Tale Of Two Cities Sympathy

In A Tale of Two Cities, key elements of the plot revolve around the reader’s opinions of two opposing forces of the novel: the bloodthirsty revolutionaries and the decadent aristocracy. To his credit, Dickens does make allusions to some of the horrific acts indulged in by the French rebels, although examples of this are few and far between; he more often chooses to focus on the deplorable acts committed by the formerly ruling aristocracy. Though some may think that the disapproval for the revolution’s more brutal side would tarnish his reputation among progressives, he slyly managed to disguise the disapproval he wanted to audience to feel in sympathy for characters and remains an avid supporter of the people’s right to revolt against tyrannical …show more content…
One would find it a rather difficult task to inspire sympathy for the frankly barbaric revolutionaries, but somehow he manages. A Tale of Two Cities features many awe-inspiring scenes of noble insurgent leadership, sweet retribution and epic battles, despite the somewhat gritty truth. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is Dickens's portrayal of the infamous storming of the Bastille. In this account the “raging” battle lasted for “[f]our fierce hours” (Dickens 213), and includes fantasies an epic clash between good and evil, where the villains are forced to surrender within an inch of their lives, despite the fact that history says otherwise. The disappointingly anticlimactic truth is that the Swiss officers posted on duty let down the drawbridge almost immediately, dispelling the need for a heroic struggle, and almost no guards were killed that day, but that just wouldn’t fit the narrative well enough. The one time Dickens upfrontly addressed the animalistic brutality in which the revolutionaries operated, or the horrific September Massacres was in a single paragraph where he describes some ruffians sharpening their bloody tools at a grindstone in France. Another possibly more justifiable example of Dickens's favoritism is his collectively negative representation of the upper class. One of the more subtle, but very potent, examples of this is …show more content…
He was very supportive of the revolution during the first half of the book in particular, something he makes quite clear with his romantic portrayal of the revolution and emphasis on the deplorable actions of the aristocracy. The part he does disagree with is the methods used by the revolutionaries. What was originally a noble cause of equality and liberation quickly disintegrated into an authoritarian, thought-policing, blood soaked regime that murdered the very people it was created to help. Madame Defarge, the true embodiment of the revolution, reflects how the hypocrisy of the revolution. Her anger and hatred for the aristocracy began when they inspired terror, murdered innocents and tore her family apart. Years later, she very justly responds by inspiring terror, murdering innocents and tearing families apart. The revolutionaries became the very thing they fought so hard to tear down. Revolutions like this, based on vengeance and hate, will only eat themselves and end with another bloody revolt- which was precisely Dickens’s point. Hate and injustice cannot conquer hate and injustice; only love and mercy can do that. Dickens affirms that while it is just for the people to revolt, using mercy and forgiveness instead of anger and hate is, in his eyes, the only way to break the cycle of tyrannical