Dianna's comments (member since Jun 09, 2009)

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

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!

I am thankful I did not live in France during the French Revolution.

I have been chomping at the bit to mention the section where I was reminded of John Galt's speech in Rand's Atlas Shrugged. (Of course Rand and Hugo have opposite philosophies of life.) Enjolras makes a speech to the revolutionaries that is not nearly as long as John Galt's but was still quite preachy and I could hardly wait to get to the end.

"Citizens, the nineteenth century is grand, but the twentieth century will be happy. Then there will be nothing more like old history. Men will no longer have to fear, as now, a conquest, an invasion, a usurpation, a rivalry of nations with the armed hand, an interruption of civilization depending on a marriage of kings, a birth in the hereditary tyrannies, a partition of the peoples by a congress, a dismemberment by the downfall of a dynasty, a combat of two religions meeting head to head, like two goats of darkness, upon the bridge of the infinite; they will no longer have to fear famine, speculation, prostitution from distress, misery from lack of work, and the scaffold, and the sword, and the battle, and all the brigandages of chance in the forest of events. We might almost say: there will be no events more. Men will be happy. The human race will fulfill its law as the terrestrial globe fulfills its; harmony will be re-established between the soul and the star...

I wonder what Hugo would think of the events of the 20th and early 21st century such as world wars I and II, Korea, Viet Nam, The Cold War, the famines in Africa, the legal slavery of prostitution in much of the world, the 9-11 attack, the Christian/Muslim cultural clash, the attack on Iraq, the unemployment rate, The stock market crash and the general political climate of our world today.

Well, I finished it and I give it three stars. I still think it is way too melodramatic and contrived but knowing that is they type of writing which was common in that period I will cut it some slack. Now I guess I will get back to War and Peace and see if my tastes have really just changed over the years.

The theme I am seeing as I come to the end of the book is that nothing is really what it seems because we see through the eyes of humans and not God. We perceive everything in the context of our society and experience. I'm anxious to post more but I will wait until everyone gets to the end of the book. My book is borrowed from the library and I am already almost 2 months late bringing it back but it's only .05 cents a day so I am looking at about $3.00, which is less than if I had bought the book.

When can we start voting?

Alias Reader, I wish I had cable television but right now I can't afford it. I used to watch c-span book tv whenever it caught my interest. I would like to see that one about Ayn Rand for sure.

Alias Reader, I don't like Rand either lol I read Atlas Shrugged some time back and absolutely hated it. "Her characters are one dimensional. She hits the reader over the head with the point." I agree with you totally there but was trying to say that in a sense VH does the same thing. I guess I wouldn't mind reading Atlas Shrugged with this group; who knows I may even like it if I read it again. I thought Les Miserables was one of my favorites last time I read it...

I am a little ahead of schedule with my reading and I don't want to post any spoilers but I was wondering if anyone thought of Ayn Rand when they read this...because VH and AR seem to have opposite belief systems yet their style of writing seems similar to me, especially in one part where someone makes a speech and I won't say any more because the group hasn't gotten there yet.

Oh, I like that Everyman!

I just switched my rating from 5 to 3 stars as I had read it, or at least thought I had, about 20 years ago and liked it. The riot scene for me is just so dull. He talks about all the roads like we are supposed to know them and I can't get interested in the characters except for Marius and Cosette. All the other stuff for me is just crap I have to wade through.

I'm still hangin' in there. I have to say again how much I love the way Hugo describes the infatuation between cosette and marius. Eponine also strikes my interest.

Does it strike anyone else as humorous that Marius is a voyer in chapter III. Maybe it's just my weird sense of humor but I laughed out loud when I read about him climbing up to see through the hole in the wall.

Dawn wrote: "I don’t know … the street urchin section may be one too many tangents for me. My apologies to anyone who liked them, but I didn’t think the Waterloo, the Paris street layout or the monastery digres..."

I agree with you Dawn. I could have swore I read this book when I was younger but now I am thinking that maybe I didn't because I don't remember any of this and I sure don't remember the story flipping back and forth so much with so much seemingly unnecessary information. It seems like I just get involved with a character and then Hugo goes and switches gears on me. That is making it difficult for me to stay engaged. I guess Tolstoy does this in War and Peace as well but somehow he pulls it off for me while I am finding Hugo to be annoying. I want to know what happens between Marius and Cosette and then I get pulled into a world that reminds me of the movie The Gangs of New York. I'm loving the romantic picture Hugo paints of 2 people infatuated with each other and want to see that to the end. Hugo does have the ability to paint great pictures of his characters, but they are either horribly ugly and disturbing like the girl that comes to see Marius about money for her family or unrealistically ethereal like Cosette as a young woman. It seems like there is no in between.

