第一篇：《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-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

第四篇：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 res

pectability 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

第五篇：《雙城記》讀后感

《雙城記》讀后感1

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，通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。

《雙城記》讀后感2

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與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，露西與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。憑這一斛溫柔與對露西的愛，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與笑顏。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！

相較於代表的溫柔與愛，多法石太太則是殺戮與血腥的象徵。由於親人慘死在代爾那的父親與叔叔的魔掌下，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。

教訓與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。

《雙城記》讀后感3

我相信每一個看過《雙城記》的人，都會在震撼之余贊不絕口。由英國著名作家狄更斯所著的這部書，永垂不朽！名著就是名著，不管多少年過后，名著依然散發著璀璨光彩，更何。

我看《雙城記》，原因是在網上有許多網友推薦，他們都說那是一本非常感人的書，我懷著好奇心就在網上下載來看，看完了一部分感覺還不錯，就寫下這篇讀后感。

“這是最好的時代，也是最壞的時代。”《雙城記》開篇第一句話被無數次引用。但我猜知道這句話的人并一定小說《雙城記》講述了一個怎么樣的故事，也不知道這句話為何而說。如果想理解這句話的原意，以及為何說寫出這句經典名句，那自然是要讀讀原著的。

網上有人說，《雙城記》只是描寫了兩個男人和一個女人的故事，但是我卻覺得，那個人沒有了解作者真正想表達的意思。以我看來，德發奇一家和法國貴族的仇恨也好，露西、查爾斯和西德尼的感情也好，都只是為了表現這場戰爭是誰引起的，為什么事而起的。雖然《雙城記》是一本經典的小說，但因為其明確提出這段革命背景是法國大革命，于是對革命的表現就被認為是作者的歷史觀。而這正是對小說無數爭議的焦點。狄更斯在小說中除了以細膩的'筆墨展示了貴族的殘忍，同樣也展示了革命群眾非理性的破壞。他認為，革命是一種壓迫取代了另一種壓迫，一場直接濃重的血腥暴*替代了另外一場血腥。對攻占巴士底獄以及對暴*民眾的一系列描寫——血腥，殘忍，狡詐，惡毒是小說最為引人注目的地方。

文中《雙城記》，最讓我喜歡的是律師助手西德尼？卡爾頓。他第一次出現就與眾不同，當法庭上的人若無其事地望著天花板時，而他的一張字條卻揭曉了案件背后的陰謀。他一出場就帶著一身的憂郁，作為律師的他算得上是才華出眾，但卻又情愿躲在人家的后面，做別人成功的墊腳石，他仿佛自己親手筑起了一堵墻，與名利隔絕。他曾說過：“我是個絕望了的苦力，我不關心世上任何人，也沒有任何人關心我。”

是啊，我們不應該渴望出名，那樣就學不到更多的知識。也許做別人背后的墊腳石，還能操你個別人那里學到更多的知識，我們能夠看到他的長處和短處，學習他的長處，拋掉自己的短處。

《雙城記》讀后感4

今天，我終于讀完了英國作家狄更斯的著作《雙城記》。讀完這本書，我的心情久久不能平靜。

小說以18世紀的法國大革命為背景，故事中將巴黎、倫敦兩個大城市連結起來，敘述馬內特醫生一家充滿了愛與冒險的遭遇，中間穿插了貴族的殘暴、人民的憤怒、審判間諜……主要揭示了那個時期英法的社會治安，以及大官貴族，下至平民百姓的生活。

這部著作主要講述了：可憐的馬內特醫生在被貴族以“莫須有”的罪名關在巴士底獄十九年后，他的女兒將他接到了英國居住。在法庭上父女認識了法國貴族達雷和潦倒師父卡頓。后來，馬內特的女兒露西和達雷結了婚，過了十年的幸福家庭生活，卡頓也給了露西一個承諾，要讓露西生活快樂。

