Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Les Miserables
>
Week 1 - Fantine Books 1-3
message 51:
by
Grace Tjan
(new)
Sep 24, 2009 08:45PM
I've been reading about Jean Valjean being rejected from every inn or tavern in Digne, and it seems to echo the nativity story in the bible. I suppose that it was intentional on Hugo's part. The story of the kind bishop who redeems the convict is looking more and more like a biblical parable.
reply
|
flag
Everyman wrote: Let's hear more from you!This is my first time reading Les Miserables and I feel like Dianna “that I don't feel that I have anything worthwhile to say, my words aren't eloquent” and that I haven’t read as much classical literature as many here. But I’ll give it my best.
I’m enjoying Hugo’s writing (or translation of his writing). His lengthy details are beautiful and give so much insight about the characters.
Mademoiselle Baptistine – “What had been thinness in her youth was in her maturity a transparency, and this ethereal quality permitted glimmers of the angel within.”
Monseigner Bienvenue – Regarding his evenings in the garden & his faith -- “He contemplated the grandeur, and the presence of God; the eternity of the future, that strange mystery; the eternity of the past. A stranger mystery, all the infinities hidden deep in every direction; and, without trying to comprehend the incomprehensible, he saw it. He did not study God; he was dazzled by him.”
Jean Valjean – “He (God?) filled the whole soul of this miserable man with a magnificent radiance. . . While he wept, the light grew brighter and brighter in his mind. . . all this returned and appeared to him, clearly, but in a light he had never seen before.
I find it hard to believe that Fantine, even though she was very young and naïve, would fall in love with someone like Tholomyes. He seems to me to be so self-centered and pompous. And she didn’t seem to follow the crowd – like when she refused to swing. Or was that because she was pregnant?
Everyman wrote: "I'll start with a question that's been bothering me. This will be about Books 1 and 2.The character of M. Myriel/M. Bienvenu bothers me. He is SO good that he seems an artificial caricature rath..."
I'll add to that question; what do you think of the two women who live with him; his sister and housekeeper. They seem slightly passive, to my modern eyes, especially the sister.
My second question is this- How much should we allow our modern eyes to effect our judgement of these books? Can we ever read them with the same eyes as the original readers? Can we put aside our modern preconceived ideas? Should we try? How much have things, such as films, effected the way in which we view these books?
Sandybanks: However, Myriel is a staunch royalist who abhors the conventioner and the French Revolution in general, so he couldn't have been based on Abbe Gregoire.
I may not have been clear enough. There was no suggestion that Myriel had anything of Fr. Gregoire in him. I should have called attention to the fact that the anonymous conventioner is called Conventioner G___.
I may not have been clear enough. There was no suggestion that Myriel had anything of Fr. Gregoire in him. I should have called attention to the fact that the anonymous conventioner is called Conventioner G___.
When I read about the silver that Valjean stole and how the priest gave him the candlesticks as well I immediately thought of these Bible verses:Matthew 5:39-41
"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two."(NASB ©1995)
Zeke wrote: "Sandybanks: However, Myriel is a staunch royalist who abhors the conventioner and the French Revolution in general, so he couldn't have been based on Abbe Gregoire.I may not have been clear eno..."
Thanks for clearing that up, Zeke.
Dawn wrote: I also pondered Valjean’s reason for his escape attempts and I was particularly taken by the overboard sailor metaphor in book 2, Chapter VIII. It describes Valjean’s struggles to grasp at any kind of moral foothold and the desperation that finally turns him into a mindless animal, acting only on instinct.Initially I thought this was metaphor inappropriate, thinking Valjean’s capacity for rational thought should have kept him from sinking into such a state. But then, what becomes of rational thought when no kindness is ever seen and all hope is lost?
"Oh, implacable march of human societies!
Oh, losses of men and of souls on the way!
Ocean into which falls all that the law lets slip!
Disastrous absence of help! Oh, moral death!”
Exactly what I was thinking, Dawn. You said it much better than I could, though.
Sandybanks wrote: "I've been reading about Jean Valjean being rejected from every inn or tavern in Digne, and it seems to echo the nativity story in the bible. I suppose that it was intentional on Hugo's part. The st..."That hit me, too. I think my translation actually says, "There was no room at the inn."
Laurele wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "I've been reading about Jean Valjean being rejected from every inn or tavern in Digne, and it seems to echo the nativity story in the bible. I suppose that it was intentional on ..."Yes, I saw that too. Its such a Poignant section of the books. You really felt for him
Carol wrote: "This is my first time reading Les Miserables and I feel like Dianna “that I don't feel that I have anything worthwhile to say, my words aren't eloquent” a..."Beautiful quotes, Carol! I'm glad we're all reading this together.
