Oh, definitely A Tale of Two Cities. It starts with one of the most quotable lines in literature and everything continues to come together like clockwork after that. How can you not love a story in which one of the most sinister characters spends the entire book knitting? Genius!
2006-09-23 14:50:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
In my own opinion, I liked a Tale of Two Cities better. I did not like Great Expectations at all. I could hardly get through the first chapter. If it wasnt for a school assignment, I would have never read the whole thing. So yeah, definately, A tale of two cities.
2006-09-23 15:56:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by drose 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Even though Charles Dickens is not exactly my favorite author, I do admit that he was brilliant writer and his works have had a an indelible effect on English Literature.
That said, I would have to say that I enjoyed "A Tale of Two Cities" infinitely more than "Great Expectations".
2006-09-23 20:41:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
A tale of 2 cities was better
2006-09-23 17:51:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Arty 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A Tale of Two Cities by far
2006-09-23 15:15:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Great Expectations
2006-09-24 01:23:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by cG 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tale of Two Cities (looks like a landslide!)
2006-09-24 18:02:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by bearhill13 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A Tale of Two Cities made for better reading--you don't get as bogged down in the weighty prose.
2006-09-23 15:53:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by spunk113 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I liked A Tale of Two Cities best, but I'm a francophile and rather into the revolution.
2006-09-23 15:02:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Baby'sMom 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
A Tale of Two Cities had a greater impact on me. But they are both very good.
Which is better, a Monet or a Picasso? They are each masters of their own universe. They defy comparisons such as "which is better."
2006-09-23 14:49:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by dredude52 6
·
0⤊
0⤋