Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Laurel was right, of course -- we're not done with Valjean by any means.

Zeke may have had a point -- Books 2 and 3 seem to me to be increasingly unrealistic. Am I the only one who feels this way?

I almost pitched the book during the Waterloo chapters. Hugo is one author of whom I think that an abridgement may not be a bad idea. Yeesh!

As has been mentioned by others here, we have a French voice on Waterloo in Hugo, we have a Russian voice in Tolstoy's War and Peace, we have a sort of English voice in Thackeray's Vanity Fair.

Now here's another English voice in the person of Byron and his Ode to Napoleon Buonoparte .

As befits the poetry of his age, it's a poem filled with allusions that escape many modern readers who are not educated, as 19th Century students (of a certain class) were, in the Bible, Roman history, and classical mythology, but it's still fascination, at least IMO, to read.

The original poem, of 14 stanzas, was written in 1814 after Bonaparte's first exile. Byron extended it to the 19 stanzas we have today (with some other editing) after Waterloo.

It is not a poem, I think, of which the average Englishman would approve, especially after Waterloo. But Bonaparte did have his passionate believers.

Byron, by the way, in Don Juan, likened himself to Napoleon (whose life was in some ways parallel to his own; humble beginnings, a dramatic rise to the pinnacle of authority in their chosen field, then downfall and exile or contemplated exile). He wrote, in Canto 11:

"Even I -- albeit I'm sure I did not know it,
Nor sought of foolscap subjects to be king --
Was reckon'd a considerable time,
The grand Napoleon of the realms of rhyme. "

All of which raises the question (which I suppose is a bit off the main theme of LesMis, but Hugo spends a whole book on Waterloo) how do these various authors -- Hugo, Tolstoy, Thackeray, Byron -- view Bonaparte?

Peregrine wrote: "I almost pitched the book during the Waterloo chapters. Hugo is one author of whom I think that an abridgement may not be a bad idea. Yeesh!"

I find his telling of the battle to be uneven. He describes some parts of it with lots of details and atmosphere, but speeds past others in an elliptical, disjointed way. At times it seems that he merely recites a catalogue of generals' names and places, followed by some obscure comments. Maybe the events of Waterloo were already too familiar to his original audience that he didn't bother to provide a detailed description?

I find his views on what Waterloo meant for France and Europe to be much more interesting than the battle scenes.

Sandybanks wrote: I find his views on what Waterloo meant for France and Europe to be much more interesting than the battle scenes.

And for me, I did not even know that Waterloo was in Belgium. Or maybe I interpreted that incorrectly? The battle scenes are the part that stays with me, because that's the only part I could understand. The beleaguered orchard, the holes in the hedges to aim muskets from cover, Napoleon's fondness for heavy artillery, the charge that was subverted by the ditch, the rout at the end of the battle. all that is what I remember, but I think - All that so we can see Thénardier looting on the battlefield? That's kind of like giving a history of capitalism as a prologue to saying that somebody embezzled accounts. Too much, in my opinion. I did better with Orion, and was quite happy to read book 3.

"All that so we can see Thénardier looting on the battlefield? That's kind of like giving a history of capitalism as a prologue to saying that somebody embezzled accounts. "

Yes. The connection between the extended battle scenes and Thernadier seems to be tenuous at best. He seems like an afterthought. I suppose that Hugo wanted to air his views on Waterloo and Napoleon and had to find an excuse to include them in his novel.

I enjoy the story much more after I'm done with Waterloo too.

What a relief to know i wasn't alone with my feelings on Book 1! I cannot imagine the French needed a retelling of the battle, so i was surprised it went on & on. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that i didn't know the terms & didn't much care, right? ;-)

deborah

I know little to nothing about the French Revolution or Napoleon or French history. Do people think it would be worthwhile reading up about French history during this period (not major research, just wikipedia etc). Or will it be just as enjoyable to follow the story as it comes with little historical knowledge?

Any thoughts on that?

Stephen wrote: "I know little to nothing about the French Revolution or Napoleon or French history. Do people think it would be worthwhile reading up about French history during this period (not major research, j..."

