My Rating: ★★★★Method of Reading: Personally owned paperback novel, 1,201 pages and endnotes (HEADS UP—This thing is really really long and my review is going to match it)
Dates of Reading: March 31, 2013-August 8, 2013
Author: Victor Hugo
Publication Year: 1862
Recommended to: Jane Austen fans, those who enjoyed Dostoyevsky's work, Christian readers, and anyone who enjoys the movie/musical and has a strong passion for reading.
Quotes: WARNING—the length and beauty of this book make me feel absolutely entitled to compile this lengthy (and shockingly, really abridged) list. There are many other selections of beautiful, meaningful, and entertaining writing I could have included here, but this is the absolute shortest list I could make.
"...you are looking at a plain man and I am looking at a great man. Each of us may benefit'" (20).
"The soul in darkness sins, but the real sinner is he who causes the darkness" (30).
"Our society is governed by the precepts of Jesus Christ but is not yet imbued with them" (180).
"He had, it seems, concluded, after the manner of saints and sages, that his first duty was not to himself" (209).
"White is the ferocious enemy of white; if the lily could speak, how it would tear the dove to shreds.... Every virtue flows over into vice" (572).
"...he blesses God for having bestowed on him those two riches which the rich so often lack — work, which makes a man free, and thought, which makes him worthy of freedom" (591).
"...simply a book-ist" (592).
"...for he was living now from tomorrow, and 'today' could be said scarcely to exist for him" (617).
"Nothing is more dangerous than to stop working" (741).
"To die for lack of love is terrible — it is the stifling of the soul" (804).
"There are six of you, and I'm the public" (857).
"The events to be related [here] belong to that order of vivid and dramatic happenings which historians sometimes pass over for lack of time and space. But it is here, we must insist, that the reality of life is to be found, the stir and tremor of human beings" (891).
"Whether it's men or events, the run-of-the-mill is not enough; you need geniuses in terms of men, and revolutions in terms of events" (922).
"This is a bad moment for speaking the word 'love'; nevertheless, I do speak it, and glory in it. Love is the future" (942).
"Was there any such thing as 'foreign war'?" (950).
"You're aiming at that sergeant, Enjolras, but you're not looking at him" (1013).
"There are people who observe the rules of honour as we do the stars, from a very long way off" (1050).
"The pupil dilates in darkness and in the end finds light, just as the soul dilates in misfortune and in the end finds God" (1078).
"To love is an accomplishment" (1140).
"Predestination does not always offer a straight road to the predestined" (1142).
"Until some deeper comprehension throws a new light upon our understanding of these things, human society away will always be divided into two types of men, Abel and Cain" (1159).
"To die is nothing; but it is terrible not to live" (1197).
Movie: One that is brand new (A very good, (mostly) live-filmed version of the highly successful 1980 musical), plus a smattering of old ones.
Wikipedia Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Misérables
Link: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/135
My View: Les Misérables and I were virtually fighting a war for a while there... my mom gave me the book for Easter and I started reading it immediately, not remembering that as soon as a I went back to school two days later reading for pleasure would effectively end until summer. When I came back for summer vacation I was dead-set on finishing it as quickly as possible... and then spent a lot of time reading To Kill A Mockingbird and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close instead. Anyway, it took several very long months to conquer this beast of a book, but I finally finished it.
This means I am now WAY less like this:
And WAY more like this:
Because I don't have to be thinking about this anymore:
Instead, I can be thinking cool jazz like this:
After all… “I’d far sooner have
[Maruis] in love with a wench than with revolution” (873). ;)
As the introduction and length of my
quotations section indicate, it will be incredibly difficult to distill my
thoughts on this book into some bite-sized discussion-starters here. But I will
do my best and just record some very basic commentary about my thoughts. Keep
in mind that I come to this book with strong biases—I love theater and the Les
Misérables musical and movie, and I also enjoy the French language. On
top of all of this I love a good story of redemption (not revenge...
redemption). These, among other personal slants, fated me to really like this book.
