-
You see, that’s where I differ in opinion.
Hugo identifies three things within man: ‘le je’ (‘the I’), ‘le moi’ finit (the finite self) and ‘le moi’ infinit (the infinite self). The infinite self is the self that is God, or a part of God like Rousseau identifies it. The I is the material manifestation of oneself with one’s looks, but also with one’s roots, past etc. The finite self is the identity that one has with its views, ideas and ideals. The self and the I are not connectable as they are of a different substance. The infinite self can only be accessed through total anonymity and death of the finite self (from there Hugo’s fascination with misery and poverty that attains one a kind of angelic state, more than riches). Guy Rosa put it like this: “La présence de l’autre-en-soi est nécessairement mortelle pour le « moi » incapable de saturer le « je »; inversement, l’appropriation du « je » par le « moi » est, au choix, suicidaire – Madeleine tuerait Jean Valjean s’il envoyait Champmathieu au bagne – ou meurtrière : Javert, Bamatabois, Tholomiès sont tous plus ou moins assassins pour avoir refusé toute altérité intérieure.” (‘The presence of “the other in oneself” is necessarily deadly for the finite self that is incapable of saturising the I; inversely, the appropriation of the I by the finite self is either suicidal – Madeleine who will kill Jean Valjean if he sent Champmathieu to prison – or murderous: Javert, Bamatabois, Tholomiès are all mor or less assassins for having refused all interior otherness.’) From there the large struggle that Jean Valjean goes through when he learns the story of How Jean becomes Champ. Jean Valjean has taken on another identity: he has become a good man, honourable, rich (though not living according to it), he has become mayor (despite his wishes). His finite self might be changed (he no longer thinks it right to steel, he no longer is contemplating the death of someone, he no longer feels angry at the world, he is not excluded from it, he can even read and has learned the law), but his I is still Jean Valjean with his past, yellow passport, and his crime against Petit Gervais. His views have changed: the Jean Valjean with his first finite self would have run a mile and would have let Champmathieu be condemned to hard labour for life. This Mr Madeleine has a problem: either he gives himself up (according to his principles) and condemns himself to lifelong hard labour, or he does not, but where is his I then? Forever condemned to be gone. From there the profound conflict. Either way, he is condemned to eternal imprisonment. That is why he eventually admits to his I to Marius, but because of that he has killed his finite self (Mr Fauchelevant) that he cannot unite with his I. There is only his infinite self left, the angel almost, or the a-personal. In order to attain that, he is forced to kill his finite self, and ultimately his I.
About Fantine’s situation:
This is not so simple as ‘he did not know, so he did not care’. Through the infinite self, everything and all is connected as all and everyone is connected in Les Misérables. So Mr Madeleine (the other identity of Jean Valjean at this point) might not have known that Fantine was sacked, but had he not cared, he would have no infinite self, nothing to connect him morally and humanly to Fantine. In the introduction to his Contemplations, Hugo wrote: “Insensé qui crois que je ne suis pas toi.” (‘He who thinks that I am not you is senseless.’) Indirectly, Mr Madeleine (the finite self of the I Jean Valjean) is not only responsible for his own infinite self, but also for Champmathieu’s. If he condemns him, he condemns himself. The same with Javert: if he does not kill himself, he will kill the rest of humankind.
Other than this, Hugo proves Mr Madeleine did actually care, even at the point where he did not know by putting these words into his mouth: “J’ignorait même que vous eussiez quitté mes ateliers. Pourquoi ne vous êtes-vous pas addressee à moi?” (‘I did not know that you had left my studios. Why did you not come to me?’). If he did not care and only cares now, then why does he find it natural that he would have re-instated her, or helped her, if she had come to him. That speech implies a judgment, not influenced by pity or the present situation, a judgment that is natural (even expressed in the grammatical construction of the sentence). Even more to the point is that women, as they give birth to angels (children), are angels themselves and are closer to God than men. If Mr Madeleine’s finite self is just (which it is) then it is absolutely impossible that he would not have cared about Fantine being sacked. Not to mention what would happen to his infinite self by rejecting Fantine.
