Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Les Miserables
>
Weeks 11 & 12 - through the end of the book & the book as a whole
message 51:
by
Evalyn
(new)
Dec 05, 2009 11:24AM
Well said, Everyman. I don't know what the punishment would be today for breaking and entering but I believe the punishment for theft would depend on the monetary amount of what was taken. And a loaf of bread - wow,it surely wouldn't have amounted to even a quarter of a dollar then. Bread is much higher now but the criminal wouldn't be sent "up" for five years. Does anyone know what the punishment is for breaking and entering these days? Just to compare.
reply
|
flag
Evalyn wrote: "Well said, Everyman. I don't know what the punishment would be today for breaking and entering ..."I do know that breaking a window and sticking your arm in, even if no more of your body goes in, is, in my jurisdiction and I suspect most others, legally breaking and entering, or burglary. It's a felony in most states, and in many states the punishment is more severe if it takes place at night, as Valjean's crime did.
I did find one site, scroll down to "maximum sentences," which says that in Canada the maximum sentence for breaking and entering a residence is life imprisonment, though that maximum sentence is rarely invoked. But still, it's there. (Did the baker live behind his shop, as would have been common then? If so, it was a residential burglary.)
And according to the Wikipedia entry on burglary, "Under Florida State Statutes, "burglary" occurs when a person unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance to commit therein, unless he or she remains in the dwelling, structure, or conveyance to commit a forcible felony. In essence, burglary is trespass when, at the time of the trespass, the perpetrator had the intention of committing an offense in the location. Depending on the circumstances of the crime, burglary can be classified as third-, second-, or first-degree felonies, with maximum sentences of five years, fifteen years, and life, respectively.[13:]" So even today, in Florida, it would seem that the lowest maximum sentence for burglary is five years, and that as in Canada it can go up to life.
So maybe even by today's standards it seems that Valjean's sentence for burglarizing a residence (assuming it was such) at night was not excessive. As I pointed out earlier, it was his multiple escapes which turned it into such a lengthy time in prison. (I don't recall whether his initial sentence was to the galleys, or whether that happened as a result of the escapes.)
For the record, I dont' agree that "There is no objective standard of what is just. Justice is always subjective and socially determined." There's room for a lot of variation according to local custom, but I say some punishments are disproportionate and unjust according to a human sense of justice that is universal, unless it is suppressed by early indoctrination. For instance, a $50 fine would be an unjust punishment for murder. Hanging would be unjust for jaywalking. JVJ got an initial sentence of four years in the galleys for the initial burglary and theft, then another five years for each of three escape attempts,as I recall. He served out these sentences. In his confession to Marius he says his second sentence was for life for theft again, presumably for stealing the coin from the Savoyard boy. I think it's clear that Hugo regards the inital sentence as unjustly harsh, considering JVJ's clean record and motivation (feeding his family) and the fact that it's not just incarceration but forced labor in chains. I think we would agree with him, even if a five-year sentence is within the maximums now provided in law. We would hope that the DA and the judge would agree on a lesser sentence in a case like this. I don't think that's just different customs. I think it's our improved perception of justice, and realization that such disproportionate sentences make good men bad and bad men worse. I say this is what Hugo wants us to see.
I agree that Hugo wanted up to see JVJ's sentence as excessive but when he describes JVJ's arrest he says"Jean Valjean was brought befor the tribunals of the time for 'burglary at night, in an inhabited house.' He had a gun, which he used as well as any marksman in the world, and he was something of a poacher, which worked against him, there being a natural prejudice against poachers." p84 signet classics edition
This indicates to me that JVJ didn't exactly have a clean record and let's face it armed robbery is different just stealing a loaf of bread.
Hugo goes on to say that there is a difference between a poacher and a smuggler and once again reiterate that the five year punishment was too harsh.
"Jean Valjean was found guilty: The terms of the penal code were explicit. In our civilization there are fearful times when criminal law wrecks a man. How mournful the moment when society draws back and permits the irreperable loss of a sentient being."
I admire Hugo's sentiments and would certainly agree that a system that was set up to judge each individual seperately, paying proper attention to motive and what kind of person they were would have been ideal. I just can't see how it would have been or can be now practically possible.
