Hugo did not write an "abridged" version, why read an "abridged" version.
Printable View
Hugo did not write an "abridged" version, why read an "abridged" version.
Because Hugo's version had a lot of side plots and historical facts that didn't add much to the main plot.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnevans1
That said, I would never dream of reading an abridged version of Les Misérables since the side plots and historical harangues do add signifigance to the main story and they are quite interesting if you are interested in french history.
Each to his own though, some people don't like to drudge through the unabridged one waiting for the main plot to start up again. If that's the case, get yourself an abridged version. Don't let someone else's opinion decide that for you. Reading is for your personal enjoyment. :)
I am nearing the end of the abridged version by James Robinson, and I have to say, I will never read an abridged version again. In my defense, I bought it at a used bookstore without regarding the subtext saying it was abridged, and it was not my intent as I normally go out of my way to get the full text as the author intended.
I am at the part where Marius and his comrades are defending the barricade as the French army is marching the streets, and I have no idea why. Granted, I do know why, as I know the history somewhat, but it just plunged right in to that. One chapter, Marius is desperately trying to find Cosette at the Rue de vaiile, and literally the next he is on the street screaming revolution and brandishing dual pistols. There was barely any exposition leading to the revolution, and it just plunged right into that. It is definitely lacking in that sense, but it is very readable still, as it almost always keeps the plot moving. It still works, but I personally enjoy politics, and back story, and I would like to hear more about that period in time from Hugo.
I am not sure if there was a lot of exposition in that part, because after all Paris had been in this atmosphere pretty much since 1789... They are now in 1830, but still... Maybe it had been a little quieter for 10-15 years as the king took over again in 1815 or so (disregardng the 100 days that Napoleon came back and the occasional riots because of lack of food), but still, there was always an atmosphere of revolution.
You don't so much feel it in that book, though. It suddenly erupts together with Marius and Cosette's love (:)). But, after all, history does not consider the misérables and they seem to be caught up in everything.
What was before it though was something of an old man who was slowly getting through his money and his food or something. Mr Maboeuf. It's peculiar but I suppose an illustration of what really happened to the misérables and how little they were concerned with history in itself.
You do know why Marius is at the barricade, I hope? Because he has heard that Cosette is having to go with her 'father' to England and that he did not receive an answer to his letter that Eponine out of selfishness did not deliver So he thinks Cosette hasn't replied... Poor Marius. :(
Ah yes, I did get that, I just felt it a bit rushed. I am used to Dostoyevsky, who likes to take his time before his goes for the kill anyway.
I actually just finished the book. I read the last 150 pages or so in one sitting, as I was really taken by it. I had the day off, and I couldn't focus on other things with Les Miserables in my head. Needless to say, it is incredible, and one of my new faves.
If you like long, you should certainly read it in full then... Some parts are really... long. Mainly the history part.
It seems you were lucky with your abridged version, because others tend to forget important clues.
I read it in French, so no abridgments available there.
It is truly a magnificent, philosophical work.
Hugo, for me, is one of those authors who infuriates, despite their power. The only portion of Les Miserables I left untouched was the chapter on nuns. The Signet editors put it in the appendix and there I left it, but this is just one novel I do not think I could ever read in full again. Proust makes modernism easy; Hugo, almost a century earlier, makes French Romanticism exact quite a toll--even in Hunchback, which is tighter and better paced, he takes a few chapters to lecture the reader. I have downloaded The Man Who Laughs, I suppose in perversity, but I know it will be difficult for me to absorb, much like Rousseau.
Les Miserables has a certain panoramic sweep to it, but I don't know that it was worth the trouble it took.
My French version not only took geat pains to highlight the literary themes in the work (Jean Valjean-Christ, Jean Valjean-anonymous, death-rebirth (new identity), Light-Dark,...) but also made a point of exmplaining the philosophical nature (Hugo is also known for his philosophical points).
That made it more bearable and tones down the importance of the story of Jean Valjean, in favour of the story of Les Misérales (literally). Although, some points could have become rather boring, some explanation did actually do the trick of not getting bored. I actually didn't really think that Petit-Picpus was that boring. I found it quite interesting to see the things that happened in those contemplative orders. Hougmont/Waterloo at a certain time got to me. Probably because it was too far-fetched for a moldern person (Napoleon lost by divine intervention??? :confused:).
That said, I'll never read it again because I actually have read it twice already now and I rarely re-read. Once abridged in Dutch (I found out later) as a teenager and once i full, in the original now, some ten years later... I still have to start on The Hunchback some time. And maybe The Last Day of a Convicted Man...