No matter how
rudely it treated me.
SO: Thought
#1 is about the excellent wordplay throughout this book. I am reading a
translation of course (sorry, my French is NOT that good), but the translation
is beautifully done and I think preserves much of the author’s intended rhythm
and mood. Norman Denny, the translator, included a lovely introduction in this
copy describing his tireless work to this end. With a rudimentary understanding
of French and a good grasp of English, any reader can sense Hugo’s voice in
this writing. I especially loved his play on words about the "Friends of the ABC" and in his frequent play with the informal French "you," tu and the more formal "you,"
Perhaps the
reason there is so much creative input is because Hugo writes what he is
passionate about. Very noticeably, he spends a lot of time focusing on the
history and people of a city he adores: Paris. This provides a compelling study
of humanity by looking into the petri dish of nineteenth-century France (and
gives history nerds like myself some great historical soil to dig through). Clearly proud of the boldness and intricacies
of Parisian life, he even asserts that, “It would be a mistake to suppose that
one can wander [through] Paris without ever meeting an adventure” (790). He
even finds exquisite beauty in the haunting statue carcass Gavroche lives in as
well as in the plight and culture of the usually disdained urchin child.
Or maybe the
real reason Hugo’s writing is so passionate is because he writes about whatever
interests him even when it has absolutely no place whatsoever in the plot (and really
I don’t feel like that is overstatement). Hugo includes a lot of personal
commentary and opinion, which he often tries to disguise as absolutely
necessary and relevant sidebars. While some of this is very interesting and
does advance one’s understanding of the story, some of it really does bore and
frustrate me as a reader eager to hear what is happening to my characters. In
my copy, actually, the translator chose to take some tangents (like
twenty pages about the workings and virtues of a convent and the development of
thieves’ slang-language) out of the brick itself and staple it into the back. I
feel like he could have done the same for much of Hugo’s Waterloo commentary
and detailing of the Paris sewer system. These tangents are surprisingly beautiful… but
they’re still tangents. Basically, this book would never have been published
this way today, but it’s fun seeing inside a writer’s unedited head. It also
allows for a lot of hilarity.
Next, into some
character discussion! The book has a more cohesive storyline, like an epic,
than adaptations. More time and space is spent on developing themes than
characters, but that’s okay because there’s enough space in this giant of a
book to discuss a thousand themes in great depth and also allow for strong
character development. The characters are winners, written very realistically
with even the best having flaws. An excellent example of this is Jean Valjean.
Although he lives a fantastic life, it isn’t implausible and he has as many
personal shortcomings as anyone else. In adaptations, I feel he is overly
perfect, bordering on being unbelievably unswerving in his goodness (depending on whose portrayal you see). I also like that adaptation Valjean is an
endearingly unwitting martyr in contrast to the book Valjean who is totally
aware of his own virtue, annoyingly so. That the canonical version of this
character struggles so much with moral decisions and still makes the right
ones, though, is more impressive than that the pure-to-the-core movie version,
for instance, makes good choices. I like both of these presentations of
Valjean, but have difficulty reconciling them.
Then there’s
Marius. Ah, dear Marius, what will we do with you? I found Marius too
wishy-washy for my taste. He and Cosette seem infatuated, not in love. In the
popular fandom debate about Marius as a revolutionary versus Marius as a lover
(there’s clearly negligible textual support for the former from a purely book-supported stance), I’d have to say I feel he is unsuited for either in the long term because he’s
so hot-headed and impulsive. I adore
how much he adores Cosette (the heart-pound-inducing reflections on love in
Book V Chapter IV… swoon) but find his general immaturity distracting.
