The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Les Misérables
All Other Previous Group Reads
>
Les Miserables - Week 03
I like how Hugo introduces the year 1817 and what's happening in it with a representative list of people and what they are known for.It was the age of innocence when the comte Lynch sat every Sunday as churchwarden in the official pew at Saint-Germain-des-Prés decked out as a peer of France, with his red sash and his long beak and that majestic profile peculiar to a man who has done a remarkable deed.
Age of innocence. Let's see if that is so.
Fantine entrusted Cosette into Madame Thenardier’s care in spite of being complete strangers, do you find that realistic? Is that something you'd ever feel capable of doing?I guess it's pretty realistic. She was a desperate young girl. Besides that madame Thenardier seemed to be a good mother when she was seen.
Monsieur Thénardier is an absolutely evil man. Can such a character be considered realistic? Is he convincing?
Who watches Investigation Discovery is more prone to believe in this type of character.
Why is Javert so interested in the scene of Monsieur Madeleine saving Pere Fauchelevent?
Javert stated that he once met a man who would be the only man who could do that kind of thing which Madeleine proposed, to lift the carriage (I don't know what word is used in english). But he never touches in this matter again, I don't know why. Maybe he thought that would be improbable that Madeleine would be the man.
What are the factors leading to Fantine’s decline? Why is Fantine fired from her job?
She was fired because of envy from the other women, I suppose. Her decline was caused by despair again. Could she know that the Thenardiers were robbing her money sent to help petite Cosette. All what happened to her made me feel so enraged by all the circunstances. She did not deserve none of that.
What do you predict is going to result from the confrontation between Monsieur Madeleine and Javert at the police post?
I am worried about Madeleine. I never read this book so I don't know if my concerns are misplaced or not.
Mod
I couldn’t buy that no one in the town remembered Fantine, when we are next told how nosy they are. I think she could have claimed to be a widow. Who would bother to check? She would still have to get someone to watch her child while she works though.
I think there are elements of Fantine that are fantastical. As a child she lived on the streets -- she has no parents, nor did she ever as best as I can tell from the text. She ran around barefoot. Yet the narrator portrays Fantine as innocent, or relatively so, whatever that means. She is innocent compared to her friends (note how Favorite describes her relationship with B.); she is the only one shocked by the horse's death; Favorite has to explain to her why a carriage might stop to pick up someone; and she's certainly naive when it comes to Felix (an ugly and despicable man).
Then we find out she has a child. Not that she's pregnant, but that she's a mother. So we have a woman who grew up on the streets, who is a single parent and sole provider, who hangs around with more worldly women and men (one year I believe), and who is naive and innocent. How? Who sheltered her from the cruelties of the world? This is early 19th century France. I find this hard to believe.
PS: I love the phrase "gold and pearls for her dowry." Just perfect, a great line.
Mod
The way I remembered the story was that she was pregnant when Felix left her, so I was surprised in the video by the baby. But that is what Hugo wrote. So she would have been pregnant and giving birth while she was with Felix. I wouldn't think he would care for that, but that he would move onto some more available girl. Obviously, he had no interest in the child or providing for it.
I thought it was realistic that Fantine used what money she had for frills for the child and later went into debt to fix up her new place. For someone who has never had money, the idea of saving is foreign. In fact, if you keep money, someone will manipulate it from you or steal it outright. She is little more than a child herself, which also might explain her trust of the Thenardiers - it seemed to be a sign from God. It wasn't unusual for the wealthy or middle class to send their infants to live with a wet-nurse or other carer because they didn't want to be bothered with them.
Mr. Thenardier, awful as he is, also seems realistic to me. He figures he can keep escalating his demands and Fantine will believe everything. He even extorts money from the mayor which is totally undeserved.
Robin wrote: "The way I remembered the story was that she was pregnant when Felix left her, so I was surprised in the video by the baby. But that is what Hugo wrote. So she would have been pregnant and giving birth while she was with Felix. I wouldn't think he would care for that, but that he would move onto some more available girl. Obviously, he had no interest in the child or providing for it. "I was confused by the information given. I could not trace the months and years when all was happening. When the baby born? How old was the baby when all was happening?
