第一篇:双城记英语读后感-双城记读后感
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
第二篇:《双城记》英语读后感
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?
第三篇:双城记英语读后感
双城记英语读后感-双城记读后感-英语论文
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.
第四篇:双城记英语读后感-双城记读后感
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
第五篇:《双城记》读后感
《双城记》读后感1
我平时读书不多,名著读的的也就更加的少了。但是《双城记》是我很喜欢的一本书,起初是一位非常好的老师向我推荐的,读完真的有很多体会。
法国大革命是人类史上一个血的印记。在那个混乱的时代,充满不确定;在这种无秩序的状态下,人性的一切表露无疑。双城记以法国大革命为背景,通过为族与平民之间的仇恨冲突,作者狄更斯只想传达出——鲜血无法洗去仇恨,更不能替代爱——贵族的暴虐对平民造成的伤痛不会因为鲜血而愈合,平民对贵族的仇恨也无法替代对已逝亲人的爱。
故事中,梅尼特医生从监狱中重获自由和女儿一起到伦敦生活。五年后,他们在法庭上为名叫查尔斯?代尔那的法国青年做证,露西和代尔那因相爱而结婚。1792年,法国大革命爆发,故事场景转至法国。代尔那因身为贵族后裔而遭逮捕并判死刑,在千钧一发的时刻,一直爱恋露西的英国青年西得尼?卡登替他上了断头台。
卡登是书中最富魅力亦最复杂的角色之一。颓废、消极,求学时,他只替同学写作业;出社会后,即使拥有一身才华,它仍然选择为另一名律师工作。但是,在他冷漠的外表下,有著深深的温柔。凭这一斛温柔和对露西的爱,卡登做了一个意义重大的决定——代替代尔那上断头台——用自己的生命换回另一个人的性命,换回一个家庭的幸福和笑颜。这是卡登守护露西的表现,为爱而牺牲,这在那个大时代、甚至现代,是多麼高贵的举动!
相较於代表的温柔和爱,多法石太太则是杀戮和血腥的象徵。由於亲人惨死在代尔那的`父亲和叔叔的魔掌下,她终其一生为仇恨而活;为置代尔那一家於死地,无所不用其极,最后终於让自己死於擦枪走火的意外。多法石太太的嗜血固然使人不寒而栗,但也叫人不禁感叹恨的力量,将本该快乐幸福的女人塑造成复仇女神。十八世纪末的法国,被这种执拗复仇的火焰燃烧成阿修罗地狱。
教训和意义不能因为岁月而被遗忘。如果我们无法从其中获得一些什麼,相同的悲剧依旧会重演。两百年后的今天,希望活在这个世代的我们能创造出真正平等、自由、博爱的新世纪。
卡登的死,就像一支羽毛轻柔的飘落水面,没有水花,却有一个个涟漪,提醒人们:真正的自由平等无法用断头台建立。有一天,世界会变得更好,就像卡登临死前看见的世界,那不是天堂的幻影;有一天,那会是我们的世界。
《双城记》读后感2
法国大革命是人类史上一个血的印记。在那个混乱的时代,充满不确定;在这种无秩序的状态下,人性的一切表露无疑。双城记以法国大革命为背景,透过为族与平民之间的仇恨冲突,作者狄更斯只想传达出——-鲜血无法洗去仇恨,更不能替代爱——-贵族的暴虐对平民造成的伤痛不会因为鲜血而愈合,平民对贵族的仇恨也无法替代对已逝亲人的爱。
故事中,梅尼特医生从监狱中重获自由与女儿一起到伦敦生活。五年后,他们在法庭上为名叫查尔斯?代尔那的法国青年做证,露西与代尔那因相爱而结婚。1792年,法国大革命爆发,故事场景转至法国。代尔那因身为贵族后裔而遭逮捕并判死刑,在千钧一发的时刻,一直爱恋露西的英国青年西得尼?卡登替他上了断头台。
卡登是书中最富魅力亦最复杂的角色之一。颓废、消极,求学时,他只替同学写作业;出社会后,即使拥有一身才华,它仍然选择为另一名律师工作。但是,在他冷漠的外表下,有著深深的温柔。凭这一斛温柔与对露西的爱,卡登做了一个意义重大的决定——-代替代尔那上断头台——-用自己的生命换回另一个人的性命,换回一个家庭的幸福与笑颜。这是卡登守护露西的表现,为爱而牺牲,这在那个大时代、甚至现代,是多麼高贵的举动!