人民生活在困苦無助、饑寒交迫、貧病連連、受盡欺壓的困境中，他們心中積壓了對貴族的刻骨深仇，終于引發了推翻政權、爭取自由的法國大革命。法國大革命爆發后，達雷為了營救無辜的仆人，趕到法國去給他辯護，卻因他曾是法國貴族而被拘捕了。而卡頓為了實踐要讓露西生活快樂的承諾，利用他跟達雷相貌相似，在達雷被處刑前，用自己跟達雷掉包，代替他上了斷頭臺。

黑暗的年代已經過去了，充滿希望與光明的年代已經到來，那時的黑暗令人慘不忍睹!起先，天下是屬于國王的，后來，天下是屬于人民的。1789年7月13日，人民攻占了關押政治犯的.巴士底獄;1793年1月21日，革命把國王路易十六送上了斷頭臺，這象征著封建統治的結束;1793年2月20日，成立法蘭西第一共和國。

充滿黑暗和壓迫的18世紀已經一去不復返了，百姓受苦受難的悲慘生活已經徹底結束。我們迎來了被希望沐浴下的21世紀，從那個時代到今天的漫長歲月不過像昨天到今天那樣短暫。我認為卡頓的精神是值得我們學習的，他重情義，信守諾言，為了實現他對露西的諾言，不惜一切代價，包括寶貴的生命。

當今的人民絕對不會讓歷史重演，歷史也不會重演。讓我們過好每一天，讓屬于我們的21世紀更加充滿光彩!

《雙城記》讀后感5

我看《雙城記》，原因是在網上有許多網友推薦，他們都說那是一本非常感人的書，我懷著好奇心就在網上下載來看，看完了一部分感覺還不錯，就寫下這篇讀后感。

《雙城記》主要是深刻描繪了當時動蕩不安的時代背景，與喂歷史現實而犧牲的兒女情長。

網上有人說，《雙城記》只是描寫了兩個男人與一個女人的故事，但是我卻覺得，那個人沒有了解作者真正想表達的意思。以我看來，德發奇一家與法國貴族的仇恨也好，露西、查爾斯與西德尼的感情也好，都只是為了表現這場戰爭是誰引起的，為什么事而起的。其實人與人之間都必須保持著寬以待人的態度，即使是天大的事也能大事化小，小事化了。記得發生在我身上的一件事：有一次，我不小心把同學的書弄丟了，原本我還以為她會要我賠，還要怪我呢。沒想到當我與她講的時候，她不僅沒罵我，還對我講說以后不能丟三落四了，應該養成好習慣。恩，也許這就是人與人之間的態度吧！

在這部作品里，我看到了很多不同的人。有正直善良卻又慘遭迫害的馬奈特醫生，忠厚老實的洛瑞，外表冷漠、內心熱情，放蕩而又無私的西德尼，沒有人性的德發奇太太，兇殘陰險的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟……里面有復雜的仇恨，想復仇卻又制造了更多的仇恨，這復雜的一幕幕，生動的展現在我們面前，我們仿佛又回到了那個失去理智的時代。有人抱怨自己生在這個世紀是件壞事，要生在從前，最起碼能當個烈士。其實這種想法是錯誤的，我們生在現代就應該為現代做貢獻。而人世間有各種各樣的人，他們都有不同的個性，我們不要因為誰的性格怪異而不與他交友，也不要太相信身邊的人，也許他就是想害你的其中一個。

文中《雙城記》，最讓我喜歡的是律師助手西德尼？卡爾頓。他第一次出現就與眾不同，當法庭上的人若無其事地望著天花板時，而他的一張字條卻揭曉了案件背后的`陰謀。他一出場就帶著一身的憂郁，作為律師的他算得上是才華出眾，但卻又情愿躲在人家的后面，做別人成功的墊腳石，他仿佛自己親手筑起了一堵墻，與名利隔絕。他曾說過：“我是個絕望了的苦力，我不關心世上任何人，也沒有任何人關心我。”

是啊，我們不應該渴望出名，那樣就學不到更多的知識。也許做別人背后的墊腳石，還能操你個別人那里學到更多的知識，我們能夠看到他的長處與短處，學習他的長處，拋掉自己的短處。