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "I think there are elements of Fantine that are fantastical. As a child she lived on the streets -- she has no parents, nor did she ever as best as I can tell from the text. She ran around barefoot...."Very nice and observant comments. Fantine does seem shielded and naive from things despite living on the street. I also think "gold and pearls for her dowry" is a artistic line in reference to her physical features.
JJ wrote: "I also think "gold and pearls for her dowry" is a artistic line in reference to her physical features."Thank you, and yes. I believe they refer to her hair and her teeth. Wonderful line. Wonderful metaphor.
It was hard to follow some of the chapters because Hugo writes many political and historical references. It made me sad to read about how those people at the inn exploited Fantine. It is interesting to read about the tension between the Mayor and Javert. Even though Javert is a law upholding righteous man (and it seems so since his birth) Madeleine appears to surpass him in character. I'm assuming Madeleine is the convict that we read about in the last part. So in comparing the two, Madeleine is "merciful" (while he has mysterious past) and Javert is "strict. and just. It seems that Madeleine transcends Javert and his "justness" because Madeleine has a past that doesn't allow him to judge others (because of his own personal experiences), in a way it makes Madeleine seem more "just" than Javert. Madeleine sees the constraints that society puts on women and therefore by looking at the whole picture, Madeleine is " just" in his judgment to let Fantine go even though it isn't strictly adhering to the law. Javert is following a code of law and many times the laws are set against minorities, women, and the poor. I like how Hugo is also aware of this and writes about it in the book.
Poor Fantine and Cosette. Where is Father Myriel when you need him? Anyone who has seen the musical. are you comparing Thenardiers? :)
I saw the musical many years ago when it first was produced on Broadway. It became one of my favorites. But now, it makes me angry that the musical portrays the Thenardiers as buffoonish rather than just plain evil, thieves. The same is true for the recent PBS production in which Madeleine actually had Fantine fired for not being honest and admitting to having a child when she was hired. It totally distorts his character.
Mod
The first part of this section about the year 1817 contains many references that don't mean much to us, but probably did to the readers. It reminded me of all the recent references to 1969 - the moon landing, Woodstock, etc. and what else was happening then for context.
What I find very interesting is that Javert comes froma poor and “miserable” background as well with his father in the galleys, his mother a fortune teller and he born in prison. To his credit, as also to JVJ’s, he was able to succeed in a society which wanted no part of a person such as him. But he did this by renouncing his background and devoting himself to his pure idea of respect for authority and hatred of anything which smacks of rebellion against this authority. Such a mindset leaves no room for anything but a black and white interpretation. Compassion seems not a factor at all.
Javert does regards M. Madeleine with suspicion and conjecture but his attempts to discover any information have come to an impasse. Madeleine has noticed but disregards Javert’s behavior. However this is why he pales when Javert makes the comment about knowing only one person who would gave the strength to raise the cart. By coming to Fauchelevant’s aid, there can be no doubt Javert’s suspicions would increase.
Rafael wrote: "Robin wrote: "The way I remembered the story was that she was pregnant when Felix left her, so I was surprised in the video by the baby. But that is what Hugo wrote. So she would have been pregnant..."Cosette was two when Felix abandoned Fantine and three when Fantine left her with the Thenardiers. What is confusing me is that Madeleine became mayor in 1821 (unless my notes are wrong) which would have been three years after Fantine came to town. That seems like too long a period of time. I will go back and search in the text again, but does anyone have an explanation?
Linda wrote: "What I find very interesting is that Javert comes froma poor and “miserable” background as well with his father in the galleys, his mother a fortune teller and he born in prison. To his credit, as..."
Yes. Javert had two role models growing up inside prison: prison guards and convicts -- authority and anti-authoritarian, no middle. It looks like he chose the guards way -- stern, unforgiving. I don't like Javert, but I do feel sorry for him.
He is not a fully functioning person. He fears loss of control -- what prison guards most fear. He grasps onto authoritarian hierarchical institutions because they provide him with rules to live by and within -- just like the prison provided rules to live within. He doesn't have to question the morality of his decisions because he has rules to decide that for him. No wonder he became a police officer; his only other choice would have been to be an inmate. Poor Javert never had a chance. He greatly fears the moral dilemma because it would force him to choose.
Javert also sees a direct connection between morality and class. The wealthy and powerful are morally righteous and therefore not law breakers, while the poor are morally destitute and therefore law breakers.
Who is the greater casualty of the system: VJV, Fantine, or Javert?