Good points, Everyman & Eliza. I didn't think about it being a residence and I didn't remember the reference that said he was "something of a poacher." I have always felt sympathetic toward JVJ but I suppose if you take just the facts (Remember Dragnet? Just the facts, m'am. Just the facts.) the law sees a person who's poached before, was armed, and broke into a residence to steal - we wouldn't want anyone to break into our homes in that way. I think it's the loaf of bread and the 19 years time served as well as the continual fear of being caught and put in for life that seems so out of balance. And added to that, we (as readers) know that JVJ has reformed and is leading a better life, even helping others when he can. Maybe that's one of the main factors in our sympathy. The law, on the other hand, cannot be privy to what's in a man's character or whether or not he's reformed. The number of years served is so extreme but as Everyman reminded us - they were added on for the escapes he made.
Roger wrote: "For the record, I dont' agree that "There is no objective standard of what is just. Justice is always subjective and socially determined." There's room for a lot of variation according to local cu..."I'm with you here, Roger. There is a higher law by which human laws can be judged.
I don't disagree that there is a higher law, and I do have personal beliefs about what that is, but I do think that communities view certain crimes in different ways, and that may not be unjust. The laws were different from ours, but anyone who knows anything about the U.S. penal system or the prisons in many other countries for that matter, would have to question whether societies as a whole have higher view of justice today than in the 18th century. Children born in certain places today have little more chance than Gavroche and his brothers of becoming literate, being properly fed, housed and clothed. Their lives will also be a struggle to survive. I used to firmly believe that some kind of revolutionary change in the economic and govt. system could somehow lead to at least many more people being fed and housed. But I haven't seen any sign that anything other than the overall level of wealth of the country seems to help the poor. Poor people in rich countries are quite a bit better off than poor people in poor countries. So if you're going to be born into a poor, ignorant family, do it in a rich country. Hugo was right about our culpability, but I sometimes see chinks in his idealistic beliefs about a better society. Look what happened to the revolutionaries both during the French revolution and during the uprising in the book. The poor originally joined them and then gave up or turned into a viscious mob. Neither revolution led to real change in the state of the Les Miserable unless they inherited money or had the great talent and good fortune of JVJ.
Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "But we must also remember that the draconian laws of those times is grossly unfair. There is no justice in a court that sentence a man who stole a piece of bread to years in the ...""I'm speculating here, I know. But I think in evaluating the way Hugo presents Valjean, we have to look, at least initially, at the way he might have expected his readers to view the situation. Would they have considered that Valjean was treated with gross injustice by the legal system? Or would they have thought that he deserved what he got, at least for his first nineteen years in prison? "
I've been thinking about it, Everyman, and my conclusion is that Hugo wants us readers to judge how French society at that time treated people like Valjean. JVJ is presented as a creation, or perhaps a victim, of the harsh condition that society has imposed on him. We are clearly invited to consider him with sympathy. The Champmathieu trial is presented as a farce and I think it's Hugo way of commenting on the quality of French justice at that time.
I can only speculate about the public's opinion about JVJ during Hugo's time, but I infer that since Les Miserables was a huge success, the public must have considered him as a sympathetic figure instead of a criminal who fully deserved his sentence. Please correct me if I'm wrong. : ) I also note that Hugo makes a distinction between hardened criminals who truly deserve their sentence, such as the Thernadiers and his thuggish friends, and someone like JVJ. They are presented very negatively and we are clearly not meant to sympathize with them. Gavroche, who also engages in petty crimes like stealing food, soap etc. to live (the very same crime that sent JVJ to his first time in the galleys) is one of the most endearing and sympathetic characters in the story.
My understanding of Les Miserables is that it is (among other things) a polemic about social justice. Hugo doesn't want us to stay neutral; we are meant to judge and take sides, and then hopefully to act to change the system that absurdly criminalizes people like JVJ and Gavroche.
I think it's true that every society have their own subjective legal standards, but I also think that we are also allowed to judge them according to our best understanding. Shouldn't we judge Nazi Germany's laws? Or Apartheid?
This has been an interesting area of discussion, indeed. : )
Sandybanks wrote: "My understanding of Les Miserables is that it is (among other things) a polemic about social justice. Hugo doesn't want us to stay neutral; we are meant to judge and take sides, and then hopefully to act to change the system that absurdly criminalizes people like JVJ and Gavroche."I agree that it's a polemic, but I'm not so sure that the focus is the social injustice of the criminalizing system as it is the social injustice of a society where there is such wealth at the top but where there is such poverty at the bottom that JVJ and Gavroche have to steal to eat.