Vikz wrote: How much should we allow our modern eyes to effect our judgement of these books? Can we ever read them with the same eyes as the original readers? Can we put aside our modern preconceived ideas? Should we try? I think we should try very hard to lay aside our modern prejudices and see these characters as their contemporaries saw them. Only then can we take the next step and evaluate them in our own light.
Dianna wrote: "When I read about the silver that Valjean stole and how the priest gave him the candlesticks as well I immediately thought of these Bible verses:Matthew 5:39-41
"But I say to you, do not res..."
Excellent, Dianna!
Vikz wrote: "what do you think of the two women who live with him; his sister and housekeeper. They seem slightly passive, to my modern eyes, especially the sister..."They certainly have to live by Myriel's values.
Mademoiselle Baptistine was very worried about the doors and windows not being locked and bolted, but she did not say anything about it, because she did not want to displease her brother. Madame Magloire's suggestion to secure the house was not taken up by Myriel.
One usually could ignore risk to oneself, but not to our loved ones. I feel that Myriel in his eagerness to perform charity and goodness has assumed his sister and housekeeper to be naturally accommodating.
Or perhaps I am reading this with a 21st century mindset. Perhaps there is not much of a need to lock up a house with no valuables in it.
Greetings,First time posting. Enjoy the discussion and wanted to add a few observations.
I know there is often a temptation to question or critique literature in terms of how "life-like" it is, such as "I can't believe she/he did this...why didn't they do that." This is problematic. Quoting Northrop Frye: "To bring anything really to life in literature we can’t be lifelike: we have to be literature-like." Even in contemporary novels where characters and situations may be more "life-like", they still adhere to literary tropes/conventions. More particular, Hugo was influenced by, and promoted, Romanticism. Of all the modes of literature (with the exception of pure myth), Romantic literature in particular cannot be judged on how "life-like" it is. Valjean's stealing of the bread and his subsequent years of imprisonment, is certainly a Romantic exaggeration, but its literary purpose (at least one of them) is to stir our passions with a sense of injustice by authority and thereby make us more sympathetic to Valjean. And the more embittered he becomes, and the more injustices thrown at him, provide for him (and us) a greater emotional and spiritual distance for redemption.
Responding to the following:
"He is also a Christ figure, in that he redeems (buys back) the soul of Jean Valjean."
and
"He allows Valjean to avoid the temporal consequences of his sin."
First, Myriel is not a Christ figure. Hugo certainly uses him to exemplify many of Christ's teachings, but that doesn't make him a Christ-figure, merely an apostle or disciple figure. More importantly he DOES NOT redeem Valjean. Valjean's redemption has not occurred at this point. If it did, the story would be over. It is crucial to point out that Myriel imposes the promise on Valjean that he will use the money from the silver items to make himself an honest man. That is hardly avoiding "temporal consequences". Myriel "purchases" his soul "to give back to God." Myriel is demonstrating that Valjean's salvation lies in a commitment to God represented through honesty, charity, and a commitment to being morally good. Myriel's purchase is an offering to Valjean - an open and unlocked door on the road to salvation. But the responsibility is squarely on the shoulders of Valjean to walk that road. That is why this moment is simply the beginning of the book. There are many reasons why Hugo spends so much time on Bienvenu - but paramount is this moment. We have been invested into learning about Bienvenu because only a deep investment in such a man--both in his life and actions and his deep commitment to do what is right--could potentially challenge and purchase Valjean's deeply embittered soul.
Sandybanks wrote: "I've been reading about Jean Valjean being rejected from every inn or tavern in Digne, and it seems to echo the nativity story in the bible. I suppose that it was intentional on Hugo's part. story of the kind bishop who redeems the convict is looking more and more like a biblical parable. "I agree. I'm not yet sure exactly what Beauvenu is intended to represent, but it's looking to me more and more as though he is not intended to be believable as a person, but is representing some principle of Christian behavior. I'm just not sure exactly what yet.
As Chris noted, Les Miserables was a product of Romanticism, and therefore should not be read as a realist fiction. Perhaps it is useful to keep this in mind while reading about the characters that seems to be exaggerated. I wonder if this treatment of characters as symbolic representations of ideas are consistent throughout the novel, or whether some characters are treated more 'realistically' than others.
Carol wrote: "I find it hard to believe that Fantine, even though she was very young and naïve, would fall in love with someone like Tholomyes. He seems to me to be so self-centered and pompous. And she didn’t seem to follow the crowd – like when she refused to swing. Or was that because she was pregnant?"
