Reading the Chunksters discussion
This topic is about
Les Misérables
Side-Reads
>
1/13 Les Miserables, Volume I, Book II (Part I, Book II), SPOILERS ALLOWED FOR THIS SECTION ONLY
date
newest »
newest »
Alana wrote: "In response to the Petit Gervais scene, I found it heartbreaking, because I think from the way it's written it's clear that Valjean kept the coin on purpose."I agree. It was particularly cruel since he had no need of the money, having just been given several hundred francs worth of silver, and the money was obviously very important to the boy.
I had three thoughts about it.
First is that we have been talking about whether Valjean was being treated worse than a dog. Here, he seems very dog-in-the-manger-ish.
Second, part of the psychological basis of the twelve step process is that before you can begin the climb out of despair you have to have hit bottom, and admit to yourself that you have hit bottom. Up to this point, Valjean had not yet admitted to himself that he had hit bottom. I think when he roused himself and looked at what he had done, that was the moment that indeed he did hit bottom and the only way for him to go was either commit suicide, or turn his live around at least to some extent.
Third, I was powerfully reminded of the passage from Isiah, "A little child shall lead them." Here, the ultimate figure leading him to finally recognize his wrongs and at least for a moment, in the final incident of prayer, apparently want to change (whether he can or will we will have to wait and see), is not the bishop but the little child.
Everyman wrote: "Anne wrote: "I would say that he is treated worse than a dog. Most people, upon seeing a starving and weary dog, would want to help. Valjean couldn't even get food and shelter by paying for it."B..."
I understand what you're saying, although I have to disagree: a dog who has been mistreated by humans very often WILL lash out, even at those who have been kind to it. Someone who is trying to clean a wound, for example, may be bitten by the animal who is afraid and in pain. And many shelter dogs from abusive backgrounds have a trigger that makes them turn around and attack a family member, even years after the event. You treat a man like an animal long enough and he's likely to believe he is one.
So in Valjean's case, why would he trust the bishop? He's been trod upon for so long, treated like the lowest of men or beasts, so why should he expect this good treatment from the bishop to last? Maybe he lashes out before the bishop, the first in years who has shown him kindness, can hurt him? It's almost like the situation with an abused lover, be it man or woman. Coming out of an abusive relationship, often someone will dump the next kind person that comes along, because they want to be the one on the giving end rather than being hurt again. What if it's too good to be true? I'm not saying that in particular is what is going through Valjean's mind, but it would certainly be understandable when we look at human psychology.
Everyman wrote: "Nina wrote: "Plus, the galleys were not exactly a walk in the park. It was hard labour, humiliation, sleeping on the hard floor, being in chains all the time etc. "The notes in my edition comment..."
It certainly makes me think of Ben-Hur and the whole galley-slave combing back to take vengeance on those who caused his downfall. Especially since Valjean is described as being very physically strong, etc.
Everyman wrote: "Perhaps the people who suffer most from the bishop's view of his Christian duty are his sister and Madame Magloire. They have so little, they have one set of items to give some pleasure to their ha..."I completely agree! The Bishop's lack of protection of and care for his sister and Magloire are the main faults that I find in him. He does not seem to recognize the importance of his role as head of a family. I do however think that the Bishop truly loves his family; perhaps he views them not as separate entities but rather as an extension of himself. The bishop is a self-sacrificing person by nature, and his generosity is spontaneous. And unfortunately for his family, he often acts without weighing the personal costs.
(The Dickens character with the Africa concern is Mrs. Jellyby from Bleak House -- I'm working through that novel as well. I personally wouldn't class the Bishop together with the self-important Mrs. Jellyby at all. I don't think that Jellyby is actually helping anyone -- her "devotion" seems only a pretense to justify her self absorbent nature. The Bishop, on the other hand, is selfless to a fault.)
Mrs. Jellyby should first help her oww children who are unkempt neglected. Her attempt to run a charitable foundation to help people in Africa is pathetic. The aspiration is noble, but the person who deals with it is pathetic, to say the least. I hope I have not spoiled much, E:)
Zulfiya wrote: "Mrs. Jellyby should first help her oww children who are unkempt neglected. Her attempt to run a charitable foundation to help people in Africa is pathetic. The aspiration is noble, but the person w..."I totally agree that Jellyby's priorities are not in order. Zulifya, what's your opinion of the Bishop's treatment of his family? Do you see him as negligent?
I also realized that I didn't directly answer Everyman's question re: the charitableness of the Bishop. Despite his faults, I do see Bishop Bienvenu as a truly charitable person. After all, he is not withholding anything from his family that he possesses himself. In fact I think that his view of family may be TOO expansive -- he welcomes Valjean to his home already knowing that stranger's name is "my brother". In my opinion being a good provider for / protector of a family requires a great deal of self (or at least narrowly familial) interest.
I'm still working my way through this section, but I thought I'd share some of what I enjoyed from the reading so far. :)I really love the passages discussing characters' natures and the formation of their personalities. Hugo explores how self will and society can influence a person's nature. The Bienvenu and Valjean we meet at the beginning of the novel are both weathered by their pasts. We are told that Bishop Bienvenu's strong convictions have softened his personality over time -- this remind me of neuroplasticity: the theory that positive thinking (or other behaviors) can gradually change a person by reinforcing associated neural pathways. Valjean is hardened by his merciless treatment, and Hugo reminds us that we are (at least partly) accountable for the associated societal costs.