In this context, perhaps the failure of the last revolution at the barricades reflects that while things were terrible at the bottom, they weren't so terrible a stage or two above that that the people were ready to rise up en masse.
But I think he makes Gavroche so sympathetic, in particular, to try to shame his readers in to realizing that those beggars they see in the streets picking through garbate and in the parks stealing food from the swans (yeah, I know that wasn't G, but I'm making a point!) are real live thinking, loving people too.
JVJ I see slightly differently -- as demonstrating that Christian love and charity can turn around even those people who appear to be the dregs of society, people who the public would normally shun and be happy to see packed off to the galleys for life. Even these people can, with the right touch at the right time, become noble, worthy, very humane and caring people.
In short, I see him as personalizing and un-demonizing those who are shunned by the public at large as the most miserable of society.
Roger and Sandybanks have both objected to my contention that justice is subjective, not objective. If I understand them, they would both agree that within some parameters justice is subjective and based on social norms, but there are some absolute boundaries beyond which certain acts, even if undertaken in accordance with duly enacted laws of that society, are simply wrong, period. It's a very interesting discussion question, a bit beyond LesMis at the extremes perhaps but also I think quite relevant to what Hugo is saying.
Part of me would like to agree. But if that view is correct, it would have to mean that every human in every age and every society would universally agree that certain punishments for a given offense are manifestly and absolutely unjust no matter when or where or against whom the offenses are committed. And my very limited knowledge of anthropology makes me question whether that is true.
I am enjoying your discussion very much. It has given me much food for thought.I just finished, Les Miz. and had to log on to say how much I enjoyed the experience and to thank this board. For if you did not select this novel, I would have missed a great classic.
I ended up giving it 4/5 GoodRead stars. Sorry, but I had to take away a star for the long, and to me tedious, detours that Hugo took us on. For me, they halted the story in its tacks. I know it was probably customary to write this way in his time.
I found the last few hundred pages a heart wrenching roller coaster. My emotions were pulled this way and that way. I hate, Marius ! I stormed. Then I loved him. I was mad at JVJ, then came to appreciate his sacrifice.
As to Cosette, I have to agree with Sandybanks view of her , she is a bubbly head. What will Marius and her have to talk about once her beauty fades?
I still have a soft spot for Javert. I know he was unmovable in his love and faith in the Law. After all, it was the law that gave him his profession, which in turn gave him the respectability he was not born into. How can I not feel sorry for him when he finds his great love had feet of clay?
As the holiday season approaches, how apt it is to read this novel, and hope it inspires us not to forget Les Miserables and their plight. For as the old saying goes, but for the grace of God go I.
Alias Reader wrote: "I am enjoying your discussion very much. It has given me much food for thought.I just finished, Les Miz. and had to log on to say how much I enjoyed the experience and to thank this board. Fo..."
Alias, my assessment of Les Mis is similar to yours : 4 Goodreads stars. I deducted one star for the tedious political op-eds (I love the other digressions) and for the insipid main female character, i.e. Cosette. I know that we are supposed to cut Hugo some slack for it, him being a male 19th century writer and all, but I can't help comparing her with other female characters created by other male writers of that era. They might not be 21st century feminist ideals, but they are recognizably human, with some depth to them.
I also sympathize with Javert at the end. After all, he is also a product of his society, just like JVJ.
I suppose that that the moral lessons that I learned from Les Mis could be summed up as follows :
1. a selfless act of mercy, though it seems insignificant, can change someone else's life;
2. your conscience, which may be divinely inspired, is the highest justice;
3. you must keep an open mind and not be rigid or dogmatic in your approach to life;
4. Les Miserables are still among us and we need to care about their plight; and
5. you cannot read trashy books with impunity. : D
Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "My understanding of Les Miserables is that it is (among other things) a polemic about social justice. Hugo doesn't want us to stay neutral; we are meant to judge and take sides, ..."I agree. I suppose that Hugo's main audience would be the middle class people/ the bourgeois. His message about social justice is aimed at them. From his point of view, if they want nothing to do with the students at the barricades, as described in the novel, the revolution is bound to fail.
