, then just delete it (with an explanation in Talk, (where one might more sensibly trot out Thonemann's2 argument per Ref 27) of course) rather than going all "fictitious" and "without any supporting evidence". Anyway, I'm done. Peace, out. --Wayne 14:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 The Guardian article cited includes the number in a quote of one "Peter Harrington, a rare-book seller in London". The Telegraph article is a Theatre review, presumably written by a junior journalist, of a stage adaptation of ATOTC.
 * 2 I could also point out that Thonemann's article in the TLS, (at least up to the point that I can read without subscribing) fails utterly to provide any citations of reliable sources, but that would be, perhaps, too flippant. Wayne 14:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I have deleted. The above is a good enough explanation. The number of publications is a more accurate indication of the novel's popularity. Rwood128 (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Themes section is a series of personal essays
The whole Themes section of this article (including Resurrection, Water, Darkness and light, and Social justice) is essentially unsourced. Although there are a few embedded citations, they almost all support direct quotations and there is nothing to support any of the literary criticism arguments. This is a seminal book about which there is a lot of scholarship, and our readers deserve better than what appear to be unsourced personal essays. Unless anyone is able to fully source the arguments, the whole section should be deleted. That may perhaps encourage editors to build something better, based on scholarly sources. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No change since being tagged as problematic a month ago, so I've deleted the section. We now need a new one, based on some actual sources. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Michael Maggs, as with some other articles on Dickens, | the French Wikipedia might be useful. I'll try and find time to check further. Rwood128 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Would be great if you could. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)