I myself decided not to do the research. The novel is long, the history is detailed, I don't know which bits of the history would be relevant to the novel, so I decided just to read the book and see what sticks.

Peregrine wrote: "The battle scenes are the part that stays with me, because that's the only part I could understand. ...but I think - All that so we can see Thénardier looting on the battlefield?"

That was my question, too. What was the point of that book? Will it come back to have meaning later in the book? Or as you ask, was it all just a prelude to showing Thenardier as a scavenger of dead bodies and thief? Or did Hugo have some other purpose for presenting the battle in such detail? If so, he failed to convey to me what that purpose was.

Everyman wrote: "Peregrine wrote: "The battle scenes are the part that stays with me, because that's the only part I could understand. ...but I think - All that so we can see Thénardier looting on the battlefield?"..."

Perhaps the meaning of it will become clear later. Isn't there another revolution coming up? If Hugo views Waterloo as the triumph of 'counter-revolutionary forces', then it might have a connection to that later revolution.

When I read "Vanity Fair" in college, the professor made the point that Waterloo was an important life marker point for people in Britain and France at the time. Nearly everyone knew someone involved. Maybe a little like World War II to my father's generation. And people never tire of retelling and rethinking those kinds of events. I actually liked the section. It seemed like perhaps a digression, but I just read over the confusing parts and got the sense of how this battle was discussed and re-analyzed again and again in the French and British public imaginations. What part a person played in it perhaps ws a touchstone for their whole character?

Andrea wrote: "When I read "Vanity Fair" in college, the professor made the point that Waterloo was an important life marker point for people in Britain and France at the time. Nearly everyone knew someone invol..."

Excellent points, Andrea.

Strangely enough, the description of the battle seems to be a celebrated aspect of the novel. I join with others in finding that odd.

I, too, thought that Thernardier's looting was the "punchline." Without spoiling anything, but in case others want to reread the concluding few pages of the chapter, I will tell you that the man he robs also reappears as an important figure in the story.

As for abridgements, Adam Gopink, in the introduction to the Julia Rose translation disagrees. "The gassy bits in Les Miserables aren't really gassy. They're as good as the good bits. They're what gives the good bits the gas that gets them aloft." [N.B. Gopink could use an editor himself; his metaphor contradicts itself!:]

Reminder: the thread with the reading schedule for Les Mis asks that there's no giving away of future happenings if one already knows from having read.

Sandybanks wrote: "Perhaps the meaning of it will become clear later. Isn't there another revolution coming up? If Hugo views Waterloo as the triumph of 'counter-revolutionary forces', then it might have a connection to that later revolution."

I don't think so.

My knowledge of French History is limited, but I think it went about like this. The original revolution was in 1789-1799. That was the biggie, which led to the first French Republic which only lasted a few years until Napoleon set up the Firsst French Empire in 1804, who as we have seen was overthrown in 1814 and re-overthrown in 1815, when the monarchy was restored. There was another revolution in 1830 which overthrew Charles X and established a republic. Another revolution in 1848 lead in a few years to the Second French Empire, with Louis Napoleon as Emperor Napoleon III. This was the situation when LesMis was written. Eventually Napoleon III went to war with Prussia and lost, and in 1871 the Third Republic was established, but it wasn't really by revolution.

Anybody who knows this period better than I do (which probably includes many people here) should correct or amplify as appropriate. But no, I don't think that in 1862 there was another revolution coming.

But maybe I misread your comment and you meant that in 1815 there was another one coming, in which case, yes, there was one in 1848 which Hugo would have lived through and known about when he published LesMis in 1862.

Peregrine wrote: "Reminder: the thread with the reading schedule for Les Mis asks that there's no giving away of future happenings if one already knows from having read."

Thanks for that reminder.

Different people sometimes have different ideas about what really constitutes a spoiler, but you're right, any reference to future events by one who has read ahead should be avoided. I would have preferred myself to wait to come across the tidbit I think you're referring to when I came to it. It wasn't a biggie, perhaps, but it was by definition a spoiler.

