Classics for Beginners discussion
This topic is about
Les Misérables
Old Monthly Group Reads
>
Les Misérables by Victor Hugo
date
newest »
newest »
I just got to the Waterloo part last night & I may skim through a bit of it tonight as well. That wasn't really holding my interest. But I am so loving the rest of this book. I have the very long unabridged version.
After having read this book before....all of it....I am seriously considering re-reading just the story parts at some point. It's not cheating if I've read the whole thing before, is it?
I'm so gutted I listened to the abridged version (I didn't realise this at first) and although I loved it I feel cheated and still gotta read the whole book. I'm so annoyed.
Snoozie Suzie wrote: "I'm so gutted I listened to the abridged version (I didn't realise this at first) and although I loved it I feel cheated and still gotta read the whole book. I'm so annoyed."Heh. I imagine an unabridged audio would have a hefty price tag.
It was a free mp3 loan from the district library online system thingy. So that was a good thing!
I have to say, Les Miserables had more themes about humanity than lessons about history. Many people asked me when I explained that I was reading if I was learning about the history of the French Revolution. I couldn't quite explain the history to them but told them more about the characters in the book.
My copy finally got here and I am eager to get started! I still have to finish last month's group read and a book for uni first. Reading all your comments and thoughts on the book I am not that scared of the length anymore even though it will probably take me quite long to finish it.
I just read through the Waterloo portion of the book.Not sure why my opinions seems to be so different from most comments... but I loved it. I thought it did a good job of depicting the human tragedy of the battle and how close the call was. But I did also wonder how biased his account was... were the French truly within grasp of victory, as he describes? It got me curious.
Conversely, the rest of the story is failing to hold my attention. It is hard to say whether having seen the musical has ruined the tension of the plot for me. But everything is proceeding on rails... so far, no turns of events, nothing unexpected. The characters are flat and behave exactly as predicted. The poor prostitute pushed into the profession by love of the child, the redeemed convict who wasn't that evil to start with, the fanatical policeman... Mix some cutout characters, put them into the Restoration, talk a bit about Napoleon and other big historical facts, mix it all up and get the thumbs up by critics... Seems very cynical to me.
Of course, I am probably exaggerating. But I am, so far, unimpressed with the book.
It's decently written. But even that is diluted by excessive repetition, boring re-iteration and needless digression. You can tell someone was getting paid by the word... There are brilliant passages, but they are needles in a haystack.
Maybe it's just that my expectations were so high. It's not a bad book. But carrying such a name, the bar is high...
Veljko wrote: "I just read through the Waterloo portion of the book.Not sure why my opinions seems to be so different from most comments... but I loved it. I thought it did a good job of depicting the human trag..."
I'm glad you liked the Waterloo section! :) From everything I've read about it, it actually was an extremely close battle. The British center was on the verge of collapsing before the Prussians showed up.
I suppose I can see what you mean about the plot of the story. I hadn't watched the musical before the other day, when I went to see the new film adaptation of it, so I approached Les Miserables without knowing what to expect. There are certainly some better character studies (I think Dostoyevsky is the undisputed master), but I also think Victor Hugo can work some amazing writing when he wants to. Perhaps my translation has a lot to do with it, but there are some passages that simply force me to pause in my reading from their sheer power and beauty.
Hopefully it'll get better for you. :)
Veljko wrote: "I just read through the Waterloo portion of the book.Not sure why my opinions seems to be so different from most comments... but I loved it. I thought it did a good job of depicting the human trag..."
Veljko, I understand what you are saying about the book storywise. For me, having seen the musical 5 or so times and absolutely loving it, I admit, I prefer the musical over the book. However, I see the book as giving me more indepth information into the story to flesh out the musical for me. As a package, I love it, but definitely see the book as adding to my love of the musical....not the other way around. I hope that makes sense.
The musical misses out so much though, and especially character development - Eponine is so much more of a character in the book. Which translation are you reading Veljko? I'm just curious because I thought the characters were fantastic, I wondered if you thinking they are flat had anything to do with translation. The same goes with how the story is failing to hold your attention - I was gripped the whole way through except for the beginning of 'Marius' which I found really slow.
