Book Talk discussion
This topic is about
Les Misérables
Les Miserables
>
Volume 1 - Fantine
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
I’ve read the first 5 chapters, so I’m going to make a post. That way we can take a look at the proposed format, and see if it makes sense and if we like it. Here goes.
At the opening of the novel the omniscient 3rd person narrator refers to itself as “we,” which got me to wondering if the narrator would be an integral part of the story. I remember this as being true with Notre Dame – that the narrator was basically Victor Hugo openly talking as himself about history and politics in an almost conversational way within the structure of the novel. It really worked in that book, and I’m wondering now if he always writes that way, or if I’m off the mark here. I guess I’ll find out soon enough. Anyway, if this is the case, it goes in the “Like” column for me.
By the time Hugo tells us that M. Myriel is known locally as Monseigneur Bienvenu I’m loving this guy and starting to worry about what in the hell is going to happen to him. The book is called The Miserables, not The Lovely Cleric Who Enriches His Flock. So I’m a tad concerned.
And then Hugo goes and makes M. Bienvenu a smartass, so I love him even more:
“You think it very arrogant in a poor priest to ride an animal which was used by Jesus Christ.” v.1/b.1/c.3**
Please don’t kill him or excommunicate him or whatever would turn him into A Miserable.
**that is for vol.1, book 1, chapter 3…sorry if that is obvious and I’m being annoying.
He visited the poor so long as he had any money; when he no longer had any, he visited the rich. v1/b1/c5
I really liked that sentence, as it tells us so much about M. Bienvenu (and Hugo, of course), so I wanted to see if it was translated differently in any of the other versions. I guess I'll have to wait until I get another version from SPL.
Hugo, Bishop of Ptolemais- great grand uncle...well I tried to find out if this is a true reference. But I cannot confirm it. I guess many people believe Hugo just made up a lot of the stuff he talked about in the "essay"-like portions of his books - especially in regard to his own family history. Kinda makes me like him a little bit more. It is a novel, after all, so why be boxed in by the "truth?"
Edit March 18:
Victor Hugo published Les Mis in 1862
"Il visitait les pauvres tant qu'il avait de l'argent; quand il n'en avait plus, il visitait les riches."
Hapgood published trans. 1887
"He visited the poor so long as he had any money; when he no longer had any, he visited the rich."
Wilbour published trans. 1862
"When he had money, his visits were to the poor; when he had none, he visited the rich."
Denny published trans. 1976
"He visited the poor when he had money; when he had none he visited the rich."
Tasha published trans. 2013
"He visited the poor while he had money; when he had no more, he visited the rich."
Ok, my first try and feeling a little shy about posting. I am impressed with the depth of Tasha's thoughts and comments. I too like M. Bienvenu but I am struggling to feel comfortable with the language and setting of the novel. There is so much out there in the culture these days about Les Miserables, I'm not sure I understand who M. Bienvenu (I do love his name)is in the context of the larger novel. Which, I suppose is another way of saying, as Tasha has said, "I hope nothing miserable happens to him." I have noticed over the years, something about my reading style. I do need a fair amount of time before I feel connected or invested in a book, and I am not there yet with Les Miserable. But having a commitment to this discussion group is compelling me along. One thing that is difficult for me is feeling that I do not know the history well enough and get a little bogged down in always wanting to jump to wikipedia to find out this that or the other thing. I am torn between just marching on and therby getting involved in the story and characters, and believing that one can read without knowing all the historical details. Or thinking that if I knew the history better, it would be greater insight into the novel, and Hugo's meaning about time and place and history and politics.
I like the idea of reading other people's comments because it will make me read differently. Now I will think differently about M. Bienvenu!
Mod
First up: business. Please let me know if I am being a doink, as that is not my intention. I am hoping this is helpful.
I noticed that Barbara did not use the volume/book/chapter format for her post - but it didn't matter, as she was mostly replying to my post, and sharing some things about her reading style. So I think when that is the case, perhaps we can title them "Reply," as I did with this post. I apparently am all obsessed with the idea of getting spoiled by discussions of book events that I have not got to yet. If I'm the only one who feels that way, I can try to calm down about it.
Anyhoo, if anyone needs/wants html help to bold words or whatever, send me a message. I don't know how to post it here.
