A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

Just completed reading A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens that I started reading as a break during the The Republic sessions. Well, I am totally overwhelmed by the narration of the story well connected with the French Revolution. The climax leaves my mind with a question whether any good change is absolutely good? The ending is so tragic that the sacrifice of the people to replace evil almost goes into vain. Maybe this was just an exception and certain imperfection remains with every Revolution but the mob remains the one with brittle sentimental values and improper reasoning criteria. The events of this took place in 1790's but exact repetitions can be seen throughout the history when the mob was the final judge; be it the example of crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth or be it the second world war. Can it be imagined that mob will ever become reasonable? Perhaps not. The reason for saying this lies behind the biology of human nature. People find it amusing when someone unrelated and unloved to them gets punishment especially when the person is either above them in rank or is liked by others. People always need somebody to be held responsible of every bad that happened and contains the ill will stone them to death. The example of Defarge family from the novel signifies the value they wanted to retain by condemning Charles Darnay for being an aristocrat and responsible for the bad things happened in Saint Antoine. Well, one message from the novel is clear and that is no good is absolutely good and not all good people enjoy the fruit of the new good.