Everyman wrote: "Roger and Sandybanks have both objected to my contention that justice is subjective, not objective. If I understand them, they would both agree that within some parameters justice is subjective an...""Part of me would like to agree. But if that view is correct, it would have to mean that every human in every age and every society would universally agree that certain punishments for a given offense are manifestly and absolutely unjust no matter when or where or against whom the offenses are committed. And my very limited knowledge of anthropology makes me question whether that is true. "
I also don't have the capacity to judge whether that statement is absolutely true or not, but I still believe that there are certain acts that are universally considered to be wrong. Roger gave some examples of those that involves disproportionate punishments, but I also think of something like the Holocaust, in which innocent people are killed without any justification. I think most people no matter what their cultural background would agree that putting innocent people to death is unjust.
Imho, we CAN understand why people in certain age or place behaved like they did, but it doesn't preclude us from morally judging their behavior according to our best understanding, subjective though it is. If we read Nazi literature that denigrates non-Aryans as subhumans, we can understand that the writer is simply reflecting the prevailing thinking of his age and place, but it doesn't preclude us, the 21st century reader, for judging it morally wrong.
At least, that's how I understand it. : )
Sandybanks wrote:1. a selfless act of mercy, though it seems insignificant, can change someone else's life;
2. your conscience, which may be divinely inspired, is the highest justice;
3. you must keep an open mind and not be rigid or dogmatic in your approach to life;
4. Les Miserables are still among us and we need to care about their plight; and
5. you cannot read trashy books with impunity. : D
------------------------------------------------------
I love your conculsions ! :)
#3 reminds me of a quote I wrote down from Tom Robbins' book
Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates
"What I have learned from Switters is that no matter how valid, how vital one's belief system might be, one undermines that system and ultimately negates it when one gets too rigid and dogmatic in one's adherence to it."
Sandybanks wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "[Javert:] sees the world in black and white, so the notion that a convict can be a good man is earth-shattering to him. "But Valjean was more than just an or..."
Javert believes himself to be a man of integrity. He holds himself and others to the man-made code of laws that order civil society. Many events in LM demonstrate the injustice caused by the system instituted to bring justice and social order to a society. When JVJ frees Javert he becomes aware of the inadequacy of man's laws, but cannot release himself from the obligations to which he held others. He does not have the ability to ask for nor to receive redemption available to those who believe in God's law.
Alias Reader wrote: "Sandybanks wrote:1. a selfless act of mercy, though it seems insignificant, can change someone else's life;
2. your conscience, which may be divinely inspired, is the highest justice;
3. you mu..."
Thanks, Alias! What are yours? I suppose that we all draw different conclusions from a book as lengthy and complex as Les Mis. Wouldn't it be interesting to compare them?
Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "My understanding of Les Miserables is that it is (among other things) a polemic about social justice. Hugo doesn't want us to stay neutral; we are meant to judge and take sides, ..."I wonder if justice is served by any code of laws. Laws are made by the wealthy, educated, haves and protect their interests. Is there any society that adequately protects the rights and interests of the weak, uneducated, and poor? An attorney once told me that the law provides a means of arbitration, but for all the pretense of blind justice, rarely achieves that end. In LM and in our contemporary society it's the best we've got. We can only fight to change what we see as injustice.
"In LM and in our contemporary society it's the best we've got. We can only fight to change what we see as injustice. "I believe that this is Hugo's message, Susan. Les Mis is a call for action, and quite a subversive one at that. Hugo wrote it when he was a political exile.
A modern day Jean Valjean :
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/20...
Sent to jail for stealing cacao pods worth 15 cents (USD).
Sandybanks wrote: "A modern day Jean Valjean :
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/20...
Sent to jail for stealing cacao pods worth 15 cents (USD)."
Not so fast there. The sentence was suspended, and was for only 1.5 months. And I doubt that she stole the cacao to feed starving children.
Recently, I've been reading some of William VanderWolk's work on Hugo. He contends that when the rebellion of 1851 failed and Hugo went into exile and Louis-Napoleon came to power, the totalitarian state attempted to control the interpretation of events and collective memory. Writing LM in exile, Hugo took on the government elitist interpretation with his intelligentia elitist interpretation. Although the government interpretation prevailed initially by controlling the media, Hugo prevailed in the end when in the 1860's the opposition gained legislative power and social laws, including the right to strike and freedom of the press, were passed. The Third Republic came to power in 1870 and Hugo returned to France. Until I read this interpretation, I had not appreciated the power of the story of LM to maintain the collective memory of events in the face of a concerted effort to rewrite history. In some sense, is not history the legacy of those who capture the collective imagination?
Alias Reader wrote: "I am enjoying your discussion very much. It has given me much food for thought.I continue to be highly impressed with the quality of discussion here. My grateful thanks to all our wonderful contributors, very much including you, AR.
