I can't stand Hugo's writing style

I'm a huge fan of the musical Les Miserables. I love the music, the story, the characters, and because the movie version is coming out soon, I decided to read the book. I wish I hadn't. When he's writing events that are part of the plot-line, it's interesting, exciting and I'm enjoying it. But he goes on these massive rants about stuff that is both very irrelevant and uninteresting.

He spends fourteen chapters on the bishop (in my mind, seven would have been quite enough), he spends fifty pages describing the battle of Waterloo (this is especially irritating because he suddenly throws it in when up until then the reader has no reason whatsoever to believe its connected and really wants nothing more than to go on with the story. Although its not at the climax, its very anti-climactic. He does this in other places too), and spends a long while explaining the history of French nun organizations when really I don't care at all. I could go on, but I know a lot of you have already read the book and know what I'm talking about. I have simply run out of patience with him. If a hundred pages were cut out of the book, I would would say its great, but otherwise, I'm faced with my only option: saying the book isn't great. In fact, I don't think the book is great at all.

Please understand, I'm not trying to start an argument, but really I'm doing two things. 1) Is it really worth reading Les Miserables? Should I force myself to endure the off-topic rants that render me so impatient? 2) How would you react if I suggested that Victor Hugo is not a good author? Is it fair to say someone's not a good author just because they go on off-topic rants? Is it fair for someone like me to say that that man--that man who is so respected in the literature world--is overrated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly

1) Is it really worth reading Les Miserables? Should I force myself to endure the off-topic rants that render me so impatient?

---

I know I'm not alone in saying that I loved every bit of Les Mis. However, to fully appreciate the novel, you have to enjoy learning and reading about history.

Should you read something that you don't enjoy? Maybe, because even a forced march will get you somewhere.

If you really hate it, but love the plot and story line? I have a great aversion to suggesting an abridged version, but it may be more enjoyable for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly

2) How would you react if I suggested that Victor Hugo is not a good author? Is it fair to say someone's not a good author just because they go on off-topic rants? Is it fair for someone like me to say that that man--that man who is so respected in the literature world--is overrated?

---

Have you read his other work? Hunchback of Notre Dame, or Toilers of the Sea? The Last Day of a Condemned Man had a big impact of Dostoevsky, Camus, and Dickens, among other literary giants.

To say someone isn't a good author because you don't like his novel? It isn't wrong if you are on the same level... which you, and I, are far from. To say "I didn't like it" and "He is a bad writer" are two very different things.

Keep in mind, also, that Hugo had a huge impact on the polotics of his day, both for freedom of speech and freedom of government. He was also an accomplished artist.

If you didn't like Les Mis, fine. I would try his other stuff before I formed an opinion, but its really your personal taste, and choice.

To say he is overated? You're wrong.

Hugo is a far better poet than he is a novelist, but he's a pretty good novelist too.

Maybe try The Huncheback of Notre Dame. It has long winded parts, but I don't think it's as bad as Les Mis (I say think because I've yet to read the latter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

Maybe try The Huncheback of Notre Dame. It has long winded parts, but I don't think it's as bad as Les Mis (I say think because I've yet to read the latter).

---

Agreed^ or try Toilers of the Sea, in either case Hugo doesn't wander off nearly as far as he does in Les Miserables.
In the case of Hunchback, Hugo's tangential diatribes expound on architecture and art which for me, was perhaps more interesting than the main theme of the story.

Also, in Hunchback, it's easy to identify his tangents since, as Gilliat said, they mostly deal with art and architecture, so it's pretty easy to skip them without worrying if you miss something in the plot. They are quite brilliant examples of descriptive writing, though. Possibly the best I've read. The man could paint a picture with words, that's for sure.

Okay, I told myself I was going to bed, but I saw this thread and couldn't resist...

I happen to LOVE Les Mis; both the book and musical (and yes, I read the book first). I completely get where you are coming from Chilly. But I'm the sort of person who loves all the little mundane details. I hate that most rental DVD's don't have all the fun bonus stuff you get if you buy the movie. My hubby has no use for that sort of thing. Just give him the plot, throw in some action and he's a happy camper. I would love to learn French one day simply for the pleasure of reading Les Mis in the original language.

If don't want to try abridged, and you really want to get the "full" experience of the Les Mis read, maybe it would help to read an analysis of the chapters on Sparknotes as you go along? Sometimes they explain the societal themes in the author's day so that you can put yourself in the mindset of the author's original readers.

As a side note - I accidentally bought an abridged copy of Toilers of the Sea the first time I picked it up. As I was going along, I felt like I was missing stuff. It didn't reflect the same Victor Hugo I'd read in Les Mis. I finally figured out it was abridged when I was staring at the cover art. The publisher had printed "Abridged Version" in white letters right across where the art had a white spray of ocean water. I totally missed it for days. :lol:

I'm also quite anti-abridged versions. Of I'm going to skip stuff, I'd at the least like to know what I'm skipping by skimming over it. I can't stand not knowing what's been taken out.

