The story itself brings to light the differences between London and Paris during the French Revolution. I love the storyline itself as it is packed with drama and suspense in rescue of an innocent doctor accused of treason by a treasoness government. While the story it dark and very intricately written, it is by no means a book that can be read at one's own leisure. If put down, it is easy to be confused on where the story left off and where it is going. The wordage is sometimes confusing and the story jumps around much which can complicate things if you don't read the story straight through. I remember reading this 14 years ago and being completely confused by everything about the story and only just recently was able to fully appreciate the genius writing.

the first half the book is very long, has a large cast of characters and doesnt seem to have decided which of the threads is the best one to follow. the second half is much better. but the end, the end is such a wonderful accumulation of the all the events and the characters that, if the story was a well then the beginning would be the bricks the hold the sides the second half would be the darkens at the bottom and the end would be the water itself welling up and spilling out the readers eyes.

A Tale of Two Cities is arguably Dickens' greatest work. It is epic in scope, loving in detail and haunting in its imagery.
The concept is instantly accessible; nowadays there are dozens of movies and hundreds of books that come out every year where someone's story is told "against the backdrop of (Insert Your Choice of Civil Strife Here)." A Tale of Two Cities neatly fits into this genre, though you could argue that it created this genre and you wouldn't be overstepping things too much.
As it is, we follow a series of characters back and forth across the channel between England and France during the years leading up to and including the French Revolution. There are those who would be turned off by such a plot, imagining dusty old rooms and stuffy language, and that would be a shame. Barring the fact that Dickens wrote over a hundred years ago the story is shockingly fresh and action packed. You have intrigue and covert operations and underworld organizations and rape and murder and grave robbing and family revelations and really it's quite the roller coaster ride which, for the most part, sticks to the world of the street instead of the drawing room.
That being said, it is Dickens and Dickens got paid by the word, so things can seem a bit overly descriptive at times. On the other hand, it is Dickens and he is a master storyteller, so any number of things I was rolling my eyes at in early chapters came, in later chapters, to be of absolute importance, making me feel sheepish for questioning their lengthy descriptions earlier.
Likewise, at first it seems like Dickens is just introducing characters for the sake of introducing characters, but every one of them comes into their own at some point to push the story forward into its perfect conclusion.
Give this book a read, don't be scared off because it's Dickens, don't be scared off because its old, don't be scared off because it deals with history. Get over those things and you'll be sucked into one of the best tales ever woven.

I was assigned A Tale of Two Cities for school. It wasn't the most exciting novel ever in the beginning (actually it was a bit boring) but at the beginning of the 3rd installment, I couldn't put it down. Everything started to come together, and I was able to start to see through the thick haze of tangled plot lines and characters that covered the first half of the book. It amazed me how Charles Dickens could tie up all of the loose ends and not forget a single thread.

One of the things that bothered me in this novel, and it's one of the things I've noticed in Dickens' other books too, is that most all of his characters are on a one-way road. For example, Lucie Manette is perfectly good and loving and nice. I kinda wanted to call her simpering at times. This novel had some more rounded characters in it, like Sydney Carton and Mr. Manette, and I liked that a lot.

If high school teachers want to force-feed this to their students, I would suggest trying to relate events then to events now to make it more interesting , because I had some trouble plodding through the first 20 chapters of the book before it got interesting. Overall, I liked A Tale of Two Cities a lot and I think I'll probably re-read it in the future.

It's no coincidence this is a classic. It's also no classic without quite a few coincidences. Charles Dickens plays freely with the laws of averages and chance, and expects his readers to buy into his premises. Once that is done--and for me, it was a simple decision to dive in with joy and dread--the book reads quickly, while still dealing with a cast of rich characters.

A Tale of Two Cities is the story of London and Paris (mostly the latter), on the eve of the French Revolution and leading into that turbulent period. There are prisoners with hidden secrets, nobles with hidden pasts, and scoundrels with hidden goodness. As the slow fuse burns, the chaos and horror of the Revolution approaches--mirroring in some ways the American Revolution that had preceded it, but with a much more violent nature--and then draws the key characters into its net of suspicion and danger. From Dr. Manette, a troubled soul, and his sweet daughter, to Charles Darnay and the steadfast accountants, housekeepers, and friends that surround them, this is a story of goodness in the face of great evil.

Despite that evil, Dickens has a keen eye and ear for the toils of the poor, and he makes the initial motives of his revolutionaries clear, without glorifying or completely demonizing them. This is a story that deals with oppression and class struggle, with elitism and common decency, and with the bravery that resides in even the most unlikely hearts.

Yes, the coincidences mount up at certain points, but I couldn't help but be swept away by Dickens' clear care for his characters, for the cities and times in which the story takes place, and for the English language as a means of entertaining, educating, and challenging his readers' minds. This is a classic for a reason, and I think it holds up strongly even today.