《雙城記》讀后感6

我看《雙城記》，原因是在網上有許多網友推薦，他們都說那是一本非常感人的書，我懷著好奇心就在網上下載來看，看完了一部分感覺還不錯，就寫下這篇讀后感。

網上有人說，《雙城記》只是描寫了兩個男人和一個女人的故事，但是我卻覺得，那個人沒有了解作者真正想表達的意思。以我看來，德發奇一家和法國貴族的仇恨也好，露西、查爾斯和西德尼的感情也好，都只是為了表現這場戰爭是誰引起的，為什么事而起的。其實人與人之間都必須保持著寬以待人的態度，即使是天大的事也能大事化小，小事化了。記得發生在我身上的一件事:有一次，我不小心把同學的書弄丟了，原本我還以為她會要我賠，還要怪我呢。沒想到當我和她講的時候，她不僅沒罵我，還對我講說以后不能丟三落四了，應該養成好習慣。恩，也許這就是人與人之間的態度吧!

在這部作品里，我看到了很多不同的人。有正直善良卻又慘遭迫害的馬奈特醫生，忠厚老實的洛瑞，外表冷漠、內心熱情，放蕩而又無私的西德尼，沒有人性的德發奇太太，兇殘陰險的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟......里面有復雜的仇恨，想復仇卻又制造了更多的仇恨，這復雜的一幕幕，生動的展現在大家面前，大家仿佛又回到了那個失去理智的時代。有人抱怨自己生在這個世紀是件壞事，要生在從前，最起碼能當個烈士。其實這種想法是錯誤的，大家生在現代就應該為現代做貢獻。而人世間有各種各樣的人，他們都有不同的個性，大家不要因為誰的性格怪異而不與他交友，也不要太相信身邊的人，也許他就是想害你的其中一個。

文中《雙城記》，最讓我喜歡的`是律師助手西德尼卡爾頓。他第一次出現就與眾不同，當法庭上的人若無其事地望著天花板時，而他的一張字條卻揭曉了案件背后的陰謀。他一出場就帶著一身的憂郁，作為律師的他算得上是才華出眾，但卻又情愿躲在人家的后面，做別人成功的墊腳石，他仿佛自己親手筑起了一堵墻，與名利隔絕。他曾說過:“我是個絕望了的苦力，我不關心世上任何人，也沒有任何人關心我。”

是啊，大家不應該渴望出名，那樣就學不到更多的知識。也許做別人背后的墊腳石，還能操你個別人那里學到更多的知識，大家能夠看到他的長處和短處，學習他的長處，拋掉自己的短處。

《雙城記》讀后感7

那是最完美的時代，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；那是期望的春天，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，那時跟此刻十分相象，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。這是狄更斯的《雙城記》的經典開頭，這是一曲時代節奏的起始音符，這是一幅恢弘的歷史畫卷最初的那一筆重重的色彩。

《雙城記》有其不一樣于一般歷史小說的地方，它的人物和主要情節都是虛構的。在法國大革命廣闊的真實背景下，作者以虛構人物梅尼特醫生的經歷為主線索，把冤獄、感情與復仇三個互相獨立而又互相關聯的故事交織在一齊，情節錯綜，頭緒紛繁。作者采取倒敘、插敘、伏筆、鋪墊等手法，使小說結構完整嚴密，情節曲折緊張而富有戲劇性，表現了卓越的藝術技巧。風格肅穆、沉郁，充滿憂憤。

小說在情節安排上，采用了他在許多作品中慣用的懸念手法。開篇描述英法兩國動蕩不安的局勢，之后是關于活埋和復生的對話，一開始就渲染了一種神秘和緊張的'氣氛。這種氣氛隨著故事情節的展開而越發加強。馬奈特醫生出獄后奇怪的縫鞋活動，代爾那婚前和馬奈特的神秘對話，卡爾登和代爾那面貌酷似，這種種疑團加深了小說的魅力，使它的結構猶如巴士底監獄通道那樣迂回曲折，直到最后才把散見于全書的各條線索串聯起來，創造出豁然開朗的藝術效果。

