Should I Stay or Should I Storm the Bastille?

That is the question on every French peasant's mind.  The oppression towards the French lower class by the bourgeoisie combined with many factors including, but not limited to, hunger, low standards of living and desperation make man vs. self the central conflict in the book "A Tale of Two Cities."  The book takes place at the late 17th century, spanning form a few years before to during the French revolution.  

The reason why I used man vs. self instead of the more obvious choice of man vs. man for this or rather any revolution is simply because revolutions only happen when men are at their mental breaking point.  It is true that in every revolution, there are men fighting and killing so that their side will achieve victory, but the conflict at the heart of the revolution is man vs. self.  There is always a part, no matter how small, in a freedom fighter's mind that wonders "Is it worth it?"  Before the fighting starts men convince themselves that "No, it is not worth it, I have too much to lose."  But as time goes by and people slowly but surely loose what they hold dear their answer changes from "No, it is not worth it." to "Why not? I have nothing to lose."  Even during the many battles in a revolution, men still ask themselves the same question "Is it worth it?" but this time it is too late and one must fight to the end for their respective causes.  It is because of that question that in the heart of every revolution is the conflict of man vs. self.

In the book, the French peasants are starting to get defiant a peasant, who a Marquis tried to bribe "[Threw] a coin [that flew] into his carriage."(116)  This scene showed just how angry the peasant was, towing back the precious bribe money back at the Marquis.  This also tells me that the French peasants are tired of the upper class and are dangerously close to their breaking points.  The gravity of this action stands out to me, for which peasant, especially during those difficult times, would reject money.

This conflict can be compared to any other revolution; the Egyptian revolution, the Russian revolution and even the present day Libyan revolution for example.  Look at the chaos at Libya; it's very similar to the chaos that will happen in the book's French revolution.  The only difference is that, in the book, the USA will not interfere with their airstrikes.

I have not reached the part of the book where the conflict ends, but it would be useless to predict the ending.  For anyone who has read a grade nine socials textbook can tell you that the French revolution was resolved with the guillotine and gallons of blood, but the main conflict, the man vs. self conflict, was resolved when the peasants started the revolution.  Most man vs. self conflicts are resolved by pressure or breaking points.

 The French peasants fought their instincts and their own minds, contemplated about sacrificing themselves for the longest time, and when they could lose no more, their lives were a small price to pay for the freedom they desired.  In the book "A Tale of Two Cities," peasants are constantly asking themselves the question "Should I Stay or Should I Storm the Bastille?”  As it was written in the history books, that is exactly what they did and all their sacrifices were repaid in blood; bourgeoisie blood to be exact.