I just finished, Les Miz. and had to log on to say how much I enjoyed the experience and to thank this board. For if you did not select this novel, I would have missed a great classic.
I have to say exactly the same thing. It's been on my radar for years, but I wouldn't have picked it off the shelf if this group hadn't selected it. But I'm glad we did.
I found the last few hundred pages a heart wrenching roller coaster. My emotions were pulled this way and that way. I hate, Marius ! I stormed. Then I loved him. I was mad at JVJ, then came to appreciate his sacrifice.
The mark of a great writer.
I still have a soft spot for Javert. I know he was unmovable in his love and faith in the Law. After all, it was the law that gave him his profession, which in turn gave him the respectability he was not born into. How can I not feel sorry for him when he finds his great love had feet of clay?
I also have the soft spot for Javert. But I don't think it's so much that the law had feet of clay as that Javert wasn't able to deal with the flexibility that all good law enforcement requires. And he wasn't able to deal with the concept of a criminal of Valjean's history -- which we have to recall was extensive and included charges of theft from a child and child kidnapping as well as multiple escape attemts -- who could become almost saintly. If criminals are rally that complex, and that capable of change, that's something he was mentally unable to deal with. At least that's how I see it, until somebody here gives me a better way to look at it.
Sandybanks wrote: "I think most people no matter what their cultural background would agree that putting innocent people to death is unjust."
I don't want to get into a long political debate here, but I would just mention that there are plenty examples in human history of quite the opposite being true, of civilizations and societies quite comfortable putting many, many innocent people to death. The Bible is full of such, for just one example. In our own wild west days most of society had no compunction about slaughtering Native Americans who were on the land we wanted. The Crusades. The early Islamic wars putting whole cities to the sword. The Romans and Carthage. Dresden. The examples go on and on. Throughout history many societies have found justifications for the mass slaughter of innocents.
Susan wrote: "Recently, I've been reading some of William VanderWolk's work on Hugo. He contends that when the rebellion of 1851 failed and Hugo went into exile and Louis-Napoleon came to power, the totalitaria..."That's great stuff, Susan. Thanks.
Alias: I still have a soft spot for Javert. I know he was unmovable in his love and faith in the Law. After all, it was the law that gave him his profession, which in turn gave him the respectability he was not born into. How can I not feel sorry for him when he finds his great love had feet of clay?-----------------------
Everyman responded:
I also have the soft spot for Javert. But I don't think it's so much that the law had feet of clay as that Javert wasn't able to deal with the flexibility that all good law enforcement requires.
-------------------------
You are putting the onus on Javert. I don't know if the legal system in Hugo's time had the concept of mitigating circumstances, it would seem not, that isn't Javert's fault. It's not up to him to decide the fate of criminals. It's his job to bring them to Justice. If Justice, the law, in Hugo's time is unjust, should Javert turn a blind eye? Maybe. Should he quit his job? The job that raised him up out of the horror's of prison in which he was born? Perhaps.
It's interesting that one of the things that makes a character interesting is to see that character change and evolve. Usually, we think of change as a good thing. Progress. JVJ is a good example. But Javert's change, leads to his death. I think that is why I find the character of Javert much more interesting than JVJ.
Sandybanks:1. a selfless act of mercy, though it seems insignificant, can change someone else's life;
2. your conscience, which may be divinely inspired, is the highest justice;
3. you must keep an open mind and not be rigid or dogmatic in your approach to life;
4. Les Miserables are still among us and we need to care about their plight; and
5. you cannot read trashy books with impunity. : D
I suppose that we all draw different conclusions from a book as lengthy and complex as Les Mis. Wouldn't it be interesting to compare them?
======================================
I agree with your conclusions. A few more thoughts I would add are:
- People at the bottom of the societal social ladder may have something worthy to contribute. Don't judge people based on wealth, age, looks or their history. (Javert, JVJ, Gavroche, Mabeuf)
- Social responsibility. The poor, uneducated and down trodden are everyone's responsibility.
- A society that is out of balance, where most of the power and wealth reside at the top, invites revolution
- The Law vs Justice. Don't be rigid and inflexible. (Javert, The Law)
But even if you are, change is possible. It's never to late. (Colonel Pontmercy)
- Life isn't always fair. Sometimes the bad guy gets away. (Thenardier)
- 99% of the time the pretty bubble head girl still get the guy. :)
Alias Reader wrote: "Sandybanks:1. a selfless act of mercy, though it seems insignificant, can change someone else's life;
2. your conscience, which may be divinely inspired, is the highest justice;
3. you must k..."
