Yorgos
05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
I first read Les Miserables at the age of 11, in Greek (I was born and raised in Greece). I was a virtual hermit during the time it took to finish the novel, and I absolutely loved it. My mother had told me the whole story when I was a much younger child, and I spent hours listening in rapt attention--it was better than a fairy tale. The Classic Comics version which I read at 8 or so was riveting too. I have seen several film versions, none of which did justice to the novel (it's very hard to do in 2-3 hours). I am rereading the novel in English now (mid-40s), and it's a very different experience. The interminable digressions about Waterloo, convents, sewers, etc. are interesting, but are harder to stomach. The shamelessly didactic or oratorical style, the pathos, the coincidences (Valjean landing at Fauchelevant's feet at that convent, of all places in the immensity of Paris; Marius and Thenardier's bogus saving of his father, etc.etc.), and other paraphernalia of the Romantic novel make this book a throwback: after all, it was written in the 1860s, at a time when the great realist novelists such as Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky were writing less sentimental or artificial stuff. Still, it's impossible not to be carried along in the epic sweep of the book, or to remain untouched by the deep idealism and humanity of the author. Hugo has a lot in common with Dickens (epic sweep, pathos, humanity, strong opinions on social issues, a certain artificiality of plot); I think Dickens is better at drawing compelling (if superficial) vignettes of really interesting human beings, and is wittier; Hugo is a much better philosopher and provides more convincing motivation for his characters.<br>I'd better stop now--I don't want to bore young readers like old Victor did!