About Arras and robbery of Petit Gervais:
The robbery of Petit Gervais and Mr Madeleine’s own denunciation in Arras are both connected with one thing: his ascension to his infinite self. All ascension involves a downfall. The process is not yet complete, but it is going on and it is not a personal struggle but rather an inevitable process put in motion by the bishop. It frightens Jean Valjean, but it is inevitable.
We need to see how he leaves the bishop after the latter’s famous words: in a frenzy. Why? Because the past is too painful, he has crossed the line and has to become an angel or become a monster. Guy Rosa wrote that Jean Valjean committed a crime ‘of which he was no longer capable’. Indeed, it was Jean Valjean’s instinct as a criminal (his I) to steel that piece of silver from the boy, but his finite self had already crossed the line of destiny after the bishop’s words. He is running from the idea, but he cannot escape it. So, he steels the piece of silver, but then realizes that he is no longer capable of not feeling anything; his hard surface is gone. His finite self has changed, it has returned to the good. However, this, for the I Jean Valjean, is a traumatic experience, because it reminds him that he has a conscience and that there is an eternal duality within him (the other In oneself). Briefly, he will change into an angel as he sobs as a child (children being little angels in Hugo’s mind), but the process will not be completed yet.
He goes through life, and becomes, despite himself, Mr Madeleine, mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer. Some day Javert turns up with the message that Jean Valjean has been found. The struggle that follows this is not a mere struggle of ‘shall I tell or not’, but it is a struggle between the I that has disappeared and the infinite self that is not there yet. Jean Valjean, in the identity of Mr Madeleine, has become a good man (as he also displays when talking to Fantine), but has not quite become the angel he has to become, he has not yet reached his infinite self. He still does struggle wit the idea of giving himself up.
The fact that there are many obstacles on the way to Arras is not a matter of showing temptation, it is a matter of for him (Jean Valjean), doing something ‘that he is not yet capable of’ (Guy Rosa). Like with Petit Gervais he was not capable anymore of steeling (it was not according to his finite self), now, he is not capable of doing something so unbelievable as handing oneself in to people who do not even want to believe one, proving one’s own guilt and condemning oneself to lifelong hard labour. It is something for the infinite self, the divine, to do this, because it is ultimately just and saves mankind of lying, not for the finite self, the identity. Hugo builds up the tension, but at the same time shows us as readers that it is to be; that Jean Valjean has in fact no choice.
His dream shows this:
He walks on a road, in the bare countryside (not a tree in sight, all brown) and talks to his long lost brother. They pass several people and one grey, bald man on a brown horse who carries with him a wand, heavy as iron. At some point Jean loses his brother and enters into what he thinks is a village. The streets are deserted, no-one there. Around the corner, there is a man against the wall and he asks him: ‘Where am I?’ The man answers not. All doors of the houses are open and he enters one. The first room is empty, the second is not: there is a man standing against the wall and he asks him: ‘Where am I? Whose house is this?’ The man answers not. He continues into the garden, where even the sky is brown and discovers a man behind the tree. He asks him more or less the same question. The man answers not. He discovers that the village is in fact a town and goes out of it. When he looks round, he sees a large group of men, the very men he met in the town, walking behind him. They do not hurry, but nonetheless they are walking faster than he is. They eventually catch him up and encircle him. Then one of them decides to talk and says ‘Where are you going? Did you not know that you have been dead for a very long time?’ Jean Valjean wants to open his mouth to answer but he wakes up.
This dream, which is revisiting the episode of Petit Gervais and is going to receive a déjà-vu in the court at Arras as Jean Valjean flees through the corridor, is very significant.
It is significant that the whole place is brown, there are no trees and nothing green whatsoever. The colour brown signifies at the same time one’s roots, but also material comfort and such things. Here as well, there is a duality present, as in Mr Madeleine who has escaped his I, but is living in material comfort. There is no life, no ambition (no trees), in this world, and all hope has gone (it is dusk), only one naked grey man sits on a brown horse. The strong energy expressed in the brown horse of ambiguity and duality also frightens him to be exposed (the grey man).