I have not seen the musical or anything about Les Miserables, so I am blissfully ignorant of the whole thing. I think that helps me not get too involved in expectations. Also, I kind of enjoy not knowing where something is going. So I'm actually trying to almost ignore dates and what not, so I don't have clues as to how M. Bienvenu's story relates to Fantine. It is her volume, after all. And M. Bienvenu lives in some small town somewhere...and I am expecting Fantine to live in Paris. So I've no idea how we are going to get there, but fear it will be paved by misery.
I think the idea of how one gets invested in a book is really interesting and mysterious. I have recently had the experience of not getting too invested until I hit the 3rd book of a series, and then became completely in love and obsessed with them! It's like I had commitment issues...I feared disappointment. But I also remember the first time I read Harry Potter Bk. 1 -- I had never heard of it before, my mom bought it for my niece when we went for a visit. My niece was too young to read it, so I did. And I was totally smitten by Chapter 2...it was the cupboard under the stairs that did it. That one sentence and I was lost.
I also get involved in tracking down details...for example - I spent a chunk of time reading about the Bishop of Ptolemais, and looking through literary works about Hugo and his family and his relationship to the media and politicians of the day. Interesting, but not sure it has much impact on my feeling about Les Mis...at least, so far.
Mod
In my eagerness to meet Fantine, I read through the rest of Book 1. So I thought I would post my notes for this Book, before going on to Book 2.
"...the door of the physician should never be shut, the door of the priest should always be open."
That is a great sentiment. I wonder why we don't feel this way today? Maybe Hugo was a lone voice of compassion back then, just as we have lone voices today.
"Conscience is the quantity of innate science which we have within us."
Super interesting. It sort of implies atheism...or maybe agnosticism? Also a nice basis for most of the whole New Age thing, or whatever it is called these days. So someone who was not very conscientious or compassionate would in effect be considered stupid or irregular, since they don't have enough innate science in them to be properly sensitive. That is a blunt and dull way to put it, but the idea seems kinda modern.
M. G of the convention got a little preachy and tiresome, although I appreciated a lot of the points he was making. Still, I found it kinda clunky, becasue it felt more like a set up to show that M. Bienvenu was capable of overcoming his own prejudices, rather than a real character who lived in the book. But it didn't go on too long, so that was okay.
Had to do some history reading, as I could not remember any of the details of the kerfuffle with the Pope. It was mostly power consolidating. Napoleon and the Pope were bickering, Pope excommunicated him, so N. annexed Rome. The kidnapped Pope lived basically under house arrest at Fountainbleu. All very interesting.
My next note says: wtf is Fantine? And I think that is a legitimate note. So - where is she? this is when I started reading more quickly because I want to meet her. But I also had to admit that I didn't really know if she was a real character in the novel, or perhaps just a reference to something. The only character I know is a real character is Jean Valjean. So I could be clamoring for something that I might never get.
"...some flowers on earth, and all the stars in the sky."
So pretty.
Mod
I read all of the second book.
Somewhere in Book 2 is this sentence:
"Thus lived this just man."
I thought it was really nice. And want to check some other translations.
I liked the bit about "Gregory XVI, at the age of 80, held himself erect and smiling, which did not prevent him from being a bad bishop."
I don't know why this stuff makes me laugh. I guess part of it is that Hugo is going along being all serious and suddenly turns into this big old smart ass. It makes me happy.
"...which one would feel on beholding a smiling angel slowly unfold his wings, without ceasing to smile." Wow. Pretty vivid and potent and specific. Love it.
Jean Valjean! Jean Valjean! Omg! Somebody I know!! So exciting. Hey! Jean Valjean - where is Fantine??
How fun to meet M. Valjean, and how unexpected at this juncture! For some reason I thought we wouldn't meet him until his Volume. And I love that we knew right away he would have to find his way to M. Bienvenu. All very satisfying.
I was a little weirded out by how trivial M. Valjean's crimes seemed - especially considering how terrified everyone was of him. I kind of don't get it. Like, are they really all that afraid of someone who was a thief...or is there something else going on?
For some reason I was grossed out by the soup they had for supper - made from water, oil, bread and salt. They had some meat, but they served it separately...why not add the meat to the soup? Weirdos.
I also thought it was kinda weird that Madame M. didn't eat with them. I know she is the servant and all that, but there isn't even a separate space to eat in the kitchen...so what does she do? It feels odd in the context of how open and unconventional M. Bienvenu is...why can't he break bread with the housekeeper? Snob.