If one thinks it's really useful to make such comments, they can be put in the Hugh/Tolstoy thread carefully marked as spoilers. that thread is open to comments about any part of the book as long as references to future events are clearly marked as spoilers.

Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "Perhaps the meaning of it will become clear later. Isn't there another revolution coming up? If Hugo views Waterloo as the triumph of 'counter-revolutionary forces', then it migh..."

"But maybe I misread your comment and you meant that in 1815 there was another one coming, in which case, yes, there was one in 1848 which Hugo would have lived through and known about when he published LesMis in 1862."

Yes, that was what I meant. If Waterloo in 1815 was the triumph of counter-revolutionary forces (the Bourbons/Royalists), then the 1830 revolution that reestablished the Republic was the revolutionaries' revanche. I think this 1830 revolution will be dealt with in the later part of the book. I thought that Hugo included Waterloo because it was the historical precursor of the subsequent struggle between the Revolutionary and Counter-revolutionary forces through the course of the novel.

I know little to nothing about the French Revolution or Napoleon or French history. Do people think it would be worthwhile reading up about French history during this period (not major research, just wikipedia etc). Or will it be just as enjoyable to follow the story as it comes with little historical knowledge?

--------------------
I found the Waterloo section too tedious and complicated, much like the 1817 section in Book 3. I decided to see what my one vol. encyclopedia had. That was a bit mind numbing, too. So I went to Internet sources. It seems the Waterloo section is important to the book. And not only to show Thénardier looting on the battlefield. Though I agree Hugo needed an editor with a big fat red pen. LOL.

Here is what I found online. One easy paragraph seems to sum it up nicely.

"The society that persecutes Valjean is not irrevocable cruel it is capable of change, and of radical changes in the interest of the poor and oppressed, as the Revolution showed. Napoleon I, dictator through he was, was a child of that Revolution and consolidated some of its liberal social advances. With his defeat, at Waterloo and the consequent restoration of the Bourbons, social progress was checked; Valjean, Fantine, Cosette and others like them were again neglected. But their fate is not inevitable, history may again intervene to reverse the effects of Waterloo, and it is one of Hugo's purposes in writing Les Miz. to encourage it to do so."

Thanks, AR, that helps!

Yes, the comments are interesting. However, for those who found the section much too long (I wasn't one of them), I'm not sure that this explanation is sufficient excuse:). I'm really eager to see how this works out later in the book.

Though I found the Waterloo section tedious to read. Hugo does tell us that there is an important detail in that section that we need to be alert to: He writes:
" It goes without saying that we do not claim to be writing a history of Waterloo. A critical moment in our tale is linked with the battle, but its history is not our concern. "
So he may have wanted to get across his personal feelings as I quoted in my post #19.Hence the long battle section, but in there he has hidden something related to the plot that he wants us to remember. ;)

I did think some of the sentiment and witting was very good in the Waterloo section. At least my Denny translation was very good. :)

Here are a few lines that stood out for me.

IV "the daylight of history is merciless "

VII "Thus does Destiny deceive us; our joys are shadows, the last laugh is God's"

VIII what a great description of Napoleon. "master of the conclusion" Love it !

"...passing in the fog of battle beneath Napoleon's gaze, seemed scarcely to trouble him or cloud his aspect of imperial certainty. He was accustomed to see war as a whole, never casting up the columns of profit and loss. The figures mattered little to him provided they added up to the right toal, which was victory. Early setbacks did not shake him, since he believed himself to be master of the conclusion. He could afford to wait; he was beyond question not the equal of Destiny, to whom he seemed to say, You would not dare.
A creature of light and dark, Napoleon believed himself to be protected in good and tolerated in evil."

XVI "Only barbarian peoples are suddenly enhanced by victory, like streams swollen by sudden downpour. Civilized peoples, particularly in our present age, neither rise nor sink according o the good or ill fortune of a military leader."

"Often the losing of a battle leads to the winning of progress. Less glory but greater liberty: the drum is silent and the voice of reason can be heard."

Book 2
III "They had no notion of the danger that lies in tempting to crush ideas by military order."

"They made the fatal blunder of mistaking the discipline of the soldier for the consent of the nation."