Linda wrote: "Rafael wrote: "Robin wrote: "The way I remembered the story was that she was pregnant when Felix left her, so I was surprised in the video by the baby. But that is what Hugo wrote. So she would hav..."Thank you, Linda, for this explanation!
Linda wrote: "What I find very interesting is that Javert comes froma poor and “miserable” background as well with his father in the galleys, his mother a fortune teller and he born in prison. To his credit, as..."
I have not my edition here to remember where this is stated to look for an english translation, but it's stated that he is that class of people that do not belongs to the poor class because he jails them but he does not belong to the rich class neither. He does not fit anywhere in the class system. He could be compared to the mixed race class during the slave trade. They were not black neither they were white, so usually they were used to hunt slaves who flee from captivity. Javert is in the same condition.
Sorry for the long excerpt but I think it is so revealing of Javert’s character and motivation. In my translation it says Javert grew up to think of himself outside the pale of society, and despaired of ever entering it. He noticed that society closed its doors, without pity, on two classes of men, those who attack it and those who guard it; he could choose between these two classes only; at the same time he felt that he had an indescribable basis of rectitude, order and honesty, associated with an irrepressible hatred for that gypsy race to which he belonged. He entered the police. He succeeded...he was a compound of two sentiments, very simple and very good in themselves, but he almost made them evil by his exaggeration of them, respect for authority and hatred of rebellion; and in his eyes,theft, murder and all crimes, were only forms of rebellion.
Javert felt himself as discriminated against as JVJ as an ex-convict. For him, his only path to self respect and any sort of acceptance by society is through his success as a police officer and an obsessive dedication to the strict interpretation of the law. Society needs him to do this job, otherwise he is part of the garbage heap.
Book 3While I love how Hugo attempts to enmesh me into the history of the time using great detail, these are the moments in the narrative where my Wilbour translation begins to drive me bats with its literal translation from French to English. I’m not sure if it’s Hugo’s verbosity, or the translation, maybe it’s both; i was finding the details difficult to digest, only for the details to be rendered meaningless and the overall physiognomy of the history to be of great importance to what was to a follow...a chapter encapsulating the microcosm of people within the greater society. I guess it was meant to be delivered in such a manner, art imitating life, as Hugo even writes:
Such was the confused mass of events that floated pell-mell on the surface of the year 1817, and is now forgotten...Nevertheless, these details, which are wrongly called little—are useful (103-104, Wilbour)Honestly, I couldn’t help but laugh a little here at the end of the chapter, actually I found myself getting a good chuckle out of Book 3 in general, at all of the idiosyncrasies involved. Again, I found Hugo imploring, nothing is at it seems...he spends all that time drawing a rich and illustrious portrait of important people in the history of the time when what he really wanted us to focus on was the common man, the backbone of society.
On pages 113-114, the scenes from the promenade Hugo writes: (long quote not a spoiler) (view spoiler) He creates an idyllic scene, but the “everything is radiant” struck me as odd in conjunction to the special report, I thought there to be a prevalent dark and ominous undertone here.
The farce and Tholomyès... His one man show, the efforts put into the farce on Tholomyès’s part, only to fall upon the eyes of a naive innocent-Good God! Is this not the most drawn out attempt at a cut and run break-up? I laughed out loud at his drunk speech, kissing Favourite in the end instead of Fantine... pontificating out loud about life/marriage/women, where he’s essentially saying “do as I ask, not do as I do.” He’s a boob, plain and simple! He’s a joke and has made Fantine the butt of it...could Hugo paint her to be any more of a wretched creature, and now with child in tow? Great ending to Book 3!
Speaking of child, my Wilbour translation ends Book 3 like this...
It was her first love, as we have said; she had given herself to this Tholomyès as to a husband, and the poor girl had a child.It didn’t imply she was pregnant, but had had their child.
I’ll read the other comments after I read book 4.
Felix and his friends were obviously the have’s of their society. Rich and privileged. While Fantine and her working class friends were throw away objects for their sexual pleasure. (Female and poor- a double whammy from society) Fantine was too innocent for her own good, believing in Felix and true love. She was the only one left with a child and the only one who didn’t laugh when the men left them. Interesting that Felix is not even young and handsome. He’s already around 30 and losing his hair and teeth. Love is blind.