I hated hearing about Jean Valjean's life with his sister and the kids...and the part where the kids were so hungry they stole milk from the neighbor and snuck into the alley to gulp it down really quickly and spilled half it in their haste and desperation. Yuck. Well, my actual comment in the book was "fuck." I am both relieved and horrified that we will never know what happens to any of them.
Edit March 18:
Hugo:
"Ainsi vivait cet homme juste."
Hapgood:
"Thus lived this just man."
Wilbour:
"So lived this upright man."
Denny:
"Thus did he live."
Tasha:
"Thus lived this just man."
Fantine, Book Two, Chapter VIIThis is a little retrospective, I am going back and looking at my highlights. I notice that I read differently than Tasha and keep wanting to remind myself to look at the details in the way she does, such as noticing and reacting to the ickiness of the soup they ate, or wondering where Madame M ate? I'm still not feeling so connected to characters, so tend to relate to the language, descriptions and I keep looking for an "uber" meaning.
For instance, "He began by putting himself on trial. He recognized the fact that he was not an innocent man unjustly punished." I understand this as Hugo laying out the moral landscape of the novel. The individual vs. society. The morality and justice of poverty? The nature of evil? The difference between lay society and relgious adherents. I keep wondering what Hugo's belief system is. I want him to be a strident atheist, but I'm not sure that's going to happen.
Here's another quote: "He feels himself buried in those two infinities, the ocean and the sky, at one and the same time: the one is a tomb; the other is a shroud." First, the imagery here is wonderful and I begin to be interested and want to understand Jean Valjean. He is thoughtful and meditative, he is being shown to have insight to himself. What becomes of his story? Will he become a miserable?
Mod
That last quote Barbara referenced - so interesting that we had such different reactions. I am such a claustrophobic person that I got all hung up on the imagery and emotion of the description. It made me feel that M. Valjean and myself were already so trapped - frozen in these vast overwhelming circumstances (ocean and sky metaphors) that we had no chance for movement. I feel like M. Valjean is already a hopeless Miserable, and only the most outrageous and extreme lightening bolt of fortune could possibly change that. It didn't take me outside of the moment, or make me "think" - I just felt oppression.
edit 6 Mar '13: now that I am a couple books further, I wish I had focused more attention on Barbara's interpretation. I think it might have better prepared me for the next bits of the story. Ah well.
Mod
I'll clump them separately, so you can stop after Book 3, in case you haven't read Book 4.
Book 3 - In the Year 1817
Well, I finally met Fantine. I was super excited at first...but then it just...Miserable.
Here are my notes in the book:
~thank you baby jesus~ this is when Fantine is actually named, and we know she is "the blond."
~huh~ this one is when Hugo is going on about goodness and philosophy and pointing out that Fantine was a "good girl." I don't know what the fuck he was getting at. Not really. It seemed like he was saying the other women were practical, and Fantine was a flake - therefore good. Weird.
~puke~ I hated the prolonged torture of Hugo restating a billion times how Fantine looked beautiful and modest and beautiful and chaste and beautiful and virginal. Wtf?
~ugh, depressing. I feel sorry for Favourite, I wonder how V Hugo feels?~ gods it was just depressing to hear Favourite talk about the man she actually liked, not the jerk she was going around with.
~holy fuck these guys are annoying~ omg!! I hated those four men. They were horrid and unbearable and tedious - especially Fantine's guy. It makes me wonder What Is Wrong With Her? Is she a little stupid? As well as beautiful and chaste-looking....
~fuck everyone but Fantine~ and then the horse is beaten to death and they all think Fantine is weird for having feelings about that! God. Now I sort of hate the women, too...although I still feel badly for them.
Book 4 - To Confide is etc...
__ And then it gets worse. So that horrible windbag knows he has a child with Fantine, and just doesn't give a shit. It's pretty hard not to completely despise him. And Hugo let's us know this royal tool ditches Fantine and his child, and goes on to have a completely successful life and career. Ick.
__ I now must revamp my idea of this novel - for some reason I was pretty sure each of the 5 volumes would tell a separate story of 5 different characters - none related to the others. But we have already met M. Valjean. And now Cosette is Fantine's child! That fills me with dread, for some reason. And now I'm wondering if Jean Valjean will interact with Fantine and Cosette.