Alias Reader wrote: "I know little to nothing about the French Revolution or Napoleon or French history. Do people think it would be worthwhile reading up about French history during this period (not major research, ju..."

Thanks for sharing that quote, Alias.

I'm curious whether Napoleon's regime was really as liberal with the poor as Hugo thought. Wasn't he an Emperor with absolute power who involved his country in costly foreign wars? Didn't his army mainly consist of conscripted men, most of them poor?

Code Napoleon is surely the most liberal piece of legislation in Europe at that time, but did it really help the poor and opressed in France and elsewhere?

Perhaps others with more knowledge of French history can help with these questions.

Andrea wrote: "Yes, the comments are interesting. However, for those who found the section much too long (I wasn't one of them), I'm not sure that this explanation is sufficient excuse:). I'm really eager to see how this works out later in the book."

I, too, am willing to give Hugo the benefit of the doubt at this point. One interesting thing is that according to the notes in my book, Hugo actually went to the battlefield to get the details really right first hand. So he was obviously serious about this section.

Andrea wrote: "Yes, the comments are interesting. However, for those who found the section much too long (I wasn't one of them), I'm not sure that this explanation is sufficient excuse:). I'm really eager to see how this works out later in the book."

I, too, am willing to give Hugo the benefit of the doubt at this point. One interesting thing is that according to the notes in my book, Hugo actually went to the battlefield to get the details really right first hand. So he was obviously serious about this section.

We discussed the first week whether Myriel was a realistic portrait of a possible actual person, or whether he was just too good to be true.

I am getting the same sense about Valjean after this section. The coincidence of his running onto Colette returning with the water I can accept, it's the sort of coincidence one must sometimes accept in novels, but his buying the socks, buying the doll, laying out all that money, begin to run too untrue to me. Valjean is seeming less of a reasonable portrait of a possible actual person and more of a figure created to make a point.

I realize that many figures in literature are at at best semi-realistic, but Valjean seems just too much more so to be credible.

Am I alone in thinking this?

Everyman wrote: "We discussed the first week whether Myriel was a realistic portrait of a possible actual person, or whether he was just too good to be true.

I am getting the same sense about Valjean after this se..."

A man who has shown himself to be benevolent to a city could certainly also be benevolent to an orphan child in great need.

Laurele wrote: "Everyman wrote: "We discussed the first week whether Myriel was a realistic portrait of a possible actual person, or whether he was just too good to be true.

I am getting the same sense about Valj..."

I think it's consistent with his character so far. He also had been known to stop random Savoyard poor boys to give them money when he was known as Madeleine, although admittedly those acts were also motivated by his guilt over robbing Petit Gervais.

What I don't seem to understand is why he took his time in looking for Cosette in Montfermeil. He seems to have been loitering for some time in the vicinity of the town, hiding his money in the woods. Am I missing something here?

Sandybanks wrote: "What I don't seem to understand is why he took his time in looking for Cosette in Montfermeil. He seems to have been loitering for some time in the vicinity of the town, hiding his money in the woods. Am I missing something here? ..."

I was under the impression that he hide money in the woods before finally being captured & returned to prison. Remember when he left town after Fantine died? He took some money & other things. If i understood the material correctly this is when he hid the money.

Although he clearly was spending some time retrieving it, so it's probably the same difference. First was his water escape, then new passport & other papers in the town known for such deeds (sorry i've forgotten the name), apparently an apartment in Paris was arranged and even the mourning clothing purchased. THEN, according to how i read the storyline, he went to Montfermeil for Cosette.

This sort of backtracking to fill us in leads to confusion in my little brain!

deborah

madrano wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "What I don't seem to understand is why he took his time in looking for Cosette in Montfermeil. He seems to have been loitering for some time in the vicinity of the town, hiding h..."

I think you're right, Deborah. I'm also reading the Woman in White at the same time so maybe I get confused. I'll reread that part.

As you said, he's still taking his time to get Cosette, though.

Deborah, I agree. That is how I read the section about the woods, too.
It was implied that ValJean hid money there.