This man was composed of two very simple and two very good sentiments, comparatively; but he rendered them almost bad, by dint of exaggerating them,—respect for authority, hatred of rebellion; and in his eyes, murder, robbery, all crimes, are only forms of rebellion. He enveloped in a blind and profound faith every one who had a function in the state, from the prime minister to the rural policeman. He covered with scorn, aversion, and disgust every one who had once crossed the legal threshold of evil. He was absolute, and admitted no exceptions. On the one hand, he said, “The functionary can make no mistake; the magistrate is never the wrong.” On the other hand, he said, “These men are irremediably lost. Nothing good can come from them.” He fully shared the opinion of those extreme minds which attribute to human law I know not what power of making, or, if the reader will have it so, of authenticating, demons, and who place a Styx at the base of society. He was stoical, serious, austere; a melancholy dreamer, humble and haughty, like fanatics. His glance was like a gimlet, cold and piercing. His whole life hung on these two words: watchfulness and supervision. He had introduced a straight line into what is the most crooked thing in the world; he possessed the conscience of his usefulness, the religion of his functions, and he was a spy as other men are priests. Woe to the man who fell into his hands! He would have arrested his own father, if the latter had escaped from the galleys, and would have denounced his mother, if she had broken her ban. And he would have done it with that sort of inward satisfaction which is conferred by virtue. And, withal, a life of privation, isolation, abnegation, chastity, with never a diversion. It was implacable duty; the police understood, as the Spartans understood Sparta, a pitiless lying in wait, a ferocious honesty, a marble informer, Brutus in Vidocq.From Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/files/135/13...
Vidocq is the man who built the Sûreté. He was an ex-con who used his background as such to be the first detective in the world.
I never heard about him until I watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE9Sg... some weeks ago. I never guessed that it would be useful anytime but it was reading this book.
"The two most important civil servants are the nurse and schoolteacher."Memo to file: This is 1820. How come we don't know this.
I need help with a detail in the following passage from book 3: “Look at the knives. The handles are silver at Bombarda’s, and bone at Edon’s. Now silver is more precious than bone.” “Except when it is on the chin,” observed Tholomyès (120, Wilbour).what is meant by except when it is on the chin?
Book 5The two "old biddies" (Rose) remind me of those two muppets in the balcony criticizing everything..
So, it looks like JVJ escapes again -- escapes his name, his past, his passport -- and this time he is reborn. Madeleine mean Magdalene, I think.
Ami wrote: "I need help with a detail in the following passage from book 3: “Look at the knives. The handles are silver at Bombarda’s, and bone at Edon’s. Now silver is more precious than bone.” “Except when i..."The only thing I can think of is that he is referring to the bone of your chin. Which perhaps can be fractured in a fight? At any rate, the bone of your face is more precious than knife handles. Any other ideas?
Mod
That's what I thought too, about bone being valuable when it is on your body.
I couldn't find Felix charming because I knew how the scene would end. I do remember being shocked by it when I first read the book as a 13-year old romantic. Unfortunately, Fantine wasn't cynical enough to find a new protector while she was still pretty. She ended up selling herself in the long run.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: ""The two most important civil servants are the nurse and schoolteacher."Memo to file: This is 1820. How come we don't know this."
I’m finding it difficult to keep track of the years also. 1820 is the year that Madeleine accepted the position of Mayor ( I had previously thought it 1821). By 1821, he had the complete respect of everyone in the town. That was also the year that Myriel died. 1818 is the year that Fantine left Cosette with the Thenardiers, but then did she come to the town before Madeleine was Mayor? It seems like too long a period of time if she came directly to the town and began working in the workshop.
Cosette is almost 3 when Fantine leaves her with the Thenardiers and 8 or 9 when JVJ takes her away from them, I think. So we are talking 5 years (6 at most).I also thought Fantine left Cosette with the Thenardiers in 1817. The Rose translation says that at the time Fantine leaves Cosette with the Thenardiers only 10 months had passed since the fateful dinner.
I doing this from memory, so some of this I remember better than the rest.
Lastly, JVJ is offered the mayor's office twice. He turns it down twice but is prevailed upon to change his mind the second time. Not sure if both these events transpired in 1820 or 1821 or both.
One more thing: Not going to go back and check, but I felt while reading these books Hugo made mistakes with the passage of time. So there is that too.
