第一篇：雙城記英語讀后感-雙城記讀后感

A Love and Hate in A Tale of Two Cities

Many have grown fond of the tale involving the noble, former French aristocrat, who had virtually unmatched(except maybe in books)good fortune.First, his life was saved by the pitiful testimony of a beautiful young woman.Anyone would gladly have married this beautiful too-good-to-be-true-woman he wedded.It is later seen, however, that this man should have married her even if she were ugly as sin.This was not the case though, and he married a beautiful woman, who had an admirer who was a dead ringer for her husband, was a loser, and would give his life to keep her from pain, all of which really comes in handy when her hubby is on his way to the guillotine.This is not the story of a man with multiple guardian angels, but rather that of a character in Charles Dickens' novel A Tale of Two Cities.A skeptic could easily see this as an unbelievable, idealistic and overrated novel that is too far-fetched.An unbiased reader, however, can see that this is a story of love and hate, each making up the bare-bones of the novel so that one must look closely to see Dickens' biases, attempts at persuasion, and unbelievable plot-lines, some of which are spawned from Dickens' love and hate, and some of which love and hate are used to develop.The more lifeless of the characters we are supposed to like--the Manettes, Darnay, Lorry--play their parts in the idyllic fashion Dickens and like-minded readers want, a fashion made inflexible by circumstances and purposes.“Circumstances and purposes” refers in large part to Dickens' state of mind and objective.Dickens' intrusive, unusually editorial point of view, with references to “I” and deviations from narration for monologue, reveals the novel's slavery to the teachings of his morals--or perhaps his own slavery to the morals of his time and Protestantism.Therefore, can Lucie be any different from the supportive, wholly feminine wife and mother she is? Not if Dickens' is to stick to his obligation, or perhaps obstinate purpose, of moral teachings.With that aside, what is to be said of Dickens' teaching, his presentation of love and hate? They both have one thing in common: the characters representing each are unmistakable at a mile away.The moment Lucie Manette is put before the reader's eyes, her tumbling blond locks, her bright blue eyes, her seventeen-year-old, slight, pretty(but not sexy!)figure and all, he knows that, not only will she not be a villainous, unlikable character, but she will be the epitome of the good, beautiful woman(and later housewife), the one Dickens thought every women should be.At this young woman's introduction with Mr.Lorry, she curtseys to him, and Dickens wastes no time in pointing out that “young ladies made curtseys in those days”.The introductory scene climaxes at fair Lucie's fainting, one that, to some, puts her unflawed position into question, although to Dickens, it reinforces it.At the other side of this moral lecture are the Defarges.Call Dickens a master for embodying qualities, but here are another flawless pair--flawlessly evil, and sentenced to evil from the moment we see Madame Defarge's “watchful eye that seldom seemed to look at anything, a large hand heavily ringed, a steady face, strong features, and great composure of manner”, a stark contrast to the slight, fainting figure of Mada--or rather, Miss Manette.To further turn us against good old Madame Defarge, Dickens has her using a toothpick publicly in her opening scene, an activity dainty Miss Manette wouldn't dream of.Finally, we mustn't forget the setting.Lucie may have been born in France, but she defected to England, and traveled from London to meet Mr.Lorry.Madame Defarge was a Frenchwoman, born and living amongst peasants who drank wine scooped off of mud.She probably was not taught Dickens'(and his primary English audience's)Protestant morals in her Catholic nation, and certainly did not manifest them.In arguably the book's first touching scene(some say it's the one where Carton is on his way to the guillotine), Lucie goes through much trouble to coax her father from his insanity, laying her head on his shoulder, and trusting a man she had never met.When Madame Defarge sought vengeance for the cruel injustice committed against her kin, she looked to destroy not only the innocent descendent of the culprit, but his family--an old man, a young woman, and a little girl.These two characters' love and hate are unconditional and total.Did this have to be so? Could not Madame Defarge have showed one bit of femininity, of human kindness? Could Lucie not have stolen a contemptuous glance at her persecutors? Not with Dickens at the helm.Lucie and Defarge are created with a conviction, and once Dickens' plot was laid, the blinders he put on his characters allowed only one route.Perhaps it was a primitive style, but modern characters are painted more realistically, with human weaknesses and more variability.Did it have to be so? Could Dickens have captured more readers, especially in the long run, if he had pursued more varying actions in his characters, as well as more humanness and believability? Does this point to Dickens as a flawed writer, with little imagination and ability?

