Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Les Miserables
>
Weeks 11 & 12 - through the end of the book & the book as a whole
I also wanted to ask if anyone remembered what happened to the younger Thenardier boys after Gavroche brought them into the elephant. Is that a loose end?
Roger wrote: "I also wanted to ask if anyone remembered what happened to the younger Thenardier boys after Gavroche brought them into the elephant. Is that a loose end?"I think it's a loose end. Hugo left them at the Luxembourg Gardens and that's the last we ever heard of them.
Does anyone feel sort of annoyed about Cosette? She is so obtuse and insensitive in regards to JVJ. I feel that Hugo puts her on a pedestal as an idealization of sweet, innocent femininity --- she hardly has any personality at all except as a pretty love interest for Marius (and JVJ).
"He sleeps. Although his fate was very strange, he lived. He died when he had no longer his angel. The thing came to pass simply, of itself, as the night comes when day is gone."A moving epitaph for JVJ.
Sandybanks wrote: "Does anyone feel sort of annoyed about Cosette? She is so obtuse and insensitive in regards to JVJ. I feel that Hugo puts her on a pedestal as an idealization of sweet, innocent femininity --- she hardly has any personality at all except as a pretty love interest for Marius (and JVJ)."I understand what you're saying, but I wonder how much it's a product of the age in which he is writing. Women at that time weren't considered, as they are now (at least by anybody with any sense), as fully intelligent, mentally and emotionally complete people, but were somehow deficient in full human values. That's very badly put, but it's late at night, so you'll forgive me I hope, and I hope it makes a certain amount of sense.
Anyhow, I think we need to be careful not to judge his treatment of Cosette (and indeed of the fairly few other women in the book) in terms of our current understanding of women but in terms of his society's values and views. It seems to me this may be part of what's involved in his treatment of Cosette.
I thought that it was so sad that Javert interpreted his transformation as ‘bad’ and that he couldn’t accept a change in his beliefs. “A new thing, a revolution, a catastrophe had just taken place in the depths of his being; and there was matter for self-examination.”
“Javert felt that something horrible was penetrating his soul, admiration for a convict. Respect for a man on the work gang, could that be possible?”
“He endured it, exasperated. He saw in it only an immense difficulty of existence. It seemed to him that from know on his breathing would be restricted forever.”
I suppose that you could say that Cosette is a product of the male imagination of those times; child-like, innocent, oblivious to the real world and decidedly inferior in intelligence. I wondered earlier why she did not recognize the Thernadiers in the set up at the Gorbeau tenement, but it seems that it's pretty consistent with her characterization here. She reminds me of Lucy Manette in A Tale of Two Cities.The female characters in fiction written by women such as the Brontes and George Eliot are a different breed altogether.
Are there any realistic female characters in 19th century fiction written by male writers? I guess we'll be debating that next month with Anna Karenina.: )
It's also sad as JVJ so quietly slips out of Cosette’s life. It broke my heart when he walks the route to Gillenormand’s house, and the route gets shorter and shorter, until . . . “One day JVJ went downstairs, took three steps into the street, sat down on a stone block . . . he remained there a few minutes then went upstairs again. This was the last swing of the pendulum. The next day he did not leave his room. The next day after that, he did not leave his bed.”
Carol wrote: "I thought that it was so sad that Javert interpreted his transformation as ‘bad’ and that he couldn’t accept a change in his beliefs. “A new thing, a revolution, a catastrophe had just taken pla..."
He sees the world in black and white, so the notion that a convict can be a good man is earth-shattering to him. He cannot change his viewpoint, so suicide is the only logical way out in his mind. It's sad, but I think it's also a comment on how harmful closed-mindedness can be. Gillenormand is also as rigid, but is ultimately able to overcome his prejudices and is rewarded with a happy old age with his beloved grandson and his family.
I thought Cosette was a flat character except when she became preoccupied with her looks as she changed from the ugly little girl into a beautiful, young lady.
I would say that JVJ is stuck with the same viewpoint of himself that Javert has. He has an almost obsessive love for Cossette but holds her at arms length. He tells Marius that he was a convict but doesn't really tell him the whole story. An honest conversation at any point would have cleared the whole situation up instead JVJ essentially just lays down and dies. I think that JVJ believes he deserves to suffer so that's what he does.