Book 4I find the dark and decaying image of the carriage to be incongruous to its counterparts in the scene, cherubic young girls swinging happily as a mother sings to the in French. I’ll admit it struck me odd from the start; wanting to have a little hope and promise for Fantine, I may have bought into the light, until. Until, that gruff mysterious voice is heard echoing from the background, goading Madame Thénardier along during the negotiation for Cosette to remain in their keep. It’s as if he’d been there the whole time…watching out for some gullible passerby. Did anybody else wonder why Hugo chose to spend so much time on that carriage sitting in front of the Waterloo Inn? Oh, Fantine, you sad girl. She’s learned nothing from her experience with Tholomyès. Smh.
The Thénardiers …well they read to me to be a villainous family out of a Disney novel, Cosette a Cinderella-type character. I’m hoping for there to be a more prosperous and fulfilling future ahead of her; however, knowing Hugo and his prowess for writing about despair (I don’t mean for him to sound like a sadist at all), I’m not holding my breath. It looks like Hugo has given the story another yet another instance where somebody is given refuge from the ills of the world, a child at that; but, these caretakers are antipodal in nature to M. Bienvenue. Thénardier, was a military man, a sergeant who fought bravely according to himself; yet, Hugo questions how brave he must have been and that the reader would soon find out. The description of the sign to their chop house, I’ve read enough Dickens to know to pay attention to artwork in his literature if written about in great length; whether the same can be said of Hugo’s Les Mis… remains to be seen, but it is something I made note of while reading. From what I have gathered about Thénardier, a blackguard, bravery and honor do not seem to be in line with his personality.
Book IV-1st page of VCosette …I’m confused as to the sense of time in regards to her. At the end of Book 3, it’s 1817; in Book 4, the child in Fantine’s arms looks to be a little girl of two or three years;it is then stated, ten months had slipped away since ‘the good farce’ (128, Wilbour); later, Fantine tells Madame Thénardier, Cosette is going on three years (131); in Book V, Hugo writes that it was “1818 when Fantine left Cosette” with the Thénardiers. I don’t think my math is wrong, but somewhere in these details I have missed something because I don’t seem to have a handle on Cosette’s age or where we are as far as time. If it’s been ten months since the farce, then isn’t Cosette one-month old if I left her pregnant at the end of Book 3…if she’s three years old at present, then had Fantine already had the child in Book 3, keeping her hidden from Tholomyès?
For those reading a translation other than Wilbour’s, what’s the last line in Book 3 for you?
Ami wrote: "Cosette …I’m confused as to the sense of time in regards to her. "That 10 months is one of the confusing time passages that I wonder if Hugo didn't get wrong. How can the dinner (farce) have been in 1815 and only 10 months have passed and it be 1817? I thought Fantine left Cosette with the Thenardiers in 1817? It's the opening scene after introducing all those historical characters of 1817.
Cosette was already alive when we first meet Fantine, and I don't see how she could have kept that from Felix. He just doesn't care; he ignores her pleas for financial assistance.
Cosette's existence is a great trick Hugo plays on my mind, saving her for a big surprise at the end of Book 3. Everything about Book 3 led me to believe Fantine was young and without child . . . and then Wham!
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Ami wrote: "Cosette …I’m confused as to the sense of time in regards to her. "That 10 months is one of the confusing time passages that I wonder if Hugo didn't get wrong. How can the dinner (farc..."
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Cosette is almost 3 when Fantine leaves her with the Thenardiers and 8 or 9 when JVJ takes her away from them, I think. So we are talking 5 years (6 at most).
I also thought Fantine left Cosette w..."
I also thought Fantine left Cosette with the Thenardiers in 1817.
I have 1818, according to Book V, Chapter 1.
How can the dinner (farce) have been in 1815
1815 must be a typo since you refer to the list of historical characters which occurs in Book 3, and it’s 1817 from beginning to end there. I doubt any of this helps, clearly Hugo didn’t have a handle on these details. Or maybe, like the other details, these are not the priority, but Fantine having a love child is. If this is the case, I’m annoyed by Hugo’s device in this instance as there’s great difficulty in finding ambiguity behind the conception, birth and age of a child. LoL! I really hope I missed something because this is rather lame on Hugo’s part.
