Weeks 11 & 12 - through the end of the book & the book as a whole

[Evalyn]

I agree, Zeke. After I posted that comment I thought about the fact that novels may have changed but we are still reading novels like Les Miz from previous centuries which means the conventions of the times must be just that, conventions, but they don't necessarily affect whether or not a novel is meaningful to future readers.

[Selina]

I just finished reading Les Mis and this discussion forum. I have enjoyed the book. The plot is quite credible, the characters captivating with their varieties, the language and the writing astounding. Various historical accounts are a little tedious to read, but I certainly learnt something of the French history. I will not have read this book if not for this group, so thank you. I came across this collection of quotes from Les Mis in both French and English. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Les_Mis%... . Following a short introduction of Les Mis, the quotes are grouped according to which volume and book they appeared.

Thank you to all for your views, explanations, analysis, summaries, etc. You have helped me to understand the book so much more. Happy New Year to all.

[Laurel]

Selina wrote: "I just finished reading Les Mis and this discussion forum. I have enjoyed the book. The plot is quite credible, the characters captivating with their varieties, the language and the writing astound..."

I very much enjoyed the book, too, Selina. Thanks for the quotes!

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: "Evalyn: I take your points which are clearly expressed. I think they raise a related question though. What are readers seeking when they read a novel? While I can always make allowances for the con..."

That raises the question, which readers? The readers at the time the novel was written? Or the readers today? I think Evelyn would argue that these may be different.

Readers in Hugo's day may have been looking for reinforcement of their societal values, and/or for a moral benefit.

Many readers today, I think, tend to look for a strong and interesting plot, compelling characters, and as an added benefit an interesting background (location and description), plus content which makes one think about some aspect of what it means to be human.

BTW, the term "readers" when used in a historical context may be misleading. I've been reading Chaucer recently, and am reminded that when he wrote printing was not yet invented, so his works had to be copied by hand to get them to other people, and were really written primarily to be read aloud to a group, perhaps in a small theater setting, perhaps at Court, perhaps in a drawing room, etc. And Homer's works, of course, were created in a time when there was no written language at all, but were meant to be recited by traveling bards.

You did use the term novel, and strictly speaking none of those are novels in the contemporary sense of the term, but they are certainly stories, which is really the essence of fiction.

Anyhow, it's an interesting question, and I certainly haven't done it justice in these dashed-off comments.

[[deleted user]]

@Everyman...This ends up connecting to the conversation about Bloom's list in a way. I agree that there is a difference between readers of a contemporary novel and of one from the past. A contemporary novel, no matter how lofty its author's aspirations, cannot be a "classic." Only time can confer such status. And it can only be achieved by speaking to readers whose own lives are being lived in a different milieu from that of the author. Thus, to my mind, a novel (or any work of art) that cannot transcend its time and speak with force (as opposed to historical interest) to future generations cannot be a classic of the highest order.

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: "@Everyman...This ends up connecting to the conversation about Bloom's list in a way. I agree that there is a difference between readers of a contemporary novel and of one from the past. A contempor..."

I agree totally about the absurdity of the idea of an "instant classic," or "this book is destined to become a classic." As you say, only time can create a classic.

[[deleted user]]

Yes, Everyman, "Only time can create a classic" and, to return to my exchange with Evalyn, it also needs (in Quaker lingo) to speak to the condition of readers of future generations.

[Laurel]

Zeke wrote: "Yes, Everyman, "Only time can create a classic" and, to return to my exchange with Evalyn, it also needs (in Quaker lingo) to speak to the condition of readers of future generations."

Are you talking about the R word (relevance)?

[[deleted user]]

There seem to me to be two kinds of relevance. One is superficial familiarity. The other reaches deeper into the collective (or individual) psychology and cultural history. The first prompts identification and may be expressed viewed as allegory. The second, which is of greater interest to me speaks in metaphor and is absorbed almost unconsciously. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, the first kind makes statements; the second prompts introspective questioning.

One of my favorite statements about Shakespeare is that he is great because he is not showing us liberal or conservative, right or wrong but, rather liberal and conservative, right and wrong.

[Laurel]

Zeke wrote: "There seem to me to be two kinds of relevance. One is superficial familiarity. The other reaches deeper into the collective (or individual) psychology and cultural history. The first prompts identi..."

The word I thought of after my last post was 'universality.'

[[deleted user]]

Ah yes. That fits my Shakespeare quote too.

[Evalyn]

Universality or relevance to the human condition - that's what makes it good for readers of future generations. And I'm always good with anything favorable said about Shakespeare. :)

[Alias Reader]

PBS is showing the 25th Anniversary concert of Les Miz.
Check listings for times.