Classics and the Western Canon discussion

There is so much still to talk about in our first chapters, but we must also be moving along. But we can still keep posting on the earlier chapters even as we move forward.

There is a parallel between Valjean and Fantine in that each of them is forced by circumstances into a life without their children. In each case it was what we, at least today, would consider a relatively minor fault -- in one case, stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, in the other sleeping with a man you aren't married to. Small faults, perhaps, but each has such life-altering consequences. But the society which imposed those prices saw itself as a highly civilized, just society.

The way in which Fantine and the other women are abandoned by their lovers is truly horrible. Hugo makes the happy day's activities so lovely, so seeming innocent, that one is completely taken in, along with the women, into enjoying it simply as a pretty scene.

The scene in which the innkeepers wife who takes Cosette is introduced is somewhat similar. Other than the fact that the two girls are sitting on a giant, broken wagon chain, everything about the scene seems peaceful and pleasant. But as soon as Fantine goes on her way, we are shown the horror of Cosette's situation.

From Chapter 2 :

"...the female Thenardier was nothing but a coarse, vicious woman, who had dabbled in stupid romances. Now, one cannot read nonsense with impunity."

I find it interesting that Hugo attributed Madame Thernadier's deficiencies of character to her reading habit.

According to the footnote in my copy, Hugo used to read the same 'stupid romances' in his youth.

Sandybanks wrote: "From Chapter 2 :

"...the female Thenardier was nothing but a coarse, vicious woman, who had dabbled in stupid romances. Now, one cannot read nonsense with impunity."

I find it interesting that Hugo attributed Madame Thernadier's deficiencies of character to her reading habit...."

When I read this, I thought how ironic -- that both our authors, Cervantes and Hugo, ascribe extreme character traits to reading nonsense.

Everyman: "In each case it was what we, at least today, would consider a relatively minor fault --"

I would expand on this a bit. I see a pattern developing where some characters are misguided (as above) while others are evil. I would put Javert and the overseer at the factory who fires Fantine in the first category. And I would put the Thernardiers and M. Victurnien in the second.

Indeed, Gopink in his introduction, uses the Thernardiers as the example to defend Hugo against any assertion that he is overly sentimental in his portrayal of the poor.

Speaking of Fantine's firing, I think there are a couple of examples of Hugo's ability in this massive book, to capture deep insights with a short antithesis. For instance:

"She [Fantine:] was advised to go the Monsieur le maire but she did not dare. Monsieur le maire had given her fifty francs because he was good, he was driving her away because he was just." (Book IV Ch 8)

And: "[The overseer was:] full of the charity that consists in giving but not so full of the charity that consists in understanding and forgiving." (Book IV Ch 9)

"Beyond living on little there is living on nothing. These are two rooms; the first is dark, the second is black." (Book IV Ch 9)

Has anyone else noticed that the edit and preview functions don't seem to be working? Or is it just my computer?

I had wanted to identify M Victurnien as the woman who spied on Fantine in contrast to the overseer who thought she was carrying out JVJ's will.

Zeke wrote: "Has anyone else noticed that the edit and preview functions don't seem to be working? Or is it just my computer?"

I just tested the preview system, and it's working on my computer.

Edit: And I submitted that post, then clicked on edit, and I'm editing it now.

So of those are still not working for you, it's something with your system, not goodreads generally.

2nd edit: When I clicked the "edit post" it seemed not to have taken the edit; it was keeping on doing it's rotating circle bit. But when I went back to the thread, the edit was there.

FYI, I'm using Firefox 3.5.3 under XP Pro SP3.

Thanks Everyman. Curiously, mine is now working--albeit with a different interface appearance.

I found it interesting the way Hugo juxtaposed the tardy innocence of Fantine onto the premature jadedness of Tholomyes. When his joke was finally played out it made the act that much more cruel. It was apparent that he knew she was different than the others and would be devastated. Hugo gives the reader no satisfaction of justice either. The wicked boyfriend goes on to a wealthy and happy life, while the naïve Fantine goes on to misery. Whether deliberate or not, Hugo highlights the fact that there was no forum for enforcing parental responsibility.

Zeke wrote: "Everyman: "In each case it was what we, at least today, would consider a relatively minor fault --"

I would expand on this a bit. I see a pattern developing where some characters are misguided ..."

