A Tale of Two Cities

Charles Dickens wrote a Tale of Two Cities in 1859.  Since then it has become a widely considered classic.  Once I started reading it, it was not hard to tell why.  The imagery Dickens using is amazing.  You can picture the setting, the feelings, the atmosphere, all beautifully.  The first part delves into the time period, starting with the classic lines "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...". You get a really good sense of the time period from these passages, the highs the lows.  This is a great way to start the novel because it gives context to the rest of the story.  The second chapter of the first book is where the plot of the story actually begins.  It was in this section that I really got a sense of the amazing writing abilities of Charles Dickens.  When he describes the efforts of the stagecoach and its passengers traveling through the night, I really felt the cold and the dampness.  Here is an example of that:

There was a steaming mist in all the hollows, and it had roamed in its forlornness up the hill, like an evil spirit, seeking rest and finding none. A clammy and intensely cold mist, it made its slow way through the air in ripples that visibly followed and overspread one another, as the waves of an unwholesome sea might do. It was dense enough to shut out everything from the light of the coach-lamps but these its own workings, and a few yards of road; and the reek of the labouring horses steamed into it, as if they had made it all.  Two other passengers, besides the one, were plodding up the hill by the side of the mail. All three were wrapped to the cheekbones and over the ears, and wore jack-boots. Not one of the three could have said, from anything he saw, what either of the other two was like; and each was hidden under almost as many wrappers from the eyes of the mind, as from the eyes of the body, of his two companions.

I feel like that is what really shows the effectiveness of a writer: their ability to help the audience feel the story around them.  Effective writers use language to pull the audience in such way that it captivates them and draws them in.  The story expertly weaves a small cast of characters, each with their own stories, into the much larger story of the political climates in these two cities.  It reaches it's most intense point with the French Revolution.  Again the writing is so effective in helping you feel the tragedy and death around you.  You feel the pains of these people living in a high-strung, frustrated, and paranoid time period.  I was impressed that Dickens's ending of A Tale of Two Cities included some happiness with its tragedy, it could have easily been an "everything-goes-wrong" type ending.  Because that is how real life is.  There are ups and there are downs.  And that, at its core, is why I feel this novel really is a classic.

Conflict Resolution

The introduction of Michelle LeBaron's Bridging Cultural Conflicts brought up some interesting points I had not yet thought about.  Culture and Conflict, are not always words we use together, but essentially culture is at the heart of all conflict.  I thought the point that culture is integral to all conflict, but not the cause of it was very interesting.  Initially, I thought, "that is not true at all."  But the explanation given in the subsequent paragraph clarified the point for me.  It states the following:

"In conflict we react because we care.  We care to protect our identities and meanings we cherish.  We care to protect our ways of life and the views we hold of the world.  We care to safeguard those we love.  Even across the chasm that divides us from an adversary, there is connection.  If we had no connection and no independence, there would be no conflict."

Its our culture, and how strongly our feelings for our culture are, that ultimately put us in the mode of ignore or react when a possible situation arises.  I think that sometimes we need to maybe care a little less, and let things pass by rather than act on every possible conflict of culture.

Who Watches the Watchers

Do Latter-Day Saints believe that war is acceptable?  Its an interesting question.  Members of the church have been involved in armed conflicts ever since the formation of the church, the Mexican-American war probably being the first declared war we were involved in.  The Book of Mormon is full of examples of war, with a good portion of the book of Alma essentially being a day-to-day history of a war between the Nephites and the Lamanites.  Why would Mormon have felt he needed to detail that war so much?  He glazes over most of the other conflicts between the two peoples.  I think that he knew that there at least needed to be one example of what war was like, and to show how a good man like Captain Moroni handled war.  Captain Moroni, we are told, did not delight in the shedding of blood.  He never wanted to go to war.  But when it came to his doorstep, he wasn't about to sit by and watch it happen.  He rallied the people to defend themselves and protect their families, property, and beliefs.  Another example of war given in the Book of Mormon is when the Nephites have left most of their lands and all congregated together to protect themselves against the Gadianton Robbers.  They knew that the Gadianton Robbers would be coming for them eventually.  Some of the Nephites urged their military leader, Gidgiddoni, to go fight the robbers before they came to them.  He said that the Lord forbade it, and they could only fight the robbers once they came to them.

I feel like these examples from the Book of Mormon send the message that war is acceptable when its about defending yourselves, not for conquest.  Today, our church leaders rarely make political statements one way or the other.  The church is worldwide, it would be illogical of them to take stances on issues that have varying opinions around the globe.  I think instead they expect the members of the church to look at the examples from the scriptures and trust that they will make the right choices.