Sandybanks wrote: "Are there any realistic female characters in 19th century fiction written by male writers?"I think Trollope had some. And perhaps Hardy. But those were later in the century. In the first half of the century, maybe not so.
Carol wrote: "It's also sad as JVJ so quietly slips out of Cosette’s life. It broke my heart when he walks the route to Gillenormand’s house, and the route gets shorter and shorter, until . . . “One day JVJ we..."
I found it not only sad but very much consistent with his love for Cosette. He must have realized that, as tied up with his life as hers had been (much closer than most parents, I think) if he had tried to stay in her life she would have been forever torn between he and Marius. Having given her to Marius, he had to leave the stage, didn't he?
Sandybanks wrote: "[Javert:] sees the world in black and white, so the notion that a convict can be a good man is earth-shattering to him. "But Valjean was more than just an ordinary convict, wasn't he? He was, in the eyes of the law, a genuine bad 'un. Habitual thief, kidnapper, multiple escapee, one who, as far as the law was concerned, had thumbed his nose at the law over and over. I think it was the contrast between this perceived depravity and his magnanimity which Javert was unable to deal with. His entire life had been committed to the principle of law, of right and wrong as the law defines it, of putting the lawbreakers behind bars where they belong, but then one he has the duty to capture and imprison spares his life and shows a sense of compassion and worthiness which his whole life's training teaches him that lawbreakers do not possess.
That's the real difference between Valjean and Javert, isn't it? When Valjean was faced by Myriel with the sight of the abyss between being evil and being good, he was able to cross that abyss with the help of Myriel. When Javert was faced with it, he didn't have a Myriel to help him over it, and he couldn't do it on his own.
Everyman wrote: “He must have realized that, as tied up with his life as hers had been (much closer than most parents, I think) if he had tried to stay in her life she would have been forever torn between he and Marius. Having given her to Marius, he had to leave the stage, didn't he?..."I don't think JVJ had to leave the stage. In my opinion nothing shows me that Cosette is torn at all between the two men in her life. JVJ gives her no choice in her own life or her own relationships. He just stops showing up. I can't bring myself to see this as a noble sacrifice. There are a lot of things I love about the character of JVJ, his actions at the end of this novel are not among them.
I'm not at all sure that Cosette was torn, but JVJ really did have problems with "sharing" Cosette. I mentioned in an earlier post that I couldn't imagine JVJ being able to watch Cosette give deep affection to anyone but himself. I think a lot of parents feel a little jealous of their children's spouses, as they build separate lives. After all, we invest a lot of emotional energy in those relationships with our kids and for the most part we're used to being our child's most important "significant other." But most parents can move on and develop other relationships. JVJ had never had a relationship with any other person! I'm not sure I can justify it in the text, but I think Eliza is on to something in seeing JVJ's sacrifice as not completely noble. He seems to me a little self-deceptive, believing he has to punish himself.
Y'all are a little hard on JVJ. Remember, he has no other family in the world, and no friends. He loves children: remember how he mourned leaving his nieces and nephews when he went to prison the first time. He left the nunnery (and endangered himself) precisely so she could see something of the world before possibly taking the veil. It's a little nutty that he has such a problem dealing with it when she does form an attachment, but maybe understandable that he thinks that with his convict past he can no longer be part of her life, so that his own is over.But why does he reveal himself to Marius only after the marriage is consumated? If he thought it was necessary that Marius know the truth, wouldn't the right thing to do be to let him know beforehand?
Sandybanks wrote: "I suppose that you could say that Cosette is a product of the male imagination of those times; child-like, innocent, oblivious to the real world and decidedly inferior in intelligence. I wondered e..."That will be interesting!
Javert is completely undermined by his own decision to let Valjean go. He seems to feel that it negates his entire life's structure. How sad. I thought it was the first spark of humanity over societal rules. Where does one draw the line when the rules/law says one thing but the humane thing to do is quite different?
Why can't Valjean continue to see Cossette? Is it his "criminal past" that makes him unworthy to have a normal relationship with Cossette and Marius? It's all well and good to leave all his money to Cossette but then he creates an awkward relationship, and slips away from them. What a sad ending for Jean Valjean.
