Everyman's comments (member since Jun 08, 2009)

Everyman's comments from the Classics and the Western Canon group.

John Lazarus Milton

Andrea wrote: "Welcome to all the new members,so exciting to see so many readers out there! I have to say, I'm not sure it's possible to read "all" the classics even in a lifetime, but it's sure fun to try."

That's one important difference between, say, Milton's day and our day. He was in fact able to read everything that was considered of value to read, in English, Latin, Greek, and I believe also French. In our day, so much more has been published (and there are so many more distractions in our lives) that it's no longer possible.

Instead of opening up a separate week 12 discussion, since this discussion is already broad ranging and has raised many excellent points, we will continue this topic for our last week of formal discussion of Les Miserables (though threads stay open past the formal end of the discussion, so if you want to keep talking, feel free. But there may be less active moderation after the formal discussion ends.)

Zeke wrote: "Does anyone else agree with me that the real "crime" for which JVJ seeks redemption is not stealing from the Bishop or the boy on the road. Rather, it is his lack of attention which led to Fantine'..."

I'm glad you put crime in quotation marks, because it certainly wasn't a crime in any legal sense. Was it a moral or ethical offense? I didn't see that much in LesMis that suggested that Hugo took the view that individuals had a positive duty to others. I got the sense that he was criticizing the structure of society for its treatment of the poor, but not that he saw a positive duty on the part of individuals to make up for that.

Certainly Myriel and Valjean do do much to take care of and provide for the less fortunate, and certainly Hugo seems to approve of this quite strongly. But I didn't see him taking the obverse of that position and saying that people deserve calumny for not taking on the care of others.

Are there more specific passages or incidents you were thinking of in this context?

Jen wrote: "Not that I don't love my current fiction, but the classics have so many angles and so much to discuss. "

Boy, do they ever!

The Prince is a classic example of how a single book can bend the thinking of a whole society. At the time he wrote, the concept of the divine right of kings was widely accepted, that the ruler was appointed by God and that therefore he or she had an obligation, at least on the surface, to appear to be doing God's bidding. Machiavelli threw into the mix the basic concept that political power is a thing unto itself, that what counts is getting and keeping power, and that anything else is a mere trapping.

Roger wrote: "If there's no universal standard of justice, which direction is "forward"? "

That's an excellent question, and this has been an interesting discussion, but we're straying pretty far afield from LesMis. If people want to continue this discussion, let me know by PM (private message) and I'll set up a separate thread for it.

As far as Les Mis goes, perhaps the question isn't so much one of subjective vs. objective law, but is more one of when are the laws too harsh, and are they really made largely to protect the wealthy and powerful and control the Miserable ones?

Is that the issue others take, or am I looking at it askew and not straight on?

Sandybanks wrote: "If there is no universal moral law that everyone can agree on, how do we react to crimes like the Holocaust and its numerous precedents throughout history?"

They violate absolutely and utterly the contemporary principles of civilized Western thought. No question about that.

But there are two things about that.

One: there are still a few people, even in Western cultures, who adhere to the principles of Nazism and who believe that the Holocaust either didn't exist, or if it did exist was justified. Thus, the belief in its evil is not universal or absolute, sadly.

Two: contemporary Western civilized thought is not universal to the entire history of man. Not by a long shot.

And I would add one further thought. I suspect that there are social practices which we today consider highly moral which civilizations in 1,000 years will consider barbaric and evil. "How COULD they have thought that way? How could they not have known better" will, I fear, be a recurring theme of human development as long as there are humans.

My original point was that justice and law are entirely subjective, and that there is no objective standard of justice and law. Which is to say, there is no principle of law or justice which all humans throughout history have at all times and places agreed on. I still maintain that to be true.

Alias Reader wrote: "- 99% of the time the pretty bubble head girl still get the guy. :) "

LOL!!

Susan wrote: "Recently, I've been reading some of William VanderWolk's work on Hugo. He contends that when the rebellion of 1851 failed and Hugo went into exile and Louis-Napoleon came to power, the totalitaria..."

That's great stuff, Susan. Thanks.

Sandybanks wrote: "I think most people no matter what their cultural background would agree that putting innocent people to death is unjust.
"

I don't want to get into a long political debate here, but I would just mention that there are plenty examples in human history of quite the opposite being true, of civilizations and societies quite comfortable putting many, many innocent people to death. The Bible is full of such, for just one example. In our own wild west days most of society had no compunction about slaughtering Native Americans who were on the land we wanted. The Crusades. The early Islamic wars putting whole cities to the sword. The Romans and Carthage. Dresden. The examples go on and on. Throughout history many societies have found justifications for the mass slaughter of innocents.

Alias Reader wrote: "I am enjoying your discussion very much. It has given me much food for thought.

I continue to be highly impressed with the quality of discussion here. My grateful thanks to all our wonderful contributors, very much including you, AR.

I just finished, Les Miz. and had to log on to say how much I enjoyed the experience and to thank this board. For if you did not select this novel, I would have missed a great classic.

I have to say exactly the same thing. It's been on my radar for years, but I wouldn't have picked it off the shelf if this group hadn't selected it. But I'm glad we did.