《雙城記》主要以情節結構取勝。書中的人物形象基本上可分為兩大類：一類是仁愛的化身，如馬奈特醫生、路茜、代爾那和卡爾登；另一類是復仇的化身，如得伐石夫婦、甲克，以及法國革命中瘋狂的群眾。兩廂對立，壁壘分明，在尖銳的矛盾沖突中展示其鮮明的性格特征。狄更斯喜用的漫畫化手法，在這部小說中得到了充分的體現。

其中狄更斯的思想發展過程中占著一個獨特的地位。尖銳的階級對立在小說中以更為極端的形式出現。舊秩序、舊制度的崩潰已經不再像《荒涼山莊》中廢品收購商克魯克那樣自我燃燒，也不會像《小杜麗》中克侖南姆夫人宅邸那樣自動坍塌。在英國，像法國革命那樣的一場不可避免的必然性正迫在眉睫。《雙城記》是狄更斯對英國統治階級發出的一個強烈警告。

《雙城記》讀后感8

這個假期，我利用空余時間閱讀了狄更斯的《雙城記》，也有了些體悟，下面我來把我的感受寫下來。

一、情節布置

這部著作的情節是十分玄妙的，作者把各種線索串聯起來，如文中所說的一樣“編織”成了這部小說。小說最大的特點是人物關系復雜：如馬 奈特醫生和達南的關系；德發奇太太與達南的關系——這兩個關系直接導致了最后的悲劇。還有洛瑞先生與德發奇的關系以及格侖舍與密探的關系等等。這些復雜的人物關系使此部著作情節環環相扣。

這本書最有特色的一個章節是頓臨死前與一位小姑娘的對話，從這番對話中徹底揭示了革命群眾過于瘋狂以及善將永存的`主旨。

二、人物特點

本書最重要的人物是查爾斯·達南（埃弗蒙德）。他是一個很矛盾的人，他非常憎恨自己的父親與叔父，但是他還必須支撐整個家族的產業。所以，當老仆人給他寫信 時，他便不得不回到法國。他是一個善良的人，具備一位貴族所具有的文明氣質，并且當他去會見自己的叔父時，他明確提出了“不能再迫害人民”的說法。同時，他放棄了貴族特權，本來就是一件善事。

悉尼·卡頓也是位重要人物。在讀這部小說的前半部分時，我一直不大喜歡這個隨意、懶惰的人物。但是在往后讀的過程中，我發現他是一個敢作敢為、足智多謀的人。雖然是“朋友”，但實際上卡頓和達南的關系并沒有那么好，但是為了他們一家人幸福滴生活，卡頓甘愿走上斷頭臺，讓達南逃跑，而自己成了永恒的善的化身。在文章中提到卡頓死時“猶如一位先知“。

德發奇夫婦也屬于本書中的焦點人物。德發奇本人是個善良的人，他收留了馬奈特醫生，并且在大革命之后告訴自己的夫人見好就收。而德發奇太太就是個復仇者，她受過埃弗蒙德兄弟的迫害，所以她一心想殺掉法國所有貴族。當然，由于她的過激行為，使她最后死于普洛士小姐手中。

三。寫作特色

本部小說文筆非常幽默，作者一直在使用辯證關系和反復的手法來實現這種效果，所以這部感人的小說還能讀起來令人十分想笑。

文章有特色的一處是最后作者“幫助卡頓發表感想“。作者用卡頓的語言交待了文章的結局，告訴人們”善良在世界永存“的道理。

這就是我讀過這部小說的感受。

《雙城記》讀后感9

那是最完美的時代，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；那是期望的春天，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，那時跟此刻十分相象，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。

這是整本書的開頭第一章，將全書的基調定上了杯具色彩，然而就在這矛盾的時代中，也確實存在過光明。

這本書敘述了法國大革命時期圍繞在醫生馬奈特一家周圍的事，這本書顛覆了我對自由，權利以及善惡的看法——法國人民不堪重負，推翻了波旁王朝，然而新政權建立之后朝他們走來的難道是他們心馳神往的自由嗎？不，仍然是以往的提心吊膽，稍不留神明天就會被送上斷頭臺。得勢之后的德發日太太濫用職權，將死敵們個個置于死地，最后卻落得個慘死的下場。正如那句話所說的：“自由啊，有多少罪惡是假借你的名義干出來的。”大革命并不如想象中的那么完美，而是以暴易暴。它沒有拯救人民，而是將人民推入了另一個火坑。