Evalyn wrote: "Where does one draw the line when the rules/law says one thing but the humane thing to do is quite different?"
What a wonderful and universal question.
Everyman wrote: "Evalyn wrote: "Where does one draw the line when the rules/law says one thing but the humane thing to do is quite different?"
What a wonderful and universal question.
"and one raised by Sophocles in the Antigone.
Evalyn wrote: "Why can't Valjean continue to see Cossette? Is it his "criminal past" that makes him unworthy to have a normal relationship with Cossette and Marius? It's all well and good to leave all his money..."I don't think it's the criminal past so much as the deceit involved that prevents JVJ from moving in with Mr. and Mrs. Marius and carrying like he had a normal life. Above all he needs to be honest, with himself and with others. Maybe to a fault. He doesn't seem to anticipate that his story will make Marius suggest his money is ill-gotten, thus risking impoverishing him and Cosette.
Roger wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Evalyn wrote: "Where does one draw the line when the rules/law says one thing but the humane thing to do is quite different?"What a wonderful and universal question.
"and one raised by Sophocles in the Antigone"
Absolutely. Isn't it amazing how the great questions keep getting asked in the great books? That's what makes reading these works so rich and rewarding. This is the "Great Conversation" Hutchins talked about -- different minds wrestling over the centuries with the same key questions.
In the Syntopicon to the Great Books series Mortimer Adler identified 102 Great Ideas and traced how the great books over the years returned to these questions over and over, building on the past but never reaching final answers, because these aren't questions that have final answers. His work has been criticized, both fairly and unfairly, by many, but the overall concept of what he did and the work he put into it is still enormously valuable.
Unfortunately Les Mis is not one of the primary texts in the Great Books (it's included in the list of supplemental readings) so I can't see how he would have classified the issues Hugo raises. But certainly Hugo is, inter alia, dealing, as you point out, with some of the same themes Sophocles dealt with.
Evalyn wrote: "Why can't Valjean continue to see Cossette? Is it his "criminal past" that makes him unworthy to have a normal relationship with Cossette and Marius? It's all well and good to leave all his money..."I keep thinking of how this is handled in Great Expectations.
I've been listening to another Dickens classic today, "A Christmas Carol," and thinking that in one way it is Les Miserables writ small.
Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "[Javert:] sees the world in black and white, so the notion that a convict can be a good man is earth-shattering to him. "But Valjean was more than just an ordinary convict, was..."
Yes. That's what I meant when I said that Javert sees the world in black and white.
Your example again underlines Hugo's notion that the characters who are able to change achieves redemption (JVJ, Gillernormand), while the rigid ones, such as Javert, breaks.
Laurele wrote: "Evalyn wrote: "Why can't Valjean continue to see Cossette? Is it his "criminal past" that makes him unworthy to have a normal relationship with Cossette and Marius? It's all well and good to leav..."It didn't end happily. And Magwitch's fortune, which he legally earned in Australia, was forfeited to the Crown, because he was an escaped convict. Pip got nothing, while Cosette got almost the entire fortune that JVJ made from the jet industry. Had he not buried it, it might have been confiscated by the state too when he surrendered himself.
Roger wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Evalyn wrote: "Where does one draw the line when the rules/law says one thing but the humane thing to do is quite different?"
What a wonderful and universal question.
"an..."
"Conscience is the highest justice."
Hugo's answer.
I don't want to exclude those who haven't read "Great Expectations" but I thought it interesting that the enjoyment of Magwitch's ill gotten gains is what "spoiled" Pip and alienated him from Joe, his honest stepfather. Marius seems to fear something like this, that using the ill-gotten money would taint himself or Cosette. But, of course, in one of those plot necessities that seem to grow naturally out of character, JVJ isn't around to answer the question of where the money came from. If he had, perhaps the painful rift could have been healed more quickly, perhaps Marius would not have pushed JVJ out of his house by removing the chairs.
Andrea wrote: "I don't want to exclude those who haven't read "Great Expectations" but I thought it interesting that the enjoyment of Magwitch's ill gotten gains is what "spoiled" Pip and alienated him from Joe, ..."I think JVJ's money came from his earnings at the factory. He was CEO.