相较於代表的温柔与爱,多法石太太则是杀戮与血腥的象徵。由於亲人惨死在代尔那的父亲与叔叔的魔掌下,她终其一生为仇恨而活;为置代尔那一家於死地,无所不用其极,最后终於让自己死於擦枪走火的意外。多法石太太的嗜血固然使人不寒而栗,但也叫人不禁感叹恨的力量,将本该快乐幸福的女人塑造成复仇女神。十八世纪末的法国,被这种执拗复仇的火焰燃烧成阿修罗地狱。
教训与意义不能因为岁月而被遗忘。如果我们无法从其中获得一些什麼,相同的悲剧依旧会重演。两百年后的'今天,希望活在这个世代的我们能创造出真正平等、自由、博爱的新世纪。
卡登的死,就像一支羽毛轻柔的飘落水面,没有水花,却有一个个涟漪,提醒人们:真正的自由平等无法用断头台建立。有一天,世界会变得更好,就像卡登临死前看见的世界,那不是天堂的幻影;有一天,那会是我们的世界。
《双城记》读后感3
我相信每一个看过《双城记》的人,都会在震撼之余赞不绝口。由英国著名作家狄更斯所著的这部书,永垂不朽!名著就是名著,不管多少年过后,名著依然散发着璀璨光彩,更何。
我看《双城记》,原因是在网上有许多网友推荐,他们都说那是一本非常感人的书,我怀着好奇心就在网上下载来看,看完了一部分感觉还不错,就写下这篇读后感。
“这是最好的时代,也是最坏的时代。”《双城记》开篇第一句话被无数次引用。但我猜知道这句话的人并一定小说《双城记》讲述了一个怎么样的故事,也不知道这句话为何而说。如果想理解这句话的原意,以及为何说写出这句经典名句,那自然是要读读原著的。
网上有人说,《双城记》只是描写了两个男人和一个女人的故事,但是我却觉得,那个人没有了解作者真正想表达的意思。以我看来,德发奇一家和法国贵族的仇恨也好,露西、查尔斯和西德尼的感情也好,都只是为了表现这场战争是谁引起的,为什么事而起的。虽然《双城记》是一本经典的小说,但因为其明确提出这段革命背景是法国大革命,于是对革命的表现就被认为是作者的历史观。而这正是对小说无数争议的焦点。狄更斯在小说中除了以细腻的'笔墨展示了贵族的残忍,同样也展示了革命群众非理性的破坏。他认为,革命是一种压迫取代了另一种压迫,一场直接浓重的血腥暴*替代了另外一场血腥。对攻占巴士底狱以及对暴*民众的一系列描写——血腥,残忍,狡诈,恶毒是小说最为引人注目的地方。
文中《双城记》,最让我喜欢的是律师助手西德尼?卡尔顿。他第一次出现就与众不同,当法庭上的人若无其事地望着天花板时,而他的一张字条却揭晓了案件背后的阴谋。他一出场就带着一身的忧郁,作为律师的他算得上是才华出众,但却又情愿躲在人家的后面,做别人成功的垫脚石,他仿佛自己亲手筑起了一堵墙,与名利隔绝。他曾说过:“我是个绝望了的苦力,我不关心世上任何人,也没有任何人关心我。”
是啊,我们不应该渴望出名,那样就学不到更多的知识。也许做别人背后的垫脚石,还能操你个别人那里学到更多的知识,我们能够看到他的长处和短处,学习他的长处,抛掉自己的短处。
《双城记》读后感4
今天,我终于读完了英国作家狄更斯的著作《双城记》。读完这本书,我的心情久久不能平静。
小说以18世纪的法国大革命为背景,故事中将巴黎、伦敦两个大城市连结起来,叙述马内特医生一家充满了爱与冒险的遭遇,中间穿插了贵族的残暴、人民的愤怒、审判间谍……主要揭示了那个时期英法的社会治安,以及大官贵族,下至平民百姓的生活。
这部著作主要讲述了:可怜的马内特医生在被贵族以“莫须有”的罪名关在巴士底狱十九年后,他的女儿将他接到了英国居住。在法庭上父女认识了法国贵族达雷和潦倒师父卡顿。后来,马内特的女儿露西和达雷结了婚,过了十年的幸福家庭生活,卡顿也给了露西一个承诺,要让露西生活快乐。
人民生活在困苦无助、饥寒交迫、贫病连连、受尽欺压的困境中,他们心中积压了对贵族的刻骨深仇,终于引发了推翻政权、争取自由的法国大革命。法国大革命爆发后,达雷为了营救无辜的仆人,赶到法国去给他辩护,却因他曾是法国贵族而被拘捕了。而卡顿为了实践要让露西生活快乐的承诺,利用他跟达雷相貌相似,在达雷被处刑前,用自己跟达雷掉包,代替他上了断头台。
黑暗的年代已经过去了,充满希望与光明的年代已经到来,那时的黑暗令人惨不忍睹!起先,天下是属于国王的,后来,天下是属于人民的。1789年7月13日,人民攻占了关押政治犯的.巴士底狱;1793年1月21日,革命把国王路易十六送上了断头台,这象征着封建统治的结束;1793年2月20日,成立法兰西第一共和国。
充满黑暗和压迫的18世纪已经一去不复返了,百姓受苦受难的悲惨生活已经彻底结束。我们迎来了被希望沐浴下的21世纪,从那个时代到今天的漫长岁月不过像昨天到今天那样短暂。我认为卡顿的精神是值得我们学习的,他重情义,信守诺言,为了实现他对露西的诺言,不惜一切代价,包括宝贵的生命。
当今的人民绝对不会让历史重演,历史也不会重演。让我们过好每一天,让属于我们的21世纪更加充满光彩!