Cosette's existence is a great trick Hugo plays on my mind, saving her for a big surprise at the end of Book 3.
A trick...So you think this is strategy on Hugo’s part? This would mean the issue I had with my translation which I posted at the bottom of m20 was a nonissue, the translation is exactly right.
Did Fantine and Tholomyès just not speak of it? Oh, whatever, it’s not important.
You are right. It is 1818 when Fantine leaves Cosette with the Thenardiers, and it is 1817, not 1815, when the farce takes place. So it is 10 months between the farce and Fantine leaving Cosette with them. Not time passage problem. Cosette is 3 years old, or almost, at that time.I'm just guessing. I thought Hugo was holding off telling us about Cosette until the end of Book 3 so that we would have time to embrace Fantine as a naive and innocent young woman before finding out she had a child born out of wedlock. This would have mattered much more in 19th century France than it would now.
Mod
Yes, I think he just messed up. Kind of funny when he made a big point about the year.
In the latest TV drama, it was clear Fantine already had Cosette some time before Felix left her, and that seems to be what Hugo is telling us. But that would mean she and Felix were together for at least 2 years. It sounds like Cosette hung around Paris for a while, selling what she could before she set out on her trip.
I just can't see Felix and the other young men and girls partying with a hugely pregnant Fantine, and him not picking up other girls while she was recovering from childbirth.
Robin wrote: "Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "One more thing: Not going to go back and check, but I felt while reading these books Hugo made mistakes with the passage of time. So there is that too."Yes, I think he j..."
I just can't see Felix and the other young men and girls partying with a hugely pregnant Fantine,
Neither could I, but Xan made a good point about about him... he just didn’t care. I would say didn’t anybody else think to assert themselves in this situation on Fantine’s behalf, but I read their friendships to be just as much an illusion as Tholomyès is. Everybody left her after the trysts were ended.
Book 5Madame Victurnien (ex-Jacobin who had been married to an AWOL monk)
When the Restoration came, she turned herself into a bigot and with such verve that the priests forgave her her monk."
Hugo has some zingers. It's also quite a slap at the Church.
Ami wrote:I just can't see Felix and the other young men and girls partying with a hugely pregnant Fantine..
Neither could I, but Xan made a good point about about him... he just didn’t care. I would say didn’t anybody else think to assert themselves in this situation on Fantine’s behalf, but I read their friendships to be just as much an illusion as Tholomyès is. Everybody left her after the trysts were ended. ."
Isn't Hugo showing us that he believes that pleasure for the sake of pleasure is fleeting and has no substance, so once it is over it becomes meaningless? The eight men and women indulged themselves without any responsibility. They continued the indulgences for two years not caring for anyone but themselves it seems. Fantine is said to be innocent because she was the only one in love. Did she really believe that the affair would go on for ever and that Felix would marry her for the sake of the child?
From Hugo's dates, Fantine would have met Felix when she was nineteen. Nineteen is a good age for an orphan to achieve, whilst living on the streets of Paris, without her innocence being tarnished. Was she just lucky or did she have a resolve and a worldly knowledge not spoken about by the author? She was certainly naive in leaving her child with the Thenardiers and was no match for them afterwards.
Felix and his friends were certainly in it for the pleasure. Fantine and the other women profited by the men spending money on them, treating them to things they never would have been able to afford. So pleasure is certainly the objective at least for most of them. Perhaps Fantine’s character is such that she is a romantic. A person who sees what she wants to see, interprets things in a positive way. That would explain her falling in love with Felix and believing he would not abandon her and his child. When he does, she is devastated. Then when she sees Madame Thenardier with her children, she sees a happy family with potential playmates for Cosette. The reader realizes that she’s fooling herself, but at the time she needs to believe she’s found a good situation for Cosette.
Fantine is, for me, the most tragic figure in the story so far. Unjustly fired from her job because of jealousy and false morality. Dedicated so totally to her child she will do whatever it takes even if she humiliates herself, submits to abuse and then the violation of her body through profit from sex and then her hair and teeth. She seems the epitome of the “miserables”. M. Madeleine is certainly her savior.