"- 99% of the time the pretty bubble head girl still get the guy. :)."
You're right about that Alias. The pretty bubble head girl seems to be a favorite type among 19th century male writers. lol
Good point about Thenardier getting away. I thought that he was going to get his just reward at the end of the book. But no, he got away scot-free. Something that sometimes happens in real life.
Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "I think most people no matter what their cultural background would agree that putting innocent people to death is unjust."
I don't want to get into a long political debate here..."
If there is no universal moral law that everyone can agree on, how do we react to crimes like the Holocaust and its numerous precedents throughout history? Do we make a moral judgment on them --- or should we just say that the Nazis and other mass murderers acted within their subjective understanding of morality and therefore cannot be morally condemned for their actions?
How were we able to draft international laws such as the Geneva Convention without there being a shared sense of justice among different cultures and nations?
Roger wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "A modern day Jean Valjean :
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/20...
Sent to jail for stealing cacao pods worth 15 cents (USD)...."
Her sentence was commuted after there was a big uproar in the media. The full sentence was 6 months. She should not get away scot-free for stealing, but many thought that she should be punished by paying a fine or doing some community work instead of jail time. Unfortunately, such options are not available under the current laws.
It's ironic that she had to spend 5 dollars (which is considerably more than her daily income) a day for transport during the trial, while the total amount of the pods that she stole was no more than 15 cents.
Alias Reader wrote: "Alias: I still have a soft spot for Javert. I know he was unmovable in his love and faith in the Law. After all, it was the law that gave him his profession, which in turn gave him the respectabili..."Javert believed completely in social order defined by man's laws and dedicated his life to enforcing them without exception. He lacked the imagination to deal with issues of conscience, motive, mitigating circumstances, human complication, love. In some ways Maybe Javert represents the promise of Louis-Napoleon's Second Empire, social order and security. JVJ represents the call for freedom and liberty, imagination, man's transcendence under God's law.
Good point about Thenardier getting away. I thought that he was going to get his just reward at the end of the book. But no, he got away scot-free. Something that sometimes happens in real life.Just another example of the inadequacy of the "justice" system--then and still. Has anything changed?
Jumping back in with a few small, unrelateed contributions:
1. I also have a soft spot for Javert. I don't think Hugo intends reader to have to speculate about the reasons he can no longer go on. The omniscient narrator shares his mindset in a very powerful passage: "If the facts did their duty, they would stick to being evidence in law; the facts are God-given. Was anarchy now about to descend from on high?
And so--with the distortion caused by anguish and the optical illusion caused by extreme dismay, anything that might have checked and corrected his impression evaporated, and society, and the human race, and the whole world, looked to him simply hideous."
2. Hugo shows that he is capable of more than "telling us" though. In a masterstroke of "showing" character, he has Javert go to a police station. He gives us one of his sharp, small, universal truisms: "By the way they push open the guardhouse door, policemen recognize each other." And then he shares the entire memo Javert has written out: Some Observations for the Good of the Service. This gave me chills; what a masterstroke.
3. I agree with those who find Cosette a bubble head. However, I am also less impressed with Marius than others seem to be. To me they are an example of the way young lovers often fall for mirror images of themselves.
4. There has been great discussion of justice over recent weeks. Less talk about revolution. But I think Hugo is as concerned with revolution as he is with the law. I hope when we get to "themes" we can explore this a bit more. My own thoughts on it are still not clear.
5. As for the reading audience for this book. I found it interesting to learn that soldiers on both sides of the US Civil War eagerly awaited installments of the novel.
6. Last, I came across a quote from Hugo that reflects on some of the discussions here. I don't know where it comes from; perhaps it's even from Les Miz and I missed it. "The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved, loved
for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."
1. I also have a soft spot for Javert. I don't think Hugo intends reader to have to speculate about the reasons he can no longer go on. The omniscient narrator shares his mindset in a very powerful passage: "If the facts did their duty, they would stick to being evidence in law; the facts are God-given. Was anarchy now about to descend from on high?
And so--with the distortion caused by anguish and the optical illusion caused by extreme dismay, anything that might have checked and corrected his impression evaporated, and society, and the human race, and the whole world, looked to him simply hideous."
