For the most part, A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens is that book about the poor and the French Revolution that is not Les Misérables where he ravages the rich, calling them “tigers” (Dickens 33) following the lord “ignorancem” (Dickens 33) and saying that they “did not value life for nothing” (Dickens 221), right? Fake. Yes, A Tale of Two Cities is a Dickens book primarily about the poor and the French Revolution (it's not Les Miserables) in which he metaphorically eviscerates the rich, but these are all references to the poor, the oppressed, the little guy, in short, the people we and Dickens are supposed to support. Dickens, as a true friend of the poor, as shown in his books A Christmas Carol, Great Expectations, and Oliver Twist, and as someone who wrote to the masses, denigrates the poor a bit in A Tale of Two Cities. In the words of Frederick Busch, “[Dickens] fears revolution…those oppressed by revolt become, for Dickens, downright revolting.” It’s not that the nobility in A Tale of Two Cities are the protagonists; on the contrary, the poor are also antagonists. In short, when blood rains from the sky, no one's hands are clean. It must be emphasized that, yes, aristocracy is bad; this is hardly disputed, but it bears repeating. Since Dickens likes representative characters, look at the Marquis Evrémonde. When the Marquis is introduced, he is described “with a face like a beautiful mask.” (Dickens 114) Then, after enjoying “ordinary people…barely escaping exhaustion” (Dickens 114), he crushes a child, hereafter called “the bundle.” (Dickens 115) He then adds blatant insult to serious injury by asking if his horses are okay and remarking: "...... middle of paper ...... assault with a deadly weapon, concealment of a firearm without a weapon. permit, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit a crime and suicide. In comparison, she makes the Marquis look like a protagonist. It constitutes an extraordinarily clear statement of Dickens's feelings towards revolt. He finds it revolting. Dickens is a friend of the poor, isn't he? Would a friend describe his friend as inanimate objects? Would he describe them as animals, ogres, or an elemental force of destruction? Dickens creates two characters that represent the common people of two countries, one, Mrs. Defarge is pure evil, and the other, Jerry Cruncher, is blameless at best. He doesn't really like rich people either. Dickens is not a friend of the poor, although most people think that, like GK Chesterton, Dickens is a "spokesman for the poor." Dickens is a friend of the people..