__The set up of Cosette as a real world Cinderella is horrible. And what is wrong with Fantine? I think she must be a little bit brain damaged, but fuck how sad. The level of Miserableness for these two females, mother and daughter, is so overwhelming. Honestly, I might have to start skimming a bit. Or maybe have another book to read every other day. Please, please M. Hugo, let something good happen to one of these characters soon! It's just too much!!
Mod
Oof. I had a lot of problems with this book.
~Javert~ The introduction of his character included that awful bit about animals being put here by God just to reflect human traits and help us reflect upon ourselves. Big huge YUCK. Hugo is showing a lack of innate science here, and I am smirking in his general direction.
Also, Javert doesn’t seem like a real person. He feels like a construct to move the plot forward, but I just don’t believe in him. I lost interest in the story a bit with his inclusion.
Oh gods! And that other awful bit about a dog-son of a wolf…what the hell. It was just abysmal and forced.
~The Sinking Cart~ This whole scene struck me as ridiculous. Why even include it? It’s unnecessary, and makes Valjean look like an idiot. Maybe that is the point…but still, I didn’t really believe any of this.
~Limited Palette~ I’m starting to get tired of so much of the palette of the novel being solid black and solid white. Apparently in this world you are either a saint on earth (M. Bienvenu) or the most vile of scoundrels (Thenardier). Things start to lose meaning for me in such an extreme set up.
For example, casting Cosette in a Cinderella role seems pointless. Perhaps later events in the novel will make me change my mind, but right now it seems like a weak choice. We are going to blame the Thenardiers for what happens to Cosette, rather than the inherent unfairness of the society she lives in- which seems like Hugo’s point (as he is talking about it all the time). The same is true of Fantine’s Descent –which is so horrendous it’s almost laughable. It gives the intimation that bad things are happening because Fantine is cursed with dismal luck and surrounded by the most egregious curs on earth. So once again we are blaming evil individuals for the descent, rather than the structure of society. Hugo seems to be undermining his own point with all this ridiculous melodrama. Maybe he’ll turn it all around with a dazzling display in upcoming volumes. But this Book 5 has been disappointing.
Random thoughts on Volume 1 -- Books Five and Six (I think, admitedly, I am confused!)I too am struggling with the black/white aspect of all of the characters,as Tasha commented. I like Tasha's use of the word "palette" I've never thought of that word for describing a book and its themes. The only glimmer I get of a character showing both good and bad qualities(which is also way too simplistic) is Jean Valjean's soliloquy on his dilemma about Champmathieu. But reading this, I felt that I was being lectured to. The language to me is so stilted and it doesn't help me feel connected or invested in the characters. Something about the voice of the narrator is troubling to me. I'm not sure what it is, any thoughts?
Speaking of themes: The question of justice and abuse of and arbitrariness of justice by people in power seems to me is a continuing theme.
And like the animal imagery, which I don't understand, I keep reading food imagery and his use of the word gluttony. This to me is no coincidence given Jean Valjean's initial transgression -- food, hunger, poverty are clearly ideas that will run through.
I highlighted the word "apostorphize." I love this word, though my feelings about this word does not jibe with the Kindle definition "to address an exclamatory passage in a speech or poem or to punctuate a word with an apostrophe. To me the idea of an apostrophe is about possession and ownership. I read entitlement.
Mod
Hey Barbara! I've been looking up definitions of "apostrophize," and I think Kindle is "right." I like the emotion you have attached to the word, but I gather not many people are going to agree with you. It looks like it is mainly used to mean "to speak to" or "to address." Ah well. I often like my own definitions of words better than the dictionary definitions.
So interesting that you picked up on the word "gluttony." I don't think I have noticed it used all that much. I am probably more literal in that regard - just seeing the word used to describe someone's over-indulgence...rather than as a thematic contrast to the hunger that Valjean and Fantine (and probably poor little Cosetterella) have experienced. When you noticed the word being used like that - did it make you more sympathetic to the struggles of those characters, or was it more of an intellectual recognition? Or maybe even kind of annoying? I hope that makes sense.
Your dissatisfaction with the narrator's voice is intriguing. Do you think it might have anything to do with the translator? Is it specifically the style of the voice, as in the style of the writing - what words are being chosen and all that? Or maybe the character of the narrator - like you are finding the narrator an irritating character in the novel? Like maybe he is some pompous lecturing kind of guy, and he doesn't pay enough attention to feelings of Fantine and company? Tell me more!!