Almost done! Absolutely loving it (and I really enjoyed the Waterloo part, even though I found it difficult to concentrate on). Worst bit so far is the mind-numbing romance between Marius and Cossette. Boring boring boring, 'grown-up' Cossette is boring and she's making Marius boring and annoying by association.I totally get what you mean about the characters though, Veljko. They don't come off as flat in my translation and I do like them (except Cossette, piss off Cossette), but boil them down to their essence and the 'good' characters are allpretty irritatingly pure and perfect. If the writing wasn't so good I would definitely be rolling my eyes and grumbling more in places.
Well, I am glad to hear that my opinions are not that far off from everyone else ;-)Jessica, I am reading the Hapgood translation. I should take a look at alternatives, to see if I like them better. I know there are free Kindle versions of other translations, I will see if I can download some. Any suggestions are welcome.
Funny you should mention Dostoevsky, Kyle - that is exactly the comparison I had in mind when I typed that. Then I left it out, because I felt comparing anyone's characters to Dostoevsky was unfair ;-)
Perhaps I was a bit unfair about the writing - there are some awesome paragraphs, truly. But I like the way Louise said it - "the 'good' characters are all pretty irritatingly pure and perfect". There are no shades here.
As Kathy, I am in love with the musical - perhaps it spoiled us. But it is true, there is much more detail here.
I should probably keep quiet. I am still only about 60% into the book (and my Kindle tells me I have 22 more hours to go, at this pace... wow, it's a long book!). I think we should reserve judgement until a book is over and I broke my own rule.
Perhaps I was a bit unfair about the writing - there are some awesome paragraphs, truly. But I like the way Louise said it - "the 'good' characters are all pretty irritatingly pure and perfect". There are no shades here.I would debate that it depends how you look at it. Valjean was a convict and there are multiple scenes where he acts of out selfishness rather than being 'good'. (view spoiler) Eponine and Cossette act out of selfishness at points too. My point is that I think there are shades in there that hint that these are not perfect people but rather selfish individuals who do good things.
Jonathan wrote: "Perhaps I was a bit unfair about the writing - there are some awesome paragraphs, truly. But I like the way Louise said it - "the 'good' characters are all pretty irritatingly pure and perfect". Th..."I actually love the character of Eponine, and think that she's beautifully tragic (my kind of character!:D) However, I can't really claim that Cossette isn't a pretty shallow character. Luckily, I'm not sure she needs too much depth to accomplish her role in the story. She basically exists as a symbol of innocence to be wanted and cared for by all the protagonists, and she accomplishes that job well enough. Jean Valjean certainly has moments of selfishness (view spoiler), but I wouldn't exactly say he's the type of tortured character I am typically drawn towards in literature. Marius certainly has shades of gray, and he's definitely no saint, especially in regards to (view spoiler).
All that blathering aside, I guess what I'm trying to say is I can see both sides. Like Jonathan said, I wouldn't say the characters in Les Miserables are generally flat (with my one exception). They have a satisfying enough amount of depth. But sure, I can see where my fellow Dostoyevsky lover, Veljko is coming from. They are, for the most part, the types of characters we've seen before in other stories and in a similar capacity and context.
That said, I would venture to say that Les Miserables isn't about the focus on the small, it's about the focus on the big. Though Victor Hugo gave us these characters to deal with, and to move his plot, I would say the book isn't about them or their little lives. It's about the big lives. Not the life and happiness of a character, but the life and happiness of a people. Not the soul, or worthiness of a man, but the souls and worthiness of Men. I think In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo's characters become small units of representation for larger concepts and ideals, which allow both Hugo and the reader to deal with these concepts in more manageable units. Political fairness, social justice, cooperation, caring, etc:.
Victor Hugo also wrote The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Or Notre Dame De Paris). I would say that book is more "individual" focused as a character study, whereas Les Miserables is more large scale in its focus and purpose.