Guy Rosa and Anne Ubersfeld have argued about the brother of his childhood years who featured in the dream is not actually a brother, but rather another self, or the other in oneself. This might not be so far from the truth, because brothers can represent either a piece of oneself one must address or can even address spiritual issues (as a religious connotation). If he then first talks to him and then loses him abruptly, we could picture that, indeed, as an indication of the loss of his I/finite self (either way). The two have lost contact. Not that they can ever unite, but they can communicate. In this case, indeed, Mr Madeleine, has lost his I Jean Valjean in the mists of time and needs to re-acknowledge him.
When he enters into the village, we can see restrictions. As the doors are all open and the houses all accessible, we can easily see that Mr Madeleine’s house (a symbol for one’s person) is empty. His roots in it (the brown men) are silent. He tries to communicate, but he cannot get anything out of them. As he goes out of the house, he discovers that the village is in fact a city. It is still deserted which indicates that Mr Madeleine still feels rejected by society (Guy Rosa also addressed the voyeuristic nature of Les Misérables), or at least fears just that.
And then, the end: all the brown men pursue him; they do not hurry, but they catch him up nonetheless; it is inevitable. Then one of them asks where he is going ‘because he is already dead’. Indeed, he is already dead, at least his I is: buried under Mr Madeleine.
Now, what does that tell us about the déjà-vu in the Arras-court? As Mr Madeleine is running away through the corridor (Guy Rosa noted the similarity between the village where he entered in the dream and the corridor), he is in fact revisiting the village. As he stops on the stairs, we can picture the men stopping him and asking him where he is going. He returns and that is the answer that he wanted to give: he needs to re-acknowledge his I Jean Valjean that has been dead for a while now, or it will be forever lost, he will be forever out of the village and will never be able to get back to his house.
So, no, I am not of the opinion that Jean Valjean under any finite self that he took on, could have decided otherwise. Had he done that, it would have been his downfall. That, either kills himself and it kills others. So, on the one hand, he could stay jealous of Marius and let him die, but if he does that, he kills himself too and commits suicide (like Javert). Javert can only release Jean Valjean if he kills his finite self and ultimately his I , because they cannot be united with the infinite self that is also Jean Valjean’s. Essentially the same happens to Javert as what happens to Jean Valjean after Cosestte and Marius’s wedding: the latter has renounced his finite self and inevitably will lose his I, because his finite self is jealous of Marius and does not want to renounce Cosette, but his infinite self tells him to do so, because that infinite self as much as it is Marius’s and Fantine’s is also Cosette’s. It is also a downfall in order to ascend, and it is his last. Maybe he here also does something ‘he is not yet capable of’. He will sacrifice Cosette and even contrives his arm to be injured so that the marriage is legal (it revisits the trouble he takes in Arras), at his own expense in the end.
The distinction between the I and the self (both selves) is also the reason why jean Valjean only tells Marius that he is an old convict and not that he saved his life. That he saved his life is not his I, it just is, it is a little bit of luck that he survived. The impulse came from his finite self, but is ultimately not part of his I Jean Valjean (the man from Faverolles who stole the bread and who served on the galleys). It is another who needs to come and tell Marius about it who then sees the light and will take it home (the candelabras from the bishop).
If Hugo does not make clear whether Jean Valjean was going to save Marius from the start or not, then it does not matter. The only thing that that passage makes clear is that, despite himself (“[Jean Valjean] regarda [Marius] avec une inexprimable haine”; ‘[Jean Valjean] looked at [Marius] with inexpressible hatred’; part V, book III, chapter IV ), against his interests and feelings, still saves Marius. It is a downfall that is necessary to make progress possible. And this is an issue that runs through the whole book. Even in the more historical parts as Warterloo and the barricades.
-
In the light of your more than thorough explanation of Hugo's view on the self and how it might be constructed I can follow your earlier line of argumentation. I won't enter into psychology, though, since I neither have access to nor time to study the secondary sources you quote. But all this is very interesting and make me want to dig deeper into Hugo's work - sometimes.