I agree. Even though we are clearly asked to be sympathetic to Fantine, Hugo also does not hesitate to let us see her making mistakes or errors in judgment that led to her present condition. Javert also comes from a poor household, but has little sympathy for people from his own class. The Thernadiers are both poor AND wicked. Les Mis might be considered a Romantic novel, but in potraying the social condition of that time, Hugo seems to be writing in a social realism mode.

Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "From Chapter 2 :

"...the female Thenardier was nothing but a coarse, vicious woman, who had dabbled in stupid romances. Now, one cannot read nonsense with impunity."

I find it ..."

Yes. I remember that interesting discussion early on when we were reading DQ. However, it seems that 'stupid novels' are only dangerous to those who are particularly susceptible to them. Hugo and Cervantes must have had indulged in quite a number of them in their youths and apparently escaped unscathed. : )

Like others, I am just now catching up with comments, and amazed at the quality and quantity of posts made! I've been trying to write notes down as I read, so here are a few things I've jotted down about this part of the book:

I agree with the assertion that some characters are evil vs. misguided, such as the Thenardiers vs. Javert. I liked Hugo's description of Javert as "the evil of all good." The idea of the road to hell paved with good intentions comes to mind. And he's yet another example of a character who goes to an extreme. Justice seems like it would be a good characteristic to have, but in this case we as readers can see its flaws. As for the Thenardiers, Hugo describes them--and I paraphrase--as having the worst characteristics of both the middle and the lower classes. They are poor, but self-important enough to believe it is their right to swindle others out of money if others let them. But whereas Javert strikes me as a character extreme meant to make a point (as I said above), the Thenardiers sound like people I've actually met in real life. Scary. (I'm not taking a philosophical side on the debate about whether people are genuinely good or not here; anecdotal evidence is not enough to make a judgment. :))

(BTW, speaking of Hugo's comments about middle and lower classes, has anyone here read Freakonomics? Hugo's description of how names recycle from being "upper class" names to "lower class" names reminded me of it.)

Speaking of philosophical debates, did Jean Valjean make the right decision to turn himself in? He saved one innocent man, but what will happen to the town he helped build up after he's gone? Or, would he be, by not acting, doing a selfish act to save himself from prison? In a way turning himself in was also selfish, because he probably would have a harder time living with the guilt of directly hurting one person through inaction than possibly hurting a mass of people through taking action. I also think that once he got into the trial the decision was pretty much made for him: seeing Campmathieu in person would make it a lot harder to think of the faceless mass. I thought the chapters about his inner struggle, both at home and on the road to the trial, were fascinating to read and am curious how others took it.

During the trial: it’s funny how the prosecuting lawyer continued to argue vehemently to arrest Campmathieu even after Madeleine’s speech, while the defense lawyer, rather than proclaiming his client’s innocence, ordered a mistrial on procedural grounds. Apparently lawyers weren’t liked then either. That said, every time I read an old novel with some joke of a “trial” like Champmathieu’s (I've seen this kind of thing before, but at the moment I can't come up with a particular book title), I have to say I’m grateful that our system now subscribes to "innocent until proven guilty." Still, in both Hugo's time and ours, does the average person truly believe it? Even after acquittal of a charge, does anyone ever really trust someone who got falsely arrested, short of the closest friends? Kind of like with Javert's character, I guess this is meant to be a sort of critique of the drawbacks of what we call justice. To continue that thought, it's amazing how quickly everyone turned on Madeleine, who they had formerly practically sanctified, after he reveals himself to be Jean Valjean. It's a demonstration of both peoples' prejudices and their ability to overreact and spread rumors. I liked how all the newspapers told a slightly different (and all of them incorrect) story about what happened. One woman even blamed it all on the Bonapartists! A critique, perhaps, of the press, to go along with a critique of the criminal justice system? And if not that, certainly a comment on the universal flaws of human nature. I'm amazed at how some things never change. I think that's partly what makes a book like this enjoyable today: despite its length and numerous outdated references (like others, most of "1817" was lost on me as well since I am not a historical scholar), this novel often points out the universal truths.

Erica wrote: "Speaking of philosophical debates, did Jean Valjean make the right decision to turn himself in?"

Really tough question.

I think the answer depends on the type of moral reasoning you subscribe to. If the morally right thing to do is to act in the best interests of the most number of people, then Valjean was wrong to turn himself in. On the balance of things the greater good would have been better served if he did not turn himself in.

However, if your moral reasoning dictates that certain acts are just plain immoral, regardless if the results of your action make things worse for the most number of people, then he did the right thing.

