Dickens has characterized Doctor Mannet in a way of humbleness, intelligence and loyalty. He sticks by his principals, but not in a way the reader might disagree or repulsed by. He also shows visible strain when confronted by a force which is displeasing to him. One of his worse reactions was when Charles Darnay revealed his true identity. We've seen his good intentions and loyalty through book three and how he is helping the child of a person who destroyed him get out of jail with his life. One scene stands out, however, which could possibly show both his humbleness or his distaste to something. Starting on the bottom of page 341, There is an awkward exchange of money from the noble brothers to the Doctor. "'He had before offered me money, which I had postponed taking. He now gave me a rouleau of gold. I took it from his hand, but laid it on the table. I had considered the question, and had resolved to accept nothing.'... 'Early in the morning, the rouleau of gold was left at my door in a little box, with my name on the outside.'"(341-342).
Doctor Mannet displays very little emotion in this chapter, leaving it up to us, the reader, to interpret whether his action in refusing to accept the gold was his modesty, or his disgust at the nobility. The description of the atrocities that were committed there would lead me to believe that it was complete disgust. If I were in his shoes, having to aid two pompous, and help a person they raped and another they stabbed, then I would be blindingly angry. If it weren't for the Hippocratic Oath, I would have been out of there like it was about to blow. His modesty and clear-head also comes into play, though. Mentioned in the chapter "Calm in the storm", "Among these terrors, and the brood belongings to them, the Doctor walked with a steady head: confident in his power, cautiously persistent in his end, never doubting that he would save Lucie's husband at last."(284) This shows him bearing through executions and nursing all kinds of diseases and ailments back to full health. Never does it say that he asks for payment though. People refer to him as "The Good Physician", so if he has any charge, it is affordable for the average citizen. I, personally would side with notion that the doctor doesn't accept blood-money as the reason for the turn-down of the gold. I would feel guilty receiving money for treating, and not telling. A question did arise at the end of reading this. Did the Marquis give this money as a bribe to remain silent or as a genuine payment for such serious conditions?
A strange part to me about this chapter is that it doesn't reveal many emotions relating to the Doctor. This makes me feel like a fabrications if it is lacking any sort of emotions relating to such a starkly emotional and disgusting scene.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
A game of thrones.
A board of chess was set by Jacques and The King. The King insisted to be white, remarking on its purity an noble history. Jacques complied, picking the black as to represent the oppression and hate building within him. Pieces are laid out and basic strategic planning begins. Basic moves, not conscious of their affect, are preformed by both parties, but a faulty move by the Bishop of The King's side caused a chain reaction that would end up collapsing the white and noble side of the King.
A pawn set out. Its fate unknown by its blind view to the other side. A castle, a blind high power, by chance, ended the life of this mere pawn. This rook, Monsieur de Marquis, a powerful man in the eyes of the aristocracy, carelessly and ruthlessly took this pawn's life. Giving such a disregard of consequences as long as their victory is ensured is a very strong characteristic of a castle. When played, they can spell the doom of many a piece, but normally it will kill and then be killed. It lives by the sword it killed with. Moving for power in the same manner that all others do, Monsieur de Marquis disregards such a killing of a pawn as just an occurance. After all, in his eyes, it is merely just a small piece barely worth recognition. "What has gone wrong"(114) quoth the confused Marquis when he realized the commotion caused by the death of such a petty human. "It is extraordinary to me... that you cannot take care of your own children" (115) he later adds. Just another kill in the eyes of a castle. Little did he know the power behind the daddy of the dead pawn.
Gasard, a bishop, a piece that has all the right intentions but whose movements are different than the others, perhaps more radical, decided to take vengeance on the taking of a mere pawn. Gasard, driven by blood-thirst, swept diagnolly to where the assailing castle stands. In affect, the rook has a similar play as a castle. It is a versatile piece that can spell the doom of any piece that may cross it's path. The bishop, however, has an advantage. It's movement is less predictable and less seen. Moving across rather than forwards cloaks its intentions and movements. Still as reckless as the castle, its death is a seen possibility, but disregarded as not important. The queens and kings of both sides stay put and well. Our friend Jacques drives a steak through the heart of the unsuspecting castle. For vengeance and for Jacques, its motives lie.
Seeing a threat, not a major one, but one none the less, the King commanded his foot soldiers to attack the reckless rook. The positioning was blind and not seen, therefore an easy target for retaliation. As described by the mender of roads, another pawn, "by my heap of stones, to see the soldier and their prisoner pass... "bring him fast to his tomb!"... a man's being impelled forward by the butt-ends of muskets. (174-175.)
The soldiers bring the the reckless rook to justice.