It even makes me call into doubt the veracity of his feelings for the Lark (Oops, have I struck some nerves?). No
matter which version of him you study—film, stage, book—he’s not the brightest
guy around. But in this version, the inclusion of his mixed devotion to
Thénardier makes him seem especially foolish, given that his father clearly would not have wanted
him to run around chasing a man such as that scoundrel to “repay” him. I had
been told, prior to reading, that Marius was smarter in this original form than
in adaptations and for me this simply wasn’t true. The most paining example I
can think of is his habit of becoming stuck in his own head at pivotal moments when his withdrawal seems more like cowardice than thoughtfulness, prime instances being in the tenement when he cannot pull the trigger to summon Javert and in the barricade when he withdraws to sit on the curb. I know we’re all
prone to getting pulled into our own minds like this, but usually I feel
it’s because a character/person is being excessively thoughtful. He seems locked in without really filling that time with thought.
Now don’t hate
me, because I do think there is some redemption for Marius. He grows up at the
very end, in his confrontation with Thénardier. There, he clearly sees the
scourge of a man found in this crook, takes a stand for himself, and makes a
decision I find wise, virtuous, and final. This single scene makes up for a lot
of stupid leading up to it.
There are, of
course, several other characters who I love throughout the book: Marius’s dedicated
grandfather, the little urchin Gavroche in his kind devilishness, and so on.
However, I think perhaps my favorite character is Éponine. She surpasses
Cosette in goodness because she is sweet and innocent, despite a situation that
should breed a character entirely to the contrary. The inclusion of her person
carries one of the book’s greatest motifs: the innate goodness Hugo believes is
found in everyone. She even advances several other favorite themes of mine that
I haven’t the space to explain in great depth, such as the values of courage,
perseverance, forgiveness, gratitude, and family. Above all, she captures the
natural virtue in all love. The love she gives, so absent in what she receives
from others, is the most touching in this entire story, in my opinion. She’s
like what Rosaline would have done had she really loved Romeo when he scampered
off with Juliet (imagine how much Shakespeare could’ve made off of that plot twist), and that pitiful,
unrequited but unfettered, unknowing love of total devotion is what is so
beautiful about her. To wrap her up in a Biblical passage I’m sure Hugo knew
and loved, “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s
friends” (John 15:13, New Living Translation).
There are oodles
of characters I’d like to talk about, but how about we just skip to the ones
whose names were most frequently doodled with hearts and smileys in my
copy of the book: the Barricade Boys. How can you not love them? Hugo clearly does, and according to at least one adaptation,
they look like this:
And this is their best little buddy/errand boy:
So clearly, I love them. As a Tumblr user once wrote,
“how do you explain to your parents that you want to marry dead fictional
French revolutionaries without first names?” (Les Misérables Confessions). I feel your pain, Tumblr person.
Never have I seen an author care to lovingly flesh out so many characters in
what he had to know would usually be seen as one solid bloc. It makes each man
important when he is lost, and provides many small triumphs and
victories that truly matter in a place of so much sacrifice. In short, the cost of this barricade is felt
because of Hugo's writing. It makes me wonder which man Hugo most related to,
which revolutionaries were based on real men he knew, whether the ABC Society
was based on anyone real, and whether he would more respect a man like Marius
who stayed out of the fray or a man like Enjolras who created it. If only Hugo
were still around to be interviewed on this.
Hard as it may
be to believe, this book contains humor, adorable sidebars, anxiety-inducing
cliffhangers, and adventure. And amidst all of this, Hugo found room to
incorporate meaning. Briefly, my favorite "messages" are:
- The value of moderation (Hugo none too subtly argues that every value can be a stain if found alone and in excess. Everything good or bad, this work proposes, must be judiciously balanced by an opposing force. In the book's own words about this balance of extremes, "Conscience is the highest justice" (188), "[Valjean's] conscience: that is to say God" (210), "Gradualness is the whole policy of God" (734). So justice/rightness = conscience = God = gradualness/moderation.)
- Love is the ultimate good (This is the final message Jean Valjean imparts to his adopted, most beloved daughter and her worthy husband. It is also how his own journey toward greatness begins. The Bishop who turns Valjean's life around shows him the greatest love possible. He never asks the distressed ex-convict for his hidden name, but insists that this man, like any other, ought to be called brother. These and many other passages make love out to be the most incredible of all personal definitions, a beauty one should seek to embody.)
