So how is Dickens' black sheep?
Pretty much never discussed outside of the first paragraph and the "far better thing that I do" scene. Do people still read this? Is it good?
I have had this book for four years, and can never get past the second chapter.
I'm probably missing out on a great story, but those chapters are so boring.
>>7746343
Honestly I have a hard time even understanding the first dozen pages. The book really makes me feel dumb.
>>7746317
it's a good book
>>7746454
How good on a scale of one to two?
>>7746317
all i can remember from the book is the funeral riot. I broke out laughing because it all just seemed ludicrous to me.
>>7746317
People still read it because it's still on some high school reading lists. It's not particularly good. I liked its somewhat contemptuous portrayal of late-18th c. London. I remember Sydney Carton and that he died in place of some Victorian idealized woman's husband ("far, far better thing..."), although I don't remember either of their names.
it's pretty shit.
both the plot and the prose are shit and the characters are shit.
I read it a few years ago, and loved it. I think the themes and portrayal of the selflessness of love are gorgeous. Admittedly, it is a slow burner, and required a lot of slogging through the boring early chapters before the book really grabbed me and became a joy to read rather than a chore.
Admittedly, I read this before I was into reading literature; so it is possible that it seemed better than it truly was, and would disappoint the seasoned /lit/izen.
>>7749131
this.
>muh knotting needles
>>7749165
>insinuating that /lit/izens read
well memed
>>7746317
He wrote it as a newspaper serial if I recall, which is pretty much what it was - a way to make money. It's not as good as most of his other works, but it's a bit easier to engage with than some of his other writing as a consequence. This can be a good or bad thing depending on your temperament.