:-)
-
I got my Fench book with footnotes and endnotes of Guy Rosa himself, who followed Anne Ubersfeld in her analysis. Sadly, he is only revered in France I think. But, by all means, do get into Hugo further, his ideas were really very renewing, modern adn quite unique at the time!
-
I thought so when reading Les Miserables. To further describe my situation: my daughter read it in one week, I needed four and most of it was done in leaps and scraps at the lunch table between getting up to fetch things, wipe up liquids, open doors and answering the telephone, LOL.
But now and then I managed to just sit down and read, something I haven't been able to do for years, and I was amazed at how accurately Hugo describes especially attitudes which don't seem to have changed much over the last 150 years. There's one paragraph about the economical problems likely to arise in a communist society which describe the downfall of the GDR to a T. I am rereading it now with a marker in hand ;-).
-
1 week! I also needed four or even six! But was it an abridged version or not? My version (in French) was about 1700 pages long in paperback.
Overall it was deep and accurate as you say, but I had a problem with the 150 page Waterloo bit. I don't know, the 20ieth century peson in me says that divine influence in history is total crap, but Hugo definitely saw it. For him, as for people, every downfall in history, like the one of Napoleon personally and his regime in itself, promises an ascend/amelioration, as did the barricades, but on the whole I can't get my head around it... At any rate the thing about Hougomont almost got the better of me. I was so happy when I had finished that! Then I found the explanation about the convents of Petit-Picpus more interesting...
-
My daughter is just sitting beside me and says to tell you she only needed a week because after page 93 in the third volume (the german edition) she couldn't bear to read on for a while. It was not an abridged version, it was a dusty three volumes full version from the library, but my daughter also read The Lord of the Rings when she was eight, she devours books. :-)
I must confess I totally fell for the Waterloo chapter. It's one of my favourites. I like history and I especially like to go into details, single battles, small settlements, detailed rituals. Hugo's description made the thing alive for me and the next time I'll see something about Waterloo I'll certainly look at it with a different attitude.
As for the religious view upon history I can easily identify with that although I wouldn't support it myself. I spend half my youth discussing things like that from different points of view. Now, after almost half a century on this planet, I would say the idea of a greater plan in everything is so tempting that it is very reluctantly discarded by many people, be it for want of somebody else in charge or just out of need to understand the causes and consequences. But I try to refrain from that need myself. I can interprete much that happens in history or in my personal life according to a spiritual plan, no problem, I'm a fully fledged theologian, but somehow I don't like to do that. Life has proven me (and others) wrong so often that I'd rather not venture any guesses any more. But I'm a child of the 20th century willing or not, we have been stripped of almost every religious explanation of war and luck in such by history. It is different in other cultures and from there the idea sometimes creeps back upon us again.
But in Les Miserables I noticed the idea of a great divine master-plan less concerning the battles but the personal life of Jean Valjean. The "higher plan" mentioned in the musical is in the book, too. Hugo's attitude at the end of his life impresses me, that he stated his belief in God in his testament and at the same time didn't want to have any religious rite performed at his funeral (a wish that was violated if I remember right).
-
Tell your daughter wow! It's good that she devours books. There should be more kids like that!
I am a slow reader. I read once an abridged version when I was 17 and once the full version, some time ago.
Maybe I'll have to read the chapter on Waterloo again then. Just to make sure I didn't like it. Maybe I just lost track at some point and couldn't get into it anymore...
I see what you mean about the masterplan. Indeed, Hugo saw one in everything and everyone. I guess the French writer of the musical did good work then, although I have some criticism, but I suppose nothing is perfect. As the musical only lasts, what, 3 hours max, one can't put all properly in it.
That latest film version, though was absolutely brilliant. I have it in French, but it was also made in English, although I have my doubts about that. The actors, like Depardieu, do speak English, but with an accent and apart from Malkovich who played a brilliant Javert (both in French which he speaks 'not fluent enough' according to his modest self, but which is great, certainly in his pronunciation which you could not really pin down as with an American accent), I don't think there was any native speaker English about in the cast... In emotional scenes, like the one they showed of the end, it was a little bit ridiculous. You're not really concentrated on what is happening, but on what awful accent the actor has. In the worst case it is just ridiculous, and that is not what you need while watching Jean die... Granted, Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz have accents for example, but do times 2 or 3 for Depardieu, Marius and Cosette... Not a good idea without a good English tutor. However, the screenplay was the best and most pramatic ever made of the novel.
