Les Misérables discussion

This is my second time reading the novel, and the first time, I skipped that section. I attempted to read it, yet I skipped it again. I'm I missing anything important?

You are missing i lot of the book you shude read it all over. and wach the movie

The Waterloo section explains a lot about Thenardier and Marius' Grandfather and their connection--both to each other and to the events of the later story. the figure on Bonaparte is a motif throughout the book and this is the nadir of his career. As such, Waterloo section also becomes a sort of metaphor of the hopes and dreams of a "new world order" being thrashed by the forces of the old. It's long, but I feel it is worth it.

I will read it. I must. On my first reading I thought, it's superfluous, it has nothing to do with the rest of the story, but now that you remind me, it is.

It isn't the plot point I care about, but I thought the Waterloo turned out fantastic, in my last read. Slow to start maybe, and I didn't worry about getting the layout of battle into my head. Worked up steam though into one of my fave pieces of the book and fave portrayals of war. Ever. I think I skipped the first time.

I read it but spent a lot of it wondering why the hell it was included. It does make sense though and is worth it!

don't skip things you heathens

it's a book of endless diversion - the waterloo section is good reportage but terrible plot distraction

I skimmed it.

I think the reason many (including myself) skipped it at the first reading is that the main plot is somewhat put "on hold" while the background story of Thenardier is cleared, and by then the reader is deeply engrossed in the events of the main characters to easily digest the historical diversion.
Martin's comments was very well put, I think. I should go back and read that part...!

I think it's best to read it. Basically, it is hard for us to imagine the importance of the battle at Waterloo for the people living at that time. Moreover, as several people have pointed out already, a few characters of the novel are present on the battlefield.

Imagine that you are in the year 2145 reading a book set in Germany in the period 1945 to 1990. Would you take the time to read a few pages about the invasion of Normandy on D-day, knowing that a few characters were there at the time?

Yes, people, lets read it, it was put there for a reason. Every part of a novel has a purpose.

Skipped:"> but I intend to read it when I'll reread the book(very soon I hope)

I skipped it again! D'ah! I will go back to it little by little, I just couldn't wait to get on with the story.

I found it interesting to read about Waterloo from a French perspective. The only other description I read was written by Bernard Cornwell in Sharpe's Waterloo.
Having said that it is also a big distraction form the main story and until the last chapter of the Waterloo segment you don't get anything useful for the story. On the other hand there might not have been a better way to introduce Thenardier properly

Read! And so glad that I did! While I was very put off by the slow start to the section and just couldn't get my head around the layout of the battlefield, once I got into it I thought it was absolutely amazing!
I'll be the first to admit it doesn't do much for the plot, but it is so worth the time in and of itself. It's incomparable to some of the other tangents Hugo goes on (convents, anyone?), it was moving, gave a great perspective of a huge historical event, and nearly made me not want to return to the main plot.
I would definitely advise people to give it a chance.

The Waterloo segment is not to be missed. It contains some of the longest sentences in history and more adjectives with adverbs than muskets with bayonets. It should not work at all, but, for me, it was spellbinding.

You have to read it, everyone have to read it.!! this is one of the greatest fight episodes in the literature..!! Hugo did just a brilliant job..!!

I skipped the Waterloo section, though I felt guilty for doing so. I'm rereading Les Mis and plan to suffer through it this time...

Les Mis being the lengthy masterpiece that it is, I think readers should not skip the Waterloo section. The way I viewed it was if I'm going to spend two months reading a 1000+ page book, I might as well see all there is to see, you know?

At first I felt a little frustrated since it derailed from the storyline, but I remember coming across some stunning imagery. One passage about the battlefield gave me chills. I think it's an important reflection that adds to the story's "reputation" for covering the entire spectrum of the human experience, and war is a part of it.

In that way, it's a bit more relevant than some of the other "tangents" present in the novel, interesting as they are (I will nod, as someone above did, to the convents...)

