The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Les Misérables
All Other Previous Group Reads
>
Les Miserables - Week 01
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Mod
I think it also shows how Hugo's views changed for time, as a young man he was a royalist, and the years went by he became a supporter of republicanism. Art imitating life?
Too bad Hugo didn't publish a little book of Bishop Myriel's aphorisms. That would have been a fun book to read.------------------------------
The meeting with G was fascinating. The bishop and G switch roles, I think, with G becoming the teacher and Myriel becoming the one in need of a lesson.
In her letter to her friend, Myriel's sister says he's a royalist. Looks like this is his blind spot. He believes the gossip about G because he wants to, but when he meets him he slowly realizes he's meeting a different man. It shows he's human and fallible.
But it was the discussion between the two that grabbed me. Two opposing world views, each seeing the rightness in their own view, each using casual brutality on the innocent as a means to an end and justifying it by claiming a greater good. I guess what goes around comes around.
Gem wrote: "Welcome to August... I can't believe it's August already. Let the countdown to Christmas begin, when we finish this book we'll be just days away from Christmas. This week's read gave me a feel fo..."
How exciting for you, this being your first Hugo! Les Mis will be my second Hugo, The Man Who Laughs being the first. I started Les Mis a while back, not getting past Book 1 in another discussion. I look forward to reading it in its entirety with you here. I'll be using the Wilbur translation.
How did the Bishop's visit to the dying revolutionary G- change him?
What I love about Hugo is that often what is revealed about characters, is never directly said...it's read between the lines, through the actions and demeanor of the characters, or even what is written in dialogue form between other characters. He uses a psychological approach, Henry Jamesesque, when divulging certain details.
M. Bienvenu had been formerly, according to the accounts of his youth and even of his early manhood, a passionate, perhaps a violent, man.Couldn’t we have gathered this through his interaction, from beginning to end, with G—-... he seemed unhinged at the prospect of meeting with this man, didn’t he?
In the latter four chapters of this section, I felt Hugo was asking the reader to remain unbiased to what is to follow because M. Myriel clearly was not. Wasn't it absolutely riveting reading about a pious man who steps foot into G---'s home, full of prejudices, to the man who walks away from witnessing G---'s death after opening his heart to him? It appears the pious man better fulfills his role as Bishop, to a degree, in the aftermath of every death he bears witness. The discussion between the Bishop and G--- is thought provoking, to say the least.
Robin wrote: "I thought that encounter was very interesting. Hugo seemed to be proposing the bishop as a perfect exemplar of Christianity (unlike his fellows who enjoyed all the perks and power), but he also gav..."Hugo seemed to be proposing the bishop as a perfect exemplar of Christianity (unlike his fellows who enjoyed all the perks and power), but he also gave a lot of respect to the revolutionary's views.
It was brought to my attention while reading Book 1 that Hugo intended M. Myriel to be satire. Society at the time would have known the Bishop to be too good to be true. I unfortunately did not share the view of those people finding the Bishop to be quite reliable upon my first reading of it. Recognizing him as satire threw me for a loop at the time, but keeping it in mind this time around, it did add a new layer to the reading.
Mod
I agree in thinking the Bishop is sincere. It is his character that is going to drive the rest of the story in the next section. I do think satire is directed at the other churchmen and even at some of the believers, such as when people exclaimed at him arriving on a donkey (instead of in a carriage) and he countered by apologizing for using the same mode of transport as Jesus not out of arrogance but out of necessity.
Through the character of M. Myriel we see a man living the ideals of the revolution even though he had been disgusted by the atrocities perpetrated by the Convention during the Reign of Terror. Meeting a member of the convention disturbs the bishop because he believes the leaders had been corrupted by their power into perpetrating barbarous acts. G's defence of his and his colleagues actions surprises Myriel and forces him to reconsider. However I am surprised that Hugo depicts G in such an uncompromising light. G never once shows any remorse or any regret for the blood on his hands. Neither does he acknowledge that the number of deaths were excessive and unnecessary. He also, somewhat reluctantly I thought, finally admits that there is a God, even though as a member of the convention he would have enforced the order to the people that no such God exists. So there is some hypocrisy in G as far as I am concerned, even though Hugo is making a case for both republicanism and revolution.
I believe that everything Hugo writes relating to political/social issues are central to an understanding of his characters and the situations in which they find themselves. As a former aristocrat who fled the Revolution, even a transformed Myriel cannot bring himself to visit G at first. The Revolution and succeeding Reign of Terror did destroy his family and beyond so that is somewhat understandable.