2. Hugo shows that he is capable of more than "telling us" though. In a masterstroke of "showing" character, he has Javert go to a police station. He gives us one of his sharp, small, universal truisms: "By the way they push open the guardhouse door, policemen recognize each other." And then he shares the entire memo Javert has written out: Some Observations for the Good of the Service. This gave me chills; what a masterstroke.
3. I agree with those who find Cosette a bubble head. However, I am also less impressed with Marius than others seem to be. To me they are an example of the way young lovers often fall for mirror images of themselves.
4. There has been great discussion of justice over recent weeks. Less talk about revolution. But I think Hugo is as concerned with revolution as he is with the law. I hope when we get to "themes" we can explore this a bit more. My own thoughts on it are still not clear.
5. As for the reading audience for this book. I found it interesting to learn that soldiers on both sides of the US Civil War eagerly awaited installments of the novel.
6. Last, I came across a quote from Hugo that reflects on some of the discussions here. I don't know where it comes from; perhaps it's even from Les Miz and I missed it. "The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved, loved
for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."
Alias Reader wrote: "- 99% of the time the pretty bubble head girl still get the guy. :) "LOL!!
Sandybanks wrote: "If there is no universal moral law that everyone can agree on, how do we react to crimes like the Holocaust and its numerous precedents throughout history?"They violate absolutely and utterly the contemporary principles of civilized Western thought. No question about that.
But there are two things about that.
One: there are still a few people, even in Western cultures, who adhere to the principles of Nazism and who believe that the Holocaust either didn't exist, or if it did exist was justified. Thus, the belief in its evil is not universal or absolute, sadly.
Two: contemporary Western civilized thought is not universal to the entire history of man. Not by a long shot.
And I would add one further thought. I suspect that there are social practices which we today consider highly moral which civilizations in 1,000 years will consider barbaric and evil. "How COULD they have thought that way? How could they not have known better" will, I fear, be a recurring theme of human development as long as there are humans.
My original point was that justice and law are entirely subjective, and that there is no objective standard of justice and law. Which is to say, there is no principle of law or justice which all humans throughout history have at all times and places agreed on. I still maintain that to be true.
Everyman wrote: "My original point was that justice and law are entirely subjective, and that there is no objective standard of justice and law. Which is to say, there is no principle of law or justice which all humans throughout history have at all times and places agreed on. I still maintain that to be true."I submit that those are two very different claims, not two ways of saying the same thing. There could be objective standards of justice, and still people or societies who didn't know of or follow them.
Furthermore, I say there are universal standards, at least at the level of societies. I don't believe there is any society that finds murder, robery, or rape within the tribe to be acceptable.
I laughed out loud at the following point gained from LesMiz:99% of the time the pretty, bubble headed girl still gets the guy.
There's some truth to that, occasionally even today, but in defense of Cossette, she had such a rotten beginning to life- was it the first seven years?- and then when JVJ takes her in and cares for her and raises her, he protects her to the extent that you have to wonder what chance she might have for profound thought? Not to mention, which, young girls were not encouraged or taught along the same lines as men. Marrying "up" was Cossette's big achievement, today she could study the law or medicine, etc. and wouldn't need a man. Okay, folks, don't take it too seriously, that last was meant to be funny.
Patrice wrote: "This can be extended to include most people's feelings of protectiveness for children. However, culture can trump biology. It's not that there isn't a universal and animalistic desire to protect the y oung. All animals have it."I have to disagree with you there. All animals do not have a protective instinct toward the young. Mother animals have been known to kill or reject their own offspring. There are quite a few species of animals that don't even raise their own young. Survival is one of the only 'universal' laws that I can think of and if the survival of the group is at stake animals can be pretty ruthless as to the young or weak.
Roger said: Furthermore, I say there are universal standards, at least at the level of societies. I don't believe there is any society that finds murder, robery, or rape within the tribe to be acceptable.
I have to agree with Everyman here. At no point in time has there ever been or will there ever be universal standards. Murder, robbery or rape are just terms. If we take murder to mean the taking of an individual's life agianst their will there are instances now where it is acceptable not neccesarily pleasant or good but acceptable. i.e. war and the death penalty. In both of these cases you will find people who not only condone murder but find it an effective means to an end. They just call it something different.
This is a very interestin discussion. I enjoy hearing other's perspectives.
Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "If there is no universal moral law that everyone can agree on, how do we react to crimes like the Holocaust and its numerous precedents throughout history?"They violate absolut..."
