Charles Dickins was an amazing writer . His stories were a picture of life as it was at the time and is wording was, and still is inspiritional.
2007-02-26 00:36:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Dickens was writing about an entirely different era from today. The above opening lines relates to the differences between the rich and poor, for the rich it was the best of times, they had all the poor folk who desperately needed work and they took advantage of that. They worked them long hours, underpaid and often badly treated, that is the worst of times. It is not much wonder you couldn't understand if you couldn't get past the first sentence. His style is, of necessity, in that time wordy. People needed things explained to them as most had not travelled outside their own village and so did not have the imagination to supply their own interpretation of the scene, scenery, flowers, distances, towns, hotels, nothing at all in fact. They were not written as books, but serial stories in the paper. Poor people could not afford books. Most could not even read and it would be someone, who could afford a paper, could read, that would sit and describe, through Charles Dickens words, adventures, lands and sights that they had no idea about. Perhaps his wordy stories got through to people who then wanted to see and do and learn and never would have without such very descriptive writing. I suggest that you try again and use a bit of your imagination to transport yourself to the era the books were written for.
2007-03-01 12:54:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by ELIZABETH M 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
You may need further education. You don't seem to appreciate that Charles Dickens was writing to another generation, without today's technology. Reading was everything. Additionally, Charles Dickens wrote these stories as serials in a weekly publication (which was incredibly popular in Victorian times.) Even today, the opening sentence as you have described above, still grabs the reader's attention with its dramatic and contradictory yet profound paradoxical introduction.
Sorry but to call this "nonsense" says far more about you than the universally accredited author of English literature.
2007-02-26 00:40:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Raymo 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Life is filled with moments that result in being better for one person, or group, than other times. A simple example is provided in sports. Separate teams of people band together to achieve a common goal, the league championship; yet, only one of the groups will succeed. Wherein it is the best of times for one group, it is the worst of times for the other team.
Even if Dickens writings are nonsensical, I would still aspire to write with his level of percipience. I offer this: since Dickens is considered one of the best authors of all time, then you should consider reforming both your opinion and outlook. You should also consider the content. Dickens was far nearer to France at the time of the revolution that you, me, or whomever wrote your history book. He imparts to the reader the brutal hypocrisy of the revolutionaries and the perils of mob mentality.
Bonne journée, citoyen, la mort l'au roi.
2007-02-26 01:17:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by freemichaelcampaign 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think Charles Dickens writes a good yarn. You have to remember his work was written in a different era. Why not hire a DVD of the film? It would help you if you have to read the novel as a part of a course.
2007-02-26 00:46:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by DS 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
Once you've lived into adulthood, you will be able to look back and say that those days were "The best of times" and "The worst of times".
When I was a child, it was the Best of Times because I was happy in my own little world, off playing with my firends, not a care in the world. It was also the Worst of Times, in that I had no control over my own life. I couldn't make decisions on my own, everything was decided for me. When to eat, when to sleep, etc. Now, I have that freedom to make my own decisions, but now I have to live int he real world. I have bigger cares than "Will Megatron finally get the better of the Autobots?"
Oh, wait, scratch that last statement, I'm showing my age.
2007-02-26 00:43:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I don't know about Dickens being a "nonsense" writer, but I personally don't care for his style and won't pick up a novel of his now that I'm out of school and am no longer obliged to do so.
I much prefer Jane Austen and Henry James, though the latter has as convoluted a syntax as almost any writer I've ever read (except James Joyce, who I also won't read).
2007-02-26 00:41:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by kcbranaghsgirl 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
It was the best of times for the rich [before the revolution] and the worst times for the poor. Give up on Dickens if you like, but he is universally recognized as a great writer who entertained as he exposed the evils of his day.
2007-02-26 00:37:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by william a 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Certainly an over rated writer but not a nonsense author. A bit of a sensationalist
2007-02-27 08:45:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by Professor 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a pity you did not read it, you have denied your self the pleasure and enlightenment of reading a story by one of the greatest social historians of the 19th century. Had he lived in this century, he would be a millionaire many times over, because he would have been able to earn a salary befitting such a great writer.
2007-02-26 07:19:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Social Science Lady 7
·
2⤊
0⤋