I found the last few hundred pages a heart wrenching roller coaster. My emotions were pulled this way and that way. I hate, Marius ! I stormed. Then I loved him. I was mad at JVJ, then came to appreciate his sacrifice.

The mark of a great writer.

I still have a soft spot for Javert. I know he was unmovable in his love and faith in the Law. After all, it was the law that gave him his profession, which in turn gave him the respectability he was not born into. How can I not feel sorry for him when he finds his great love had feet of clay?

I also have the soft spot for Javert. But I don't think it's so much that the law had feet of clay as that Javert wasn't able to deal with the flexibility that all good law enforcement requires. And he wasn't able to deal with the concept of a criminal of Valjean's history -- which we have to recall was extensive and included charges of theft from a child and child kidnapping as well as multiple escape attemts -- who could become almost saintly. If criminals are rally that complex, and that capable of change, that's something he was mentally unable to deal with. At least that's how I see it, until somebody here gives me a better way to look at it.

Roger and Sandybanks have both objected to my contention that justice is subjective, not objective. If I understand them, they would both agree that within some parameters justice is subjective and based on social norms, but there are some absolute boundaries beyond which certain acts, even if undertaken in accordance with duly enacted laws of that society, are simply wrong, period.

It's a very interesting discussion question, a bit beyond LesMis at the extremes perhaps but also I think quite relevant to what Hugo is saying.

Part of me would like to agree. But if that view is correct, it would have to mean that every human in every age and every society would universally agree that certain punishments for a given offense are manifestly and absolutely unjust no matter when or where or against whom the offenses are committed. And my very limited knowledge of anthropology makes me question whether that is true.

Sandybanks wrote: "My understanding of Les Miserables is that it is (among other things) a polemic about social justice. Hugo doesn't want us to stay neutral; we are meant to judge and take sides, and then hopefully to act to change the system that absurdly criminalizes people like JVJ and Gavroche."

I agree that it's a polemic, but I'm not so sure that the focus is the social injustice of the criminalizing system as it is the social injustice of a society where there is such wealth at the top but where there is such poverty at the bottom that JVJ and Gavroche have to steal to eat.

In this context, perhaps the failure of the last revolution at the barricades reflects that while things were terrible at the bottom, they weren't so terrible a stage or two above that that the people were ready to rise up en masse.

But I think he makes Gavroche so sympathetic, in particular, to try to shame his readers in to realizing that those beggars they see in the streets picking through garbate and in the parks stealing food from the swans (yeah, I know that wasn't G, but I'm making a point!) are real live thinking, loving people too.

JVJ I see slightly differently -- as demonstrating that Christian love and charity can turn around even those people who appear to be the dregs of society, people who the public would normally shun and be happy to see packed off to the galleys for life. Even these people can, with the right touch at the right time, become noble, worthy, very humane and caring people.

In short, I see him as personalizing and un-demonizing those who are shunned by the public at large as the most miserable of society.

Evalyn wrote: "Well said, Everyman. I don't know what the punishment would be today for breaking and entering ..."

I do know that breaking a window and sticking your arm in, even if no more of your body goes in, is, in my jurisdiction and I suspect most others, legally breaking and entering, or burglary. It's a felony in most states, and in many states the punishment is more severe if it takes place at night, as Valjean's crime did.

I did find one site, scroll down to "maximum sentences," which says that in Canada the maximum sentence for breaking and entering a residence is life imprisonment, though that maximum sentence is rarely invoked. But still, it's there. (Did the baker live behind his shop, as would have been common then? If so, it was a residential burglary.)

And according to the Wikipedia entry on burglary, "Under Florida State Statutes, "burglary" occurs when a person unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance to commit therein, unless he or she remains in the dwelling, structure, or conveyance to commit a forcible felony. In essence, burglary is trespass when, at the time of the trespass, the perpetrator had the intention of committing an offense in the location. Depending on the circumstances of the crime, burglary can be classified as third-, second-, or first-degree felonies, with maximum sentences of five years, fifteen years, and life, respectively.[13:]" So even today, in Florida, it would seem that the lowest maximum sentence for burglary is five years, and that as in Canada it can go up to life.

So maybe even by today's standards it seems that Valjean's sentence for burglarizing a residence (assuming it was such) at night was not excessive. As I pointed out earlier, it was his multiple escapes which turned it into such a lengthy time in prison. (I don't recall whether his initial sentence was to the galleys, or whether that happened as a result of the escapes.)

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?

Andrea wrote: "Okay, somebody please tell me, is it pronounced with the emphasis on the "nin" or the "ren" in Karenina? I've heard it both ways and people are always so sure they are pronouncing it right."

I'm sure that Laurel has at least one Audible copy of the book, so she can tell us how the reader reads it.

Welcome, Steven.

I grew up in and outside of Philadelphia -- first five years on Hamilton street, then out in Southampton. I know the city well, since my father worked downtown and I went often to the city with him. Give my regards especially to Billy Penn, the Franklin Institute, the Art Museum, and the Reading Terminal Market, which I understand is still there but far different from what it was 50 years ago.

We'll look forward to your participation in the Anna Karenina discussion!

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.

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.

Jen wrote: "Hello All:

Glad to be joining your group...."

And we're glad to have you with us. What books of "girth" have you read recently?