Valjean did way up the pros and cons of both options but ultimately his beliefs lead him to save the one man at the cost of the wider community (and himself)

FYI - Harvard University have free YouTube videos from a a course on Justice which speaks to this subject and is worth checking out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR...

Stephen wrote: "Erica wrote: "Speaking of philosophical debates, did Jean Valjean make the right decision to turn himself in?"

Really tough question.

I think the answer depends on the type of moral reasoning you subscribe to..."

That's an excellent and thought-provoking question, Erica, and response, Stephen.

Assuming (as I think Stephen does, though we may find out differently as the book proceeds) that it would have been better for the citizens of M-s-M as a group if he had stayed there as mayor and wealthy patron, was it just to sacrifice the best interests of the many to do justice to the one?

Isn't a classic question of political theory which resonates even today? Making the assumption for the sake of the argument that torturing an enemy terrorist will lead to information that will prevent a terrorist attack and save many innocent lives, is it just to commit the torture, or should one not commit the evil of torture and accept that as a result many innocent people will suffer? (Not a perfect parallel, because the terrorist presumably isn't totally innocent, as Campmathieu was, but it's the same basic dilemma, isn't it? Doing wrong to one in order to do good to many?

(I note, Stephen, that you clarified the moral issues, but didn't take a position on them. Was this prudence, or cowardice? [VBG!!:] )

Everyman wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Erica wrote: "Speaking of philosophical debates, did Jean Valjean make the right decision to turn himself in?"

Really tough question.

I think the answer depends on the type of..."

This is indeed a hard question to answer. On the one hand, Valjean did break his parole and committed a punishable crime by robbing that Savoyard boy. From a purely legalistic viewpoint (such as Javert might subscribe to), he should definitely serve time for those offences. On the other hand, his charitable work as mayor/philantropist, at a time when the state did not provide any social services, is very important. It is more beneficial for society to let him continue his charity work than to put him behind bars for petty crimes. I wonder if the French legal system at that time recognized subsequent good conduct or charitable action as a mitigating factor.

I'm still not entirely sure which position I will take, but I lean more towards Valjean having to serve some time for his offences, because it is not morally right for him to let an innocent suffer for his past actions. But I also take into account that the prescribed punishment is way out of proportion to the relatively minor offences that he committed, and thus is not justifiable by modern standards. Perhaps the best outcome would be for Valjean to serve a lenient sentence, enough to account for his minor offences, but this doesn't seem to be possible under the revenge-minded justice at that time.

I note, Stephen, that you clarified the moral issues, but didn't take a position on them. Was this prudence, or cowardice? [VBG!!:]

Yes, I'm a perennial fence-sitter. And I still can't make up my mind if Valjean did the right thing or not by confessing his true identity! It's like trying to pick sides between the virtues of Liberty vs Equality? How can you, you need both. Life is difficult sometimes.

It may be that in the case of Stephen's dilemma between Liberty and Equality, Victor Hugo is opting for Fraternity! I'm not being entirely facetious either. He keeps talking about the need for repeated revolutions; I think this is because, while all revolutions think they will produce Equality, none do.

On the subject of justice, I am reminded of a visit I once had with a big city Municipal Court judge. He admonished me when I spoke about justice. He said, "The first thing you have to realize is that the legal system is not designed to be just. It is designed to be fair. My job is to make sure the rules are followed, not to produce a just outcome."

The discussion of the moral reasoning JVJ is confronted with is interesting. It reminds me of the psychology experiment that demonstrated that people agree that one fat man on a bridge should be sacrificed to keep a trolley passing underneath from killing five innocents. However, when placed on the bridge beside the person, few will say they would push him. "Greater good" is a concept that appeals more in the abstract than in our personal choices. After all, how many of us truly sacrifice in order to see that the world's poor are fed and clothed?

However, I would like to suggest a different perspective on JVJ's decision to surrender. I don't think he is making the choice between harming one person (the accused) or many (those who will suffer if his leadership is lost). In fact, there is no reason for him to assume that the factory and town will not continue on their own to prosper.

In my opinion, his choice is less abstract. It balances his self-preservation against what he sees as "godliness." He can't be Godly without surrender; if he surrenders he consigns himself back to the galleys. He puts it succinctly: "[W:]hether to remain in paradise and turn into a demon there, or to return to hell and there become an angel!"