Laurele wrote: "Andrea wrote: "I don't want to exclude those who haven't read "Great Expectations" but I thought it interesting that the enjoyment of Magwitch's ill gotten gains...""I think JVJ's money came from his earnings at the factory. He was CEO. ."
Yes, but I think Andrea's point is that Marius didn't know that at the time, did he?
Everyman wrote: Yes, but I think Andrea's point is that Marius didn't know that at the time, did he?
Ah! Right!
I have to say removing the chairs was one of those funny little details that made me smile in spite of the painful circumstances. My husband's culture requires that guests be given something to drink before they leave the house. With "certain" visitors, my kids are always quick to get the drinks poured and on the table fast, as if to say, "Well, so nice you stopped by, sorry you have to hurry off!"
Javert and JVJ represent law and grace. Both men were forced to examine themselves. JVJ recognized that he was poor in spirit, repented, and was transformed. Javert saw himself and was revolted by it but not enough to repent. The law was so ingrained in him, that he didn't know how to live without it. “He felt that he was . . .broken off from his past life . . . he had no further reason for being.
Law demands perfect obedience.
Grace is unmerited favor of God to us when we are undeserving.
Law shows us our need.
Grace shows God’s provision to meet that need.
Law says we must for our salvation – “Do.”
Grace says salvation is free, a gift – “Done.”
-- Henrietta Mears
Carol wrote: "Javert and JVJ represent law and grace. Both men were forced to examine themselves. JVJ recognized that he was poor in spirit, repented, and was transformed. Javert saw himself and was revolted b..."
That's how I see it, too, Carol. Or to put it another way, the letter of the law (Javert) versus the spirit of the law (Jean Valjean).
Never noticed before how similar JVJ and Javert's names are. could be abbreviated the same way.
message 2: by Roger Dec 01, 2009 06:05PM Roger wrote: "I also wanted to ask if anyone remembered what happened to the younger Thenardier boys after Gavroche brought them into the elephant. Is that a loose end?"
-----------------------
They reappear in the story after the elephant.
Gavroche dies at the end of Part 4 chapter IV titled: Excess of Zeal on the part of Gavroche. The world is a darker place now that the tender hearted boy is gone.
What is to be of the brothers? The little Les Miserables. Who will fight for them? Who will speak for them? who will acknowledge them? They reappear to answer these questions and to confirm their grim future in Part 5 Jean Valjean in chapter XVI How a brother becomes a father
The "wise sage" and his young son, who is not one of the Les Miserables, feed the swans. The "sage" "suddenly notice the ragamuffins, huddled and motionless's behind the green-painted shanty that housed the swans." Does he feed the starving boys? No, he says "Anarchy has entered the garden". The starving boys have spoiled the scenery. He tells his son to give the food to the swans. No mention or acknowledgement of the starving little boys that he could have easily helped. He says to his son, "we must be kind to animals." But what of the starving children? No. Not a word. No. Not any acknowledgement.
The title of the chapter suggests the older brother now has learned from the streets, much like his now dead brother Gacroche, and he is now the "father" to his slightly younger brother. It is he now who gets the food for the younger boy, the scraps that were fed to the swans. The chapter ends with the harsh street slang, "Stop your gob with this". Their innocence is gone. Their future sealed.
It's not a loose end. Their fate is clear, unless one chooses to avert their eyes, like the "sage."
Laurele wrote: "That's how I see it, too, Carol. Or to put it another way, the letter of the law (Javert) versus the spirit of the law (Jean Valjean)."I'm not sure I'm really happy with seeing Valjean as the spirit of the law. Most of his life was dedicated to evading the proscriptions of the law, not just of its letter but of its spirit, which provides that those who are guilty of crimes should pay the price society requires for having committed those crimes. Until the end of the book, he was committed to escaping, hiding out, keeping away from the law.
Yes, he was charitable in many ways. He was also repentant.
But charity and repentance have nothing to do with law. Law deals with justice. Charity is a function of non-legal social and religious codes, and repentance is a moral/religious principle.
If you break the law, it does not matter how charitable or repentant you are. Breaking the law is breaking the law. A history of charity and repentance may affect the penalty which society imposes on you, but they don't alter the fact that you have violated the law. And if you are given a lighter sentence because of your charity and repentance, you still have to serve that sentence without evading or escaping; not to do so is not to abide by the spirit of the law.
