Classics and the Western Canon discussion

"Come the revolution" -- this was one of my mother's favorite phrases when things weren't working out the way she thought they ought to. And so, mother, here it comes.

I don't know how many, if any, of the incidents Hugo includes were based on actual incidents, but they certainly make for compelling reading. (Why do wine shops seem to play such a significant role in novels about the French revolutions?)

Question: what significance do you make of the characters who Hugo has chosen to die? Assuming his choices weren't random, what is the reason these characters, particularly Mabeuf and Eponine, but also the porter and Le Cabuc, had to die, and what lessons does Hugo want us to draw from these deaths?

And what is it about Gavroche that makes him so delighted at causing such destruction? Up to now, he has seemed to me to be focused on the helping, caring, constructive aspects of life. Does this seem to you, as it does to me, to be a significant change in his character, and if so why?

An aside: I do enjoy Grantaire. He's such a delightful cynic!

Everyman wrote: (Why do wine shops seem to play such a significant role in novels about the French revolutions?)

Because we're in France.

Laurele wrote: "Everyman wrote: (Why do wine shops seem to play such a significant role in novels about the French revolutions?)

Because we're in France."

LOL!

Wine = blood. Especially in France. In England or Germany the proper metaphor would be frothing steins of beer/ale. : D

Sandybanks wrote: "Wine = blood. Especially in France. In England or Germany the proper metaphor would be frothing steins of beer/ale. : D"

Reminds me of Don Quixote and the wine skins.

Gavroche has been rejected all his life, by his parents and by society. He now has a chance to shine as part of the revolution. It seems to me that he's full of enthusiasm, of the delight of belonging to a group, and of the desire to distinguish himself. When he breaks the streetlamps, it's to increase the area of darkness and so keep the revolutionaries safely under cover. He does it on an errand to deliver a letter from Marius to Cosette. He probably is having fun smashing the lamps, but he doesn't, for instance, break windows. He's also still a small boy (I'm thinking he's about eleven), and reasons as one. When he pitches the rock through the barbershop window, it's to avenge the two boys the barber sent back out into the cold. It seems to me that Gavroche is still who he always was, but the energy level in him and around him has gone up a few levels.

Laurele wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "Wine = blood. Especially in France. In England or Germany the proper metaphor would be frothing steins of beer/ale. : D"

Reminds me of Don Quixote and the wine skins."

LOL! In the last section, the part about the bullet through the shaving bowl caused me to exclaim, "The helmet of Mambrino!"

Peregrine wrote: "Gavroche has been rejected all his life, by his parents and by society. He now has a chance to shine as part of the revolution. It seems to me that he's full of enthusiasm, of the delight of belong..."

I agree, I didn't feel that Gavroche had changed as a character during the lamp-breaking and I think you summed up the reasons for that. I liked how Gavroche was basically the revolutionary "coach" inside the barricade, pepping everyone up when they lost their nerve. (Apologies, I can't find that particular passage in the book just now.)

I would add that maybe Hugo is using Gavroche to point out that even a small child can have a part to play in the revolution. This is particularly demonstrated when he steals the cart from the drunk man and the guards think he is several grown men attacking them: "Gavroche's adventure, preserved among the traditions of the quarter of the Temple, is one of the most terrible recollections of the old bourgeois of the Marais, and is entitled in their memory: 'Nocturnal Attack on the Post of the Imprimerie Royale'" (Book 15, chapter IV, last paragraph). (I don't know about anyone else, but I was laughing out loud when I read that.)

Peregrine wrote: "LOL! In the last section, the part about the bullet through the shaving bowl caused me to exclaim, "The helmet of Mambrino!""

Which I strongly suspect was intentional.

That's one of the things I love about the classics. There really is a connection among the books (the Great Conversation thing) where works inter-relate with those which came before them. The more one reads the classics, the more one sees these connections, which is why it's so great to have a group like this, because if one person doesn't see the connection, somebody else will and will bring it up.

Vive la revolucion! Except poor Mabeauf is killed putting up the flag. The deaths of Mabeauf and Eponine are especially tragic, maybe because they were powerless to a pitiful degree in society. I can't decide if Hugo is pointing out how senseless the fighting by killing these two victims or if he is showing the extent to which even the weak and powerless are willing to fight for equality?

Evalyn wrote: "Vive la revolucion! Except poor Mabeauf is killed putting up the flag. The deaths of Mabeauf and Eponine are especially tragic, maybe because they were powerless to a pitiful degree in society. ..."

I think it's something else, which I'm not sure I can put clearly. The willing and pure-hearted self-sacrifice of les misérables has a power that the force and intelligence of the strong cannot always match. I think that's the idea that Hugo's writing from.

Both Mabeuf and Eponine chose to die. Mabeuf because he would rather lose his life by helping than to lose it by starving; and Eponine to save life of the man she loved and die happily in his arms, receiving her first kiss.

Peregrine: I think it's something else, which I'm not sure I can put clearly. The willing and pure-hearted self-sacrifice of les misérables has a power that the force and intelligence of the strong cannot always match. I think that's the idea that Hugo's writing from.
===================

You put it very well. And I, too, think that was Hugo's sentiment.