Zeke wrote: However, I would like to suggest a different perspective on JVJ's decision to surrender. I don't think he is making the choice between harming one person (the accused) or many (those who will suffer if his leadership is lost). In fact, there is no reason for him to assume that the factory and town will not continue on their own to prosper.

In my opinion, his choice is less abstract. It balances his self-preservation against what he sees as "godliness." He can't be Godly without surrender; if he surrenders he consigns himself back to the galleys. He puts it succinctly: "[W:]hether to remain in paradise and turn into a demon there, or to return to hell and there become an angel!"

Exactly! Hugo here is turning Milton's Satan on his heels, by the way. It would have been egotistical and condescending for Valjean to think that only he could keep the town alive, even if that should turn out to be true. (My thought is that if the town can't go on on its own two feet after the great start that has been given it, the town is not worth saving.)

POST # 17 -- Zeke wrote: ".It may be that in the case of Stephen's dilemma between Liberty and Equality, Victor Hugo is opting for Fraternity! I'm not being entirely facetious either. He keeps talking about the need for repeated revolutions; I think this is because, while all revolutions think they will produce Equality, none do.
.."

--------------------------------------------


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

... United States Declaration of Independence


*** FYI
Zeke, I also keep having error messages when I post, preview, or edit. I now have to copy all my posts before hitting any of those options. I usually can get it to work the second time around.

Laurele wrote: "Zeke wrote: However, I would like to suggest a different perspective on JVJ's decision to surrender. I don't think he is making the choice between harming one person (the accused) or many (those wh..."

Laurele, is it possible that if Valjean turns himself in all of his property and assets (including the jet factory) would be forfeit to the state? I'm not familiar with French law during this era, but I recall a similar provision in 19th century English law. This is what happened to Magwitch (Pip's benefactor in Great Expectation), who amassed a fortune while being a runaway convict.

The town could have done without Valjean's charitable services, but if the jet factory has to be closed down, the impact would be catastrophic.

One issue that we haven't raised about the trial is the manifest unfairness of the trial that is already in progress when Valjean gets there. First, the fact that Champmathieu actually took the apples from the tree rather than just finding the branch is never clearly established. And the only clear identifiers of him as Valjean are other convicts who had last seen him many years previous.

BTW, I do think that Valjean realizes his own moral progress will be effectively void if he does not turn himself in. He faces such a great temptation that I couldn't help applying to my own life. When faced with the chance to get away with something with no chance of ever being detected in this life what do I choose? I feel surely this is part of what Hugo was trying to do for readers.

Sandybanks wrote: Laurele, is it possible that if Valjean turns himself in all of his property and assets (including the jet factory) would be forfeit to the state? I'm not familiar with French law during this era, but I recall a similar provision in 19th century English law. This is what happened to Magwitch (Pip's benefactor in Great Expectation), who amassed a fortune while being a runaway convict.

The town could have done without Valjean's charitable services, but if the jet factory has to be closed down, the impact would be catastrophic.


I hadn't thought of that, SandyB. I don't know the answer.

Andrea wrote: BTW, I do think that Valjean realizes his own moral progress will be effectively void if he does not turn himself in. He faces such a great temptation that I couldn't help applying to my own life. When faced with the chance to get away with something with no chance of ever being detected in this life what do I choose? I feel surely this is part of what Hugo was trying to do for readers.

Great thoughts, Andrea. I agree with you.

In chapter V, Hugo describes Javert as a man who "in his rare leisure moments he read books, although he hated to read."

What was Hugo trying to say? That Javert read because he thought it was the right thing to do. So he did it whether he enjoyed it or not. Or did he read because he was trying to lift himself out of his lower social status? Both he an Madeleine both were of a lower class and self taught. Was Hugo trying to make some connection there?

Thanks for any ideas on this.

Alias Reader wrote: "In chapter V, Hugo describes Javert as a man who "in his rare leisure moments he read books, although he hated to read."

What was Hugo trying to say? That Javert read because he thought it was ..."

I think it adds to the clues we are given that there was something mechanical, robotlike about Javert. He followed the letter of the law, but not the spirit. He did whatever he did because that was the thing to be done. I doubt whether there was anything that he enjoyed doing. If there had been, he would not have done it.

Laurele wrote: "Alias Reader wrote: "In chapter V, Hugo describes Javert as a man who "in his rare leisure moments he read books, although he hated to read."

What was Hugo trying to say? That Javert read because..."