There are obvious differences between Myriel and G, but the most telling and important evidence of what they both believe lies in Myriel’s answer to G’s question of why he has come- to receive G’s blessing, Myriel answers. Despite G’s apparent atheism which Myriel believes morally precludes him from leading a path to justice and progress, G’s belief that one has to accept the fact that violence will accompany even a just revolution, although he does weep for the innocents and children slaughtered, whereas Myriel cannot countenance any violence, they are both dedicated to working for the poor and downtrodden. They both have no desire to enrich themselves. Myriel comes to understand how their objectives are alike, even though G has sought to achieve them politically and Myriel religiously. I think that G’s lasting effect on Myriel which causes him to go into a reverie stems from the fact that G is now reviled and outcast while Myriel has received the honor of the community as Monseigneur Bienvenu. Has G’s sacrifice been greater? Excluded from the community of man whom he has tried to uplift whereas all Myriel has sacrificed are material possessions.
I personally liked how Myriel is painted as philological, righteous, and even at times childish. Then we have G which makes Myriel question himself about his views. It really shows how complex this book is going to be with religion, politics, and ethics.
Linda wrote: "I believe that everything Hugo writes relating to political/social issues are central to an understanding of his characters and the situations in which they find themselves. As a former aristocrat..."
Very nice comparisons of G and Myriel. I enjoyed reading your comments.
I'm enjoying reading everyone's comments here - great insight into the novel.I'm a little behind as I have only just got to the part where Myriel meets G.
As a point of interest, while reading the French text I've just noticed possibly the first use of the word "misérables". This is an untranslatable word, which is why the English title of the book is usually "Les Misérables".
This is in Chapter VIII – Philosophy after Drinking where the senator is explaining his views on religion to Myriel – i.e. his view is that religion exists purely to give hope to people who have no material possessions in this life. The quote from Hapgood translation (with my underlining) is:
"Of course, there must be something for those who are down, -- for the barefooted beggars, knife-grinders, and miserable wretches."
In response to previous comments about M. Myriel being satire – I don't see that. I think that he is portrayed as a saintly (but likeable and witty) figure in sharp contrast to the materialism of most other people of his position and background.
Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems Hugo was rather emphatic about the Bishop portrayed as satire. At least, this is how it appears to me now...As Hugo set to work on the novel in 1848 after a long interruption, his anti-clerical son Charles objected to presenting Myriel as prototype of perfection and intelligence,” suggesting instead someone from “a liberal, modern profession, like a doctor.The novelist replied:~Wikipedia :Bishop Myriel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisho... (there are spoilers in this article)
I cannot put the future into the past. My novel takes place in 1815. For the rest, this Catholic priest, this pure and lofty figure of true priesthood, offers the most savage satire on the priesthood today.
Mod
I never read this book and I am enjoying it greatly. Myriel seems to embrace the Franciscan way of life. My edition states that this character caused such controversy when the book was written that I thought that he would be a critique to the bishops. This statement appears in the introduction so when I started to read I discovered that the controversy was for another reason.
Robin wrote: "Thanks for this link (which does have some spoilers, if anyone is concerned.) I read it but I think he meant the satire was directed at other priests who are not like Myriel. It's a satire in showi..."I agree that Hugo created a “pure and lofty figure of true priesthood” in Myriel who lived in 1815.
It seems that Hugo felt he needed to justify his choice of a priest as a moral and religious exemplar to his son by reminding him of the historical nature of the novel. He could not use a contemporary profession. He further justifies his decision by pointing out the difference between Myriel and the priesthood in general to the detriment of the priesthood.
About halfway into this week’s reading, I decided to switch to the Rose translation because it has footnotes that I’ve found to be very helpful. Occasionally the language sticks out as being too modern, but it has a nice flow and these footnotes are saving me a ton of google time.For example! My edition’s footnote on M. Myriel says Myriel was based on the real-life Bishop (named Miollis) of Digne from 1805-1831, and that Miollis was also a man with a simple lifestyle who attended to the poorest members of his diocese. I think Hugo’s portrayal of Myriel is meant to be sincere and, as others have said, his goodness is meant to contrast with the powerful and corrupt clergy.
I really enjoyed reading about Myriel’s encounter with G—. I like the moral fuzziness of their dialogue, each entrenched on opposite sides of the debate, each convinced the other’s side was the more brutal. I think in the end, M. Myriel decided that his life was better spent carrying out his good works on a small scale, in his diocese where he could be most effective, rather than spending a lot of time and brain power thinking on larger issues of morality. But clearly that conversation haunted him; he’s said to have been even kinder to people after meeting G—.
Also, if anyone has any questions they want to ask about differences in translations, I’m happy to look things up! I’d said originally I’d be reading a different translation and consulting this one, but I’ll just be sticking with the Rose going forward I think.
Maureen wrote: "I'm enjoying reading everyone's comments here - great insight into the novel.I'm a little behind as I have only just got to the part where Myriel meets G.
As a point of interest, while reading th..."
I think that he is portrayed as a saintly (but likeable and witty) figure in sharp contrast to the materialism of most other people of his position and background
He wasn’t so saintly to G-, a conventionist he looked upon as an outlaw, even to the law of charity (34, Wilbur).