《双城记》读后感5
我看《双城记》,原因是在网上有许多网友推荐,他们都说那是一本非常感人的书,我怀着好奇心就在网上下载来看,看完了一部分感觉还不错,就写下这篇读后感。
《双城记》主要是深刻描绘了当时动荡不安的时代背景,与喂历史现实而牺牲的儿女情长。
网上有人说,《双城记》只是描写了两个男人与一个女人的故事,但是我却觉得,那个人没有了解作者真正想表达的意思。以我看来,德发奇一家与法国贵族的仇恨也好,露西、查尔斯与西德尼的感情也好,都只是为了表现这场战争是谁引起的,为什么事而起的。其实人与人之间都必须保持着宽以待人的态度,即使是天大的事也能大事化小,小事化了。记得发生在我身上的一件事:有一次,我不小心把同学的书弄丢了,原本我还以为她会要我赔,还要怪我呢。没想到当我与她讲的时候,她不仅没骂我,还对我讲说以后不能丢三落四了,应该养成好习惯。恩,也许这就是人与人之间的态度吧!
在这部作品里,我看到了很多不同的人。有正直善良却又惨遭迫害的马奈特医生,忠厚老实的洛瑞,外表冷漠、内心热情,放荡而又无私的西德尼,没有人性的德发奇太太,凶残阴险的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟……里面有复杂的仇恨,想复仇却又制造了更多的仇恨,这复杂的一幕幕,生动的展现在我们面前,我们仿佛又回到了那个失去理智的时代。有人抱怨自己生在这个世纪是件坏事,要生在从前,最起码能当个烈士。其实这种想法是错误的,我们生在现代就应该为现代做贡献。而人世间有各种各样的人,他们都有不同的个性,我们不要因为谁的性格怪异而不与他交友,也不要太相信身边的人,也许他就是想害你的其中一个。
文中《双城记》,最让我喜欢的是律师助手西德尼?卡尔顿。他第一次出现就与众不同,当法庭上的人若无其事地望着天花板时,而他的一张字条却揭晓了案件背后的`阴谋。他一出场就带着一身的忧郁,作为律师的他算得上是才华出众,但却又情愿躲在人家的后面,做别人成功的垫脚石,他仿佛自己亲手筑起了一堵墙,与名利隔绝。他曾说过:“我是个绝望了的苦力,我不关心世上任何人,也没有任何人关心我。”
是啊,我们不应该渴望出名,那样就学不到更多的知识。也许做别人背后的垫脚石,还能操你个别人那里学到更多的知识,我们能够看到他的长处与短处,学习他的长处,抛掉自己的短处。
《双城记》读后感6
我看《双城记》,原因是在网上有许多网友推荐,他们都说那是一本非常感人的书,我怀着好奇心就在网上下载来看,看完了一部分感觉还不错,就写下这篇读后感。
网上有人说,《双城记》只是描写了两个男人和一个女人的故事,但是我却觉得,那个人没有了解作者真正想表达的意思。以我看来,德发奇一家和法国贵族的仇恨也好,露西、查尔斯和西德尼的感情也好,都只是为了表现这场战争是谁引起的,为什么事而起的。其实人与人之间都必须保持着宽以待人的态度,即使是天大的事也能大事化小,小事化了。记得发生在我身上的一件事:有一次,我不小心把同学的书弄丢了,原本我还以为她会要我赔,还要怪我呢。没想到当我和她讲的时候,她不仅没骂我,还对我讲说以后不能丢三落四了,应该养成好习惯。恩,也许这就是人与人之间的态度吧!