- The great wonder of redemption can come from worry, tragedy, and mistreatment (The glory, strength, and power of a converted heart are on full display here. A changed, new heart, "blinded by the radiance of virtue" is lifted above all else in Hugo's writing (116). This is beautifully displayed in the parallel tracks Valjean literally and Marius figuratively take in their grandest rebirths: Valjean is put in a coffin, buried, and removed from his tomb in a Christlike, covert ceremony. Years after, Marius feels as if he passed through a tomb of his own and emerged unscathed when he escaped the barricade with Valjean's saving aid. Redemption by suffering in the place of others is held above all other forms of rebirth, because "the most godlike of human bounties [is] expiation on behalf of others" (490).) (PS. Another parallel that really floored me is that between Valjean and Thénardier. Marius spends a good chunk of his time searching for the "angelic" crook who dragged his father from a battlefield. Only a few chapters later, he takes up the cause of exiling Jean Valjean from his home on the understanding that this angel is really crooked... not knowing that Valjean was the one who dragged Marius himself from his own battlefield. How's that for large-scale chiastic structuring?)
Now a short note about my opinion concerning differences between adaptations. Some book things that are cut for adaptions hurt to see missing (i.e. Le Cabuc, the gorgeous exposition about the bishop before Valjean arrives, leaving out some details surrounding Enjolras and Grantaire's death scene). There are some changes made between the book and the musical or movie, though, that I really like. For instance, I adore the change of scenery for Valjean's last days. In the movie, we hear his final breaths in the silent, contemplative arena of the convent/chapel, surrounded by utter poverty and simplicity. In the book, he is at home in his simple apartment, writing a last-minute letter at his desk. The movie version, I feel, is a far more fitting place for a man like Valjean to choose to spend the end of his life (I don't recall where he dies in the stage musical, or if the location is very directly communicated in this version at all). Your thoughts?
Also, a question
for y’all (fans of the book, musical, movie, whatever): Why is Javert so
satisfied with the idea of Jean Valjean killing him with a knife in basically every Les Mis incarnation? In the movie/musical, when Valjean appears to be on the verge of slaying his tormenter with a knife,
the inspector says, “How right you should kill with a knife." Also in the book he makes
a comment about the appropriateness of this weapon. Why does he feel that using a knife is the most appropriate way for an ex-con to kill? Is it simply more base/brutal/painful than a gun? I almost feel like
Javert would find killing with a knife to be more honorable than killing with a gun because it makes the job more personal (like how a lot of people have trouble accepting the
use of drone weapons because they don't force anyone to deal with the emotional realities of killing... there are few ways to make that shock more real for the killer than to make him use a knife in his work) and so he would find a convict like Valjean incapable of
having the valor to use one. Anyway, this is a line of Javert's that has always bothered me
and I’d love some input on it.
Overall, this book is truly a masterpiece and a rewarding read.So grab that brick...
Your Bibliomaniac
Bibliographic info:
- Barricade Boy actors. Digital image. Wyrdlam. N.p., Apr. 2013. Web. 22 Aug. 2013
- Beyoncé's hair. Digital image. Mashable. N.p., 8 Aug. 2013. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.
- First of All, We Need Some Light. Tumblr, n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
- "Friends of the ABC." Wikipedia. WikiMedia, Inc., n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
- Gavroche. Digital image. Texts from Gavroche. Tumblr, n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
- Gretchen Wieners GIF. Digital image. Reply GIF. N.p., 2012. Web. 29 Aug. 2013
- Hugo, Victor. Les Misérables. Trans. Norman Denny. New York: Penguin Group, 2012. Print.
- John. New Living Translation. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2004. Bible Hub. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
- Les Misérables Confessions. Tumblr, n.d. Web 19 Aug. 2013.
- Les Misérables. Dir. Tom Hooper. Perf. Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried. Universal Studios, 2012. DVD.
- Mean Girls on the barricade. Digital image. Durward Discussion. N.p., 3 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.