It's very believable to me -- he's just the sort of fake intellectual that impressionable teens of a certain mindset are so impressed with. (Think Bunthorne in Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience.)
And I don't think it's really a spoiler -- more a matter of inerrant translation -- to point out that the last line of Book 3, saying Fantine "had his child" doesn't mean she's pregnant at the time of the outing, but that she already has a child with him. (This will be made clear within the next few pages.)
Vikz wrote: "EI'll add to that question; what do you think of the two women who live with him; his sister and housekeeper. They seem slightly passive, to my modern eyes, especially the sister."More than slightly passive! But I think not atypical of women in their class at that time, at least in most cultures of the time (I don't know specifically about France). Women were still viewed as subservient, almost the property of men. And on top of that, there was the natural deference to the authority of the churchman. So yes, they're extremely subservient, almost caricatures as much as real people, but this seems in character to me.
Vikz wrote: "My second question is this- How much should we allow our modern eyes to effect our judgement of these books? Can we ever read them with the same eyes as the original readers? Can we put aside our modern preconceived ideas? Should we try?"That's a great (and classic) question when reading classics which we haven't addressed in this group yet.
My personal view, FWIW, is that if we want to make judgments about the characters, we need to do so within the context of their times and cultures -- for example, I think it's wrong to condemn Bienvenu for expecting his servant and wife to be highly subservient. However, I also look at the ways in which societies and expectations and principles have changed, and am perfectly willing to make judgments that I consider our better or worse than their ways, and to contract my life and experiences with those of the characters, looking at how I might have responded to a situation differently than the character did. But I try to careful not to do this in a way that judges the character or calls their decision wrong when judged against our standards (though I can certainly judge it as wrong when judged against their standards.
So, for example, I may think that their culture was excessively harsh for condemning a hungry man to four years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, but I don't criticize the judge who sentenced him to those four years, since he (certainly a he in that day and age) was simply following the law as it existed them.
But there are a lot of implications and ramifications of your question we should be exploring as this group moves forward. And other people certainly have different and probably better approaches than I do.
Excellent question -- thanks for asking it.
Selina wrote: "Mademoiselle Baptistine was very worried about the doors and windows not being locked and bolted, but she did not say anything about it, because she did not want to displease her brother."But what I found interesting is that, as I read the passage, he did not prohibit them from securing their doors to their quarters. It takes a certain sophistication and degree of flexibility to say that he was going to live by his standards as regarded his person and property, but not impose those standards on them if they wanted to live differently.
"if we want to make judgments about the characters, we need to do so within the context of their times and cultures -- for example, I think it's wrong to condemn Bienvenu for expecting his servant and wife to be highly subservient."- You are treating fictitious characters as if they were literal representations of a certain time period. Unfortunately, this is not the way literature works. Nor can one "judge" these characters according to their contemporaries, because, it doesn't matter what time period we are talking about, literary characters cannot be judged as real people. If I want to determine the treatment of women in contemporary society I will not do so by examining the literature of the day. I will do so by research through mostly primary sources carried out by people trained in various disciplines related to that focus.
"So, for example, I may think that their culture was excessively harsh for condemning a hungry man to four years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, but I don't criticize the judge who sentenced him to those four years, since he (certainly a he in that day and age) was simply following the law as it existed them."
- Again, you cannot use Hugo's example as if it is a true statement and reflection of his society. By the same token, readers in 150 years could read Twilight and make all kinds of judgements about human-vampire interactions. Or read anything by Stephen King and come to all sorts of bizarre conclusions. (Note: I am nowhere near comparing Hugo to King/Meyer). Besides, the concept of someone spending 20 years in prison for doing nothing STILL occurs today. So interpreting the novel as being truthful to judicial practices of 19th century France would seem to correspond to judicial practices today. That gets us nowhere as well. Literature and literary characters will not be held to those kinds of critiques and/or interpretations. They can only be held up to their purpose and role in the literary world of that particular piece, as well as to literature as a whole.