Another factor that must be considered is our inability to criticize an English--or English-living--character, or to find a modicum of respectability in a French one, with two exceptions.One is the young woman who is beheaded just before Sydney Carton.She is the enemy of an enemy, she is going to be killed, and she allows Dickens to teach another moral using Sydney Carton.Why not have her happy to die for the benefit of her countrymen, while not trembling as she ascends to her death, thereby depriving the common enemy of a small victory? With the modern trend of political correctness and anti-racism, a Tale of Two Cities written today would never leave the word processor.Jerry Cruncher is about the most sinful of the English(aside from a spy but, remember, he defected to France), and he repents by the end, which counts for another moral from Dickens.In Dickens' time, racism was not regarded as it is today, and so if he wanted to use the French Revolution to send a message to the population, it was his right, but he may have taken this too far for some.Today, Lucie Manette would by no means be taken seriously as a believable, even likable character.She persists in fainting at particularly stressful moments, but when her husband is before a heartless, bloodthirsty jury, she looks brave and strong just for him.In context, this was a screaming contradiction, but one that Dickens required to portray his Eve.It is much easier to believe Madame Defarge's hate than her opposition's love.Defarge's sister was raped and murdered mercilessly and her brother was killed by a pair heartless “noblemen”.It is much easier to understand Defarge's taste for blood than the condition of Manette, who, after practicing as a competent doctor and acting normally for years, experiences a recurrence of his mental condition simply because his wonderful daughter has left for two weeks, although he has two dear friends nearby.Charles Dickens has built an enduring story enjoyed by millions, which is loved by experts and critics today although it would be immediately butchered if written by a modern author.It is a love story loved by its creator, but wholly unbelievable.It is actually doomed by its own idealism and unrealistic characters.As a hate story, it is much more competent, although also using this for its own purposes.One can draw one's own conclusions and ideas from such a book, but facts are facts

第二篇：雙城記英語讀后感

雙城記英語讀后感-雙城記讀后感-英語論文

Love and Hate in A Tale of Two Cities

“A tale of two cities” is one of Dickens's most important representative works．The novel profoundly exposed the society contradiction before the French Revolution，intensely attacks the aristocratic social class is dissolute and cruel，and sincerely sympathizes with the depressed classes．The novel also described many magnificent scenes like the revolt people attacked Bastille and so on，which displayed people's great strength．

The novel has portrayed many different people． Doctor Manette is honest and kind but suffers the persecution actually，Lucie is beautiful and gentle，Charles is graceful and noble，Lorry is upright and honest，Sydney is semblance of indifferent，innermost feelings of warm，unconventional but also selfless and lofty，Miss Pross is straightforward and loyal，Evremonde brothers are cruel and sinister．．．．．．The complex hatred is hard to solve，the cruel revenge has made more hatreds，loves rebirth in the hell edge，but take the life as the price．