再來看看另外一位大革命的犧牲品——達內，革命之前，他放下了國內的`家業，只身來到英國謀生，在他看來，壓迫人民是一件極不人道的事，然而，革命爆發后，他反而無辜地成為人民的敵人，人們不分青紅皂白地要將他領上斷頭臺。但是堅信在九死一生之后，他依然是原先那個善良的達內。

而卡頓——一個才華橫溢卻自甘墮落的律師，他與達內有著相同的長相，卻有著不一樣的命運，在應對活著還是讓自己心愛的人得到幸福的抉擇時，毅然決然的選取了后者，在他看來，生命在愛的面前是微不足道的，即使在斷頭臺上，他也表現出了令人難以想象的沉著冷靜。正是因為在他的心底，一向有一個信念在支持他：“耶穌說，復活在我，生命也在我，信我的人，雖然死了，也必復活。凡活著信我的人，必定永遠不死。”他用死完成了自我救贖，他用死來反抗虛偽的革命者，他用死來詮釋對露絲的愛。生命，成了他最后的武器，愛，成了他唯一的支柱。

《雙城記》讀后感10

品不一樣的人生

愛情在生與死的懸崖邊上徘徊，而死亡則是解決最終愛情的唯一方法。

“這是最美的時代，也是最糟糕的時代;這是智慧的年代，也是愚昧的年代;這是信仰的時期，也是懷疑的時期;這是光明的季節，也是黑暗的`季節。”這是書中我認為最經典、最有分量的語句。

英國著名作家狄更斯為我們講述了在這樣復雜的時代背景下1個感人的愛情故事。

卡頓，這個故事中的1個男主角。他深愛著女主人公露西，然而露西有1個深愛著的而且對方也深愛著露西的愛人--達爾內。對此，他選擇了放棄，用寬容來成全他們的愛。

書中，他在每個喝醉了酒的夜晚，晃悠到露西他們所在的街角。清冷的月色下，唯有街道兩旁的影子與他相伴--坐在那兒，就那樣望著那棟房子。不知何時，晨曦的第一縷光已灑向不遠處教堂的頂端。

“復活在我，生命也在我，信仰我的人雖然死了，也必復活，凡活著信仰我的人，必永遠不死。”書中，道路悄然，夜色漸濃，《圣經》的詞句拌和著他腳步的回音，在空中回蕩。由于達內爾家族的關系，法國大革命后的他將要被群情激憤的廣大人民送上斷頭臺。卡頓為了愛情，毅然決定用自己酷似達內爾的長相去換回達內爾的生命。

塞納河岸依舊，水浪怒涌著，撲向岸邊，打起一串串水珠，而后轉瞬退去。新生還是死亡?在這個最好也最壞的時代，一切都是未知的。

在即將踏上斷頭臺的那一剎那，他看見露西：抱著那個以他來命名的孩子在多年以后，和達爾內在一起，達內爾向這個孩子講述著他的故事。長大成人的孩子在這條路上奮勇前進……

他滿足地笑了：因為他現在所做的比所做過的一切都要好;他將要到1個比他所知道的還要好的地方去好好休息!

卡頓為了愛情，選擇了犧牲。然而不知道為什么，在我的身邊和許多的影視作品中，人們在愛情的道路上往往都是自私的。難道，看著自己愛的人幸福不是1種幸福嗎?

道路悄然，夜色漸濃，泰戈爾的那句話似乎又在吟唱，自心底升起：“讓死者有那不朽的名，讓生者有那不朽的愛。”