So now - what could the role of the housekeeper and sister be within the individual work and perhaps literature as a whole? Well, it is curious that there are three of them (including Bienvenu)...and we all know the significance of the number three in Christianity (and Catholicism in particular). The housekeeper is a stock character who is a foil and this sets up a wonderful comic conflict with Bienvenu. She wants some money and whenever they get any, Bienvenu gives it away. So our esteem is raised for Bienvenu and this is done through wit and humour and at the housekeeper's expense. The sister is the crucial centrepiece to this triumvirate because as Hugo says, Bienvenu was for her both her brother and bishop, her friend and yet superior in the Church. She is the archetype of the dedicated wife - she comes across as a "bride of Christ" - one of her prototypes would probably be Penelope in Classical mythology - and she has several precursors in the old and new testaments. Because she is a woman, the housekeeper can confide in her and we get to hear more of the housekeeper's comic complaints. But her dedication to her brother uplifts Bienvenu in our eyes even more. Imagine if the sister did not exist - then you would simply have the housekeeper's words against Bienvenu. But add the sister, and there is a weight of gravitas that tips the scales in favour of Bienvenu and makes the housekeeper humourous but harmless. And it has to be two women and one man because we accept the priest's chastity (although we know he was married once), so when we learn that his sister is an old virgin, we take some solace knowing that she at least has a female companion in the housekeeper, otherwise, we would be distracted with her own yearnings for an unfulfilled life. And the emphasis ultimately needs to be on Bienvenu for his monumental moment with Valjean.
"Again, you cannot use Hugo's example as if it is a true statement and reflection of his society. By the same token, readers in 150 years could read Twilight and make all kinds of judgements about human-vampire interactions. Or read anything by Stephen King and come to all sorts of bizarre conclusions. (Note: I am nowhere near comparing Hugo to King/Meyer). Besides, the concept of someone spending 20 years in prison for doing nothing STILL occurs today. So interpreting the novel as being truthful to judicial practices of 19th century France would seem to correspond to judicial practices today. "Chris, are you saying that Hugo's writing about Valjean's harsh treatment by the
law bears no correspondence to the actual practices of French law at that time? In other words, was Hugo only exaggerating when he wrote about someone who is jailed five years for stealing a loaf of bread? I'm not an expert on post-Revolutionary France, but it seems to me that Hugo's writing about the harsh fate of the poor was largely based on the reality of that time. The characters might be stylized as they are wont to be in Romantic fiction, but the social and historical backgrounds are realistic. If they are not, then one of Hugo's aim in writing Les Mis, which is to open the reading public's eye to the social injustice suffered by the poor, would be defeated.
I agree that we cannot use Twilight or other fantastical novels to learn about the (real) current world, just as we cannot use 19th century Gothic fiction like Frankenstein or Dracula to learn about Victorian social institutions. However, I also think that we can more or less accurately study 19th century society through the works of George Eliot, Dickens, or other writers who based their writing on reality. My understanding is that Hugo's social realism was rooted in the real conditions of that time and is therefore a reasonably accurate representation of French society.
Sandybanks wrote: ""Again, you cannot use Hugo's example as if it is a true statement and reflection of his society. By the same token, readers in 150 years could read Twilight and make all kinds of judgements about ..."Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe comes to mind as another example of this kind of story.
"are you saying that Hugo's writing about Valjean's harsh treatment by the law bears no correspondence to the actual practices of French law at that time?"- No. In fact, I was trying to point out that 19th century France's judicial treatment of the dispossessed is not that far removed from 21st century America's/Canada's judicial treatment of the dispossessed. I have no doubt that there are some points of contact between Hugo's imaginative creation and judicial practices of his time. What I am saying is that literature cannot be used for this investigation. You cannot pick and choose. You cannot say Shelley's Frankenstein would be no good as an accurate portrayal of her time period and yet Hugo's Les Mis is. Literature does not work that way. If Dickens only wrote for social and political commentary, his literature would not reach the heights that it does. It would merely be outdated propaganda. If you want to find out about 19th century court practices in France then look them up...study primary sources. By using literature to do this work for you, you are denying the entire field of history, not to mention anthropology and sociology and several other scientific disciplines. Besides, when writing imaginative fiction there is no onus or responsibility on the writer to be life-like. And even if one tries to be, literature demands a literary structure NOT a life-like structure. Les Mis is an epic masterpiece NOT because it has social commentary on contemporary inequalities, but because it transcends such a pedestrian purpose for writing fiction.
Sorry, I am still at Chapter X; I have read it twice so far and will re-read it more I guess. I am not sure where the novel is going to go (well, I mean its theory as I know more or less the "story") but have a gut feeling this chapter is one of the clues of the whole text.Those comparisons (of personalities) of the revolutionary are absolutely shocking - and true, of course. He is right in every word of his. He is right.
(BTW, I guess most of you know this, but for those who don't - and sorry if it has already been mentioned, I am just now trying to catch up with all the comments: the characters Bishop Myriel and Jean Valjean were supposedly created based on a real story: there was a bishop in Digne named Bienvenu de Miollis, who actually housed an ex-convict, named Pierre Maurin. Maurin was convicted for stealing a piece of bread from a baker's store. After Les Mis was published the Miollis family protested against Hugo's description of the Bishop's character in the book, and mainly against Chapter X where the Bishop is sympathetic for a murderder of the King. I have more remarks on some of the events and persons of the book in my BookGlutton copy and am planning to go on with these.)