I agree. Not only is Javert somewhat robotlike, he is also narrow minded and closed to new ideas. Again, Hugo uses reading habit as a measure of character. Madame Thernadier reads 'stupid novels', while Javert 'hated to read'.

Stephen wrote: "I note, Stephen, that you clarified the moral issues, but didn't take a position on them. Was this prudence, or cowardice? [VBG!!:]

Yes, I'm a perennial fence-sitter. And I still can't make up mind if Valjean did the right thing or not by confessing his true identity! "

What's interesting to me is that we have the luxury of not deciding, of seeing both sides and not picking one. But Valjean didn't have that liberty -- he HAD to choose! (Or, for those who object to treating characters as though they were real people, Hugo had to make his decision as to which course he would have Valjean follow.)

So even if we're not sure what we think was the right course, why do you think Hugo chose to have Valjean take this course? (Or is that a question that should be asked later? I've just finished this week's reading, so I don't know whether we're done with Valjean or whether he continues to be a factor in the book.)

One of the other books I'm reading simultaneously with lesM is Dombey and Son. The difference between their approaches to their characters and situations is extraordinary.

Everyman wrote: "So even if we're not sure what we think was the right course, why do you think Hugo chose to have Valjean take this course?

I think Hugo wanted the reader to ask ourselves what we would do if we were in Valjeans shoes.

I think Valjean made his decision based on his sense of "godliness" (as Zeke said), which is heavily influenced by his earlier encounters with Bienvenu.

One of the other books I'm reading simultaneously with lesM is Dombey and Son. The difference between their approaches to their characters and situations is extraordinary.

Perhaps we should broaden the Tolstoy thread to include other comparisons as well. I am working on a post about social protest literature that won't really belong in any of the chronological threads. I can hold it until the end or post it there. And I'd be very interested in Everyman's comparison to Dickens.

I'm also amazed at how several of you are able to handle multiple classics at once!

Hugo uses an intriguing metaphor to describe Javert. When he comes to arrest Fantine, Hugo describes the scene thus: "She would have caused a heart of stone to melt, but there is no melting a heart of wood."

I'm reminded of Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little men."

And this seems an appropriate place to shine the light on a minor character whose deviation from her consistency demonstrates her humanity. Sister Semplice was a rigidly "godly" woman whose code demanded absolute honesty; she never told a lie. Then when the police come while JVJ is hiding in the house, she tells her first lie--demonstrating that her heart is not made of wood.

Zeke wrote: "Hugo uses an intriguing metaphor to describe Javert. When he comes to arrest Fantine, Hugo describes the scene thus: "She would have caused a heart of stone to melt, but there is no melting a heart..."

Yes. "Conscience is the highest justice".

Zeke wrote: "I'm also amazed at how several of you are able to handle multiple classics at once!"

I am reading Dostoevsky's The Idiot. The protagonist is also someone too good and too kind to be true, like Valjean and Myriel. This book and Les Misearables both have many characters and I struggle with the foreign names. I will not try reading two classics together in future.

On characters in books who have been influenced by what they read, one that comes to my mind is Emma Bovary in Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary.

I am still at Book 7. Did I read corectly from Les Mis that Valjean think that Myriel would have wanted him to take the course of saving Champmathieu ? And yet Valjean think that he is going against God's will in taking this course ? I am confused over the chapter on Madeleine's emotional struggle.

Everyman wrote: I've just finished this week's reading, so I don't know whether we're done with Valjean or whether he continues to be a factor in the book.)


Done with Valjean?!! Don't even think it!

Zeke wrote: Perhaps we should broaden the Tolstoy thread to include other comparisons as well. I am working on a post about social protest literature that won't really belong in any of the chronological threads. I can hold it until the end or post it there. And I'd be very interested in Everyman's comparison to Dickens.

Good idea. I've already inserted Thackeray into the discussion.

Selina: What is it about Madeleine's emotional struggle that is confusing you? Do you think there is a self-evident course he should follow that he is missing?

There were some helpful posts on this a couple of days ago as I recall.

Sandybanks wrote: I agree. Not only is Javert somewhat robotlike, he is also narrow minded and closed to new ideas. Again, Hugo uses reading habit as a measure of character. Madame Thernadier reads 'stupid novels', while Javert 'hated to read'.

.."

=====================

Thanks ! I like how he uses reading to explain the character of a person. Interesting.