I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I seem to recall that it said he was able to withdraw a large sum of money from the bank before he ran away.

Yes, over 600,000 francs upon a letter from him to the bank.

madrano wrote: "I was under the impression that he hide money in the woods before finally being captured & returned to prison. Remember when he left town after Fantine died? He took some money & other things. If i understood the material correctly this is when he hid the money."

that's what I thought happened -- what he did in those hours between the escape and recapture. And that, I assumed, is why we had the section about the weird things happening in the woods.

Everyman wrote: "We discussed the first week whether Myriel was a realistic portrait of a possible actual person, or whether he was just too good to be true.

I am getting the same sense about Valjean after this se..."

I agree with you regarding Valjean. Yes, it’s possible that he could have put money aside. Yes, he could have been watching the Tavern to see where and when Cosette was alone so he could meet up with her.

Regarding the clothing, it’s possible that he thought she was probably thin due to malnourishment and he knew she was 7 years old so in advance he went to a store to purchase the necessary & correct size clothing for her (a wool dress, wool stockings, a petticoat, cotton undergarments, etc.)

But the purchase of the doll was too much. When Valjean and Cosette returned in the dark from the woods with the water, the tavern was near the church and they walk by the various display booths illuminated in that area. After returning to the Tavern, Cosette lied to Thenardiess that the bakery was closed. She continued to lie that she knocked on the door and the baker didn’t open – even though Thenardiess doubted her (which is her character), it was believable because it was a Christmas Eve. Plus the purchase of the doll was so quick – it would mean that Valjean had to know exactly which booth had the doll and that someone on Christmas Eve was “open” to sell it to him.

(page 408) The man walked straight to the street door, opened it and went out. As soon as he had gone, the Thenardiess took advantage of his absence to give a severe kick under the table to Cosette, who shrieked in response. The door opened again, and the man reappeared, holding the fabulous doll we have mentioned which had been the admiration of all the youngsters in the village since morning.

Carol wrote: "Plus the purchase of the doll was so quick – it would mean that Valjean had to know exactly which booth had the doll and that someone on Christmas Eve was “open” to sell it to him. "

I didn't find the purchase of the doll that unbelievable, convenient yes, but not unbelievable.
The stall theat sold the doll was directly across from the Thenardiers inn and very prominently displayed and all of the stall were open because they expected customers to be going to midnight mass for Christmas Eve.
I also think it's a fairly natural reaction to see a child suffering and unhappy and want to give them something nice.

Eliza wrote: "I didn't find the purchase of the doll that unbelievable, convenient yes, but not unbelievable. "

I didn't see any individual incident as unbelievable. But there were just too many too quickly for me to think that anybody would really behave that way.

In regards to how long it took Valjean to go get Cossette - he had to get himself set up, clothes, papers, money, before he could do any good for her, and he has to remain pretty much unnoticed at the same time, doesn't he?

Evalyn wrote: "In regards to how long it took Valjean to go get Cossette - he had to get himself set up, clothes, papers, money, before he could do any good for her, and he has to remain pretty much unnoticed at ..."

Exactly.

I wonder what identity Valjean is using this time, and how he is able to procure it (with all the necessary papers) without suspicion. Perhaps it's even easier as Valjean is thought to be dead.

Sandybanks wrote: "I wonder what identity Valjean is using this time, and how he is able to procure it (with all the necessary papers) without suspicion. Perhaps it's even easier as Valjean is thought to be dead."

Good point. And the Madeline persona is shot because he was self-identified as Valjean.

According to the notes in Rose, a passport was required to move around the country in Valjean's day. What is he going to do when accosted by the police?

I have to admit that it annoys me when authors leave out or skip over matters that their characters really should be dealing with.

Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "I wonder what identity Valjean is using this time, and how he is able to procure it (with all the necessary papers) without suspicion. Perhaps it's even easier as Valjean is tho..."

It seems that he is able to travel around, although furtively, after he escaped from the Orion. He must have been able to get another passport under a new name to do so. Maybe this will be explained later?