Sadly, indeed, Hugo was burried with all the trimmings. A little bit sad... I sometimes wonder why people do that to others if they explicitly specify not to want to be burried with religious rites. I just think it is selfishness or a desire to show off, or something... But we won't get into that. That's not for this forum. I suppose it was the age?
-
Kemathenga: Sorry for being so long in reply. Life has been rather hectic lately, and it takes forever for me to do a good reply. Still have to reply to Kiki1982 as well.
I love your description of the outfits. I must find a French flag-colored scarf. Currently, I am on a mission from God to find an Enjolras vest. =]
You have a good point. I actually had gotten irritated upon glancing at your reply about Jean and Cosette b/c certain classmates were always giggling and making comments about Jean’s love so it has made me rather sensitive. I even wrote an argument for you. However, when I actually read your reply and checked the book, I realized that you were totally right. Any attempts to correct my argument just ended up restating your reply. So that failed. I will say this though: there is a passage, which reads, “…poor old Jean Valjean did not, certainly, love Cosette other than as a father…” But I know what you were talking about.
I think Marius and Cosette the most hinting at sexuality. What with all the blushing and meaningful glances and whatnot.
=] That story made me smile. That song is beautiful, no matter how inaccurate.
How interesting. I must remember that if I am ever leading a revolution, I’ll have to at least wear a red vest.
I think it is likely if not absolute that man can never fully realize Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. This is the dark side of human nature. It’s the reason Les Mis is a classic: “so long as ignorance and misery remain on this earth, there should be a need for books such as this.” However, hope is a flame that never dies. There is a part of human nature, however, that wants “to live by each other's happiness” (Charlie Chaplin’s speech at the end of “The Great Dictator”). This reflects that every human being is capable of great good and great evil (just look at Jean Valjean). It is this hope for a better future that has given us any progress we have ever had towards Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Without this flame, all would be lost. I also believe that b/c of this, we are closer to achieving these goals than ever. In this world, it seems that oppression can never last: France has a democracy, and, sooner or later, Iran’s government will have to cave. As long as people are fighting for freedom. As long as people have hope. Then “Nothing is hopeless. Not while there's life.” – Alan Moore
Indeed, Hugo does seem to be trying to convey that point. However, he obviously supports the revolutionaries and the love of an ideal is important for society to progress, such as the case of the American Civil Rights movement. However, it can also be dangerous and blinding, such as in Nazi Germany. Nonetheless, both the book and the musical stress the importance of loving others. (“To love another person is to see the face of God.”)
I also believe that non-perfection deserves to be loved. Otherwise, how can people, essentially non-perfect beings, ever expect to be fully accepted by themselves or by others? It is lovely to find beauty in the everyday (however difficult it may seem).
“That Hugo wanted to say the real changes in society will not come from insurrection but from love and forgiving among people.”
I think if Hugo is trying to get this across, than he is right in some ways: For instance, I once learned about “levels” of human interaction/state of mind. The levels, to over-simplify, go 1-“life sucks”, 2-“my life sucks”, 3-“I’m great”, 4-“we’re great,” 5-“life is great”. Level 1 is the level of mind/interaction of people who commit crimes and such (kind of like the Thenardiers). Level 3 is a selfish but positive frame of mind that most people reach and stay in. Level 4 is a positive teamwork-oriented frame of mind. And level 5 is the ultimate level of human interaction: the work of Gandhi or the effective peace and reconciliation efforts in South Africa. It is when people work together to overcome differences and to forgive and love.
Despite this, there is still part of me that points to history and cynicism and tells me this concept is too idealistic. Thus, it is clear that love and forgiveness are powerful and effective, but I doubt nonetheless.