在这部作品里,我看到了很多不同的人。有正直善良却又惨遭迫害的马奈特医生,忠厚老实的洛瑞,外表冷漠、内心热情,放荡而又无私的西德尼,没有人性的德发奇太太,凶残阴险的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟......里面有复杂的仇恨,想复仇却又制造了更多的仇恨,这复杂的一幕幕,生动的展现在大家面前,大家仿佛又回到了那个失去理智的时代。有人抱怨自己生在这个世纪是件坏事,要生在从前,最起码能当个烈士。其实这种想法是错误的,大家生在现代就应该为现代做贡献。而人世间有各种各样的人,他们都有不同的个性,大家不要因为谁的性格怪异而不与他交友,也不要太相信身边的人,也许他就是想害你的其中一个。
文中《双城记》,最让我喜欢的`是律师助手西德尼卡尔顿。他第一次出现就与众不同,当法庭上的人若无其事地望着天花板时,而他的一张字条却揭晓了案件背后的阴谋。他一出场就带着一身的忧郁,作为律师的他算得上是才华出众,但却又情愿躲在人家的后面,做别人成功的垫脚石,他仿佛自己亲手筑起了一堵墙,与名利隔绝。他曾说过:“我是个绝望了的苦力,我不关心世上任何人,也没有任何人关心我。”
是啊,大家不应该渴望出名,那样就学不到更多的知识。也许做别人背后的垫脚石,还能操你个别人那里学到更多的知识,大家能够看到他的长处和短处,学习他的长处,抛掉自己的短处。
《双城记》读后感7
那是最完美的时代,那是最糟糕的时代;那是智慧的年头,那是愚昧的年头;那是信仰的时期,那是怀疑的时期;那是光明的季节,那是黑暗的季节;那是期望的春天,那是失望的冬天;我们全都在直奔天堂,我们全都在直奔相反的方向——简而言之,那时跟此刻十分相象,某些最喧嚣的权威坚持要用形容词的最高级来形容它。说它好,是最高级的;说它不好,也是最高级的。这是狄更斯的《双城记》的经典开头,这是一曲时代节奏的起始音符,这是一幅恢弘的历史画卷最初的那一笔重重的色彩。
《双城记》有其不一样于一般历史小说的地方,它的人物和主要情节都是虚构的。在法国大革命广阔的真实背景下,作者以虚构人物梅尼特医生的经历为主线索,把冤狱、感情与复仇三个互相独立而又互相关联的故事交织在一齐,情节错综,头绪纷繁。作者采取倒叙、插叙、伏笔、铺垫等手法,使小说结构完整严密,情节曲折紧张而富有戏剧性,表现了卓越的艺术技巧。风格肃穆、沉郁,充满忧愤。
小说在情节安排上,采用了他在许多作品中惯用的悬念手法。开篇描述英法两国动荡不安的局势,之后是关于活埋和复生的对话,一开始就渲染了一种神秘和紧张的'气氛。这种气氛随着故事情节的展开而越发加强。马奈特医生出狱后奇怪的缝鞋活动,代尔那婚前和马奈特的神秘对话,卡尔登和代尔那面貌酷似,这种种疑团加深了小说的魅力,使它的结构犹如巴士底监狱通道那样迂回曲折,直到最后才把散见于全书的各条线索串联起来,创造出豁然开朗的艺术效果。
《双城记》主要以情节结构取胜。书中的人物形象基本上可分为两大类:一类是仁爱的化身,如马奈特医生、路茜、代尔那和卡尔登;另一类是复仇的化身,如得伐石夫妇、甲克,以及法国革命中疯狂的群众。两厢对立,壁垒分明,在尖锐的矛盾冲突中展示其鲜明的性格特征。狄更斯喜用的漫画化手法,在这部小说中得到了充分的体现。
其中狄更斯的思想发展过程中占着一个独特的地位。尖锐的阶级对立在小说中以更为极端的形式出现。旧秩序、旧制度的崩溃已经不再像《荒凉山庄》中废品收购商克鲁克那样自我燃烧,也不会像《小杜丽》中克仑南姆夫人宅邸那样自动坍塌。在英国,像法国革命那样的一场不可避免的必然性正迫在眉睫。《双城记》是狄更斯对英国统治阶级发出的一个强烈警告。
《双城记》读后感8
这个假期,我利用空余时间阅读了狄更斯的《双城记》,也有了些体悟,下面我来把我的感受写下来。
一、情节布置
这部著作的情节是十分玄妙的,作者把各种线索串联起来,如文中所说的一样“编织”成了这部小说。小说最大的特点是人物关系复杂:如马 奈特医生和达南的关系;德发奇太太与达南的关系——这两个关系直接导致了最后的悲剧。还有洛瑞先生与德发奇的关系以及格仑舍与密探的关系等等。这些复杂的人物关系使此部著作情节环环相扣。
这本书最有特色的一个章节是顿临死前与一位小姑娘的对话,从这番对话中彻底揭示了革命群众过于疯狂以及善将永存的`主旨。
二、人物特点
本书最重要的人物是查尔斯·达南(埃弗蒙德)。他是一个很矛盾的人,他非常憎恨自己的父亲与叔父,但是他还必须支撑整个家族的产业。所以,当老仆人给他写信 时,他便不得不回到法国。他是一个善良的人,具备一位贵族所具有的文明气质,并且当他去会见自己的叔父时,他明确提出了“不能再迫害人民”的说法。同时,他放弃了贵族特权,本来就是一件善事。
