LORILYN ROBERTS BOOK REVIEW: ”A Tale of Two Cities“ by Charles Dickens

A Tale of Two Cities has a complicated plot with twists and turns that eventually unravel the tightly-woven story. The story begins in France, several years before the French Revolution, switches to England, and then returns to France.  

Foreshadowing creates suspense, and as the story progresses, war ensues. Death is always a constant threat or recurring theme. In typical Dickens’ style, every character and scene is fully developed with symbolism playing an important role; i.e., the broken wine cask at the beginning and the reference to blood. The imagery reminds one of the Christian sacrament and the impending war in France.

Of particular interest are the characters; the protagonist, Lucie Manette, discovers her father has been found alive imprisoned in the French Bastille for the last eighteen years. Lucie is the embodiment of love, and her unconditional love restores her father’s sanity.

As the French Revolution draws near, the reader senses the progression of hopeless bloodshed through the continued foreshadowing of events. There is an overarching uneasiness that something evil is going to happen to the main characters. The darkness of one of the main antagonists, Madame DeFarge, and her constant knitting of the names of those condemned to death stands in stark contrast to the loving protagonist, Lucie Manette.

Soon Darnay and Lucie marry, and a few years later, the French Revolution begins.

Dickens shows the intense suffering and affliction of the masses and the arrogant aristocracy, which is portrayed by the heartless Marquis Evrémonde when he runs over a poor plebian child. The impending conflict in France creeps ever so closer to the Manette family in England when Darnay travels to France and is arrested. 

Darnay returns to Paris to free one of his former servants from prison but is imprisoned on false charges. After a year, he is released following a trial, only to be immediately seized again by the evil Madame DeFarge. 

The father, who has been “recalled to life,” teeter-totters on psychosis, reverting to his old shoemaking occupation while in prison when Darnay for the second time is sent to the guillotine.

The tight plot, where nothing is wasted, builds to a stunning conclusion with the eventual escape of Lucie, Darnay, and their young daughter from Paris back to London, thanks to Miss Pross’ killing of Madame DeFarge.

One of the most poignant characters is Sydney Carton. In the beginning, he is an unhappy attorney that has taken to drinking and feels his life has been wasted; yet, he still longs for a meaningful relationship and finds it in the ever-so-compassionate Lucie Manette. Through her kindness, he becomes more than he could have hoped for or imagined. Her love reaches deep, and, in the end, propels him to make the ultimate sacrifice for Lucie and her family, where his purpose in living embodies ultimate redemption.

A Tale of Two Cities reminds me of those books and movies that need to be enjoyed twice; the first time for the overview of the complex plot, and the second time to appreciate the various symbolisms and motifs that make for a magnificent story.

Available on Amazon here.

GUEST POST BY DEBORAH MALONE: Book Review of ”Children of Dreams“ by Lorilyn Roberts

I really liked Deborah Malone's review of my book Children of Dreams. My hope is that, as she says, Christians will have a greater appreciation of what it means to be adopted by our heavenly Father, who loves us so much.

Review by Debbie Malone

When I received my copy of Children of Dreams in the mail I thought I would just open it and take a look. Before I knew it, I was on Chapter Eight and looking forward to reading the rest of Lorilyn's story. 

Even though this is a non-fiction book it reads like fiction. Lorilyn has put so much detail into her story you feel like you've been transported to the far regions of Nepal and Vietnam along with her. She tells of the trials and hardships she endured to adopt her children Manisha and Joy. Throughout the book, she relates the process of adoption with our adoption by our heavenly Father. You will not look at adoption the same after you read Lorilyn's book. You will not be sorry you read Children of Dreams whether you are adoptive parents or not.

For order your copy of Children of Dreams, click here.

LORILYN ROBERTS BOOK REVIEW: “Frankenstein, A Psychological Christian Thriller,” By Mary Shelley

When my professor asked me to read this book, my first thought was, “Why would I want to read Frankenstein? He is a monster and I don’t like those kinds of books.” But I downloaded it on my Kindle and began reading, expecting to be bored and thinking I probably would struggle to finish it.

Quite to the contrary, Frankenstein is a suspenseful, psychological thriller. As an author wanting to study and emulate the best classics ever written, I have attempted to highlight some of the strengths of Frankenstein and the techniques Mary Shelley used to draw the reader into the story, creating a book whose name 150 years later is still synonymous with the word “monster.”

Writing in the first person, Shelley’s words are descriptive and pregnant with feeling. The reader is immediately propelled into the story, wanting to learn who this eccentric protagonist is that’s planning a trip to the North Pole.

Shelley uses the technique of letters written by the protagonist, Walton, to his dear sister to set the stage and background. Later on the voyage, Walton meets up with Victor Frankenstein. The creator of the villain, Victor, pours out his tearful tale to Walton concerning the monster he created, where the reader is taken on a journey of emotions that vacillates between compassion and abhorrence.

What makes a good book is what the reader continues to ponder and reflect on afterward. I began to personalize Victor Frankenstein – what monsters have I created in my own life? What wreck have I made of others’ lives? What will follow me all the days of my life? What enticements have I pursued against the advice of others because I was foolish? What consumes me that is beguiling and evil? How much control does the devil have over my heart that sends me down lonely paths of destruction and despair?

The theme of this book is haunting. There is never a word spoken of Christianity or the Bible or Scripture; yet so much of the content is based on the nature of man and his need for redemption—the concept of man’s depraved nature, but also his unquenchable thirst for love.

Even the antagonist is a victim, and the reader has pity and compassion for the monster despite his demonic nature. It’s a shame that the name “Frankenstein” is so associated with the grotesqueness of the creature and not as an incredible classic that anyone aspiring to be a great writer should enjoy. 

