My first reaction is surprise that this giant novel does not at all begin with the characters we are familiar with... No Valjean, no Javert, no Fantine, etc.
So why start with Bishop Myriel? Victor Hugo definitely seems to describe him favorably. Does showing Myriel's generosity reflect Hugo's priorities? Hugo will show a great concern for the poor and lower classes throughout the novel.
One thing that struck me early was the point that Myriel became a priest around 1793. Hugo hasn't really dealt with it yet, but there was a strong movement against the clergy during the French revolution. It's interesting that this guy chose not only to become a priest, but return to France from Italy at a time which it was dangerous to do so.
Here are a few lines that stuck out to me in the early parts of the book:
He said, moreover, "Teach those who are ignorant as many things as possible; society is culpable, in that it does not afford instruction gratis; it is responsible for the night which it
produces. This soul is full of shadow; sin is therein committed. The guilty one is not the person who has committed the sin, but the person who has created the shadow."
I don't know if I agree with this personally, but it does show Hugo's great concern for the poor.
Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing?
Interesting that Hugo put this in here. The French Revolution also made great use of the guillotine. Myriel takes an anti-death penalty stance.
"The beautiful is as useful as the useful." He added after a pause, "More so, perhaps."
Now that's a line to remember, especially for a choir director!
That's all for now. Don't get hung up on all the history. Try to focus on character! What character traits does Victor Hugo think are important? This is a book you can re-read at later points in your life and you'll get more out of it each time. The important thing for now is to keep going and get what you can out of it: big themes, big character traits, etc.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The Bishop remaining by the side of the convict right up on to the scaffold where the guillotine was, and being there as he dies, was one of the most amazingly touching passages I have ever read.
I'm not quite reading this at the moment, as I read it last spring, but I think I'll do my best to offer my thoughts anyway.
As a preface to the questions that people will be asking throughout the entire novel, especially if you're reading the original unabridged version:
"Why does Hugo continue to go on these digressions that seem tangential to the story? Why is he talking about a minor character, or the Battle at Waterloo, or argot, or the Paris sewer systems, when we could be reading more about the adventures of Jean Valjean?"
It seems to me that this is, firstly, a reflection of the time period. The "novel" as it is today was still in development.
Secondly, we must go into Hugo himself, not only as the writer, but as the man. If you read any other of his works, be it "Notre-Dame de Paris" or "The Toilers of the Sea", you'll notice that he was prone to going into long discussions on things other than the "main characters". This is because for Hugo, the context in which he wrote WAS a character. In "Notre-Dame" the cathedral was truly the main character, and he truly meant for his works to be read not just as a "story" or an art of escapism, but as an experience. He wasn't just writing about characters, he was writing about a time period and issues he felt strongly about.
I know a lot of Les Mis fans who know the musical start to read the book and put it down after three pages when they realise that it's not a quick moving Tom Clancy airport novel.
Think about it. The novel is about 150 years old. Would it survive and warrant dozens of film adaptation and an amazing musical adaptation if it was just a quick read? It has status as a literary work. It's an experience all in itself.
Enjoy.
I read Le miz in high school but decided to join this blog and read it again with everyone. In high school I think I read the abridged version, but this time I picked up the unabridged version. What bothers me about Hugo as an author is not so much his lengthy digressions, but rather that they seem almost disrespectul to me as a reader. It seems he is saying something I could have figured out myself. For example, I could have understood the compassionate and caring nature of the Bishop in 10 pages of description and/or events. I didn't need 40 pages. Also, when Valjean is confronted with his evil self after stealing the coin from the young boy Hugo goes into a lengthy explanation of what that whole incident meant. It leaves nothing for the reader to figure out. He did a great job in the first place of describing that incident; it was vivid and well-written. But it almost frustrated me to read the next several pages about what the incident meant. I get it!!
Also, I was interested in others' thoughts about Hugo's commentary on the prison system. It seems a very contemporary argument that applies to the world we live in today. Valjean enters the prison system as a caring, hard-working man who is sentenced for stealing bread for his family. (wouldn't you do the same?) However, throughout his prison sentence because of the way he is treated and the experience he has there he emerges an evil person. Isn't that what is going on in our own prison system? As prisoners are realeased (as most of them are) are we sending more criminally minded/evil people into society compared with the people we sentence? Does Valjean overcome that? Will society let him overcome that?
Finally..a confession. I'm behind on my reading. Almost done with Fatine.
Welcome to the blog, Sra. Murillo, we're glad to have you!
With reference to Hugo's condescension, I think he didn't necessarily intend the book as scholarly literature, but rather as a polemic. He wanted to make sure he was abundantly clear to a general audience. I agree, though, that it suffers as literature as a result.
Part of what makes it literature is that it is elegantly written, but part is the fact that it deals with issues both timely and timeless. As you say, we do still need to face the dilemma of prison as punishment vs. prison as rehabilitation. We also still deal with the role of public charity vs. church charity vs. government intervention. The timeless nature of these questions is instructive because they show the eternal questions of humanity; we haven't fixed these issues. Can they be fixed? Who knows.
I wish we all had more time to read and post messages. This is my first blog entry, but I've enjoyed the commentary thus far!
In regards to characters, I found Hugo's own comments on this interesting..."This book is a drama whose first character is the Infinite. Man is the second."
To me, this means the primary intent of the book is to address the timeless questions that humans have pondered.
Hugo is writing in the era following the enlightenment and is probably learned in the philosophies of Virtue, Truth, and Beauty. He also has many first and second hand observations of the various means of achieving these ends in France. His constant references to historical events as examples display both his education on the matter and provide depth to the idea that these important questions are infinite and timeless to man.
I think this partially provides an answer to Kevin's question about why Hugo goes on digressions apparently un-meaningful. As Kevin said, the context itself is a character-the Infinite.
"Woe to him who believes in nothing."
(Side comment: this is contradictory in itself, as a belief in nothing is a belief. Maybe it means that those who don't think are doomed, as they become the tools of those that do think)
"Always we honor the thoughtful man."
I think these quotes share a little about Hugo's mindset as well. Perhaps the purpose of the “diversions” is to provide more insight and subtle depth to his philosophy on the infinite. Is this maybe a way of addressing the very well educated, who understand his many historical references, while also sharing the main points of his philosophy through his main story line?
Hugo's commentary is definitely a reflection on the social and political observations he has made, and I believe, a work expressing his views timeless (infinite) questions of Truth and Beauty. (I too enjoyed the quote about Beauty in the first section)
Without any background in theater, my question would be, how can you characterize the Infinite?
Since the questions are timeless, is this a work that could be adapted with updated historical references that would be more understood by audiences today?
In response to your comment "belief in nothing is a belief", I'm reminded of the Cammaerts quote (often wrongly attributed to Chesterton): "When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything."
Post a Comment