Book 5My takeaway from Book 5 was much like everybody else’s…strong parallels between Fantine and JVj, both productive members of society turned hard and callous vagrants. I was glued to the pages reading about Fantine’s demise in life and extremely horrified by her reaction to Monsieur Madeleine’s presence, spitting in his face. While I understand her feeling hopeless in her current state, but did her contempt for Madeleine warrant spitting in his face… is her contempt for him even warranted, really? No where in these pages do I read Fantine to blame herself for the life choices she has made, for the life choices she may have been forced to make. The point is there was always a choice, and she seems to be making the wrong choice at every turn. Yes, the constraints of societal norms are harsh in this period of history, most especially for women; yet, Fanitine is one of those who never worked against the status quo, even if to better understand the practices of her work environment.
Madeleine showing Fantine compassion, essentially saving her from a 6month prison sentence, he is denouncing man’s law for God’s law; it seems he ascribes to the pursuance of liberty through brotherhood. How feasible is this approach? The only reason I ask is it is because of Madeleine’s own practices for having strict morals in the workplace, as well intentioned as they are, that essentially propelled Fantine’s fall from grace with the great help of Madame Victurnien. In this instance employing this moral code of ethics ends up having a deleterious effect on someone, doesn’t it? I think it was a major error on Madeleine’s part to not account for, in some shape, the character defect of judgement amongst members of society. Clearly, building a town from the ground up, successfully employing and affecting the betterment of the townspeople’s lives was not enough. It never really is, is it?
Javert
Sounds like a great guy and a lot of fun. Is he single? :P Aside from my sarcasm, I love the juxtaposition of him in relation to Monsieur Madeleine.
M. Bienvenue
Really, that was it for him, that’s how it ends? I knew his time in the story would be short, I just wasn’t expecting it to be so quick in comparison to the amount of time Hugo spends with him.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "So, it looks like JVJ escapes again -- escapes his name, his past, his passport -- and this time he is reborn. Madeleine mean Magdalene, I think."
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "I think there are elements of Fantine that are fantastical. As a child she lived on the streets -- she has no parents, nor did she ever as best as I can tell from the text. She ran around barefoot...."
So we have a woman who grew up on the streets, who is a single parent and sole provider, who hangs around with more worldly women and men (one year I believe), and who is naive and innocent. How?
I think she's exceptionally insecure in the big scheme of things and lacks the ability to assess people; thus, trusting the wrong people and making poor choices. A child's initial relationship is with its parents, parents who instill confidence in their children by facilitating their intuition, showing them how to navigate their ability to receive and act on trust from others. Fantine, having been raised on the streets, one would think her hardship would have shaped her to be tougher and better adapted to address questionable circumstances; but, her adverse experience in childhood and adolescence meant that she was vulnerable to being mislead. While some people may indeed become more hard-nosed through adversity, the majority become less trusting of their own judgement.
Madeleine mean Magdalene, I think.
Oooo. Interesting!
Linda wrote: "Ami wrote: "I need help with a detail in the following passage from book 3: “Look at the knives. The handles are silver at Bombarda’s, and bone at Edon’s. Now silver is more precious than bone.” “E..."A-ha! Thank you :)
Linda wrote:"Fantine is, for me, the most tragic figure in the story so far. Unjustly fired from her job because of jealousy and false morality. Dedicated so totally to her child she will do whatever it takes even if she humiliates herself, submits to abuse and then the violation of her body through profit from sex and then her hair and teeth. She seems the epitome of the “miserables”. M. Madeleine is certainly her saviour.
There seems to be few more tragic characters than Fantine in all the literature I have read. Maybe Clarissa (Samuel Richardson) provoked the same emotions I felt when reading about Fantine's demise. The way she destroyed herself in the false belief that she was maintaining a decent standard of living for her child was appalling.
Victor Hugo may not have given us a full picture of Fantine's life, particularly before she met Felix, but he was making it clear how innocence can quickly disappear when circumstances become desperate.
Gem wrote: "Fantine entrusted Cosette into Madame Thenardier’s care in spite of being complete strangers, do you find that realistic? Is that something you'd ever feel capable of doing?Monsieur Thénardier is an absolutely evil man. Can such a character be considered realistic? Is he convincing? ..."
I don't really think Fantine did wise in leaving her child with the Thénardiers. But given her situation, she is desperate to find a home which would care for her child, for she had to earn her living. However, the attitude of Monsieur Thénardier should have made her realize that she is making a big blunder. But her mental state was such that it was not in her capacity to see through their cunning.