Gem wrote: "Welcome to August... I can't believe it's August already. Let the countdown to Christmas begin, when we finish this book we'll be just days away from Christmas. This week's read gave me a feel fo..."
The change in Myriel’s character seen after the execution was a most humbling experience for him. Speaking of execution, can we talk about the guillotine...the words used to describe the apparatus? It’s an example of the Hugo touch I have grown accustomed to reading. Giving the apparatus anthropomorphic qualities, breathing life into it; it is no longer just a guillotine, it having the effect of a hallucination in that moment. (It’s not a spoiler, only a long quote)(view spoiler) Hugo enhances an already cruel and inhumane scene to a level of macabre viciousness. What we've just read, what our Bishop has endured, would humble even the most unflappable. Myriel, later is found talking to himself, his sister overhears him saying,
I did not believe that it could be so monstrous. It is wrong to be so absorbed in the divine law as not to perceive the human law. Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch unknown thing? (16)My apprehensions about the Bishop were nonexistent here. In this moment, I witnessed Myriel to manifest fully into a pious Bishop.
Mod
Mod
Agreed, the more I read the more I come across these kinds of terms, expressions, and stereotypes that poke fun at particular groups of people. I find them less humorous (if they ever were meant to be) as I get older, especially references like this one.
Robin wrote: "The guillotine was supposed to be a more humane (because quicker) means of death than hanging or other former means. It was certainly more efficient in dispatching many people at once. It was anthr..."You had me thinking about the feminine characterization of the guillotine and I think I may have found something about the derivation of the name...maybe? Let me know what you think...
Madame Guilotine may have earned her name, in part by the French, through the influence of the Scottish decapitation instrument known as the Maiden.
Built in 1564, during the reign of Mary Queen of Scots, it remained unused for so long it was dubbed the Maiden.As an aside, I found this bit the most disturbing:
The executions were popular entertainment and attracted huge numbers of spectators. A group of female citizens, the tricoteuses knitters, became regulars, functioning as macabre cheerleaders as they watched while knitting. The man most associated with the Terror was Maximilien Robespierre, and as the appetite for executions waned, he was arrested and executed in the manner of those he condemned - by Madame Guillotine.Madame Guillotine, ILAB.org No spoilers here, I promise :P
I skimmed over something somewhere ...the tricoteuses, revolutionaries calmly knitting during an execution, The Scarlet Pimpernel. I don't know, I have not read it; you may know better, or how it applies?
Ami wrote: "Robin wrote: "The guillotine was supposed to be a more humane (because quicker) means of death than hanging or other former means. It was certainly more efficient in dispatching many people at once..........'The man most associated with the Terror was Maximilien Robespierre, and as the appetite for executions waned, he was arrested and executed in the manner of those he condemned - by Madame Guillotine.'Also interesting and ironic in terms of Hugo's Book 1 was that the conventionist G was probably a follower of Robespierre and voted with him. He would not have survived otherwise. As the convention fragmented into factions, Robespierre contrived to have those convention members who opposed him accused of treason and swiftly sent to the guillotine.
Mod
The knitting ladies figure in A Tale of Two Cities, with Mme Defarge using her knitting as a kind of code to keep track of enemies.
I think that at least part of Myriel’s reaction to the guillotine was based on his assumption, if not knowledge, that relatives and friends had met their death in this way. He escaped to Italy while others were not so fortunate. Humans can be torturous to each other. Decapitation was common throughout history across the globe. Of course, in some groups it is still practiced today though in the Western world, at least, it is currently considered barbarous. The guillotine in France fell out of use in 1981 with the outlaw of capital punishment.
As for the ladies knitting, just think of the people of the ancient world finding entertainment in the death in the arena. Boxing is still popular and football is America’s number one sport. But disability and death take place far from our eyes.
Grim, but in many respects we are no better, just different.
Mod
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
The Scarlet Pimpernel (other topics)The Man Who Laughs (other topics)
This week's read gave me a feel for Victor Hugo, this is the first time I've read anything written by him. While he can be rather long-winded, I found that all the detail adds to my ability to picture exactly what he's trying to convey with his words.
I can already see some of his political and social views coloring his writing. I understand he can go off on political/social tangents, hopefully, that won't overwhelm the experience. In the edition I am using the translator has taken a couple of large pieces he felt went off the storyline and added them as appendices in the back of the book so I miss anything that you find pertinent please bring it to my attention. Otherwise, here are a few questions to get our discussion started...
What does Hugo's preface of the novel appear to suggest about the contents of this work?
How did the Bishop's visit to the dying revolutionary G- change him?
What about this man surprised the Bishop and why?
How are the revolutionary ideals espoused by G- similar to or different from the pure Christian ideals of the Bishop?