-
About Jean and Cosette:
There is indeed a little concern about that, but indeed, their love is not sexual. Guy Rosa (in my notes) put it down to an odd feeling Hugo had when he had to give away his daughter Leopoldine to a man in marriage. Before this, he had been totally unaware of that feeling, but as the moment came (his daughter was slipping away from him, so to say), he felt really jealous of the man in question, although he was not married to his daughter (naturally). He felt he needed to give up his role as protector and had to let her go out of his control but did not know what to do with his feelings, because his feelings of love had always been projected in the form of protecting, but that's not possible as now the husband was to take up that same role. So, he needed to change the way he looked at his daughter. Sadly, she would commit suicide later...
At any rate, there is definitely a similarity between Hugo's own feelings and the feelings of insecurity and desolation Jean Valjean feels when he sees Cosette's letter reflected in the mirror. The odd thing is that daughters do not at all stop and think about this. Cosette sees it as natural that she should love Marius and should be allowed to marry him, but she does not realise how sad Jean Valjean is about that. For her, nothing changes; for him everyting changes.
It's sad really, but there are people like that. I think my father and his father were such (what my grandfather did to ruin my parents' relationship and what my father did to ruin mine, is inconceivable).
Othe than that, Bluesun, just take your time ;)
-
BienvenuJDC:
Why, Bienvenu is Bishop Myriel of course! =]
-
Hi, bluesun, happy new year :-),
as for revolutions I'm not that optmistic I must admit. The similarities between Iran and Paris in 1832 struck me, especially when it was at the funeral of the opposition's man Ayatollah Monzateri that the latest insurrection began. But I have to bring myself to look past the revolutionary zest I know well from my own youth ...cough, cough ... when I spent considerable time at demonstrations and even saw some barricades built, on to reality. In Iran like in Paris back in 1832, but also in 1848 and 1871 as long as there is an outwards enemy people of different belief and ideology stick together and form "the opposition". Once Ahmadinejad will be gone - and I'm sure he will have to go rather sooner than later - those differences will start to matter. So far no revolution has managed to escape their own private 1793, the moment the french revolution started gobbling up its own children,. It happened in Russia, it happened in Latin America and when will it happen differently somewhere?
That does not mean revolutions are pointless. The insurrections of the nineteenth century resulted in social changes we are taking for granted nowadays. Without the barricades of 1848 our social system would not be today what it is like. Still, are we any nearer freedom, equality and fraternity?
But do look for a red vest by all means, it builds up good feelings which are necessary for everyday's barricades, absolutely.
My daughter and I went to the Queen'S theatre in London dressed like this: black trousers, white shirts (oversized), red vests and blue-white-red flags (bless ebay) tied round our waists. I even went as far as waving my flag (which is really netherland, I must admit) during the Finale of the musical.
Nobody else looked like us but some were looking at us, LOL.
-
Kiki:
Yes, I see what you mean.
It certainly is true that daughters do not consider their fathers when they marry. But this is natural, and, what's more, I do not think this convention calls for any change.
I think Jean's misery was further increased by the lack of anyone else to love. When he lost Cosette, he lost everything.
Of course, Hugo tends to exaggerate things: Most fathers are saddened by their daughters' departure. Jean /died of sadness/.
However, in modern day, I doubt that this situation would be at all possible. At least, I am so different from Cosette in every way that I cannot see sitting by happily in my house satisfied with what my husband told me happened to my father, who suddenly starts making me call him Mr. Edward.
But this is the cynic in me being annoyed with romanticism, and I guess what you might be able to classify as gothic heroines. To read Les Mis, one really has to let go of the cynicism and accept the idealism. Kind of like how one has to put up with sexism in old movies to enjoy them. (I love old movies, btw.)
Kemathenga:
Happy New Year to you, too. =]
What kind of "revolutions in your youth"?
I would argue that, at least in some places in the world, we are indeed closer. And although women are still oppressed in many parts of the world, I cannot recall any other era throughout history in which we were allowed the rights to vote, own property, not be treated as property, have the right to divorce, and treated with respect (well, more than before anyway.) Additionally, slavery has died out or been abolished in many places. So, though the world remains a generally effed-up place, we are closer to liberty, equality, and fraternity. Or at least liberty and equality.