Too few books today delve into the psychological nature of man and the condition of the human heart in such a profound way. My hope is to embrace the challenge of writing with a Christian worldview without the reader being told they are reading such a book. To show rather than tell, as is the case with this story, is the penultimate example of great writing.

Order Frankenstein from Amazon

LORILYN ROBERTS BOOK REVIEW: Analysis of “The Grand Inquisitor,” by Fydor Dostoevsky

Analysis of The Grand Inquisitor

by Fydor Dostoevsky

Lorilyn Roberts

 

The Grand Inquisitor by Fydor Dostoevsky is a parable in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov. The story takes place in Seville, Spain, during the time of the Inquisition, when heretics were routinely burned at the stake. The first time I read The Grand Inquisitor I found it disturbing. There had been, according to Dostoevsky, during the sixteenth century, chatter among the masses about the fact that Christ had not returned, and many questioned if His miracles were real.

 

According to the parable, Christ came back once again, briefly, and appeared quietly in the midst of the people, healing those who came to Him. The crowds recognized Him and clambered to be near Him. Christ healed the blind and the needy bowed down to Him. But Christ was too good, too powerful, and the guards came and took Him away. The Inquisitor came to The Prisoner and asked, "Why, then, art Thou come to hinder us?"

 

There followed a conversation between the Prisoner and the Inquisitor which was disturbing. Christ’s thirty-three years on earth was distorted. The Inquisitor implied that Christ had failed at His mission; that He didn’t set men free, for example, and therefore it fell on the church to set men free. According to the Inquisitor, freedom meant bondage. The Inquisitor believed that men couldn’t be free, that they needed to be told what to do, and the church saved the masses by forcing them to cower in submission.

 

The Inquisitor twisted the meaning of Christ's three temptations in the wilderness; speaking as if he (the Inquisitor) was Satan incarnate, using twisted logic with a kernel of truth when carried to its logical conclusion.

|

The parable encompassed more than a spiritual meaning and made a political statement; i.e., referencing the notorious conquerors of Timours and Ghenghis-Khan, who subdued men in the name of unity. The Inquisitor valued submission.

 

When one contemplates the ideology and the two choices presented in the parable—freedom versus bondage—and the Bolshevik Revolution that followed a few decades after Dostoevsky’s death, I wonder what Dostoevsky had in mind—who was The Grand Inquisitor? And surely he gave the Russian people more credit than what he opined. Did Dostoevsky not believe they could live in unity and freedom? Was the great experiment of American democracy in the 1800s not sufficient to persuade him?

Or was he prophetic? Did he believe the populace would be unable to handle the same freedom if given it? Or was he equating the Inquisitor simply with the time of the Great Inquisition and the depravity of mankind; that even if Christ had returned again, He would have been rejected? Did he accuse men after sixteen centuries of being just as wicked, concluding that Christ had failed once again? Could one surmise that the Inquisitor was Satan himself?

 

I read The Brothers Karamazov to understand the context in which the parable was written. The parable was told by Ivan, an intellectual, to his Christian mystic brother, Alyosha. Alyosha, in my opinion, was too weak but represented a moderating influence on the otherwise dark story that covered much of the book.

 

Toward the end of the parable, Alyosha stated to Ivan, "You don't believe in God." Those who don't believe in God take the most loving aspects of Christ—His salvation and death on the cross—and belittle it. Perhaps Alyosha was comparing his brother to The Grand Inquisitor. Alyosha kissed his brother Ivan on the lips, reminiscent of Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss. But representing the opposite meaning—a feeble attempt at best.

 

Dostoevsky referenced the Masons in a less than glamorous way, accusing them of possessing the same mystery, perhaps in conflict with the Catholics' pursuit of unity.  

 

Dostoyevsky raised more questions than he answered. I felt a sense of hopelessness in the parable. Perhaps if Alyosha was more assertive and less passive, he could have countered the progressive mindset of Ivan—who attempted to intellectually provide answers to questions that did not require belief in a higher being.  Ivan’s tone was over‑reaching and intolerant. The two brothers represented types‑‑the intellectual versus the mystic (I will include the third brother when I analyze the entire book).

 

The parable provides no easy answers to the accusations of The Grand Inquisitor. Did Dostoevsky have an answer? Perhaps that’s the point—to give the reader the freedom to ponder, unlike the accusations of The Grand Inquisitor, who didn't give people enough credit to even do that.

                                          

Perspective is everything. Having had more time to consider the book, The Brothers Karamazov, I wonder if my early thoughts were flawed. Upon further reflection, I don’t believe Alyosha was weak. He was humble. His responses were much like Jesus’ response to those who criticized Him. He never lashed back, except at the money changers. And perhaps Dostoevsky was making a broader statement about life. Communism followed in Russia shortly after his death. Is that what will happen here in America? Do people really want to think for themselves, or would they rather have the government or some other entity tell them what to do?

 

If you cherish your freedom, don’t be like the masses who expect the government to take care of them. Don’t take that government handout. Don’t expect the government to do for you what you can do for yourself.

 

God gave us freedom in Christ. He knew there would always be tyrannical governments, like the Romans, Alexander the Great, and Hitler. If each person takes a leap of faith, trusts God, and becomes his brother’s keeper, we can prevent our country from going the way of others.

 

As my mother says, our country is going to hell in a handbasket. Little by little, The Grand Inquisitor will have his way in America because as a nation, we have turned our eyes away from God. And because God is love, He has given us the freedom to be conquered—and I ask, what or who will conquer us?

To purchase The Grand Inquisitor from Amazon, click here

___