Hugo is one of those authors who must be read in the context of his political views and the real-life events of his time. Hugo does not allow us to forget his political views. He practically beats us over the head with them. For example, Hugo’s abhorrence of the death penalty is evident in his narrative of Myriel’s day with the condemned murderer. He says “One may feel a certain indifference to the death penalty, one may refrain from pronouncing upon it, from saying yes or no, so long as one has not seen a guillotine with one's own eyes: but if one encounters one of them, the shock is violent; one is forced to decide, and to take part for or against.”
I have read plenty of authors whose works give no hint of their own views of the culture they lived in. Bram Stoker would be a good example. Ann Rand would be a good example of an author who uses a story to convey a social or political message. This is the first Hugo novel I have read and I did not research anything about the author before starting. All through the first book I kept wondering about Hugo’s background because his political views come through so strongly in the story. So far, Les Miserables falls more in the Atlas Shrugged camp than the Dracula camp.
"Hugo is one of those authors who must be read in the context of his political views and the real-life events of his time."- Any author CAN be read in the context of their political views and real life events of their time. This is not more so with Hugo. The questions are Should they? and To what end/purpose? As I have said before, if you are using literature to gain insight into a political climate of a certain time period or the impact of real events, literature is not your avenue. The historical and ethnographic records are your avenue. Literature will always be a distortion because it is the world of dreams and nightmares not of scientific analysis. You may gain some insight into Hugo's creative process by examining the historical record and his gloss on it, but you'll only be able to make some interesting (and possibly outlandish) hypotheses, nothing you could get hold of or bottle as a theory of either literature or the creative process. Look, this is the same with other arts: dance, visual and music. Chopin may have been inspired by things happening in Poland which informed a sonata or a prelude, but the sonata and prelude in music have a musical structure. We would not analyze how his use of the prelude was a truth statement about social unrest in Poland. Literature has structures that are just as valid as the structures in painting, musical composition, and dance. Yet, just because literature uses words we often expect literature to do and say more. But the words and verbal structures used in literature are necessary to literature and not to the historical and ethnographic record, nor to philosophical debate, nor to technical manual writing. The best writers and works of literature emerge because they are the best expressions (to date) of that structure, just as the greatest composers emerge because they have created the best expressions (to date) of a particular musical structure.
"Ann Rand would be a good example of an author who uses a story to convey a social or political message."
- Yes, there are many authors who try to use their writing to convey social or political messages. In fact, all the great writers usually have social/political commentary. Those who make the literary structure fit their political agenda, usually fail or at best tend to mediocrity as writers of literature (Rand may be a good example) and Time eliminates them. Those who allow the literary structure to take precedence and allow social and political commentary to emerge naturally out of that structure are the greatest writers of imaginative fiction. Hugo and Les Mis certainly fit in this latter category.
I'm going to throw out a suggestion here, although perhaps the moderator will disagree. Perhaps we could all bear in mind that literature is open to many, many ways of reading. While some interpretations of a literary work have NO support from the text, i.e., "Les Mis is about rollerskating in L.A. in the sixties," many other matters are open to cordial disagreement. I, for example, feel the Bishop leaves Valjean in a situation most of us would see as extreme temptation and mortal (literally) danger. When he responds by terrifying and robbing the boy shortly thereafter, it is clear that he is not reformed or redeemed by the bishop's single act. Whether this act of the bishop's was "right or wrong" is not completely determined by the text,which is what makes it interesting, I think. How about we avoid writing things like "IS NOT" when we disagree on interpretations?
Andrea wrote: "literature is open to many, many ways of reading...When he responds by terrifying and robbing the boy shortly thereafter, it is clear that he is not reformed or redeemed by the bishop's single act. "I myself am reading the same piece of literature in different ways at different times and I am never sure if I am right or wrong each time !
I didn't think Jean Valjean was aware of terrifying and robbing Petit-Gervais during the act. He seemed to be in a trance, and when he "woke up", he searched desperately for Petit-Gervais to return him the money. I find this scene quite touching.
Mm.. good point. On some level, he seems like he's acting on instinct; see money, cover it up. I thought about how he searched for the boy to "make up" for what he had done, but it's not possible to find the same child again.