Many have grown fond of the tale involving the noble, former French aristocrat, who had virtually unmatched(except maybe in books)good fortune.First, his life was saved by the pitiful testimony of a beautiful young woman.Anyone would gladly have married this beautiful too-good-to-be-true-woman he wedded.It is later seen, however, that this man should have married her even if she were ugly as sin.This was not the case though, and he married a beautiful woman, who had an admirer who was a dead ringer for her husband, was a loser, and would give his life to keep her from pain, all of which really comes in handy when her hubby is on his way to the guillotine.This is not the story of a man with multiple guardian angels, but rather that of a character in Charles Dickens' novel A Tale of Two Cities.A skeptic could easily see this as an unbelievable, idealistic and overrated novel that is too far-fetched.An unbiased reader, however, can see that this is a story of love and hate, each making up the bare-bones of the novel so that one must look closely to see Dickens' biases, attempts at persuasion, and unbelievable plot-lines, some of which are spawned from Dickens' love and hate, and some of which love and hate are used to develop.The more lifeless of the characters we are supposed to like--the Manettes, Darnay, Lorry--play their parts in the idyllic fashion Dickens and like-minded readers want, a fashion made inflexible by circumstances and purposes.“Circumstances and purposes” refers in large part to Dickens' state of mind and objective.Dickens' intrusive, unusually editorial point of view, with references to “I” and deviations from narration for monologue, reveals the novel's slavery to the teachings of his morals--or perhaps his own slavery to the morals of his time and Protestantism.Therefore, can Lucie be any different from the supportive, wholly feminine wife and mother she is? Not if Dickens' is to stick to his obligation, or perhaps obstinate purpose, of moral teachings.With that aside, what is to be said of Dickens' teaching, his presentation of love and hate? They both have one thing in common: the characters representing each are unmistakable at a mile away.The moment Lucie Manette is put before the reader's eyes, her tumbling blond locks, her bright blue eyes, her seventeen-year-old, slight, pretty(but not sexy!)figure and all, he knows that, not only will she not be a villainous, unlikable character, but she will be the epitome of the good, beautiful woman(and later housewife), the one Dickens thought every women should be.At this young woman's introduction with Mr.Lorry, she curtseys to him, and Dickens wastes no time in pointing out that “young ladies made curtseys in those days”.The introductory scene climaxes at fair Lucie's fainting, one that, to some, puts her unflawed position into question, although to Dickens, it reinforces it.At the other side of this moral lecture are the Defarges.Call Dickens a master for embodying qualities, but here are another flawless pair--flawlessly evil, and sentenced to evil from the moment we see Madame Defarge's “watchful eye that seldom seemed to look at anything, a large hand heavily ringed, a steady face, strong features, and great composure of manner”, a stark contrast to the slight, fainting figure of Mada--or rather, Miss Manette.To further turn us against good old Madame Defarge, Dickens has her using a toothpick publicly in her opening scene, an activity dainty Miss Manette wouldn't dream of.Finally, we mustn't forget the setting.Lucie may have been born in France, but she defected to England, and traveled from London to meet Mr.Lorry.Madame Defarge was a Frenchwoman, born and living amongst peasants who drank wine scooped off of mud.She probably was not taught Dickens'(and his primary English audience's)Protestant morals in her Catholic nation, and certainly did not manifest them.In arguably the book's first touching scene(some say it's the one where Carton is on his way to the guillotine), Lucie goes through much trouble to coax her father from his insanity, laying her head on his shoulder, and trusting a man she had never met.When Madame Defarge sought vengeance for the cruel injustice committed against her kin, she looked to

destroy not only the innocent descendent of the culprit, but his family--an old man, a young woman, and a little girl.These two characters' love and hate are unconditional and total.Did this have to be so? Could not Madame Defarge have showed one bit of femininity, of human kindness? Could Lucie not have stolen a contemptuous glance at her persecutors? Not with Dickens at the helm.Lucie and Defarge are created with a conviction, and once Dickens' plot was laid, the blinders he put on his characters allowed only one route.Perhaps it was a primitive style, but modern characters are painted more realistically, with human weaknesses and more variability.Did it have to be so? Could Dickens have captured more readers, especially in the long run, if he had pursued more varying actions in his characters, as well as more humanness and believability? Does this point to Dickens as a flawed writer, with little imagination and ability?

Another factor that must be considered is our inability to criticize an English--or English-living--character, or to find a modicum of respectability in a French one, with two exceptions.One is the young woman who is beheaded just before Sydney Carton.She is the enemy of an enemy, she is going to be killed, and she allows Dickens to teach another moral using Sydney Carton.Why not have her happy to die for the benefit of her countrymen, while not trembling as she ascends to her death, thereby depriving the common enemy of a small victory? With the modern trend of political correctness and anti-racism, a Tale of Two Cities written today would never leave the word processor.Jerry Cruncher is about the most sinful of the English(aside from a spy but, remember, he defected to France), and he repents by the end, which counts for another moral from Dickens.In Dickens' time, racism was not regarded as it is today, and so if he wanted to use the French Revolution to send a message to the population, it was his right, but he may have taken this too far for some.Today, Lucie Manette would by no means be taken seriously as a believable, even likable character.She persists in fainting at particularly stressful moments, but when her husband is before a heartless, bloodthirsty jury, she looks brave and strong just for him.In context, this was a screaming contradiction, but one that Dickens required to portray his Eve.It is much easier to believe Madame Defarge's hate than her opposition's love.Defarge's sister was raped and murdered mercilessly and her brother was killed by a pair heartless “noblemen”.It is much easier to understand Defarge's taste for blood than the condition of Manette, who, after practicing as a competent doctor and acting normally for years, experiences a recurrence of his mental condition simply because his wonderful daughter has left for two weeks, although he has two dear friends nearby.Charles Dickens has built an enduring story enjoyed by millions, which is loved by experts and critics today although it would be immediately butchered if written by a modern author.It is a love story loved by its creator, but wholly unbelievable.It is actually doomed by its own idealism and unrealistic characters.As a hate story, it is much more competent, although also using this for its own purposes.One can draw one's own conclusions and ideas from such a book, but facts are facts.