悉尼·卡顿也是位重要人物。在读这部小说的前半部分时,我一直不大喜欢这个随意、懒惰的人物。但是在往后读的过程中,我发现他是一个敢作敢为、足智多谋的人。虽然是“朋友”,但实际上卡顿和达南的关系并没有那么好,但是为了他们一家人幸福滴生活,卡顿甘愿走上断头台,让达南逃跑,而自己成了永恒的善的化身。在文章中提到卡顿死时“犹如一位先知“。
德发奇夫妇也属于本书中的焦点人物。德发奇本人是个善良的人,他收留了马奈特医生,并且在大革命之后告诉自己的夫人见好就收。而德发奇太太就是个复仇者,她受过埃弗蒙德兄弟的迫害,所以她一心想杀掉法国所有贵族。当然,由于她的过激行为,使她最后死于普洛士小姐手中。
三。写作特色
本部小说文笔非常幽默,作者一直在使用辩证关系和反复的手法来实现这种效果,所以这部感人的小说还能读起来令人十分想笑。
文章有特色的一处是最后作者“帮助卡顿发表感想“。作者用卡顿的语言交待了文章的结局,告诉人们”善良在世界永存“的道理。
这就是我读过这部小说的感受。
《双城记》读后感9
那是最完美的时代,那是最糟糕的时代;那是智慧的年头,那是愚昧的年头;那是信仰的时期,那是怀疑的时期;那是光明的季节,那是黑暗的季节;那是期望的春天,那是失望的冬天;我们全都在直奔天堂,我们全都在直奔相反的方向——简而言之,那时跟此刻十分相象,某些最喧嚣的权威坚持要用形容词的最高级来形容它。说它好,是最高级的;说它不好,也是最高级的。
这是整本书的开头第一章,将全书的基调定上了杯具色彩,然而就在这矛盾的时代中,也确实存在过光明。
这本书叙述了法国大革命时期围绕在医生马奈特一家周围的事,这本书颠覆了我对自由,权利以及善恶的看法——法国人民不堪重负,推翻了波旁王朝,然而新政权建立之后朝他们走来的难道是他们心驰神往的自由吗?不,仍然是以往的提心吊胆,稍不留神明天就会被送上断头台。得势之后的德发日太太滥用职权,将死敌们个个置于死地,最后却落得个惨死的下场。正如那句话所说的:“自由啊,有多少罪恶是假借你的名义干出来的。”大革命并不如想象中的那么完美,而是以暴易暴。它没有拯救人民,而是将人民推入了另一个火坑。
再来看看另外一位大革命的牺牲品——达内,革命之前,他放下了国内的`家业,只身来到英国谋生,在他看来,压迫人民是一件极不人道的事,然而,革命爆发后,他反而无辜地成为人民的敌人,人们不分青红皂白地要将他领上断头台。但是坚信在九死一生之后,他依然是原先那个善良的达内。
而卡顿——一个才华横溢却自甘堕落的律师,他与达内有着相同的长相,却有着不一样的命运,在应对活着还是让自己心爱的人得到幸福的抉择时,毅然决然的选取了后者,在他看来,生命在爱的面前是微不足道的,即使在断头台上,他也表现出了令人难以想象的沉着冷静。正是因为在他的心底,一向有一个信念在支持他:“耶稣说,复活在我,生命也在我,信我的人,虽然死了,也必复活。凡活着信我的人,必定永远不死。”他用死完成了自我救赎,他用死来反抗虚伪的革命者,他用死来诠释对露丝的爱。生命,成了他最后的武器,爱,成了他唯一的支柱。
《双城记》读后感10
品不一样的人生
爱情在生与死的悬崖边上徘徊,而死亡则是解决最终爱情的唯一方法。
“这是最美的时代,也是最糟糕的时代;这是智慧的年代,也是愚昧的年代;这是信仰的时期,也是怀疑的时期;这是光明的季节,也是黑暗的`季节。”这是书中我认为最经典、最有分量的语句。
英国著名作家狄更斯为我们讲述了在这样复杂的时代背景下1个感人的爱情故事。
卡顿,这个故事中的1个男主角。他深爱着女主人公露西,然而露西有1个深爱着的而且对方也深爱着露西的爱人--达尔内。对此,他选择了放弃,用宽容来成全他们的爱。
书中,他在每个喝醉了酒的夜晚,晃悠到露西他们所在的街角。清冷的月色下,唯有街道两旁的影子与他相伴--坐在那儿,就那样望着那栋房子。不知何时,晨曦的第一缕光已洒向不远处教堂的顶端。
“复活在我,生命也在我,信仰我的人虽然死了,也必复活,凡活着信仰我的人,必永远不死。”书中,道路悄然,夜色渐浓,《圣经》的词句拌和着他脚步的回音,在空中回荡。由于达内尔家族的关系,法国大革命后的他将要被群情激愤的广大人民送上断头台。卡顿为了爱情,毅然决定用自己酷似达内尔的长相去换回达内尔的生命。
塞纳河岸依旧,水浪怒涌着,扑向岸边,打起一串串水珠,而后转瞬退去。新生还是死亡?在这个最好也最坏的时代,一切都是未知的。
在即将踏上断头台的那一刹那,他看见露西:抱着那个以他来命名的孩子在多年以后,和达尔内在一起,达内尔向这个孩子讲述着他的故事。长大成人的孩子在这条路上奋勇前进……
他满足地笑了:因为他现在所做的比所做过的一切都要好;他将要到1个比他所知道的还要好的地方去好好休息!