Andrea wrote: "Mm.. good point. On some level, he seems like he's acting on instinct; see money, cover it up. I thought about how he searched for the boy to "make up" for what he had done, but it's not possible..."I really like Selina's suggestion. And I agree with you, Andrea, that being insistent that one's own interpretation is the only one possible just leads us to a roadblock. The longer I read the great books, the more I see how multitudinous their meanings are. indeed, they mean different things to me as I mature than they did in my youth.
Selina: I didn't think Jean Valjean was aware of terrifying and robbing Petit-Gervais during the act. He seemed to be in a trance, and when he "woke up", he searched desperately for Petit-Gervais to return him the money. I find this scene quite touching.
This exchange between Selina and Andrea helped me understand what is going on there. Previously, I had felt that the crime of stealing the bread, and the crime of stealing the candlesticks both made sense to me, but the robbery of the boy-- and the importance given to it by the police--seemed out of proportion.
However, now I would say that it shows that 1) simple charity is insufficient (leaving aside the interesting point that the Bishop tempts JVJ); 2) until a criminal truly feels remorse, they cannot reform (an argument with implications for penal system programming).
Perhaps some people have seen a documentary called Shakespeare Behind Bars. In a medium security Kentucky prison, inmates rehearse and perform Shakespeare plays. In the film the play is the Tempest, a play which is also concerned with retribution and forgiveness. It was very moving to hear some inmates who had committed terrible crimes reflect upon the process of coming to terms with what they had done.
This exchange between Selina and Andrea helped me understand what is going on there. Previously, I had felt that the crime of stealing the bread, and the crime of stealing the candlesticks both made sense to me, but the robbery of the boy-- and the importance given to it by the police--seemed out of proportion.
However, now I would say that it shows that 1) simple charity is insufficient (leaving aside the interesting point that the Bishop tempts JVJ); 2) until a criminal truly feels remorse, they cannot reform (an argument with implications for penal system programming).
Perhaps some people have seen a documentary called Shakespeare Behind Bars. In a medium security Kentucky prison, inmates rehearse and perform Shakespeare plays. In the film the play is the Tempest, a play which is also concerned with retribution and forgiveness. It was very moving to hear some inmates who had committed terrible crimes reflect upon the process of coming to terms with what they had done.
Good points, Zeke. Jean Valjean is being transformed from brute to man. Only as man can he repent and be redeemed. Hugo is speaking of a whole class of downtrodden people here, and they are not his primary audience.
message 80: by Selina
I didn't think Jean Valjean was aware of terrifying and robbing Petit-Gervais during the act. He seemed to be in a trance, and when he "woke up", he searched desperately for Petit-Gervais to return him the money. I find this scene quite touching.
-------------------------------------------
message 81: by Andrea
On some level, he seems like he's acting on instinct; see money, cover it up. I thought about how he searched for the boy to "make up" for what he had done, but it's not possible to find the same child again.
======================
I agree. I felt that the trance was him acting on automatic or survival instinct. The way he was trained to behave and act by society and jail in order to survive. He was debased in jail until he was human in name only. I think the question is can his inner "goodness" that spark still be activated by simple kindness and human decency. Can he be redeemed? I think that his trying to find the boy foreshadows that this may be possible.
We should keep in mind that the jailing of Valjean was for the purpose of revenge and punishment. Not redemption. That is somewhat different than what we view jail today. So we have to keep that time period and what they thought about crime/sin/punishment. I think Hugo, much like Dickens did in his books, was commenting on an aspect of society that he wished to change.
My two cents worth... I like to think literature can be used for insights into historical events, politics, real people, philosophy, etc. Naturally, you have to bear in mind that literature is fictional. But does that mean literature should be totally dismissed as of no value as far as understanding a time & place?Not sure if it's a good example, but it's my understanding that scholars would be very much clueless about the dark ages of Ancient Greece without the help of the Homeric Literature - The Illiad and The Odyssey.
Stephen wrote: "My two cents worth... I like to think literature can be used for insights into historical events, politics, real people, philosophy, etc. Naturally, you have to bear in mind that literature is fic..."I agree wholeheartedly, Stephen. Literature is far more true than some people realize.
Everyman: We should keep in mind that the jailing of Valjean was for the purpose of revenge and punishment. Not redemption. That is somewhat different than what we view jail today.
I wish this were fully the case!
Laurele: I agree wholeheartedly, Stephen. Literature is far more true than some people realize.
One of my favorite quotes is from William Carlos Williams. "It is difficult to get the news from poems, yet men die miserably every day for the lack of what is found there."
I wish this were fully the case!
Laurele: I agree wholeheartedly, Stephen. Literature is far more true than some people realize.
