Two books: The Scarlet Pimpernel and A Tale of Two Cities. Both deal with Revolutionary France, the awful stuff going on there, life in England, and escape from awful Revolutionary France. One is considered an essential piece of literature by a renowned author, and the other is heard of by some people. I'm going to compare these two.
The major difference between the Scarlet Pimpernel (SP) and A Tale of Two Cities (TTC) is the language. In TTC, Charles Dickens never ceases to confuse most modern readers with his writing style, although if you get the hang of reading his style, it does open up more than the more contemporary style. In SP, the language is very readable and at times seems to be written for children.
Both have pretty profound characters. Although it is debatable that the TTC characters have more depth, the characters in SP (especially Lady Blakeney) face complex moral dilemmas because of the relationships they have with other characters.
Then there's just the fun attitude of SP whereas TTC is almost completely dark the whole way through except for some bits of romance and victory. In fact, I'd almost say that SP presents a better theme because it's more colorful with fun, darkness, mystery, romance, and adventure that is much more clearly presented than in TTC.
And then there's how each book presented the time period. I'm not going to argue that TTC did a worse job of presenting the bloodshed and abysmal state of Revolutionary France, but I will argue that SP got the feeling across all that it needed to. In the first chapter, we witness through quick character connections, how awful Revolutionary France is, and how awesome this guy who sneaks out all the aristocrats is.
Then there's their representation of England. A Tale of Two Cities did almost nothing with the second city - London. TTC focused on the awfulness of France, sure, that's fine. But I'd say that SP did a step up from TTC by showing the nobility in England compared to the common people. In France, the divide was enough to start a bloody revolution, but in England, the people peaceably grumble and bear it. I missed that in TTC and was glad to see it in SP.
I really don't know why TTC is so much more popular than SP. Maybe it was because of how popular it was at the time. But that's unfair. SP presented, in my opinion, a better comparison of France and England at the end of the eighteenth century and had more fun with their characters. Also, it had three twists that stood out to me. Two I never suspected, and the third I saw coming from a long way off, but I give it slack because the other two were amazing. Anyway, I'm just sort of mad that some books become heralded by the intellectual community so that other, more fun books with colorful and relatable characters dealing with the same issues as the "intellectual books" get left int he dust. It's not fair. But I learned that in Princess Bride. Another awesome book left in the dust by intellectuality. I want to start a revolution and chop off all those intellectual heads. Bleah.
The major difference between the Scarlet Pimpernel (SP) and A Tale of Two Cities (TTC) is the language. In TTC, Charles Dickens never ceases to confuse most modern readers with his writing style, although if you get the hang of reading his style, it does open up more than the more contemporary style. In SP, the language is very readable and at times seems to be written for children.
Both have pretty profound characters. Although it is debatable that the TTC characters have more depth, the characters in SP (especially Lady Blakeney) face complex moral dilemmas because of the relationships they have with other characters.
Then there's just the fun attitude of SP whereas TTC is almost completely dark the whole way through except for some bits of romance and victory. In fact, I'd almost say that SP presents a better theme because it's more colorful with fun, darkness, mystery, romance, and adventure that is much more clearly presented than in TTC.
And then there's how each book presented the time period. I'm not going to argue that TTC did a worse job of presenting the bloodshed and abysmal state of Revolutionary France, but I will argue that SP got the feeling across all that it needed to. In the first chapter, we witness through quick character connections, how awful Revolutionary France is, and how awesome this guy who sneaks out all the aristocrats is.
Then there's their representation of England. A Tale of Two Cities did almost nothing with the second city - London. TTC focused on the awfulness of France, sure, that's fine. But I'd say that SP did a step up from TTC by showing the nobility in England compared to the common people. In France, the divide was enough to start a bloody revolution, but in England, the people peaceably grumble and bear it. I missed that in TTC and was glad to see it in SP.
I really don't know why TTC is so much more popular than SP. Maybe it was because of how popular it was at the time. But that's unfair. SP presented, in my opinion, a better comparison of France and England at the end of the eighteenth century and had more fun with their characters. Also, it had three twists that stood out to me. Two I never suspected, and the third I saw coming from a long way off, but I give it slack because the other two were amazing. Anyway, I'm just sort of mad that some books become heralded by the intellectual community so that other, more fun books with colorful and relatable characters dealing with the same issues as the "intellectual books" get left int he dust. It's not fair. But I learned that in Princess Bride. Another awesome book left in the dust by intellectuality. I want to start a revolution and chop off all those intellectual heads. Bleah.
RSS Feed