卡顿为了爱情,选择了牺牲。然而不知道为什么,在我的身边和许多的影视作品中,人们在爱情的道路上往往都是自私的。难道,看着自己爱的人幸福不是1种幸福吗?
道路悄然,夜色渐浓,泰戈尔的那句话似乎又在吟唱,自心底升起:“让死者有那不朽的名,让生者有那不朽的爱。”
《双城记》读后感11
我看《双城记》,原因是在网上有很多网友推荐,他们都说那是一本非常感人的书,我怀着好奇心就在网上下载来看,看完了一部分感觉还不错,就写下这篇读后感。
《双城记》主要是深刻描绘了当时动荡不安的时代背景,和喂历史现实而牺牲的儿女情长。
网上有人说,《双城记》只是描写了两个男人和一个女人的故事,但我却觉得,那个人没有了解作者真正想表达的意思。以我看来,德发奇一家和法国贵族的仇恨也好,露西、查尔斯和西德尼的感情也好,都只是为了表现这场战争是谁引起的,为什么事而起的。其实人与人之间都必须保持着宽以待人的态度,即使是天大的事也能大事化小,小事化了。记得发生在我身上的一件事:有一次,我不小心把同学的书弄丢了,原本我还以为她会要我赔,还要怪我呢。没想到当我和她讲的时候,她不仅没骂我,还对我讲说以后不能够丢三落四了,应该养成好习惯。恩,也许这就是人与人之间的态度吧!
在这部作品里,我看到了很多不同的人。有正直善良却又惨遭迫害的'马奈特医生,忠厚老实的洛瑞,外表冷漠、内心热情,放荡而又无私的西德尼,没有人性的德发奇太太,凶残阴险的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟……里面有复杂的仇恨,想复仇却又制造了更多的仇恨,这复杂的一幕幕,生动的展现在我们面前,我们仿佛又回到了那个失去理智的时代。有人抱怨自己生在这个世纪是件坏事,要生在从前,最起码能当个烈士。其实这种想法是错误的,我们生在现代就应该为现代做贡献。而人世间有各种各样的人,他们都有不同的个性,我们不要因为谁的性格怪异而不与他交友,也不要太相信身边的人,也许他就是想害你的其中一个。
文中《双城记》,最让我喜欢的是律师助手西德尼?卡尔顿。他第一次出现就与众不同,当法庭上的人若无其事地望着天花板时,而他的一张字条却揭晓了案件背后的阴谋。他一出场就带着一身的忧郁,作为律师的他算得上是才华出众,但却又情愿躲在人家的后面,做别人成功的垫脚石,他仿佛自己亲手筑起了一堵墙,与名利隔绝。他曾说过:“我是个绝望了的苦力,我不关心世上任何人,也没有任何人关心我。”
是啊,我们不应该渴望出名,那样就学不到更多的知识。也许做别人背后的垫脚石,还能够操你个别人那里学到更多的知识,我们能看到他的长处和短处,学习他的长处,抛掉自己的短处。
《双城记》读后感12
这个寒假我拜读了狄更斯的作品,以下就是我的感想。
故事是这样的,埃瑞弗蒙德侯爵蹂躏农家妇女,她的哥哥知道了,于是跟侯爵干了一仗,以失败告终。而且他还受了重伤。可能侯爵也不想把事搞大了,不想弄出人命吧。就请了一个医生,这就是另外一个重要的人物马奈特医生。而这可怜的马奈特医生也由于知道了内情而被侯爵送进了巴士底监狱。十八年后终于重见天日……
故事里我看到了很多很多不同的人。正直善良的马奈特医生,美丽温柔的露西,优雅高尚的查尔斯,忠厚老实的'洛瑞,外表冷漠、内心热情,放荡不羁而又无私崇高的西德尼,扭曲了人性的德发日太太,豪爽忠诚的普洛斯小姐,残忍阴险的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟……
而这个查尔斯来头不小,是埃斯瑞弗蒙德侯爵的侄子,但是他不接受爵位,离开法国到英国去。他在伦敦靠自己当上了法文老师。
还有一个人叫西德尼·卡顿,他从一开始的法庭上若无其事地望着天花板但他的一张纸条就揭穿了原告的阴谋。他很容易给人一种邋遢、消沉、贪杯的印象,但他在危急时刻,通过一个狱卒来到查尔斯的监狱里与查尔斯换了衣服。后果可想而知,查尔斯被送出了法国,而卡顿却被送上了断头台,他在死前说了一句话:我现在做的是我一生中做过的最好、最最好的事情;我即将得到的,是我一生中过的最宁静、最最宁静的休息。
