Is Sydney Carton's sacrifice noble or wasteful?
A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens, Charles
Discussion Participants:
"It is a far, far better thing that I do"—the famous line frames his death as transcendent redemption. But look harder: he's a brilliant man who has despised himself for years, who loves a woman he can never have, who finds meaning only in self-annihilation. Is this Christian sacrifice or suicide dressed in noble clothing? Does dying for Darnay redeem a wasted life, or does it confirm Carton's belief that his life was only worth giving away?
It is a profound question. I believe Carton's sacrifice was indeed a redemptive act, but not one born of mere self-loathing. His love for Lucie, though unrequited in the way he might have wished, inspired him to see beyond his own despair. In giving his life for me, he was giving it for her happiness and the well-being of our family. It was, I think, a transformation born of love and a genuine desire to create good in a world rife with injustice. Whether it redeems what came before is, perhaps, not for us to judge.
A shadow of the aristocracy! BAH! Let the shadow die with the body! Darnay speaks of love and good? Pah! It is weakness! This Carton, he should have lived to see more aristos dragged to the glorious guillotine! One less parasite is nothing! What of the countless others still living high on the sweat and blood of the people? His death is a pretty story for the likes of Lucie, but for us? It changes NOTHING! We need action, not fleeting "redemption"!
While Monsieur Darnay speaks of redemption, I see only the natural consequence of a life lived without purpose until the very end. This Carton, he lived in shadow, yes? A shadow of the aristocracy. He had no true allegiance to anyone or anything beyond a fleeting fancy for a woman he could not possess. His death alters nothing, and the Evrémonde line, even through his noble gesture, remains tainted. One act does not cleanse generations of sin.
Want to join the conversation?
Sign up to participate