《雙城記》讀后感11

我看《雙城記》，原因是在網上有很多網友推薦，他們都說那是一本非常感人的書，我懷著好奇心就在網上下載來看，看完了一部分感覺還不錯，就寫下這篇讀后感。

《雙城記》主要是深刻描繪了當時動蕩不安的時代背景，和喂歷史現實而犧牲的兒女情長。

網上有人說，《雙城記》只是描寫了兩個男人和一個女人的故事，但我卻覺得，那個人沒有了解作者真正想表達的意思。以我看來，德發奇一家和法國貴族的仇恨也好，露西、查爾斯和西德尼的感情也好，都只是為了表現這場戰爭是誰引起的，為什么事而起的。其實人與人之間都必須保持著寬以待人的態度，即使是天大的事也能大事化小，小事化了。記得發生在我身上的一件事：有一次，我不小心把同學的書弄丟了，原本我還以為她會要我賠，還要怪我呢。沒想到當我和她講的時候，她不僅沒罵我，還對我講說以后不能夠丟三落四了，應該養成好習慣。恩，也許這就是人與人之間的態度吧！

在這部作品里，我看到了很多不同的人。有正直善良卻又慘遭迫害的'馬奈特醫生，忠厚老實的洛瑞，外表冷漠、內心熱情，放蕩而又無私的西德尼，沒有人性的德發奇太太，兇殘陰險的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟……里面有復雜的仇恨，想復仇卻又制造了更多的仇恨，這復雜的一幕幕，生動的展現在我們面前，我們仿佛又回到了那個失去理智的時代。有人抱怨自己生在這個世紀是件壞事，要生在從前，最起碼能當個烈士。其實這種想法是錯誤的，我們生在現代就應該為現代做貢獻。而人世間有各種各樣的人，他們都有不同的個性，我們不要因為誰的性格怪異而不與他交友，也不要太相信身邊的人，也許他就是想害你的其中一個。

文中《雙城記》，最讓我喜歡的是律師助手西德尼？卡爾頓。他第一次出現就與眾不同，當法庭上的人若無其事地望著天花板時，而他的一張字條卻揭曉了案件背后的陰謀。他一出場就帶著一身的憂郁，作為律師的他算得上是才華出眾，但卻又情愿躲在人家的后面，做別人成功的墊腳石，他仿佛自己親手筑起了一堵墻，與名利隔絕。他曾說過：“我是個絕望了的苦力，我不關心世上任何人，也沒有任何人關心我。”

是啊，我們不應該渴望出名，那樣就學不到更多的知識。也許做別人背后的墊腳石，還能夠操你個別人那里學到更多的知識，我們能看到他的長處和短處，學習他的長處，拋掉自己的短處。

《雙城記》讀后感12

這個寒假我拜讀了狄更斯的作品，以下就是我的感想。

故事是這樣的，埃瑞弗蒙德侯爵蹂躪農家婦女，她的哥哥知道了，于是跟侯爵干了一仗，以失敗告終。而且他還受了重傷。可能侯爵也不想把事搞大了，不想弄出人命吧。就請了一個醫生，這就是另外一個重要的人物馬奈特醫生。而這可憐的馬奈特醫生也由于知道了內情而被侯爵送進了巴士底監獄。十八年后終于重見天日……

故事里我看到了很多很多不同的人。正直善良的馬奈特醫生，美麗溫柔的露西，優雅高尚的查爾斯，忠厚老實的'洛瑞，外表冷漠、內心熱情，放蕩不羈而又無私崇高的西德尼，扭曲了人性的德發日太太，豪爽忠誠的普洛斯小姐，殘忍陰險的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟……

而這個查爾斯來頭不小，是埃斯瑞弗蒙德侯爵的侄子，但是他不接受爵位，離開法國到英國去。他在倫敦靠自己當上了法文老師。

還有一個人叫西德尼·卡頓，他從一開始的法庭上若無其事地望著天花板但他的一張紙條就揭穿了原告的陰謀。他很容易給人一種邋遢、消沉、貪杯的印象，但他在危急時刻，通過一個獄卒來到查爾斯的監獄里與查爾斯換了衣服。后果可想而知，查爾斯被送出了法國，而卡頓卻被送上了斷頭臺，他在死前說了一句話：我現在做的是我一生中做過的最好、最最好的事情；我即將得到的，是我一生中過的最寧靜、最最寧靜的休息。