I did read the Waterloo section but I'll admit that I didn't take it all in. Although it doesn't "feel" as if it is an important part, it really is as it gives information as to relationships. Perhaps it could have been shorter? But, who am I to question Hugo.

Unless you like reading about wars, the Waterloo part is very boring IMO. You only need to read the last chapter of that part. Alternatively, you could read some CliffsNotes or whatever.

I've read LM 3 times, and I would *never* read the whole Waterloo part again. :)

One of the afflictions of modern society is FOMO--"Fear of Missing Out." In the case of not reading Waterloo, trust me, you really don't miss much. ;)

I read the whole battle sequence with relish, but I'm a fantasy reader. Although I agree it has little to do with the story, I liked it. It was just as operatic as the story of Cosette and showed the source of the next tidal wave of change. The idea that mud and overreaching defeated Napoleon, not the Brits, was fascinating. I could feel the horse jumping the trenches.

Scott wrote: "I read the whole battle sequence with relish, but I'm a fantasy reader. Although I agree it has little to do with the story, I liked it. It was just as operatic as the story of Cosette and showed t..."

As a description of the Battle of Waterloo, the passage is very impressive. So, it does work on its own. However, as a part of the novel, Hugo could easily have written a whole section on French cooking, French fashion, or French weather, none of which would have been any less relevant. :)

Actually, Hugo did write a section on prostitution, but that was cut from most editions of the book.

Who just SKIPS parts of books? Is this a common thing? I've never heard of that before. . . . Why would you ever skip anything in any novel? No. I didn't skip Waterloo. . . . Which isn't even, like a small part. . . . That's an ENTIRE section.

And it's especially inappropriate to do in an epic. Skipping any part of The Miserable is equivalent to skipping a Wheel of Time chapter or a section from War & Peace or a set of scenes from a Star Wars film or from Patriot or an issue from Bone or a quest in Morrowind Just . . . why would you?

I am afraid I skimmed it mostly, ( a heinous crime by the looks of it!) but it was just too much distraction from the story, which I am afraid is what Hugo did throughout the whole story.

Do not skip or skim. Take your time, absorb yourself in it and go through the tough bits. It's a journey that, while at times hard to endure, needs to be taken in its entirety for the ultimate reward.

Hmmm....so I can skip the Waterloo the first time :P

When I read it the first time I had no way of knowing the the Waterloo section was something of a digression, with only the meeting between Thenardier and Marius' father germane to the plot. So I plowed on. The same applied to the chapters on the history of Paris sewers all the while Valjean was carrying Marius through them.

About a quarter of the novel is composed of various essays like this, so if you want to stick only to the main plot buy an abridged edition.

Read, and when I started the next chapter I thought "Yeah, I could have skip that damn chapter".

It was hard and I had to take a break after but read it. I mean , you can't say you've read Les Mis without it really. I mean I totally didn't get the layout at all but it won't take long and it's just background that should be read to keep you wondering throughout what they're on about and as a reference point. Read it.

I started reading this book in my 6th grade year but never finished. I had checked it out from the library and it was the end of school and I (sadly) had to return it. I did, however, get through a good part of it first, and did in fact read the Waterloo section. It was very thought provoking and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Like everyone says, you're not missing much, but it's still a nice section.

I read it because in actuality it is the points between the politics of the books and the introduction of Marius and his backstory plus its cool to read the french version of the battle since everyone knows the british version since they won. its a hard book to get through but you will be a better reader and have a better understanding of the novel as a whole if you read it at least the first time you go through Les Miserables. After that you can do whatever you want I guess since you got through it. its not easy but totally worth it in the end.

I read it, so I could say I read the whole book, but I must admit, it wasn't my favorite part.