Alias Reader wrote: "The title of the chapter suggests the older brother now has learned from the streets, much like his now dead brother Gacroche, and he is now the "father" to his slightly younger brother. ... Their innocence is gone. Their future sealed.It's not a loose end. Their fate is clear, unless one chooses to avert their eyes, like the "sage." "
I like the way you analyze the chapter, but I don't feel, as you do, that their fate is clear. After all, we might have said the same of Gavroche early on, but his fate was in fact quite different from what we might have expected.
Will the brothers, who share the DNA of Gavroche, be able to find the same inner strength, courage, and convictions for life that he found? Will they be able to pull themselves up out of the anarchy of the garden? Or will they just suffer a slow death on the streets from starvation, untreated illness, and neglect? Can the brother, now father, become a true father and feed, house, and clothe his brother/son? I don't think Hugo really answers these questions.
Alias Reader wrote: "message 2: by Roger Dec 01, 2009 06:05PM Roger wrote: "I also wanted to ask if anyone remembered what happened to the younger Thenardier boys after Gavroche brought them into the elephant. Is tha..."
Hugo leaves it to us, the readers, to take care of those boys and all they represent, doesn't he? After reading this book, how can we avert our eyes? They are like Ignorance and Want in A Christmas Carol.
Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "That's how I see it, too, Carol. Or to put it another way, the letter of the law (Javert) versus the spirit of the law (Jean Valjean)."I'm not sure I'm really happy with seeing Va..."
Thank you, Monsieur Javert. :)
Laurele wrote: ..Hugo leaves it to us, the readers, to take care of those boys and all they represent, doesn't he? After reading this book, how can we avert our eyes? They are like Ignorance and Want in A Christmas Carol. ."-----------------------------------
But, sadly, we do. :(
U.N.--"High food prices have pushed another 105 million people into hunger in the first half of 2009, the head of the U.N. World Food Programme said on Friday, raising the total number of hungry people to over 1 billion."
---------------------------
36.3 million people--including 13 million children--live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten households in the United States (11.2 percent). This is an increase of 1.4 million, from 34.9, million in 2002.
--3.5 percent of U.S. households experience hunger. Some people in these households frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. 9.6 million people, including 3 million children, live in these homes.
--7.7 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger. Members of these households have lower quality diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot always afford the food they need. 26.6 million people, including 10.3 million children, live in these homes.
-World Hunger
As you note, Laurele, Hugo is doing his part by trying to shine a light on the problem. Much as he did in earlier chapters where he called for universal education. It's up to us.
Laurele wrote: "They are like Ignorance and Want in A Christmas Carol."Did you see the Disney Digital 3D version of A Christmas Carol?
I was surprised that their script followed the book so closely.
Roger wrote: "But why does he reveal himself to Marius only after the marriage is consumated? If he thought it was necessary that Marius know the truth, wouldn't the right thing to do be to let him know beforehand? "I think he wanted Cosette to be happy by giving her the man she loved. Then he spent the night trying to make a decision about what he would do the next day.
Did you ever go through something that is so horrible, so upsetting, so far beyond your comprehension that you don’t know what to do with it?
Hugo references Jacob's wrestling with the Angel for one night. It was the biggest struggle in Jacob’s life but in going through it he found a new courage- it was his first honest fight (he stole his brother's blessing & birthright); a new intimacy with God (Hebrew wrestle-“abaq”; embrace- “habaq”) you're never closer to God than when you're wrestling something out with him; and a new identity- Jacob wouldn't quit until he received his blessing. God made him say his name meaning “supplanter” so God could change it. And during the struggle, God knocked his hip out and changed the way he walked for the rest of his life.
I think JVJ went through a night wrestling with God. How can you possibly leave the one person you love the most, the one who is the center of your life?
Before the wedding banquet, JVJ leaves quietly. His leaving shows us how he manages to replace himself with Marius in Cosette’s life.“Marius took Jean Valjean’s place at Cosette’s side; and things arranged themselves in such a way that Cosette, at first saddened by Jean Valjean’s absence, was finally satisfied with it. The moment that Marius was the substitute, Cosette would not have regretted God.”