I just want to quote a passage that struck me and I wonder if anyone has anything to say about it:

Cosette IV "...Jean Valjean had this peculiarity, that he might be said to carry two knapsacks; in one he had the thoughts of a saint, in the other the formidable talents of a convict. He helped himself from one or the other as occasion required..."

It seems like this is an example of the extremes seen in the book that make it so melodramatic. I'm really not liking the book so much as I read it for the second time. I never noticed with my first reading but it just seems to me to be somewhat contrived.

I read Madame Bovary back about 20 years or so because my mom recommended it to me. Well, my mom and I don't have the same tastes and I did not like Madame Bovary and thought it was not well written. Maybe I, also, had a bad translation...

I can't possibly compare in my mind War and Peace with Madame Bovary. However, I read Anna Karenina recently for the second time and didn't like it as well as at the first reading. Maybe it is because I am not the same person I was then. Anyway, I am also reading War and Peace again and so far it is still my favorite of all time.

I read Les Miserables back in that time period of about 20 years ago and I remember liking it more back then and thinking now that the chararcters are not as believable as I would like them to be and some of the scenes have caused me downright incredulity. (More on that later.) The phrase "superabundant melodram" comes to my mind.

I wish I had a spellcheck because I am self-conscious about my spelling but I don't have time to check all my words for errors so the spelling police might have to get me.

When I read about the silver that Valjean stole and how the priest gave him the candlesticks as well I immediately thought of these Bible verses:

Matthew 5:39-41

"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two."(NASB ©1995)

I'm going to try to comment on the book but I don't feel that I have anything worthwhile to say, my words aren't elloquent and I haven't checked for spelling mistakes.

This is my second reading. I find it interesting that when I was quite a bit younger and read this book I had great sympathy for Jean Valjean and felt somewhat of a contempt for society that would allow a family to go hungry. However, the first thought that I had upon reading this time was, "why couldn't he just ask for help?" It seems to me that shoving your hand through a glass window for a loaf of bread is something of overkill. Why did he do it at night when he knew he would be punished more severely? It almost makes me wonder if he was tired of being the sole provider for this unfortunate family and may have unconsciously wanted some means of escape. I am sure he didn't realize the true consequences and that he would be in jail for that long. And why did he keep trying to escape from jail only to add more time to his sentence? It reminds me of criminals that go to jail and get out only to return because they feel more at home in jail than in society.

It reminds me of a boy I know who has had a problem with stealing since he was quite young and garnered up quite a record for juvenile delinquency before he turned 18. Then when he turned 18 the slate was wiped clean and what did he do but go out and steal a bunch of stuff from Wal Mart and get put in jail with a new record as an adult. Could Jean Valjean have been acting out some sort of role that was expected from him in society? This boy I know is the scapegoat of the family and it doesn't matter what he does he gets in trouble anyway. Was Jean ValJean some sort of scapegoat?

Cool!

Well I don't have any translations in front of me but I was just refering to the part of the book where DQ and Sancho are at another inn and DQ overhears Someone speaking to Don Jeronimo about 'Don Quixote de la Mancha.' Then They start talking about all the parts of the so called book where there are "inaccuracies" such as that Don Quixote is "no longer enamoured of Dulcinea del Toboso." Then it goes on to say that there are other errors as that Sancho Panza's wife is called Mary Gutierrez...

I meant that I would like to do my own research as to the meanings of those particular names--Cid, Hammett and Bangali (which I spelled wrong because I didn't have the book in front of me.) I can see how the way I worded it made it look difficult to understand (I do that all the time when I am trying to do something fast and I don't pay attention to detail; I am sure it is very annoying to some people.)

I guess since the translators have already interpreted the book we should could just really read the translation and skip the book, eh? Then we wouldn't waste our precious time. :) (sarcasm doesn't come out well in print so I must add that I was being just a little sarcastic there...)

I would also like to add that I think there must be something very important about having 2 authors--Cid Hammett and Bangali... I think the names must have some meaning and I would like to do some research on that.