It is hard to perceive that there are people like the Thénardiers exist. With modern laws imposed on child protection must have made such horrible people to have been severely punished for their brutal abuse of a little child. However, it is possible that there existed such people at the time Hugo refers to. There are many historical evidence that poor and neglected children were much abused in the "civilized society" around the world.
Why is Javert so interested in the scene of Monsieur Madeleine saving Pere Fauchelevent? Javert it is said to have "animal instinct". Being a prison warden in the Toulon prison must have developed that in him. He is from the outset is suspicious of Monsieur Madeleine. The fact that no one knows the origins of Monsieur Madeleine must have always put him on his alert. Given the political situation perhaps it was natural for an officer of the police and one in the nature of Javert to be vigilant. But the particular incident above mentioned reminds Javert of a former convict who served in Toulon prison by the name of JVJ who Javert believes to be the only person capable of performing such a herculean task.
Ami wrote: "Book 5My takeaway from Book 5 was much like everybody else’s…strong parallels between Fantine and JVj, both productive members of society turned hard and callous vagrants. I was glued to the pages..."
As far as Fantine knew, it was at Madeleine’s direction that she was fired from her job. Which forced her to make more and more humiliating choices in order to survive. It took courage to spit in the face of the most powerful man in town.
I believe that Hugo intended Fantine to be regarded as a victim of society, not as culpable for the choices she has to make. The worst that can be said of her is that she is too innocent, too gullible. I agree with the comments which question how a girl of the streets did not become more savvy, street-smart. Did Hugo mean for the reader to regard Fantine as so pure that she has not been tainted by her street life? Her gullibility obviously led to her believing she and Felix were truly in love, leading to Cosette. Again, when she needs to make a decision about leaving Cosette with the Thenardiers, she perhaps naively convinces herself they are a happy family group which Cosette can join.
But when she begins to work for M. Madeleine she is a good worker. Hugo disparages those whose envy leads them to spy on people as Fantine was spied on. What need to search out the fact that she had a daughter? Did that make her any less of a capable worker? I think it is Hugo’s belief that Fantine was pushed even further into the depths of being one of the miserables by society’s condemnation of unwed mothers.
Fantine was frantically driven by her own survival in order to provide for Cosette. If she had just been responsible for herself, perhaps she would just have ended her life. But as horrendous as the choices she had to make, I can see no alternative for a poor discriminated woman at that time in France.
Mod
Unfortunately, it's not just historical. There are many examples in modern times and today of kids maltreated in foster families, used for the money, sexually abused, etc. Of course, there are many wonderful foster families too. And regardless of politics, we know that separated children from the Mexican border will generally not do well even in well-meaning foster situations.
It does seem odd that Fantine waited so long to send for Cosette. Also, when she arrived, still very pretty, if she had wiles, she could probably have gotten someone to marry her and hopefully take on her child. I still think she could have claimed to be a widow, it was almost impossible to check on those things at the time. The town was fairly prosperous thanks to M. Madeleine so she could have married a shopkeeper, blacksmith, etc. I could see that would be a problem if people knew her as a street urchin, but Hugo tells us no one knew her. It seems she was too trusting and not devious enough.
She was certainly too trusting of the Thenardiers, believing everything they said. And couldn't she have gotten a day off to go visit Cosette? I'm not clear how far away it was. There are a lot of religious holidays in France, when work would be canceled.
Robin wrote: "Piyangie, you said - With modern laws imposed on child protection must have made such horrible people to have been severely punished for their brutal abuse of a little child. However, it is possibl..."Maybe the cost of fast travelling would be excessive for her. I guess that pay her bills and send the money for Cosette would cost her almost all of her money. So the options were fast travel by horse but expensive or travel by foot but a long journey
Fantine entrusted Cosette into Madame Thenardier’s care in spite of being complete strangers, do you find that realistic? Is that something you'd ever feel capable of doing?
Monsieur Thénardier is an absolutely evil man. Can such a character be considered realistic? Is he convincing?
Why is Javert so interested in the scene of Monsieur Madeleine saving Pere Fauchelevent?
What are the factors leading to Fantine’s decline? Why is Fantine fired from her job?
What do you predict is going to result from the confrontation between Monsieur Madeleine and Javert at the police post? (If you've read ahead, please mark spoilers.)