第三篇：《雙城記》英語讀后感

A Tale of Two cities

“A Tale of Two cities” is one of the most important works of Dickens.The tale was based on the French Revolution in 1789, it described the story about Manette’s family and Defarge’s family.At the beginning of reading this book, I found it horrible and boring.But gradually, I couldn’t put down the book.In the end , I was moved by the book.Of all the characters in the story, my favourite is Sydney Carton.Sydney Carton, who was a lazy man and didn’t care for others.Really? In fact, he was an excellent and hard-working lawyer.He loved Lucie Manette all the time.But she hadn’t ever taken to him.When Carton heard the news that Lucie’s husband Charles Darnay would be killed in prison, he made a great decision: replace Darnay with himself.Sydney Carton, who sacrifice himself, for what? A person he loved and her happiness? That is —— “love”.I understand something from Carton: Love maybe a kind of power and dependence in our heart.Most importantly, after helping people we love, we will be very satisfied and feel very happy.I believe one thing: Carton’s world will come true in the future.After reading this book, I have new recognition of love.Trust me,you will learn something important in this book.Why not open “A Tale ofTwo cities” now?

第四篇：雙城記讀后感

《雙城記》讀書筆記

“那是最美好的時代，那是最糟糕的時代；那是個睿智的年月，那是個蒙昧的年月；那是信心百倍的時期，那是疑慮重重的時期??我們大家都在直升天堂，我們大家都在直下地獄。”這段話被廣泛傳誦，早已超越國界。美好和糟糕并存是一種什么樣的景象？讀完《雙城記》，狄更斯筆下“蒙昧，疑慮重重，黑暗籠罩，讓人絕望和一無所有??”的感覺讓我一時無法忘懷。

狄更斯描寫法國大革命前夕，英法兩國都被籠罩在黃昏的霧氣中。在英國，人們離家出城，必須將家具送到家具行的倉庫保管；白天是做買賣的普通商人，夜里則成了攔路搶劫的強盜；罪大惡極的殺人犯和偷了6便士的小偷同樣獲得極刑。法國則更可怕，執政者和教會極度腐敗，人與人之間的仇恨像毒氣一樣充塞在社會各個角落，恐怖正急劇醞釀。這一切在雨果筆下，是黎明前的黑暗——為了曙光，夜里的血與淚可以忽略不計。總有太多人是敵人，而友人，友人只是個空置的座位，你不敢說下一刻誰能坐在上面，連對自己你都沒有把握。在這種壓力下，不少作家難逃書寫革命的誘惑，因為不公義是那樣明顯，有權者和無權者都沒有出路。

與對巴黎的橫幅式鋪陳不同，狄更斯描寫過大海的狂暴景象，眼光一轉，定睛在海浪間一艘不起眼的小船上：這里有一位身陷囹圄18年的法國醫生馬奈特，他出獄后被好友和女兒露西帶到倫敦，卻落下了精神病；露西為此幼年失掉雙親，她丈夫達內是法國貴族的后代，因為覺得貴族身份對窮人不公義而隱姓埋名，卻依然兩度被判死刑。這條船里坐著的是些什么人呢？一些受苦的人，和那座城一樣。不知道為什么，同樣負有國恨家仇的這些人卻沒有被卷入那座城的漩渦——他們心無大志，只求彼此相伴，平靜過一生。然而，一個時代嚴酷即意味著，無論你想不想招架，總有一些滅命的要從后追來。