One of my favorite quotes is from William Carlos Williams. "It is difficult to get the news from poems, yet men die miserably every day for the lack of what is found there."
Chris wrote [in response to Everyman:]: "You are treating fictitious characters as if they were literal representations of a certain time period. Unfortunately, this is not the way literature works. Nor can one "judge" these characters according to their contemporaries, because, it doesn't matter what time period we are talking about, literary characters cannot be judged as real people. "I think that in certain great literature, fictional characters are indeed representations of an actual time period, and are in many cases better representations than we can get from purely historical sources. Fictional characters are in most cases not, of course, actual real people, but they tend often to be based on real lives of actual people known by the author, and when authors are writing about their own period, or a period close to their own, in many cases their characters are a better representation of real people than we can get from history. Can purely historical sources, for example, paint as accurate a picture of the London workhouses as Dickens does?
Aristotle wrote in the Poetics that poetry [by which he meant literature in general:] is more truthful than history because poetry deals with universals while history is confined to particulars. That isn't, of course, true with all poetry, but IMO it is true of much great poetry.
George Eliot in Middlemarch, for example, did a great deal of research, as her notebooks point out -- probably as much or more research than some historians of her age did. Her portrait of Lydgate and his experiences is, I am told by scholars of the age, a very accurate representation of the actual situation in medicine at the time. So while I take your point that these were never flesh and blood living people, I would submit that in many cases they are more accurate representations of the lives of people than we can get from purely historical documents.
"If I want to determine the treatment of women in contemporary society I will not do so by examining the literature of the day. I will do so by research through mostly primary sources carried out by people trained in various disciplines related to that focus."
That may be fine for a scholar, but those sources are not available to, or will not be read by, the vast majority of people who read literature of an era.
But more important than that, literature can at times be more valuable than primary sources. A prime example is the discovery of the city of Troy. Scholars who relied on primary sources either questioned or in most cases outright denied the existence of Troy. It was considered pure legend. Troy was discovered through the study not of primary sources but of literature, by Heinrich Schliemann's careful study of the Iliad. Here is a specific case where those who relied on primary sources were wrong, and those who relied on literature turned out to be right.
I take your point, up to a point. But I also believe, with Aristotle, that certain fiction (not all, of course, but the greatest) can be more truthful in the end about the lives of ordinary people living their lives than scholarly discussions based purely on primary sources can be.
And I certainly think that we can judge the characters in certain fiction as representative of the beliefs, viewpoints, and lifestyles of an age with perhaps even more insight than we can those of the historical figures who get written up in the history books.
Kinga wrote: "(BTW, I guess most of you know this, but for those who don't - and sorry if it has already been mentioned, I am just now trying to catch up with all the comments: the characters Bishop Myriel and Jean Valjean were supposedly created based on a real story: there was a bishop in Digne named Bienvenu de Miollis, who actually housed an ex-convict, named Pierre Maurin. Maurin was convicted for stealing a piece of bread from a baker's store. After Les Mis was published the Miollis family protested against Hugo's description of the Bishop's character in the book, and mainly against Chapter X where the Bishop is sympathetic for a murderder of the King. I have more remarks on some of the events and persons of the book in my BookGlutton copy and am planning to go on with these.)"I had not known this, and really appreciate your posting it. Please give us more as it becomes relevant to the chapters under discussion!
Andrea wrote: "I1548050 I'm going to throw out a suggestion here, although perhaps the moderator will disagree. Perhaps we could all bear in mind that literature is open to many, many ways of reading. While some interpretations of a literary work have NO support from the text, i.e., "Les Mis is about rollerskating in L.A. in the sixties," many other matters are open to cordial disagreement."The moderator will most certainly NOT disagree. Quite the opposite.
Indeed, if there weren't a variety of legitimate opinions available, this would be a sterile and boring (and probably very limited) "discussion."
Indeed, any book worth reading in this discussion group will mean different things to different readers. Partly it's a matter of people focusing on different aspects of the book -- in a work this vast it is impossible for any one reader, IMO, to comprehend all that is going on in a first, or even a second or third, reading. That's what makes a Canonical book Canonical. Partly it's a matter of our own views of life, ethics, and the nature and demands of living in accordance with the best principles of arete.
Andrea wrote: "I1548050 I'm going to throw out a suggestion here, although perhaps the moderator will disagree. Perhaps we could all bear in mind that literature is open to many, many ways of reading. While some interpretations of a literary work have NO support from the text, i.e., "Les Mis is about rollerskating in L.A. in the sixties," many other matters are open to cordial disagreement."The moderator will most certainly NOT disagree. Quite the opposite.