I will get that vest even if I have to go so far as to make it! =]
x] That sounds excellent. I am supposing by your flag-waving that the performance was a good one?
Here's a question about the book: Who is your favorite member of the Amis de l'ABC?
-
Hey I really enjoy these threads that have been posted. Here are some of my thoughts.
In order to consider whether Jean Valjean is a hero or not, one must determine what defines a true hero. People are usually considered having heroic qualities by being noble and doing the right thing. This person lives their life above the standard of an ordinary law abiding citizen. Society deems these “heroes” as nearly perfect and without flaws. Jean Valjean, in this case, does not meet these requirements. If you look at him closely, he is actually a thief with a criminal record. Under these circumstances, there is no way he would be a hero.
I, however, believe Victor Hugo is trying to portray Jean Valjean as ordinary everyday hero. He is not your cliché hero that is perfect, but a real hero that realizes his flaws and overcomes them for good. Like every man, Jean Valjean has certain temptations and flaws. In the beginning, the readers see these flaws and struggles where he steals a loaf of bread out of desperation. He does not know stealing is morally wrong. He only knows that stealing is wrong due to the consequences of the law. It wasn’t until his failed attempt to steal from the bishop that changed his attitude. The bishop forgives him and told him to "use the silver to be an honest man” (105-6) This is important, because, through the bishop's forgiveness, this is where Jean Valjean to be a better man. Now, as the story progress, we see that Jean Valjean continually battles his conscience to do the right thing. The monologue shows the struggles inside his head is much like an ordinary person. He wants to be the mayor rather than to go back to jail. He wants to keep Cosette, his only family member, rather than giving her to Marius. These are desires that many ordinary people would want. Yet, unlike before, Jean Valjean struggles but then he makes the right choice. In this sense, it does make Jean Valjean a hero.
-
@bluesun: I lived in Berlin (west) during the nineteeneighties in one of the poorer quarters. There was a general housing problem and the owners of big houses would rather let them stand empty than rent the flats to people because they were getting compensation by the government for the loss of rent-money. At first it was the students (!) looking for cheap flats protesting against that and then it resulted in what was called the "Berlin Squatter Movement". Young people would just move into a house and stay there. The owners called the police and some would leave, some would bargain for contracts and others would resist violently. My brother was one of the latter. He moved into a squatter's house when he was sixteen. We would spend the evenings listening to a radio tuned illegally to receive police radio to find out when and where the police was trying to "storm" a house and then go there and build a barricade (really!). I never did much more than stand by and savour the revolutionary atmosphere. I drew the line when it came to throwing cobblestones. I once dug one up and then let it fall again. I simply couldn't throw it against another person even if it was a policeman (normally called "bulls" then as a term of abuse). I joined a left-wing political party after that and tried to change the world by talking ;-).
You are right that our social situation at least in western europe and the US and Australia is much, much nearer to the ideals of the French Revolution than the nineteenth century. But there are other chains of slavery now. It makes me shudder how easily the mass media, the internet in first row, manipulates people. It is much more difficult now to express an attitude differing from the mainstream now than it was in my youth, let's say the nineteenseventies, -eighties. I have children going to school and I'm shocked at how indifferent parents are toward what happens at school. All they are interested in is "will my child get the best job after graduation"? I am working part time as a teacher at a school for less privileged children and there we have children whose parents don't even care if they have all the books and pencils they need. But they do get a playstation 3 for christmas. The emotional deprivation we are dealing with - not only in children - is much harder to battle than hunger and poverty in 19th century France.
We found a red vest on ebay - but without the gold stripes, of course. Still, my daughter looked great in it and, yes, it was an amazing performance. We were hard put not to sing along, sometimes :-) and some of the details would escape us since we had places far up and to the side. But we DID bring binoculars. And we want to see it again!