Alias Reader wrote: "Peregrine: I think it's something else, which I'm not sure I can put clearly. The willing and pure-hearted self-sacrifice of les misérables has a power that the force and intelligence of the stron..."

Perhaps it's time to start thinking about why the book was titled Les Miserables. Am I right that the French is equivalent to the English The Miserables? Who are the miserables we have seen so far in the book, what defines who is a miserable, and what makes their lives of such interest as to deserve this book?

My Collins Robert French Dictionary uses these words to define misérable, the adjective, referring to a person or family: destitute, poverty-stricken. As a noun, it is defined as: wretch, scoundrel.

Everyman wrote: "Alias Reader wrote: "Peregrine: I think it's something else, which I'm not sure I can put clearly. The willing and pure-hearted self-sacrifice of les misérables has a power that the force and inte..."

Peregrine wrote: "My Collins Robert French Dictionary uses these words to define misérable, the adjective, referring to a person or family: destitute, poverty-stricken. As a noun, it is defined as: wretch, scoundrel."

This is from the Penguin Reading Guide:


The Revolution and Republic of France had failed to redress the unconscionable social conditions in which many French citizens languished. Les Misérables became an expression of and an inspiration for that attempt. Hugo initially entitled his work, Les Mis�re ("the poverty"), but changed it to Les Misérables, which, in Hugo's time, denoted everyone from the poor to the outcasts and insurrectionists. In Hugo's lifetime, the schism between "haves" and "have-nots" was vast; an unbalanced economy made jobs scarce for those who earned their living by work. This was an era without a welfare system, unemployment benefits, or worker's compensation. The closest thing to a homeless shelter was prison, a macabre dungeon where inmates slept on bare planks and ate rancid food. To this place the disabled, insane, hungry, or desperate citizens of France eventually found their way. The one hope of the poor for relief was charity from those who were, if not indifferent to their plight, outright hostile to it.

Les Misérables vindicates those members of society forced by unemployment and starvation to commit crimes—in Jean Valjean's case, the theft of a loaf of bread—who are thereafter outcast from society. It is fairly common parlance today to suggest that prison creates more hardened criminals than it reforms, but the idea was radical to Hugo's contemporaries. "Perrot de Chezelles, in an 'Examination of Les Misérables,' defended the excellence of a State which persecuted convicts even after their release, and derided the notion that poverty and ignorance had anything to do with crime. Criminals were evil." Jean Valjean morally surpasses characters working on behalf of this excellent State. The poor and the disenfranchised understood Hugo's message, accepted the affirmation he gave them, and worshipped him as their spokesman. Workers pooled their money to buy the book not one of them could afford on their own. The struggling people of France had found an articulate illustration of the unjust forces arrayed against them.

I'm a little behind on the reading, so haven't finished this section, but I had to comment on the discussion of the development of the underclass after the first revolution. The way in which govts use new words for old systems of oppression so that it's not only poverty that oppresses, it's voicelessness. Hugo describes argot and then includes a discussion of the way in which the language of democracy or some kind of representative govt. can be used to destroy even people's aspirations for a more fair and open society. I wish I had the book with me so I could quote the section a bit. I always seem to have either reading time OR computer time, never both at the same time, which is a disadvantage on goodreads.

Andrea wrote: "I'm a little behind on the reading, so haven't finished this section, but I had to comment on the discussion of the development of the underclass after the first revolution. The way in which govts..."

Andrea! That's a fascinating thought. So that is why he spends so much time discussing language.

And I know just what you mean about reading time / computer time.

Everyman wrote: Perhaps it's time to start thinking about why the book was titled Les Miserables. Am I right that the French is equivalent to the English The Miserables? Who are the miserables we have seen so far in the book, what defines who is a miserable, and what makes their lives of such interest as to deserve this book?


I guess this is as good a place as any to give the quotation that heads chapter 1 of One of the few books about Les Miserables:

Me miserable! which way shall I fly
Infinite wrath, and infinite despair?
Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell;
And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threat'ning to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heav'n.

-- Milton, Paradise Lost 4. 73 - 78

The book is
Figuring Transcendence in Les Miserables: Hugo's Romantic Sublime

Book by Kathryn M. Grossman; Southern Illinois University Press, 1994. 362 pgs.

Laurele wrote: "I guess this is as good a place as any to give the quotation that heads chapter 1 of One of the few books about Les Miserables:"

Laurel, you never cease to amaze.

I was a little disturbed by the fact that Eponine essentially lured Marius to the barricade because she was pretty sure the would both die. Her attitude that if she couldn't have him noone would seemed really selfish to me and detracted a bit from the fact that she sacrificed herself to save him. If not for her jealousy no sacrifice would have been necessary.

Erica wrote: "Peregrine wrote: "Gavroche has been rejected all his life, by his parents and by society. He now has a chance to shine as part of the revolution. It seems to me that he's full of enthusiasm, of the..."

I find that to be funny too. And I was even more astonished to learn (from the footnotes at the back of my Wordsworth edition) that street kids really played a big role in these uprisings.