在革命成功后,革命者们大多都失去了理智,滥杀无辜的人,而查尔斯为了解救以前的仆人,挺而走险,来到法国,结果却被革命者以逃亡贵族的身份给关了起来,露西及她父亲马奈特医生连忙赶到法国,由于他在巴士底狱给关了十八年,被人们称做英雄,从而有特权把他的女婿─查尔斯提供了很好的条件。但是德发日太太就是那对兄妹中的妹妹,她一直都恨着埃瑞弗蒙德侯爵家的人。查尔斯又是埃瑞弗蒙德侯爵的侄子,所以她想尽办法得想要害查尔斯。但到头来却死在自己的枪口中。
这部小说虽然后来是以“大团圆”结束,但是当我读到卡顿为了露西而代替查尔斯上刑场时,我的心里充满了辛酸。
《双城记》读后感13
法国大革命是人类史上一个血的印记。在那个混乱的时代,充满不确定;在这种无秩序的状态下,人性的一切表露无疑。双城记以法国大革命为背景,透过为族与平民之间的仇恨冲突,作者狄更斯只想传达出---鲜血无法洗去仇恨,更不能替代爱---贵族的暴虐对平民造成的伤痛不会因为鲜血而愈合,平民对贵族的仇恨也无法替代对已逝亲人的爱。
那是最美好的时代,那是最糟糕的时代;那是智慧的年头,那是愚昧的年头;那是信仰的时期,那是怀疑的时期;那是光明的季节,那是黑暗的季节;那是希望的春天,那是失望的冬天;我们全都在直奔天堂,我们全都在直奔相反的方向--简而言之,那时跟现在非常相象,某些最喧嚣的权威坚持要用形容词的最高级来形容它。说它好,是最高级的;说它不好,也是最高级的。
这是整本书的开头第一章,将全书的基调定上了悲剧色彩,然而就在这矛盾的时代中,也确实存在过光明。
这本书叙述了法国大革命时期围绕在医生马奈特一家周围的事,这本书颠覆了我对自由,权利以及善恶的看法——法国人民不堪重负,推翻了波旁王朝,然而新政权建立之后朝他们走来的难道是他们心驰神往的自由吗?不,仍然是以往的提心吊胆,稍不留神明天就会被送上断头台。得势之后的德发日太太滥用职权,将死敌们个个置于死地,最后却落得个惨死的`下场。正如那句话所说的:“自由啊,有多少罪恶是假借你的名义干出来的。”大革命并不如想象中的那么美好,而是以暴易暴。它没有拯救人民,而是将人民推入了另一个火坑。
再来看看另外一位大革命的牺牲品——达内,革命前,他放弃了国内的家业,只身来到英国谋生,在他看来,压迫人民是一件极不人道的事,然而,革命爆发后,他反而无辜地成为人民的敌人,人们不分青红皂白地要将他领上断头台。不过相信在九死一生之后,他依然是原先那个善良的达内。
而卡顿——一个才华横溢却自甘堕落的律师,他与达内有着相同的长相,却有着不同的命运,在面对活着还是让自己心爱的人得到幸福的抉择时,毅然决然的选择了后者,在他看来,生命在爱的面前是微不足道的,即使在断头台上,他也表现出了令人难以想象的沉着冷静。因为在他的心底,一直有一个信念在支持他:“耶稣说,复活在我,生命也在我,信我的人,虽然死了,也必复活。凡活着信我的人,必永远不死。”他用死完成了自我救赎,他用死来反抗虚伪的革命者,他用死来诠释对露丝的爱。生命,成了他最后的武器,爱,成了他唯一的支柱。
《双城记》读后感14
我看《双城记》,原因是在网上有许多网友推荐,他们都说那是一本非常感人的书,我怀着好奇心就在网上下载来看,看完了一部分感觉还不错,就写下这篇读后感。
《双城记》主要是深刻描绘了当时动荡不安的时代背景,和历史现实而牺牲的儿女情长。
网上有人说,《双城记》只是描写了两个男人跟一个女人的故事,但我却觉得,那个人没有了解作者真正想表达的意思。以我看来,德发奇一家与法国贵族的仇恨也好,露西、查尔斯与西德尼的感情也好,都只是为了表现这场战争是谁引起的,为什么事而起的。其实人与人之间都必须保持着宽以待人的态度,即使是天大的事也能大事化小,小事化了。记得发生在我身上的一件事:有一次,我不小心把同学的书弄丢了,原本我还以为她会要我赔,还要怪我呢。没想到当我和她讲的时候,她不仅没骂我,还对我讲说以后不能丢三落四了,应该养成好习惯。恩,也许这就是人与人之间的态度吧!