Mod
Oy. The whole entire thing with Valjean paying off the Thenardiers, and then they demand more money and refuse to give up the girl. Repeat. Repeat. Tedious. Annoying. What happened to you Victor Hugo? This isn't interesting. And exactly how stupid is Valjean? He is a Rich Man. Why the Fuck didn’t he send someone to get Cosette? She coulda been there in 2 days! And while I’m at it…did he even bother to try to find his sister and the kids? What is wrong with him? Do I even like this guy anymore? He just seems so relentlessly idiotic.
One of my notes in this book just says “Les Idiots” cuz everyone seems unforgivably stupid.
And what is Hugo’s deal? Or is he specifically ascribing some of these stupid ideas to his characters, to make them seem more stupid? I’m not even going to bother to re-read the part I marked next…he’s talking about “feminine dignity” in the context of women hating other women for no real reason. When did that idea ever make sense?
I looked up Simplice of Italy. It’s actually Saint Agatha. Hugo got the details wrong, as well as the name, but so what. It’s still a fucked up story. Makes you wonder what is wrong with people.
Mod
Hugo is beginning to make some amends for the previous 2 books. There were a number of things I liked in this book. First off –
“they resembled the insects which are called, I think, termites, etc…”
I am a sucker for that kind of conversational narration. It completely upends the idea of the omniscient narrative voice, and reminds us that the narrator is a real person (Hugo) playing a part in the story. Like.
I quite enjoyed the whole thing about Valjean’s decision. The back and forth, the metaphors, the long eventful journey, the rationalizing and justifying, the big lovely fleshing out of a real person – not just a newborn saint in the image of M. Bienvenu. I felt like I finally got to see the real Jean Valjean. Barbara said in an earlier post that this part made her feel like she was being lectured. I didn’t get that at all. I really felt like I was getting inside Valjean’s head, and hearing his own inner monologue – I interpreted it as Valjean lecturing himself, I guess. I’m not sure why we saw this so differently. I think maybe the language in this part made me think I was listening to Valjean, not the narrator.
“This man was visibly stupid.” I know this wasn’t said to be funny, the ensuing sentences completely empty the humor out of the line. But taken on it’s own, it makes me laugh. I think I might have to start using the expression “visibly stupid.’
Wow Again. You two are rocking and rolling. Barbara, the true confession that I made in person to Tasha is that I've got an abridged version. At first Tasha and I agreed it might not be so bad, but between the interesting stories of nuns and Waterloo, and now all the comments above, I'm realizing I'm going to be totally out of the loop here. Yes, the idea of what is and is not included in my version is intriguing, but obviously I'm not just at a time and attention deficit.And so far when I laugh out loud I've neglected to note what made me laugh. Will try to pick up my oar and start paddling!
Mod
So do you think you are going to stop reading the abridged version, or continue on with it? When you have a chance, can you let us know who the translator (or editor?) is of your abridged version?
Also, I know you can set up notifications for any discussion thread. I believe you can do it on this page - right under the comment box, I've got a check in the little box next to "email me when people reply." Check that, and see if it works (if you want that, of course).
Mod
I’m still having a hard time believing people were that freaked out by someone who was a thief. Stealing to feed your family….when has that been so scary?
I’m also still freaked out that Valjean hasn’t looked for his sister or the kids. And I guess he has a brother, too? And when he is making out his will…he wants to pay for Fantine’s funeral – but no thought to Cosette. Seems weird.
I am thinking Valjean might be going to get Cosette from the Thenardiers…but then what? More misery, no doubt.
I haven't been able to make myself read anymore of the abridged version. So I finally (with Toby's help) found an available version at UW, but in the undergrad library that's been closed all week! One would think I am fated not to do this.
Volume, Book, Chapter
I would suggest starting your posts concerning the first Volume titled "Fantine" with the book/chapter that you are discussing up to. That way if you want to talk about stuff that takes place in the first book, and up to the 3rd chapter of the second book - you would start your post with:
Fantine -- Bk 2 The Fall -- Ch 3 Heroism of Passive Obedience
The advantage to this is we can discuss as we go, and not get bogged down in one big "end of book" discussion that will just be vague generalizations because we've forgotten most of what happened two thousand pages ago!!
And - with the chapter warning, no one will get spoiled.
Well, think of it as a Grand Experiment. If it sucks, we can change the format.