Whether some or all humans believe or disbelieve some thing or think a thing wrong or right does not make it so or not so. "Let God be true and every man a liar."
Patrice wrote: "I can't resist putting in my two cents! I think that there are universal laws, perhaps even hard wired into our brains. For instance, a mother's love for and feeling of protectiveness toward her ..."Well put, Patrice.
Okay, let me say I am truly astonished at this doctrine that there are no universal standards for justice. I can't believe the proponents of this doctrine have really thought it through. Let me propose the following two points for consideration:1. The fact that standards have not been followed does not show that standards have not existed.
2. If universal standards do not exist, then we cannot say that modern innovations (such as outlawing slavery and judicial torture, or presumption of innocence) are improvements in justice--they're merely a random walk through equally acceptable justice systems.
Roger wrote: "Okay, let me say I am truly astonished at this doctrine that there are no universal standards for jsutice. I can't believe the proponents of this doctrine have really thought it through. Let me p..."It astonishes me, too, Roger.
I just want to start by saying I'm not actually trying to be difficult here.To me, for something to be universal every human being on earth no matter what their religion, upbringing, culture, age, political affiliations, wealth, etc. should understand and to the core of them believe to be true. I don't see that it exists, every nation has it's own ideas about morality and justice and they very often conflict. Sure, we take steps foward but we also take steps back.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding those of you who believe in universal standards and if I am I'm sorry. I know what I believe the ultimate truth is. I'm also 100% sure that there are many many out there who firmly believe something very different.
Eliza wrote: "I just want to start by saying I'm not actually trying to be difficult here.To me, for something to be universal every human being on earth no matter what their religion, upbringing, culture, a..."
If there's no universal standard of justice, which direction is "forward"?
I think there are two points being made here. First, many of us, including me, believe there are right and wrong, justice and injustice that actually exist. I believe that my religious system spells out for me what those standards are. However, I do not think those standards can be "universal" by Eliza's definition. That is, not everyone in every time agrees with them. My husband and I have been in a bi-cultural marriage for 25 years and we've found plenty of things that we each thought were universal that weren't at all. I'm curious to hear what others think about Hugo's view of revolutions. It seems to me that in the stories he tells of them, he doesn't think violent revolutions have very high chances of positive success. Those with a little to lose will always end up backing the status quo.
Roger wrote: "If there's no universal standard of justice, which direction is "forward"? "That's an excellent question, and this has been an interesting discussion, but we're straying pretty far afield from LesMis. If people want to continue this discussion, let me know by PM (private message) and I'll set up a separate thread for it.
As far as Les Mis goes, perhaps the question isn't so much one of subjective vs. objective law, but is more one of when are the laws too harsh, and are they really made largely to protect the wealthy and powerful and control the Miserable ones?
Is that the issue others take, or am I looking at it askew and not straight on?
Andrea wrote: "I think there are two points being made here. First, many of us, including me, believe there are right and wrong, justice and injustice that actually exist. I believe that my religious system spel..."Very good, Andrea. There are absolute rights and wrongs, but they are not human constructs.
Andrea wrote: I'm curious to hear what others think about Hugo's view of revolutions. It seems to me that in the stories he tells of them, he doesn't think violent revolutions have very high chances of positive success. Those with a little to lose will always end up backing the status quo.I'm not sure whether Hugo thinks that, but that is certainly what he shows, isn't it? (I think history shows it too.)
Everyman wrote: Are they [the laws:] really made largely to protect the wealthy and powerful and control the Miserable ones?No, I think that laws are made out of a sense of fairness, i.e. no one is allowed to do X. Various conditions of society, including poverty, contribute to a cycle such as that described by Anatole France, which I paraphrase as "The law forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges and to steal bread". What seems fair on paper can be hellishly twisted in the carrying-out.
Peregrine wrote: "Everyman wrote: Are they [the laws:] really made largely to protect the wealthy and powerful and control the Miserable ones?No, I think that laws are made out of a sense of fairness, i.e. no one ..."
I think it depends on whether those laws are enacted by democratic or non-democratic governments. Perhaps the distinction is too crude, since even in functional democracies, wealthy corporations and organizations can influence the legislative process, but it seems quite clear to me that many of the laws that are imposed by non-democratic governments are designed solely to preserve their power by controlling the masses. 'Fairness' in lawmaking can only be achieved with a representational democracy, and even then it is still not guaranteed.