While the mender of roads and other pawns talk to them about their experiences, Madam and monsieur Defarge see over the entire operation and plan in great detail in which order they shall depose of the King's army. Madam Defarge, as depicted in the book, plans her every detail and who she will slay in her knitting, and she is seen doing much of it. The Madam is much more involved in the affairs of the other players in this game. She is seen talking and conversing with the patrons of her bar, she plans the executions of those who wronged them and she has power beyond that of any woman in the day. Just because she "began to pin her rose in her head-dress", she managed to make the customers "gradually to drop out of the wine-shop." (187). She and her husband, a perfect king and queen of the rebellion, sit waiting for the perfect moment. They gain intelligence from their underlings and plan their moves accordingly. A loss of either would be considered a game-ender. A rash move seen by the fast surge in an offensive by the mostly defensive "team Jacques" resulted in a devastating loss for the King. The storming of the Bastille, lead by the Defarges, slew a couple strong men and a castle: the king's governor of that region. Madam Defarge, using her power, executed the governor with ease. Such a usurper was unexpected by the king and queen. A real threat emerged, a retaliation imminent and blood only beginning to spill, the game has only started.
A real threat emerged, a retaliation imminent and blood only beginning to spill, the game has only started. The Jacques' army remains relatively unharmed while the King's army has suffered reasonably more. It has lost two castles and two pawns. Crippling the use of the castles, the Jacques dealt a huge blow to the integrity of the royalty of the time. The conflict between the aristocracy and the peasantry resulted in a game of thrones. People, like pieces of chess, have lined up and taken sides. All hell is to be released for the players, and it is guaranteed, the end of this conflict will not be a clean one.
A pawn set out. Its fate unknown by its blind view to the other side. A castle, a blind high power, by chance, ended the life of this mere pawn. This rook, Monsieur de Marquis, a powerful man in the eyes of the aristocracy, carelessly and ruthlessly took this pawn's life. Giving such a disregard of consequences as long as their victory is ensured is a very strong characteristic of a castle. When played, they can spell the doom of many a piece, but normally it will kill and then be killed. It lives by the sword it killed with. Moving for power in the same manner that all others do, Monsieur de Marquis disregards such a killing of a pawn as just an occurance. After all, in his eyes, it is merely just a small piece barely worth recognition. "What has gone wrong"(114) quoth the confused Marquis when he realized the commotion caused by the death of such a petty human. "It is extraordinary to me... that you cannot take care of your own children" (115) he later adds. Just another kill in the eyes of a castle. Little did he know the power behind the daddy of the dead pawn.
Gasard, a bishop, a piece that has all the right intentions but whose movements are different than the others, perhaps more radical, decided to take vengeance on the taking of a mere pawn. Gasard, driven by blood-thirst, swept diagnolly to where the assailing castle stands. In affect, the rook has a similar play as a castle. It is a versatile piece that can spell the doom of any piece that may cross it's path. The bishop, however, has an advantage. It's movement is less predictable and less seen. Moving across rather than forwards cloaks its intentions and movements. Still as reckless as the castle, its death is a seen possibility, but disregarded as not important. The queens and kings of both sides stay put and well. Our friend Jacques drives a steak through the heart of the unsuspecting castle. For vengeance and for Jacques, its motives lie.
Seeing a threat, not a major one, but one none the less, the King commanded his foot soldiers to attack the reckless rook. The positioning was blind and not seen, therefore an easy target for retaliation. As described by the mender of roads, another pawn, "by my heap of stones, to see the soldier and their prisoner pass... "bring him fast to his tomb!"... a man's being impelled forward by the butt-ends of muskets. (174-175.)
The soldiers bring the the reckless rook to justice.
While the mender of roads and other pawns talk to them about their experiences, Madam and monsieur Defarge see over the entire operation and plan in great detail in which order they shall depose of the King's army. Madam Defarge, as depicted in the book, plans her every detail and who she will slay in her knitting, and she is seen doing much of it. The Madam is much more involved in the affairs of the other players in this game. She is seen talking and conversing with the patrons of her bar, she plans the executions of those who wronged them and she has power beyond that of any woman in the day. Just because she "began to pin her rose in her head-dress", she managed to make the customers "gradually to drop out of the wine-shop." (187). She and her husband, a perfect king and queen of the rebellion, sit waiting for the perfect moment. They gain intelligence from their underlings and plan their moves accordingly. A loss of either would be considered a game-ender. A rash move seen by the fast surge in an offensive by the mostly defensive "team Jacques" resulted in a devastating loss for the King. The storming of the Bastille, lead by the Defarges, slew a couple strong men and a castle: the king's governor of that region. Madam Defarge, using her power, executed the governor with ease. Such a usurper was unexpected by the king and queen. A real threat emerged, a retaliation imminent and blood only beginning to spill, the game has only started.
