双城记英语读后感

第一篇：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.

第二篇：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

第三篇：《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 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：双城记读后感

《双城记》读书笔记

“那是最美好的时代，那是最糟糕的时代；那是个睿智的年月，那是个蒙昧的年月；那是信心百倍的时期，那是疑虑重重的时期„„我们大家都在直升天堂，我们大家都在直下地狱。”这段话被广泛传诵，早已超越国界。美好和糟糕并存是一种什么样的景象？读完《双城记》，狄更斯笔下“蒙昧，疑虑重重，黑暗笼罩，让人绝望和一无所有„„”的感觉让我一时无法忘怀。

狄更斯描写法国大革命前夕，英法两国都被笼罩在黄昏的雾气中。在英国，人们离家出城，必须将家具送到家具行的仓库保管；白天是做买卖的普通商人，夜里则成了拦路抢劫的强盗；罪大恶极的杀人犯和偷了6便士的小偷同样获得极刑。法国则更可怕，执政者和教会极度腐败，人与人之间的仇恨像毒气一样充塞在社会各个角落，恐怖正急剧酝酿。这一切在雨果笔下，是黎明前的黑暗——为了曙光，夜里的血与泪可以忽略不计。总有太多人是敌人，而友人，友人只是个空置的座位，你不敢说下一刻谁能坐在上面，连对自己你都没有把握。在这种压力下，不少作家难逃书写革命的诱惑，因为不公义是那样明显，有权者和无权者都没有出路。

与对巴黎的横幅式铺陈不同，狄更斯描写过大海的狂暴景象，眼光一转，定睛在海浪间一艘不起眼的小船上：这里有一位身陷囹圄18年的法国医生马奈特，他出狱后被好友和女儿露西带到伦敦，却落下了精神病；露西为此幼年失掉双亲，她丈夫达内是法国贵族的后代，因为觉得贵族身份对穷人不公义而隐姓埋名，却依然两度被判死刑。这条船里坐着的是些什么人呢？一些受苦的人，和那座城一样。不知道为什么，同样负有国恨家仇的这些人却没有被卷入那座城的漩涡——他们心无大志，只求彼此相伴，平静过一生。然而，一个时代严酷即意味着，无论你想不想招架，总有一些灭命的要从后追来。

看完《双城记》，我突然醒悟，发现原来世上本没有真正的恨与爱，所有的一切都是相对的。正如这部小说的经典开篇：“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。”所有的事都没有固定的性质，无所谓好，也无所谓坏。重要的不是这件事本身怎么样，而是一个人应该用什么样的心态去对待身边的人和事。就像卡顿对于查尔斯，本该是恨的，因为是他使得卡顿失去了拥有露西的机会，是他使得露西眼中再无他人。但卡顿却选择用博大似海的爱来化解这种恨。也许在他眼中查尔斯已经不是查尔斯，而是露西的一部分，是他所爱的人的一部分，因此也是他所爱的一部分。

总之，《双城记》带给了我们太多的思考和感悟。关于爱，关于恨，关于复仇，也关于重生。当小说结尾卡顿看到希望的时候，我仿佛也从整部书有些阴郁的情绪中看到了点点星光。所以，卡顿的存在不仅仅是作者对爱的渲染，更寄予了狄更斯对未来的信心。当人与人之间没有了恨，当所有的恨都升华为爱的时候，没有复仇，没有血腥，有的只会是幸福的欢笑，灿烂的阳光。