看完《雙城記》，我突然醒悟，發現原來世上本沒有真正的恨與愛，所有的一切都是相對的。正如這部小說的經典開篇：“那是最美好的時代，那是最糟糕的時代；那是智慧的年頭，那是愚昧的年頭；那是信仰的時期，那是懷疑的時期；那是光明的季節，那是黑暗的季節；那是希望的春天，那是失望的冬天；我們全都在直奔天堂，我們全都在直奔相反的方向簡而言之，那時跟現在非常相象，某些最喧囂的權威堅持要用形容詞的最高級來形容它。說它好，是最高級的；說它不好，也是最高級的。”所有的事都沒有固定的性質，無所謂好，也無所謂壞。重要的不是這件事本身怎么樣，而是一個人應該用什么樣的心態去對待身邊的人和事。就像卡頓對于查爾斯，本該是恨的，因為是他使得卡頓失去了擁有露西的機會，是他使得露西眼中再無他人。但卡頓卻選擇用博大似海的愛來化解這種恨。也許在他眼中查爾斯已經不是查爾斯，而是露西的一部分，是他所愛的人的一部分，因此也是他所愛的一部分。

總之，《雙城記》帶給了我們太多的思考和感悟。關于愛，關于恨，關于復仇，也關于重生。當小說結尾卡頓看到希望的時候，我仿佛也從整部書有些陰郁的情緒中看到了點點星光。所以，卡頓的存在不僅僅是作者對愛的渲染，更寄予了狄更斯對未來的信心。當人與人之間沒有了恨，當所有的恨都升華為愛的時候，沒有復仇，沒有血腥，有的只會是幸福的歡笑，燦爛的陽光。

第五篇：《雙城記》讀后感

《雙城記》讀后感

12級設施邢晉

我平時讀書不多，名著讀的的也就更加的少了。但是《雙城記》是我很喜歡的一本書，起初是一位非常好的老師向我推薦的，讀完真的有很多體會。

法國大革命是人類史上一個血的印記。在那個混亂的時代，充滿不確定；在這種無秩序的狀態下，人性的一切表露無疑。雙城記以法國大革命為背景，透過為族與平民之間的仇恨沖突，作者狄更斯只想傳達出---鮮血無法洗去仇恨，更不能替代愛---貴族的暴虐對平民造成的傷痛不會因為鮮血而愈合，平民對貴族的仇恨也無法替代對已逝親人的愛。

故事中，梅尼特醫生從監獄中重獲自由和女兒一起到倫敦生活。五年后，他們在法庭上為名叫查爾斯？代爾那的法國青年做證，露西和代爾那因相愛而結婚。1792年，法國大革命爆發，故事場景轉至法國。代爾那因身為貴族后裔而遭逮捕并判死刑，在千鈞一發的時刻，一直愛戀露西的英國青年西得尼？卡登替他上了斷頭臺。

卡登是書中最富魅力亦最復雜的角色之一。頹廢、消極，求學時，他只替同學寫作業；出社會后，即使擁有一身才華，它仍然選擇為另一名律師工作。但是，在他冷漠的外表下，有著深深的溫柔。憑這一斛溫柔和對露西的愛，卡登做了一個意義重大的決定---代替代爾那上斷頭臺---用自己的生命換回另一個人的性命，換回一個家庭的幸福和笑顏。這是卡登守護露西的表現，為愛而犧牲，這在那個大時代、甚至現代，是多麼高貴的舉動！

相較於代表的溫柔和愛，多法石太太則是殺戮和血腥的象徵。由於親人慘死在代爾那的父親和叔叔的魔掌下，她終其一生為仇恨而活；為置代爾那一家於死地，無所不用其極，最后終於讓自己死於擦槍走火的意外。多法石太太的嗜血固然使人不寒而栗，但也叫人不禁感嘆恨的力量，將本該快樂幸福的女人塑造成復仇女神。十八世紀末的法國，被這種執拗復仇的火焰燃燒成阿修羅地獄。

教訓和意義不能因為歲月而被遺忘。如果我們無法從其中獲得一些什麼，相同的悲劇依舊會重演。兩百年后的今天，希望活在這個世代的我們能創造出真正平等、自由、博愛的新世紀。

卡登的死，就像一支羽毛輕柔的飄落水面，沒有水花，卻有一個個漣漪，提醒人們：真正的自由平等無法用斷頭臺建立。有一天，世界會變得更好，就像卡登臨死前看見的世界，那不是天堂的幻影；有一天，那會是我們的世界。

文章中我感觸最深的一句話就是：it was the best of time，it was the worst of time.讀完后真正體會到unrequited love。