I'm reading the Lascelles Wraxall translation, which was the first English translation (translated while Victor Hugo was still alive). It includes a note written by Victor Hugo to the translator asking him to be as faithful as he can, as Hugo was trying to change the world with this novel.
It's probably not the easiest of the translations, since the language feels much older. But like I said, there are moments when it is simply damn beautiful, and I have to pause and reflect on what I just read. I would highly recommend this translation.
Also, I don't know how much the translation had to do with it, but I found the courtroom scene in the book to be extremely powerful and beautifully written, whereas the musical glosses over that particular scene. I'm just about finished with the book, but I still look back on that courtroom scene as the moment I begun loving the story.
That said, I would venture to say that Les Miserables isn't about the focus on the small, it's about the focus on the big. Though Victor Hugo gave us these characters to deal with, and to move his plot, I would say the book isn't about them or their little lives. It's about the big lives. Not the life and happiness of a character, but the life and happiness of a people. Not the soul, or worthiness of a man, but the souls and worthiness of Men. I think In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo's characters become small units of representation for larger concepts and ideals, which allow both Hugo and the reader to deal with these concepts in more manageable units. Political fairness, social justice, cooperation, caring, etc:.I would completely agree with this. I suppose I wasn't saying that the characters aren't similar to other literary character types viewed in similar classics. I even saw the romance as very simplistic and very much there to drive the plot a little. That said I do think that on the whole these characters do have little touches of realism to them in order to link to the big ideas. Which I definitely think is the purpose of this story - to talk about the big ideas through the characters.
One of my biggest disappointments was the difference between Marius in the play vs. Marius in the book. In case those reading it aren't up to that yet, I will mark it for spoilers: (view spoiler)
And finished!Soooo much love for this book. Definitely going on the favourites shelf.
Still not a big fan of the Marius/Cossette characters (Marius I liked to begin with but thought he was a massive d*ck by the end - totally agree with Kathy's point about him as well). The romance subplot was irritating, heavy handed and slow (had to put the book down for a few days at that point), but the first and last sections of the book, with th riot, sewers, Javert and the ending more than made up for the boring 'falling in love' section in the middle.
I'm kind of in love with the sewer chapters, actually. Great stuff.
I actually disagree with the comments about Marius and Cossette because I think that their love was really entertaining to read about as a lover in the beginning. I loved all the scenes where Marius was peeking at her when Cossette and Jean were in the city. I will say, however, that their love got quite monotonous in the end of the book and that is where I ceased to adore their relationship as much.
Just want to say that I would have never even considered this book if it had not come up in this group (the length and the fact that it was best known as a stage musical being just two of the reasons) and I am so glad that it did, I enjoyed it enormously, thanks so much to you guys for bringing me to it.
I finally finished also. I loved the book and I totally agree that the purpose of the book was more to explore big ideas. I completely understand why everyone hates Marius and Cossette in the end. It's so sad to see how Jean suffers at the end and they seem so oblivious, but I think Hugo does a nice job explaining that how Marius acted was appropriate at the time and that they were young and self-centered. I thought the book was just fantastic and is going on my favorites list also. Thanks for forcing me to read it! I agree with Andrew, I'm not sure I would have taken it on without this group voting on it! :)
A commitment read, but one that is worth the time.
Great comments! I really found a connection with the book when I got to that point in the story with Marius as well! So much of what I have been taught I see was through a lens. It's a great story and very applicable.
Also I had a comment I've been mulling over as we've talked in here about the "bloat" or tangents the book contains. I get the feeling Hugo is diving very deep with his characters (even the minor ones) in order to give us great understanding of their character and circumstances in an effort to help us correctly judge them,(not to harshly for some, and harsher for others) and in contrast to that he shows you how they all misjudge one another precisely because each of the characters in the book don't have eachother's in depth background stories. See what I'm getting at? His tangents are for a purpose of creating wise judges in the readers and this contrasts with the terrible judgements each character makes... well except for the bishop of course! :-)