在革命成功后，革命者們大多都失去了理智，濫殺無辜的人，而查爾斯為了解救以前的仆人，挺而走險，來到法國，結果卻被革命者以逃亡貴族的身份給關了起來，露西及她父親馬奈特醫生連忙趕到法國，由于他在巴士底獄給關了十八年，被人們稱做英雄，從而有特權把他的女婿─查爾斯提供了很好的條件。但是德發日太太就是那對兄妹中的妹妹，她一直都恨著埃瑞弗蒙德侯爵家的人。查爾斯又是埃瑞弗蒙德侯爵的侄子，所以她想盡辦法得想要害查爾斯。但到頭來卻死在自己的槍口中。

這部小說雖然后來是以“大團圓”結束，但是當我讀到卡頓為了露西而代替查爾斯上刑場時，我的心里充滿了辛酸。

《雙城記》讀后感13

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。

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。

這是整本書的開頭第一章，將全書的基調定上了悲劇色彩，然而就在這矛盾的時代中，也確實存在過光明。

這本書敘述了法國大革命時期圍繞在醫生馬奈特一家周圍的事，這本書顛覆了我對自由，權利以及善惡的看法——法國人民不堪重負，推翻了波旁王朝，然而新政權建立之后朝他們走來的難道是他們心馳神往的自由嗎?不，仍然是以往的提心吊膽，稍不留神明天就會被送上斷頭臺。得勢之后的德發日太太濫用職權，將死敵們個個置于死地，最后卻落得個慘死的`下場。正如那句話所說的：“自由啊，有多少罪惡是假借你的名義干出來的。”大革命并不如想象中的那么美好，而是以暴易暴。它沒有拯救人民，而是將人民推入了另一個火坑。

再來看看另外一位大革命的犧牲品——達內，革命前，他放棄了國內的家業，只身來到英國謀生，在他看來，壓迫人民是一件極不人道的事，然而，革命爆發后，他反而無辜地成為人民的敵人，人們不分青紅皂白地要將他領上斷頭臺。不過相信在九死一生之后，他依然是原先那個善良的達內。

而卡頓——一個才華橫溢卻自甘墮落的律師，他與達內有著相同的長相，卻有著不同的命運，在面對活著還是讓自己心愛的人得到幸福的抉擇時，毅然決然的選擇了后者，在他看來，生命在愛的面前是微不足道的，即使在斷頭臺上，他也表現出了令人難以想象的沉著冷靜。因為在他的心底，一直有一個信念在支持他：“耶穌說，復活在我，生命也在我，信我的人，雖然死了，也必復活。凡活著信我的人，必永遠不死。”他用死完成了自我救贖，他用死來反抗虛偽的革命者，他用死來詮釋對露絲的愛。生命，成了他最后的武器，愛，成了他唯一的支柱。

《雙城記》讀后感14

我看《雙城記》，原因是在網上有許多網友推薦，他們都說那是一本非常感人的書，我懷著好奇心就在網上下載來看，看完了一部分感覺還不錯，就寫下這篇讀后感。

《雙城記》主要是深刻描繪了當時動蕩不安的時代背景，和歷史現實而犧牲的兒女情長。

網上有人說，《雙城記》只是描寫了兩個男人跟一個女人的故事，但我卻覺得，那個人沒有了解作者真正想表達的意思。以我看來，德發奇一家與法國貴族的仇恨也好，露西、查爾斯與西德尼的感情也好，都只是為了表現這場戰爭是誰引起的，為什么事而起的。其實人與人之間都必須保持著寬以待人的態度，即使是天大的事也能大事化小，小事化了。記得發生在我身上的一件事：有一次，我不小心把同學的書弄丟了，原本我還以為她會要我賠，還要怪我呢。沒想到當我和她講的時候，她不僅沒罵我，還對我講說以后不能丟三落四了，應該養成好習慣。恩，也許這就是人與人之間的態度吧！

在這部作品里，我看到了很多不同的人。有正直善良卻又慘遭迫害的馬奈特醫生，忠厚老實的洛瑞，外表冷漠、內心熱情，放蕩而又無私的.西德尼，沒有人性的德發奇太太，兇殘陰險的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟……里面有復雜的仇恨，想復仇卻又制造了更多的仇恨，這復雜的一幕幕，生動的展現在我們面前，我們仿佛又回到了那個失去理智的時代。有人抱怨自己生在這個世紀是件壞事，要生在從前，最起碼能當個烈士。其實這種想法是錯誤的，我們生在現代就應該為現代做貢獻。而人世間有各種各樣的人，他們都有不同的個性，我們不要因為誰的性格怪異而不與他交友，也不要太相信身邊的人，也許他就是想害你的其中一個。