Bishop Bienvenu:
"His universal tenderness was less an instinct of nature than the result of a strong conviction filtered through life into his heart, slowly dropping into him, thought by thought; for a character, as well as a rock, may have holes worn into it by drops of water. Such marks are ineffaceable; such formations are indestructible."
Valjean:
"The peculiarity of punishment of this kind, in which the pitiless or brutalizing part predominates, is to transform gradually by a slow numbing process a man into an animal, sometimes into a wild beast."
accountability:
"society absolutely must look into these things since they are its own work."
E :) wrote: "accountability:"society absolutely must look into these things since they are its own work." "
Thank you for highlighting this line. It is one if not the the most important message in the novel. It especially will become obvious later in the novel. I asked questions in other posts about who is the culprit in this situation and why such a tragedy is happening. And no one has mentioned society, YET. We are responsible for many bad things happening in our world. John Donne's line earlier in literature had a similar message: 'Never ask for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for you'
As for Bishop Bienvenu and his family, I think this is the only thing that made me uncomfortable about this very worthy and noble gentleman. Family is not a priority for him because he views everyone as his family. He also trusts God he worships totally and unconditionally with his love. He preaches the gospel of love,and by association believes his family does the same, and it is true, and if something is going to happen to him or to them (as they are the extension of his self), it is Divine Providence.
Blood is not thicker than water for him because according to his faith, love is the tenet of his life philosophy. And he is right. It is in the Scriptures and in the New Testament. Another question is why only a handful of people who claim to be Christians out of millions follow this philosophy :-(
E :) wrote: "Despite his faults, I do see Bishop Bienvenu as a truly charitable person. After all, he is not withholding anything from his family that he posses himself."It seems to me that by giving away the vast bulk of his income he is indeed withholding from his sister. She could stand some new clothes, she would enjoy having a carriage instead of having to walk everywhere (or forgo being able to visit anybody not in convenient walking distance for an older woman), as long as he's going to let the silver get stolen, she she would definitely like to replace it with something more enjoyable to eat with than wooden or iron utensils. She might enjoy having a cook/housekeeper to take some of the burden off of her aging shoulders. Yes, she puts up with all of this graciously (after all, where else is she, an older unmarried woman with no money or income, to live?), but I'm sure she would like to have to scrounge and scrape a bit less, and would like to see a bit more of the bishop's income come her way instead of almost all of it going to others.
Everyman wrote: "E :) wrote: "Despite his faults, I do see Bishop Bienvenu as a truly charitable person. After all, he is not withholding anything from his family that he posses himself."It seems to me that by gi..."
I do think it would be nice if he reserved more of his income for his household. I completely agree there: Bishop Bienvenu is not an adequate provider for / protector of his family! My point is just that he's not withholding from his family out of selfishness. He gives freely to all and does not consider the practical ramifications. So yes, I do consider him to be charitable person -- charitable to a fault, in fact.
Though I criticize his behavior, I do have to admire his consistency! He is strictly conforming to the gospel teachings that he professes. Life would certainly be more comfortable for his family if he were a more practical man and didn't so strictly follow those teachings. With all the talk of seeking rewards in heaven, etc, Jesus really didn't put much of a premium on personal comforts. Quite the opposite: "woe to you who are rich.. who are full.. who laugh now.." If you buy into those teachings, though, you get to believe that the family will be rewarded in heaven. And this is undoubtably what the bishop believed! I was just reading Luke 6, which contains the cloak passage that was referenced in Les Mis: from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Really, I don't see much in the gospel teachings that would encourage the sort of self (familial) interest & preservation that would make one an adequate provider for a family.
E :) wrote: " do think it would be nice if he reserved more of his income for his household. I completely agree there: Bishop Bienvenu is not an adequate provider for / protector of his family! My point is just that he's not withholding from his family out of selfishness. "That's a fair point.
And yes, the gospel isn't very supportive of family obligations. The OT even demands that a father be willing to sacrifice his son to show his faith. Fortunately, the bishop didn't go quite that far.
That's not entirely accurate. The Bible has quite a bit to say about providing for one's family as well. But it's not specific about how much, whether of land, clothing, goods, etc. There is a lot about stewardship and business and being wise with finances. I just have a hard time believing someone really cares about their family members if they won't allow them a FEW creature comforts. The bishop does take a rather extremist view on the poor... of course help, but he can't be expected to take every single poor person out of poverty.
Alana wrote: "That's not entirely accurate. The Bible has quite a bit to say about providing for one's family as well. But it's not specific about how much, whether of land, clothing, goods, etc. There is a lot ..."People make a lot of arguments based on the Bible, and it's quite difficult to reconcile all of the texts to form cohesive beliefs. I haven't read all of the Bible and do not believe it is particularly cohesive, so I am no way attempting to do this.
What I have said is that, in my opinion, the bishop's extreme behavior is in line with the values set forth in the gospels. He is not what I would personally consider to be a good provider -- but this behavior doesn't clash with the messages that I take away from the gospels. In addition to the passages I discussed above, I recall Jesus telling his followers not to give thought for tomorrow's food / clothing, calling disciples to drop everything to follow him, etc.
Does he care as much for his own family as he does for strangers? (Who's that character in Dickens who spends all her time worrying about the savages in Africa while her own children go ill fed, ill clothed, and ill shod? If Charity begins at home, is the Bishop TRULY charitable???)