Oh, don't you start me on my favorite ABC. Do you want to read postings on here for the rest of the day? It's Grantaire, of course. I am right where he is and vice versa with the slight difference that I definitely prefer red wine to absinth (shudder). I'm not really given to alcohol but I definitely am given to words. I can whip up a speech like his on the spur of a moment and the less I know what I'm talking about the better. I can totally identify with his effort to create a balance between cynicism and idealism and best with his dramatic failure at that. Wanting so desperately to belong and at the same time clinging to his own ways and attitudes - until the very moment Enjolras turns up and scowls at him and makes him just want to be like him and with him and thank you, cynicism, see you later if at all. Wanting to be revolutionary, to be IN it all and to find someone who represents everything he never did and never will achieve to death if necessary. Hugo says that Grantaire became somebody with Enjolras. The reasons why I am in need for somebody to be myself are quite different from Grantaires (which we don't know at all, by the way) but the situation is much the same. If my hero could come back I'd follow literally everywhere.
I stop myself here with some effort. Who's your favorite?
@heyung:
Welcome to the thread. Yeah, I agree that Jean Valjean is an every-day-hero in so far that he wasn't born and raised to be one but he does out some fort into becoming one and that makes him not so every-day. One of the great virtues of the book is, imhO, that it takes its times in taking decisions. Valjean takes a whole night and Hugo takes several chapters to make up his mind to go to Arras and he doesn't make it too easy to find out which is the right decision. I marvel at the accuracy Hugo describes this process with. And even when he is actually going Valjean isn't sure if he will arrive there or if he does what he is going to do. I wouldn't say he makes up his decision only the moment he speaks up, it was sort of born out of his thinking and arguing with himself and in the end the outcome was inevitable even if he didn't realize that. But like most births it was a painful affair and he couldn't be sure if it was the right thing to do even when he was doing it.
That certainly makes him a hero worth turning to when it comes to taking decisions.
-
Wow. That’s really cool. I am also glad you opted for peaceful resistance instead. Like Ghandi, you know. And, I suppose, like Jean. (But he was more peace than resistance.)
I think the world needs to be changed by action but not violence.
A good friend of mine is a German exchange student from West Berlin, too. =]
Yes, I know what you are talking about. But I still think that we are closer to Utopia (which literally translates to “Nowhere” b/c it’s not truly possible) than we’ve ever been. I understand that the internet causes all kinds of problems nowadays, but people have always been manipulated. As for your points on emotional deprivation, I can only agree with you. It is harder to fight, and it is a real and serious problem, however I’d sooner solve world hunger and poverty before emotional deprivation.
That sounds excellent! I am so very jealous. I am now eBay-watching for a red vest I can sew gold stripes to. So far, no such luck. But I will not give up.
Btw, I’ve been working on a picture of a bunch of the Les Mis characters I drew. I shall send it to you when I finish the lengthy process of coloring in Photoshop in my spare time.
Oh yeah, I forgot. You had mentioned your love for him before. =] Also, I was surprised to see him drinking absinthe when I first read the book. I am not as good as you with whipping up a speech, x] but I can b.s. a paper like no other.
That is so very interesting. I think it is great that classic literature can still provide us with relevant characters and situations today. (“So long as ignorance and misery remain on this earth, there will be need for books such as this.”) I think I am different from Grantaire in that I have no hero, but I am a budding cynic (a trait I suppose I picked up from my mother). But is it cynicism or realism, after all?
All comparisons aside, Grantaire, the homely, arrogant, lazy, cynical drunk, is, oddly enough, one of the most beautiful characters in the entire novel. =]
If you don’t mind me asking, who is your hero you’d “follow literally everywhere”?
My favorite, hmmm. It’s not so definite a decision for me. I do really like Grantaire, but I think Jollllly is cute – what with hypochondria and bookishness and everything. Combeferre, while I never did pay much attention to him seemed to have a good balance between intelligence and idealism. Also, this scene is just great:
http://cillabub.deviantart.com/art/S...DOWN-100870614
L’aigle is a sweetheart. <3 Prouvaire is a poet and a badass and a dreamer. <3 I can remember absolutely no details about Bahorel and I know Feuilly was poor and worked hard and remained cheerful so that’s good I guess. Then Enjolras has his super badass moments every once in a while as well. Did I forget anyone besides Courfeyrac?
