A Treatise on Human Nature

There's going to be a lot of these in the future, I'm sure. Well, here's the first, I suppose... Today I have come to the conclusion of several things: 1.) A Tale of Two Cities has, essentially, no bad guys. No one person can be blamed for bad things that happen in the story, because they’re not doing anything to “better themselves.” They’re only doing what they feel is right, especially due to previous wrongs done to them. Like, Sydney Carton. He is a miserable wretch, and yet willing to give his life for those the cares about. He falls in love with Lucie Manette, yet feels incredibly unworthy of her love in return, because she is a kind, good-hearted person and beautiful person, inside and out. Though he knows she loves another, Charles Darnay, he one day swears her to secrecy and confesses his true feelings to her. She does not return his love, but feels compassion and pity for him (which is really all he asks of her), and wants to help him in whatever way she can. He gives her up to Darnay, because it will make her happy. He has, in all honesty, given up on himself because he has no faith in happiness for himself anymore. So he devotes his life to those he cares about--Lucie and her family (because anything and anyone that makes Lucie happy will make Sydney happy). Though he is a depressed drunk, a lost cause, someone who will ever be able to fulfill the potential he once had or do anything more with his life, he is a good person. In fact, he is probably the best human of the story, because he martyrs himself to save Charles, Lucie’s husband. He goes to the guillotine in his place to insure that Lucie’s family can go on living. For this, though he is first portrayed as hopeless, he is truly the hero of the story. For those who have never read A Tale of Two Cities, I’m sorry. I just spoiled the ending for you. But I believe that it is worth it to read anyway (though I acknowledge my bias, as it is my favorite book of all time) and my speculations are still meaningful (also biased, cuz I’m pretty sure I’m amazing =D). Now, let me turn the focus of my discussion to another, rather less saintly character, Madame Defarge. She is the wife of a wine seller, and when the bloody frenzy of the French Revolution strikes, she is gladly swept into its midst. She has seen the poorest of the poor and knows what the richest of the rich are capable of doing. So as revolution brews, she knits, always knits, and into her knitting transcribes a list of those who she deems need to be punished for crimes against humanity, once the brewing turmoil finally erupts into revolt. She is ruthless, and if one WERE to deem one character as the book’s “villain,” she would most likely be their first choice. She loses favor because she demands that one of the story’s heroes, Charles Darnay, be sent to the guillotine, because he is the son of an aristocrat who viciously abused and murdered her family. Though Charles had renounced his family and chosen to live peacefully under an English name, Madame Defarge still insists that he be killed, to avenge her family by fulfilling the curse on his house that her brother had laid with his dying words. With this demand, the reader is to think that she has gone too far (and she has). She takes matters into her own hands when she tries to kill Lucie and their child, and when she is killed in the process, the reader is meant to feel no remorse, because the innocent are safe. Or, as a well known musical puts it, “No one mourns the wicked.” But was she really that wicked? Can you really call her a villain for trying to avenge her family? The murderer was never caught, never punished for his crimes. Can you call Madame Defarge wicked in her desperation for SOMEONE to pay for everyone she loved being stolen away from her? I don’t believe you can. Certainly, you can say that she was wrong to blame Charles for his father’s crimes. No child should be punished for what their parents have done. That is Madame Defarge’s mistake. But she is not evil, and I do not believe that anyone in A Tale Of Two Cities is. 2.) Everyone is a little bit guilty for the tragedy in Frankenstein--Victor, the creature, and society. I come to this conclusion because each can be blamed for driving one of the others to do something to further the tragedy: Education drives Victor to create, but he creates something ugly because he wants to succeed as quickly as he can to get glory; society rejects the monster because he doesn’t fit in; and the monster tries to destroy everything Frankenstein holds dear and decides to wage war against humanity because he is given no love or acceptance (the list can be expanded to include more of the individual events of the book, but that’s about the gist of it). What I wonder is, do they (or we) really benefit from playing the blame game? The course of events leads from one thing to another almost as if there WAS no alternative. But there IS, isn’t there? What if Frankenstein had loved his monster instead of running away? Well, then the story wouldn’t be a tragedy, I suppose. But that story probably could not have been written in the way that this one was, because Frankenstein’s author, Mary Shelley, put a lot of her own feelings into the story of the monster. She too felt like an abandoned child, her father distant, cold and unloving, her mother dead... But back to Frankenstein. If he had cared for his creation, he would not have driven him to lash out at the world. Certainly, the monster was not beautiful, but he would still feel accepted, at least by the one person who should appreciate him most--his creator. And, truly, isn’t that the one thing all humans want more than anything else? To be accepted? To be LOVED? I think it is. Why else would we do all the things that we do? We say things to make people like us. Get into the new trends to fit in. Try to make ourselves look good. We’re trying to get in with people, because we need constant reassurance that we are good enough. Good enough for what? I’m still trying to figure that out, because I’m looking for reassurance just as much as anyone. But people long for companionship and acceptance. That’s human nature. So why is it that no matter how much we others to appreciate us, we constantly reject others before we really get to know them? 3.) Life isn’t a Disney movie. There are no clear cut good guys and villains. Everyone has some good and some bad in them. Sometimes, good people do bad things. Sometimes, people make mistakes, and mistakes have repercussions. Sometimes, there is no happy ending. I wish this lesson could be learned a little earlier in life. 4.) Speaking of Disney movies, though... Aladdin’s singing voice is totally hot. J Well, that’s a lot of my thoughts on humanity. I can think of a lot of literary allusions that apply, but I’ve only got so much patience for writing these theories down... So, I guess TTFN! Emma