Indeed, if there weren't a variety of legitimate opinions available, this would be a sterile and boring (and probably very limited) "discussion."
Indeed, any book worth reading in this discussion group will mean different things to different readers. Partly it's a matter of people focusing on different aspects of the book -- in a work this vast it is impossible for any one reader, IMO, to comprehend all that is going on in a first, or even a second or third, reading. That's what makes a Canonical book Canonical. Partly it's a matter of our own views of life, ethics, and the nature and demands of living in accordance with the best principles of arete.
What is key, as you note, is that the discussion be cordial, and that all points of view (well, most -- with you, I would except the view of LesM as a defense of rollerskating down an LA freeway) be treated with respect even as different opinions are offered.
So far, I have been extremely pleased with both the content and the tone of our discussions. They have been both spirited and respectful -- a hard combination to achieve and one which speaks very highly of the participants.
Selina wrote: "I didn't think Jean Valjean was aware of terrifying and robbing Petit-Gervais during the act. He seemed to be in a trance, and when he "woke up", he searched desperately for Petit-Gervais to return him the money. I find this scene quite touching."I agree with you in part. I wouldn't have said he was in a trance; rather, I read the passage more as the instincts of nineteen years of being treated cruelly and essentially as an animal temporarily overcoming the humanity which the Bishop had touched. I think he was acting instinctively, without thinking, and that as soon as he realized what it was that he had done he was overcome by remorse and a realization that he had failed what to live the new life he so desperately wanted to live.
I agree with you totally that it was a touching scene. I think that what made it so powerful is that unlike many of us who backslide on our resolutions -- and haven't we all done that? -- he didn't just say "oh well, that was a mistake, I'll do better next time," but that he was so frantic to undo his error and make things right this time, not just next time.
I just recalled the word I was searching for in my post # 85, regarding Valjean and his state of mind when he robbed the boy. I wanted to say he seemed to be in a fugue state.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugue_state
Alias Reader wrote: "I just recalled the word I was searching for in my post # 85, regarding Valjean and his state of mind when he robbed the boy. I wanted to say he seemed to be in a fugue state."Hmmm. Interesting thought.
"I take your point, up to a point. But I also believe, with Aristotle, that certain fiction (not all, of course, but the greatest) can be more truthful in the end about the lives of ordinary people living their lives than scholarly discussions based purely on primary sources can be. And I certainly think that we can judge the characters in certain fiction as representative of the beliefs, viewpoints, and lifestyles of an age with perhaps even more insight than we can those of the historical figures who get written up in the history books."
I agree with Everyman! Obviously we can't rely on fantasy fiction like Twilight et al to learn something about the age in which they were written, but we can learn something from realist fiction which is intended to reflect contemporary condition with reasonable accuracy. I believe that, like Middlemarch and some of Dickens' novels, Les Miserables belongs to this category. Historians write from a point of some distance from their subjects, while realist contemporary fiction, though it is stylized to some degree, provides us with a firsthand account of the society that it potrays. I'm not saying that it is more valuable than straightforward historical accounts, but that it can be a legitimate firsthand source to learn about a certain era.
I should have mentioned this earlier. I have, of course, heard about Les Mis for a long time, but have frankly never wanted to read it. I did get the Fahnestock translation when it came out and was well reviewed, but then it got put way down on my to read list, and I lost any desire to read it.I was not excited when the group voted for the book, but I figured that was the decision so I would go ahead and give it a try.
Well, I want to thank everybody who voted for it for making me get to the book. It is, at least so far and I expect will continue to be, an extraordinary book. Without y'all voting for the book I would almost certainly not have gotten around to reading it ever, which I now realize would have been an immense loss.
So thanks to all who had the wisdom to vote for LesM. Your opinion on the value of this book was clearly better than mine.
Enough blather. Back to my reading!
Zeke wrote: "Everyman: We should keep in mind that the jailing of Valjean was for the purpose of revenge and punishment. Not redemption. That is somewhat different than what we view jail today.I wish this w..."That's a great quote from Williams.
Everyman wrote: "Chris wrote [in response to Everyman:]: "You are treating fictitious characters as if they were literal representations of a certain time period. Unfortunately, this is not the way literature works..."I've just started Dorothy Sayers' "Mind of the Maker" on audio book. She makes some very interesting comments on Aristotle's poetics and moral law, among other things. Some here might be interested.
I find I am a little fuzzy on French history and that impacts my understanding of some chapters. I am very sympathetic toward Valjean but that's expected due to the conditions of the society at that time. I agree with you, Everyman - I'm glad to be motivated to, finally, read this book.