Without Cosette in his life, JVJ resumes his role as the “outsider”. The scene of him alone, paused outside Gillenormand’s house, looking inside to everyone in the dining room is so sad. Above all the sounds in the room, he can “distinguish Cosette’s sweet joyful voice.” He loves her so much, removing himself from her life is the hardest thing he will ever do.
Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "That's how I see it, too, Carol. Or to put it another way, the letter of the law (Javert) versus the spirit of the law (Jean Valjean)."I'm not sure I'm really happy with seeing Va..."
I don't see JVJ as the spirit of the law. I see him as someone who should be judged by our conscience, instead of by the prevailing legal standards. Yes, it's true that he was a criminal, and that he had evaded the law several times by breaking his parole, running away from the Orion etc. But we must also remember that the draconian laws of those times is grossly unfair. There is no justice in a court that sentence a man who stole a piece of bread to years in the galley. When the law is unjust, we must turn to our conscience. Conscience is the highest justice. I think this sentence is crucial to Hugo's understanding of the conflict between Javert and JVJ.
To me, Les Miserables is a revolutionary cry for social justice, and it's a pretty subversive one too, although Hugo never went far enough to actually become an anarchist himself (unlike Tolstoy).
Alias Reader wrote: "Laurele wrote: ..Hugo leaves it to us, the readers, to take care of those boys and all they represent, doesn't he? After reading this book, how can we avert our eyes? They are like Ignorance and Wa..."And that is for the U.S., one of the most developed and wealthiest countries in the world. The statistics in the developing world is considerably more depressing. I see those Gavroches every day on my way to work, but what could we do for them beyond contributing to a charity that cares for them? The enormity of the problem is overwhelming.
Alias Reader has said it well, about the fate of the little brothers. The phrase "Anarchy has entered the garden" can be seen as an earlier version of: There goes the neighborhood. A little kindness toward the boys would have been a good sign, and it would have taken so little effort just to offer them what they threw to the swans.
Sandybanks wrote: "But we must also remember that the draconian laws of those times is grossly unfair. There is no justice in a court that sentence a man who stole a piece of bread to years in the galley. When the law is unjust, we must turn to our conscience."That opens a very interesting area of discussion.
Certainly by our standards today, the law was draconian and excessive. But the book was not written in our time.
There is no objective standard of what is just. Justice is always subjective and socially determined.
In the context of the time it was written, that law was, if not benign, at least not excessive or draconian for the social values of the culture. After all, England was hanging thieves. In our "wild west" in the late 19th century, horse thieves could be strung up under the nearest tree. And even today, in some countries with sharia law, thieves can have their hands cut off. The modern Western world I think pretty universally views that as draconian, but their culture doesn't necessarily.
I think we have to keep in mind that law in Hugo's day was very different from what it is today. We are used to living in societies that are basically highly law-abiding. We have very competent professional police services with many tools at their disposal, including video cameras all over the place, photos and the ability to quickly disseminate them, the registration of all vehicles that could be used in a getaway, radio communications to alert police across wide areas to watch for suspected criminals, helicopters tracking the movements of criminals, etc. Not so in Hugo's day. Catching a crook would be much m ore difficult.
Did the citizens reasonably believe that without heavy punishments, would there have been much more crime? I think it's quite reasonable to think so. The degree of punishment meted out to those who overstepped the bounds of the law had to be sufficient to deter criminals who might have judged the likelihood of getting caught against the cost of getting caught.
And after all, the sentence for stealing the bread was only five years, wasn't it? Heavy, but not nearly the full sentence he had to serve because of his numerous escape attempts. Five years for breaking and entering and theft even today is a heavy but not an outrageous sentence.
I'm speculating here, I know. But I think in evaluating the way Hugo presents Valjean, we have to look, at least initially, at the way he might have expected his readers to view the situation. Would they have considered that Valjean was treated with gross injustice by the legal system? Or would they have thought that he deserved what he got, at least for his first nineteen years in prison?
Are there any Miserables left? (Did I miss what happened to Gavroche's young brothers, or was their eating the swan's dinner their swan song?)
Are the resolutions, including the conversion of Gillenormand into not only accepting but embracing Marius, and the suicide of Javert, believable?
We have this week and next for our final discussion, two weeks in which everyone is freed totally from the fear of inadvertent spoilers. Time to have at it, all you who have been holding back in eager anticipation of this moment!