文中《雙城記》，最讓我喜歡的是律師助手西德尼·卡爾頓。他第一次出現就與眾不同，當法庭上的人若無其事地望著天花板時，而他的一張字條卻揭曉了案件背后的陰謀。他一出場就帶著一身的憂郁，作為律師的他算得上是才華出眾，但是卻又情愿躲在人家的后面，做別人成功的墊腳石，他仿佛自己親手筑起了一堵墻，與名利隔絕。他曾說過：“我是個絕望了的苦力，我不關心世上任何人，也沒有任何人關心我。”

是啊，我們不應該渴望出名，那樣就學不到更多的知識。也許做別人背后的墊腳石，還能操你個別人那里學到更多的知識，我們能夠看到他的長處和短處，學習他的長處，拋掉自己的短處。

《雙城記》讀后感15

今天，終于讀完了英。大文豪狄更斯的《雙城記》，第一次看到這個書的名字就深深的吸引主了我的實現和好奇心，不敢輕易去嘗試，它是那么神秘，那么厚重……不過，我現在還是鼓足勇氣讀完了。

《雙城記》講述的是1775——1785年這一混亂時期發生在哪是世界上最繁華和最混亂，最骯臟的英國和法國，這兩個我一直向往的國度，整篇小說主要展現Lucy的家人及其朋友間偉大的友誼，偉大的愛。露西是一個法國醫生馬內特的女兒。她溫柔，美麗，善良贏得許多男士的傾心，其中包括她后來的丈夫達雷，還有最后為她的幸福而代她丈夫被送上斷頭臺的卡頓。他們之間的愛是真誠的，是偉大的，當然還有一個最善良，最仁慈的人一直幫助他們一家，是當時**中僅存的一點光亮，他就是羅端，他時時地關心露西和她的家人，把他畢生的愛傾注在這一家人身上，愛他們遠勝愛自己。同時，他又是一位兢兢業業的商人，他是少許有良知，善良的人們的一個縮影，一個精華，露西的丈夫達雷是法國以貴族的后人，由于認清了他的家族的罪惡，自動放棄侯爵頭銜和繼承權，獨自到英國自食其力，他為人謙和，待人誠懇，和羅端一樣是一位真正的紳士。他把他的財產分給法國人民，然他的善心并沒有得到好報，再1778年巴士底獄被攻占后，他因一忠實奴仆的來信懇求，回到久違的法國開始他的營救工作，然而在他剛踏上法國領土時就被抓進了福斯獄，以逃亡貴族的罪名罪名將她送上審判臺。馬內特醫生，露西也紛紛來到法國拯救他，羅端剛好在法國，利用馬內特蹲過巴士底獄地影響將他救出，然而，命運總會讓善良的人們多災多難。就在他被釋放的'當天晚上又被抓起來，這次是馬內特在獄中的手稿被小人所利用，將自己的女婿送上了斷頭臺，這時一直在暗中保護著一家的卡頓發揮了他過人的律師職能，最終用自己的生命，換的露西一家的幸福，在露西心目中樹立起一個永遠高大的形象，這是偉大的愛與被愛。

卡頓是一個有頭腦，非常聰明，洞察力非常強的職業律師，倘若在今天，他一定可以稱法律界的名流，而在那時卻英雄無用武之地，因此，他只能用酒來澆灌所有的煩惱，以及生不逢時給他帶來的巨大創傷。在別人眼中他總是懶散的，墮落的，當然除了露西。

此外，還有普洛斯小姐，露西的忠誠的傭人和朋友，杰端這由壞到好的人物，給人們帶來了希望。

原來我一直為止傾嘆的法國人民并非我想象中那么完美，在這本書中更多地展現了他們革命時的邪惡的本性。