Sandybanks wrote: "And I was even more astonished to learn (from the footnotes at the back of my Wordsworth edition) that street kids really played a big role in these uprisings."

I had heard that before. I think that street kids in that era were perhaps closer in development to the college students who fomented near revolution in the 60s than to children of their chronological age. I think people grew up faster in those days, and those who had to survive on the street grew up faster than most.

I'm always surprised, for example, when I read the history of various sea adventures from the 18th and 19th centuries and realize how young the midshipmen and other officers were. In a slightly different vein, I was reading about Longfellow this morning, and learned that he was enrolled to Bowdoin College at the age of 15 and was offered a professorship when he graduated three years later.

People seem to have grown up a lot faster back then, and I think perhaps the street urchins were no exception.

Though of course there are child soldiers fighting in various places around the world even today.

Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "And I was even more astonished to learn (from the footnotes at the back of my Wordsworth edition) that street kids really played a big role in these uprisings."

I had heard that..."

I didn't know that Longfellow was a child prodigy. Interesting.

I suppose that their perception of childhood is just different from us. 11- 12 year olds at that time could be revolutionaries, factory workers, company clerks and midshipmen. Sir Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore, joined the East India Company as an articled clerk at age 12.

In the developed nations today kids have prolonged childhoods, probably longer than at any time in history. But in developing nations, such as my own, it is still all too common to see street urchins like Gavroche, or underage factory workers. And yes, they did participate in 'uprisings' or riots. At least in one that I happened to witness in the late 90's.

Gavroche and his fellows made me think of Sherlock Holmes's Baker Street Irregulars--also a gang of street urchins, but presented as much more benign. I would guess that Hugo's presentation is more realistic.

Roger wrote: "Gavroche and his fellows made me think of Sherlock Holmes's Baker Street Irregulars--also a gang of street urchins, but presented as much more benign. I would guess that Hugo's presentation is more realistic."

Yes -- Doyle was much gentler in his treatment of street children than the more historical Hugo.

I'm also reminded of the gang in Buchan's Huntingtower as more on line with Doyle's. But then of course there are Fagin and his boys in Oliver Twist.

It's probably been done, but a great PhD thesis could be written on street urchins in literature.

Laurele's citation from Milton makes me want to read Paradise Lost! What a great description.

Clearly, JVJ's life in the galleys fits the rubric for being one of the miserables. As do the street urchins. But how about the Thernardiers?

The Thénardiers would come under the scoundrel end of the definition (see #15).

Peregrine: The Thénardiers would come under the scoundrel end of the definition (see #15).

This is not intended to sound argumentative; just exploring the idea a bit. If the miserables are poor and disenfranchised, they would seem to qualify. As the prisons and galleys harden those inside them, couldn't the society also bear some responsibility for creating scoundrels like the Thernardiers?

Actually, I suspect we agree that there are both good people and bad among all classes.

However, that is a truth that exposes the folly of the idealistic, young revolutionaries. Every revolution truly believes it will create utopia. Every revolution fails. The miserables will always be with us: among them both scoundrals and saints.

Zeke wrote: "Laurele's citation from Milton makes me want to read Paradise Lost! "

I hope we'll get a chance to do PL on this board. It would be great to discuss it with this fantastic group.

Zeke wrote: "Actually, I suspect we agree that there are both good people and bad among all classes."

But the bad can hide better when they're wealthy.

King Lear 4.6:

Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and furr'd gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks:
Arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw does pierce it.

@Everyman: What a perfect quotation! And among my favorites in Shakespeare.

Okay, for argument, in real life I would agree that people like the Thernardiers are creations of society, but in this book the parents are such classic villains, evil even when good is possible, as when they could have decently fed and clothed Cossette or when the largely unnamed horrors they planned for JVJ when they probably could have gotten plenty from his just by asking. Or obviously, their total disregard for their son even when they were not destitute. I'm surprised they remembered to put him in the cart when they moved to Paris.

Andrea wrote: "Okay, for argument, in real life I would agree that people like the Thernardiers are creations of society, but in this book the parents are such classic villains, evil even when good is possible, a..."

I'm not sure whether I'd entirely agree that the Thernadiers are creations of society. They were innkeepers, and had they been honest and managed the business well, they would have prospered, or at least not fall into poverty. As Andrea said they are evil even if good is possible. They are criminals by choice, unlike JVJ.

I like it that while Hugo is on the side of social justice for the 'miserables', he was not blind to the nuances of human nature. There are good and bad people in both the poor and the rich.

I love that Lear quote!

JVJ's relationship with Cosette is so strange. He brought her out of the convent because he wanted her to see something of the world, but he hadn't really thought out what she would see, and how that would affect her relationship with him. In Dickens, Jane Austen, Frances Burney, they deal with this father/suitor jealousy by making the suitor completely subservient to the father's wishes, sort of infantilizing him in relationship to the loving father in law. It will be interesting to see how Hugo handles this relationship. Not a spoiler as I haven't read ahead, but... will he have to kill off JVJ in order to let Marius have Cosette?