Skipping the Waterloo section of Les Misérables is like skipping the Grand Inquisitor section of Karamazov. I suggest that it's almost impossible to understand the entirety of the work without coming to grips with the description of Waterloo. And the writing is heartbreaking and magnificent:

"Reeking blood, overcrowded cemeteries, weeping mothers -- these are formidable pleaders. When the earth is suffering from a surcharge, there are mysterious moanings from the deeps which the heavens hear.
"Napoleon had been impeached before the Infinite, and his fall was decreed.
"He vexed God.
"Waterloo is not a battle; it is the change of front of the universe."

Please do read it; you will not be sorry.

نُعلن عن بدء التسجيل في فريق التزام المهتم بالقراءة الإعلانhttp://goo.gl/oVHp9J لمعرفةالتفاصيل http://goo.gl/xulAI #راسخون

I wanted so badly to skip it but I forced myself through it so I could say I have read the whole book. When I read it again I will probably skip it.

Read! i didnt reaaly know why it was there but in the end of the chapter you easily understand. It explains some links between the characters

It;s not related and it doesn't really explain Pontmercy and Thenardier's relationship, it's mentioned earlier and again by Marius later and it's near the end of that part (Waterloo) so you cane easily skip it or skim it tbh

At the same time, it's not bad, there was some strong imagery there and I quite liked it though to be honest, I really had basically had no idea what the Batlle of Waterloo was. As a whole Hugo definitely goes of tangent a lot and his a very poetic way with words and to the modern reader it's quite heavy.
It's definitely an uninteresting read but if you're already feeling very bogged down by the rest of it, I say either get back to it later or skim it as some might like it as a breather, others may think it's just in the way

The Waterloo chapter has a huge impact on the rest of the novel. Part of the reason I love the book so much is that it links all the characters together so intricately it would make George R. R. Martin or Hilary Mantel gape. The Waterloo chapter not only explains the link between Marius Pontmercy and Thénardier, which adds to the overall complexity, but also gives a valuable insight into the conflict itself. I was writing a history essay and used the book as a source, this gave me marks. Basically not only does the chapter help clarify and make the story all the more wonderful but it also is important as a relatively first hand account of the battle.

What i said above also depends highly on the translation of the novel. Mine was by Norman Denny.

Not reading the Waterloo chapter is like using Google Earth for the first time, waiting for it to load, and when you finally see the Earth's globe sitting there, you say to yourself, "Hey, I've seen this before; what's the big deal?" and then exiting out of the program without doing anything else.

The Waterloo chapter starts out at 6,800 miles above the surface of the Earth, metaphorically speaking, and while it may seem to be a bit of a slog to get through it, it'll be worth it by the time you've zoomed in to an eye altitude of 500 feet and can make out the despicable figure of Thenardier below.

Read, of course. Skip, what the hell, people?

Personally, i skipped it. I did read the last two mini-chapters of it, which actually had some importance to the story. If you know your French history, you would probably enjoy it.

DON'T YOU DARE SKIP IT! You cannot say that you read Les Mis if you skipped it or skimmed it! I know it may seem like an endless rant about something with little value to the story, but remember, if Hugo never ranted, Les Mis would be really short, and my favorite quotes would be cut out.

I read that part all the way through, although I did intensely have the urge to skip the whole rant about 'slang'. That part just irritated. I struggled to get through it.

Oh, that part is so long and boring that I actually stopped reading it.. I will come back to it at some point. But I highly doubt that you missed anything essential to the story.. its like the author didn't is just using it to pad out the book and create suspense but its just frustrating

if you read the last part of it you would know that actually the whole section has a lot to do with the book and the character interactions. it all fits together if you take the time to read it. You miss some pretty critical information if you don't.

read! I read it 5 times O.O

After all these years I discover I'm not the only person to have skipped it. Actually, I slogged through the first half then skipped to the end. I'm sure there are greater sins in life.

read of course it is an excellent book!Full thought provoking quotes. the book makes you really think which i thing is absolutely wonderful! But i like the older version of the movie better but the new one was quite good too.