Zeke #32: I'm reminded of Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little men."
=========================

I am reminded of Dickens: “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass— a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

---- CHARLES DICKENS, Oliver Twist, chapter 51

I'm still reading this weeks assignment. I took a break yesterday and watched the video of the play reading with the "dream Cast". I love Phillip Quast as Javert ! What a voice.

http://www.amazon.com/Miserables-Anni...

Zeke wrote: "Perhaps we should broaden the Tolstoy thread to include other comparisons as well. "

Consider it done. The thread is now titled Hugo, Tolstoy, et. al. The Tolstoy is retained to give a bow to the original concept, but it can now be used for any other comparisons raised by LesM which don't really fit into the ordinary set of book postings.

WARNING -- THIS THREAD MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. Posters are asked to note when their posts do contain spoilers (mention content beyond the current chapters under discussion), but spoilers are allowed here if carefully noted.

Zeke wrote: "What is it about Madeleine's emotional struggle that is confusing you? Do you think there is a self-evident course he should follow that he is missing?

I don't understand why Valjean regarded doing nothing as going according to God's will, and turning himself in as interfering with God's decision. Or have I misunderstood what I have read ? Did Valjean think that God does want him to continue his life as the benevolent mayor ?

Alias Reader wrote: "I'm still reading this weeks assignment. I took a break yesterday and watched the video of the play reading with the "dream Cast". I love Phillip Quast as Javert ! What a voice.

http://ww..."

Yes, that's a fantastic concert! Quast is very good as Javert, and I also love Colm Wilkinson as Valjean. I still have my Broadway ticket stub from 15 years ago. : )

Everyman wrote: "Zeke wrote: "Perhaps we should broaden the Tolstoy thread to include other comparisons as well. "

Consider it done. The thread is now titled Hugo, Tolstoy, et. al. The Tolstoy is retained to giv..."

Everyman, is it OK to include whole book spoilers for books OTHER than Les Mis on the comparison thread? I find it difficult to compare them without referring to spoilers from those other books. Spoilers for Les Mis would, of course, be limited to the parts which are already covered in the scheduled reading.

Sandybanks wrote: "Everyman, is it OK to include whole book spoilers for books OTHER than Les Mis on the comparison thread?."

I don't see why not, if you make a clear warning at the start that you're going to discuss plot details of such-and-such book. I think only plot details matter as spoilers; for example, I didn't see it as a spoiler to say that Dickens in Bleak House discusses the London fog in such detail or that he describes the house boat in David Copperfield. But if you're going to discuss plot details, it would be a courtesy to say so up front.

Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "Everyman, is it OK to include whole book spoilers for books OTHER than Les Mis on the comparison thread?."

I don't see why not, if you make a clear warning at the start that you..."

Allright. Thanks for the clarification, Everyman.

Selina--I do think you may have turned JVJ's decision around. When he turns himself in at the courtroom, he says, "I am performing a duty...What I am doing at this moment God on high looks down upon and that is enough..."

However, I think it is an entirely valid question to ask whether he is accepting responsibility for his crimes. He goes on to blame society ("The galleys make the galley slave.") or he could be surrendering as an act of mercy to save the innocent accused.

Not sure if this helps--or makes it even murkier for you.

Selina wrote: "Zeke wrote: "What is it about Madeleine's emotional struggle that is confusing you? Do you think there is a self-evident course he should follow that he is missing?

I don't understand why Valje..."

Are you thinking of some of JVJ's thoughts while he was attempting to get to trial? He was still unsure of himself even during the journey, so things like braking the axle on his cart, roads in poor condition, and nearly being excluded from the trial were events he referred to as "God's will," figuring that if God really didn't want him to get to the trial, he should listen (at least that's how I read it). However, because he WAS still unsure, he did everything he could to get around these obstacles, and, IMO, ultimately decided that because he was able to do so, maybe it WAS God's will that he turn himself in. That might explain why the 180.

Zeke wrote: "Hugo uses an intriguing metaphor to describe Javert. When he comes to arrest Fantine, Hugo describes the scene thus: "She would have caused a heart of stone to melt, but there is no melting a heart..."
"Treat me right, treat me good
Treat me like you know you should
Cause I'm not made of wood
And I don't have a wooden heart"

Just a little flash from my rural, polka infested childhood.

Everyman, I read Dombey and Son a long time ago but would be interested in your further comments. Also, I hope to have some comments to make from "Mind of the Maker" at some point, but it is not an easy read and I'm still pulling the ideas together.