在这部作品里,我看到了很多不同的人。有正直善良却又惨遭迫害的马奈特医生,忠厚老实的洛瑞,外表冷漠、内心热情,放荡而又无私的.西德尼,没有人性的德发奇太太,凶残阴险的埃佛瑞蒙兄弟……里面有复杂的仇恨,想复仇却又制造了更多的仇恨,这复杂的一幕幕,生动的展现在我们面前,我们仿佛又回到了那个失去理智的时代。有人抱怨自己生在这个世纪是件坏事,要生在从前,最起码能当个烈士。其实这种想法是错误的,我们生在现代就应该为现代做贡献。而人世间有各种各样的人,他们都有不同的个性,我们不要因为谁的性格怪异而不与他交友,也不要太相信身边的人,也许他就是想害你的其中一个。
文中《双城记》,最让我喜欢的是律师助手西德尼·卡尔顿。他第一次出现就与众不同,当法庭上的人若无其事地望着天花板时,而他的一张字条却揭晓了案件背后的阴谋。他一出场就带着一身的忧郁,作为律师的他算得上是才华出众,但是却又情愿躲在人家的后面,做别人成功的垫脚石,他仿佛自己亲手筑起了一堵墙,与名利隔绝。他曾说过:“我是个绝望了的苦力,我不关心世上任何人,也没有任何人关心我。”
是啊,我们不应该渴望出名,那样就学不到更多的知识。也许做别人背后的垫脚石,还能操你个别人那里学到更多的知识,我们能够看到他的长处和短处,学习他的长处,抛掉自己的短处。
《双城记》读后感15
今天,终于读完了英。大文豪狄更斯的《双城记》,第一次看到这个书的名字就深深的吸引主了我的实现和好奇心,不敢轻易去尝试,它是那么神秘,那么厚重……不过,我现在还是鼓足勇气读完了。
《双城记》讲述的是1775——1785年这一混乱时期发生在哪是世界上最繁华和最混乱,最肮脏的英国和法国,这两个我一直向往的国度,整篇小说主要展现Lucy的家人及其朋友间伟大的友谊,伟大的爱。露西是一个法国医生马内特的女儿。她温柔,美丽,善良赢得许多男士的倾心,其中包括她后来的丈夫达雷,还有最后为她的幸福而代她丈夫被送上断头台的卡顿。他们之间的爱是真诚的,是伟大的,当然还有一个最善良,最仁慈的人一直帮助他们一家,是当时**中仅存的一点光亮,他就是罗端,他时时地关心露西和她的家人,把他毕生的爱倾注在这一家人身上,爱他们远胜爱自己。同时,他又是一位兢兢业业的商人,他是少许有良知,善良的人们的一个缩影,一个精华,露西的丈夫达雷是法国以贵族的后人,由于认清了他的家族的罪恶,自动放弃侯爵头衔和继承权,独自到英国自食其力,他为人谦和,待人诚恳,和罗端一样是一位真正的绅士。他把他的财产分给法国人民,然他的善心并没有得到好报,再1778年巴士底狱被攻占后,他因一忠实奴仆的来信恳求,回到久违的法国开始他的营救工作,然而在他刚踏上法国领土时就被抓进了福斯狱,以逃亡贵族的罪名罪名将她送上审判台。马内特医生,露西也纷纷来到法国拯救他,罗端刚好在法国,利用马内特蹲过巴士底狱地影响将他救出,然而,命运总会让善良的人们多灾多难。就在他被释放的'当天晚上又被抓起来,这次是马内特在狱中的手稿被小人所利用,将自己的女婿送上了断头台,这时一直在暗中保护着一家的卡顿发挥了他过人的律师职能,最终用自己的生命,换的露西一家的幸福,在露西心目中树立起一个永远高大的形象,这是伟大的爱与被爱。
卡顿是一个有头脑,非常聪明,洞察力非常强的职业律师,倘若在今天,他一定可以称法律界的名流,而在那时却英雄无用武之地,因此,他只能用酒来浇灌所有的烦恼,以及生不逢时给他带来的巨大创伤。在别人眼中他总是懒散的,堕落的,当然除了露西。
此外,还有普洛斯小姐,露西的忠诚的佣人和朋友,杰端这由坏到好的人物,给人们带来了希望。
原来我一直为止倾叹的法国人民并非我想象中那么完美,在这本书中更多地展现了他们革命时的邪恶的本性。