A real threat emerged, a retaliation imminent and blood only beginning to spill, the game has only started. The Jacques' army remains relatively unharmed while the King's army has suffered reasonably more. It has lost two castles and two pawns. Crippling the use of the castles, the Jacques dealt a huge blow to the integrity of the royalty of the time. The conflict between the aristocracy and the peasantry resulted in a game of thrones. People, like pieces of chess, have lined up and taken sides. All hell is to be released for the players, and it is guaranteed, the end of this conflict will not be a clean one.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Sherlock Holmes, possibly modern literature's best example of an enigmatic genius, is beautifully characterized through a complete lack of empathy, no desire for friends, disregard for societal norms and a strong desire for being right. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle demonstrates such a timeless genius by portraying a protagonist with strong antagonizing characteristics. Sherlock is a cynical sociopath with a habit for drugs and disregard for almost everything except his work. These characteristics blend to create an air of mystery. When confronted with this style of character, I usually hate, love and am intrigued by their seemingly contradictory and complicated minds. They are also candy for my mind; one never knows everything about their psyche. Dickens' insertion of one such character caught my eye. Being self-absorbed, genius and cynical, Sydney Carton immediately conjured an image of Sherlock Holmes. A Sherlock 45 years before Sherlock was dreamed into existence.
While it is not of the arrogant kind, Mr. Carton displays self-pity is his demonstration of self absorption; He puts his own pity in front of every other thing that is occurring around him. Some how he is more important than anyone else in his own world. He even has his own weird dialog with himself on page 89, "Why should you particularly like a man who resembles you? There is nothing in you to like; you know that." Stuck up in his own self-pity and hatred, he doesn't realize that people indeed like him. Sherlock, on the other hand, has too much of a liking for himself. He prides himself to the point of hatred on how well he does his work. He manages to get so absorbed into himself that he completely doesn't regard any other human besides Watson, himself and Ms. Hudson as worth his time.
Such an eccentric character related to Sherlock Holmes makes me wonder if Conan Doyle borrowed much of the character from Dickens. the complications in persona that Carton displays is delicious to read. He can constantly going from what we consider to be in a good mood (his kind anyway) to a bout of self hatred and loathing. The detail that Darnay and Carton are similar looking, but opposite in personality makes think that there will be a strong clash and a bitter ending for Mr. Carton. Such brilliant and complicated characters tend to end in a similar struggle. Moriarty, Sherlock's counter part, was going to be the person to kill him off.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Dichotomy with in Tales of Two Cities.
Dickens is trying to get us to relate to his characters by using contrast and dichotomies in their nature to bring to life the humanity in them. The definition of a dichotomy is the stark contrast between two related ideas. Secrecy and truth illustrate such a literary device. Early on in chapter three, we learn about how Dickens sets the mood. "...every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other." Contrasting with secrecy, truth floods from Jarvis Lorry to Miss Manette when talking about her supposedly deceased father, "But he has been- been found. He is alive. Greatly changed, it is too probable; almost a wreck, it is possible; though we will hope the best." A truth revealed after 17 years of a girls life as well as an offer of hope to a girl who previously thought she was orphaned. Such is a dichotomy of secrecy and truth.
These chapters showed me a spectrum of human emotions and reactions. With varying levels of the different dichotomies, such being truth vs secrecy, fear versus hope and wealth versus crippling poverty, Dickens is able to characterize almost every major player. Dickens shows, not tells. Many of the actions up until now have gone with the conflicting moods. The aforementioned contrast between secrecy and truth with Jarvis Lorry brought him to life. From his fear of the others and his own secrecy, we can tell he is a man that is normally kept to himself. His encounter with the rider demonstrated his secrecy. Speaking in code makes one think that there is something afoot that may have sinister implications. His speech to Miss Manette gives another impression. This is one of dedication to his work, empathy to the young ladies emotions and sympathy for her reaction to the news.
By far, the dichotomies and contrasts that will be seen in the book are located on page one, "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 Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of dispair, 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...". Dickens, through these contrasts allows me relate to the characters by employing human reactions in them. I believe he intended for the book to be about strong contrast. The beginning of the story confirmed this for me.
These chapters showed me a spectrum of human emotions and reactions. With varying levels of the different dichotomies, such being truth vs secrecy, fear versus hope and wealth versus crippling poverty, Dickens is able to characterize almost every major player. Dickens shows, not tells. Many of the actions up until now have gone with the conflicting moods. The aforementioned contrast between secrecy and truth with Jarvis Lorry brought him to life. From his fear of the others and his own secrecy, we can tell he is a man that is normally kept to himself. His encounter with the rider demonstrated his secrecy. Speaking in code makes one think that there is something afoot that may have sinister implications. His speech to Miss Manette gives another impression. This is one of dedication to his work, empathy to the young ladies emotions and sympathy for her reaction to the news.
By far, the dichotomies and contrasts that will be seen in the book are located on page one, "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 Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of dispair, 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...". Dickens, through these contrasts allows me relate to the characters by employing human reactions in them. I believe he intended for the book to be about strong contrast. The beginning of the story confirmed this for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)