At one point Thenardier asks JVJ for his passport and he replies "Monsieur Thenardier, people do not take a passport to come fifteen miles from Paris." So maybe a passport wasn't really necessary to him at this time.

Everyman wrote: "I have to admit that it annoys me when authors leave out or skip over matters that their characters really should be dealing with."

It's funny because i thought the question had been answered, so i went back to look at it. In Chapter 9 i read, "At night he swam off again, and reached the shore a little way from Cape Brun. There, as he did not lack money, he procured clothing. A small country-house in the neighborhood of Balaguier was at that time the dressing-room of escaped convicts,--a lucrative specialty."

Now i realize my mind interpreted this to include a passport. However, there is nothing in the sentence which suggests so, only that he acquired clothing. One marvels at what she reads into words! :-)

deborah

Eliza wrote: "At one point Thenardier asks JVJ for his passport and he replies "Monsieur Thenardier, people do not take a passport to come fifteen miles from Paris." So maybe a passport wasn't really necessary ..."

Good catch. That suggests that maybe at that time he still was carrying his yellow passport and didn't want to show it?

My thougths on the passport are this:

Initially JVJ was given the yellow passport as a parolee he was required to show it everywhere he went without being asked. I'm guessing he'd have two choices be honest and show the passport which we've seen the results of (lower wages, distrust and no place to stay) or lie and run the risk of someone recognizing him and being sent back to prison for jumping parole.

After the bishop gives him the silver I'm assuming he either destroys or stops using the yellow passport. When he saves the children from the fire his identity as Madeleine is set. So if he needs further passports to get from point A to point B all he needs to do is go to the local issuing authority and have them write one out. I found an example online somewhere of a 19th century passport this is the info contained:

Personal description:


Faith orthod
Years 27
Stature tall
Face round
Hair black
Eyes black


Mouth { ordinary
Nose

Moustache brown
State married
Personal marks =

[stamp:]

Lasts for: three
years
Announce to all and everyone, who about it
is entitled to know, that wearer of this Nikola
Jakov Kovačević
of Lješanska Nahija

travels to
Greece

Asked is, so, of all Foreign Governments that
to said
Nikola

not only free to stated place passage
and return to his Fatherland, but in case
of necessity, protection as well to give.

Cetinje 16 January 1887

By command of His Highness.
Minister of foreign affairs:
M. Plamenac

I think my point is that as Madeleine his identity was so well established it would not have been difficult to get a passport. At this time in the story I don't think one is actually necessary. Finally the yellow passport was kind of like the question on job applications, Have you ever been convicted of a felony? It's up to the parolee to be truthful.

Hope all of this made sense most in conjecture with a little research thrown in.

Thanks, Eliza. Very interesting, and great research!

I just with Hugo had clarified this for us, since he made such a big deal about the yellow passport when we first met Valjean.

But I'm probably obsessing too much over a minor point.

Everyman wrote: But I'm probably obsessing too much over a minor point.

I agree.

Laurele wrote: "Everyman wrote: But I'm probably obsessing too much over a minor point.

I agree."

Meanie! :)

Eliza wrote: "My thougths on the passport are this:

Initially JVJ was given the yellow passport as a parolee he was required to show it everywhere he went without being asked. I'm guessing he'd have two choi..."

But what kind of passport is he using after he escaped from the Orion? JVJ is dead, so he can't use that identity. The Madeleine identity has been exposed as a fraud, so he can't use that either. But he is described as being able to move around France a great deal, from the Alps to the Pyrenees to Paris and finally to Montfermeil. Surely he needs a passport to do that!

(Another obsessive ; ) )

I'm going to read the rest of Cossette --- maybe Hugo will explain it to us there.

To me it's a minor detail that the author may have messed up on. I think with a 1200 page book, as detailed as this one is, that happens. Give the guy a break. It was witting before computers and the amenities that modern day publishing has.

You don't want to focus so much on it, that you miss the forest for the trees.

The overall message/story that Hugo is trying to convey is what is important.

And after all this is a work of fiction. If it was non fiction, I too, would nitpick and maybe take sloppy research, writing or editing as an indicator that the overall point that the author is trying to convey might be suspect.