I like Shea's tip about Sparknotes, because I use that tip quite often if I'm reading something long or difficult. Sparknotes if great for looking up chapter summaries after you've read said chapter. Heck, I just used this for a couple Henry James novellas, not because they were difficult, but because I kept zoning out because they were so damn boring.

Wow, only 100 pages less... I think that novel could do with some more cutting to be ideal.

slaps herself :hand:

However, if you come with the idea that you are going to sit down and read a novel like any other (even if it is 1500 pages, that has been done before), you are in for a shock. Obviously, you've had that shock.

The musical and the films may be good, but they do not really reflect the novel (although they can be absolute gems like the 2001 mini-series), they only capture the characters (or a part of them; some properly, some rather shoddily).

Why do I say something weird like that?

Hugo had his own image of life, society and history. A philosophy in fact. With that view, he wrote novels, like Les Misérables, like The Last Day of a condemned Man (or however its title has been translated), The Hunchback. I have only read Les Misérables and The Hunchback because Hugo takes a lot of effort in French, because of his digressions.
However, as he is not writing about someone, but something, he does not stick to his storyline, because what we perceive as the storyline is in fact not the same as what he perceived as his storyline. His storyline is what he wants to tell us about what lie is like or something, our storyline is what ean Valjean is ging through. You see, that is not compatible.

On top of that he tended to edit, edit, edit and edit some more, so that he moved chapters or books, added or deleted things (whole books even) and changed bits so that everyting is not always a very well-constructed whole. In terms of storyline, that is.

The reason why Hugo starts off with the bishop is not because he wants to digress before getting to the point, it is because he wants to make clear that the bishop is one of the most important characters in the novel. Indeed, he appears in the beginning and SPOILER END will end the novel as the angel who comes to get Jean Valean from his death bed SPOILER END OVER. He is the one who turns ean Valjean's life around in one sentence, yet fades into the oblivion he came in, as all misérables but is a much much better person than the rich he served. With his mere aura of godliness, he even repells a 'hard' criminal like Jean Valean when the latter wants to kill him. For an audience that believed that criminals were criminals from in their cot, that's very moving.

Hugo writes not about Jean Valjean. Jean Valean and his story are nothing, as the end of it evokes. His name is not even special. Hugo writes about all those who are living in oblivion.
In that, I udnerstand certainly the musical, but also necessarily most films and mini-series, vastly misrepresent the work because you can't reproduce te fragmentary nature of the novel and the vast 'universe' of it in a film. It would just look like a shambles.

But maybe if you considered it not as a novel, but as a work of thought, you'd lose some frustration.

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them, and after thinking about them, I've changed my mind. Hugo is not a bad author (and although I still don't like the tangents he goes off on, maybe I need more patience). I'm going to go back and keep reading it. I'll try using sparknotes, and kiki, I'll remember what you said about it being a work of thought. I like that. It makes me imagine him standing up and expressing all these thoughts that he has been waiting to release and that I'm just nearby listening to him. As to what you said about the bishop, it makes me realize that there must be decent reasons for his other tangents as well, and that maybe I should dig into reviews and commentaries to try and understand the whole thing better.

As for abridged versions--I don't want to go down that route because I feel like that's cheating the book, and it could skip more than I want (at least in theory). And I'm too cheap to go out and find myself another copy :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them, and after thinking about them, I've changed my mind. Hugo is not a bad author (and although I still don't like the tangents he goes off on, maybe I need more patience). I'm going to go back and keep reading it. I'll try using sparknotes, and kiki, I'll remember what you said about it being a work of thought. I like that. It makes me imagine him standing up and expressing all these thoughts that he has been waiting to release and that I'm just nearby listening to him. As to what you said about the bishop, it makes me realize that there must be decent reasons for his other tangents as well, and that maybe I should dig into reviews and commentaries to try and understand the whole thing better.

As for abridged versions--I don't want to go down that route because I feel like that's cheating the book, and it could skip more than I want (at least in theory). And I'm too cheap to go out and find myself another copy :D

---

For what it's worth...go with your gut-feeling. "Don't visit an exhibition
'til you like the pictures" :hand: If an Author doesn't do it for you, skip it.
Don't feel bad about it. I personally think, Hugo is boring and I don't care that
all the church-bells in France rang when he died. So what ? Hang me ?
By the way, he himself didn't like Balzac. Zola thought, Balzac was a pompous
.......(you fill in the word) You see, even the great writers are just human.
Don't force yourself and don't freeze in awe of "famous names".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crusoe

For what it's worth...go with your gut-feeling. "Don't visit an exhibition
'til you like the pictures" :hand: If an Author doesn't do it for you, skip it.
Don't feel bad about it. I personally think, Hugo is boring and I don't care that
all the church-bells in France rang when he died. So what ? Hang me ?
By the way, he himself didn't like Balzac. Zola thought, Balzac was a pompous
.......(you fill in the word) You see, even the great writers are just human.
Don't force yourself and don't freeze in awe of "famous names".

---

Don't give up too soon, though. A few times I have forced my way through 200-300 agonizing pages to find some of the best literature. I can be worth the "sacrifice," if you want to call it that.

Also, with a nod to Crusoe's exhibition illustration,when exploring new authors (new to me) I always try to find some short stories, or at least shorter works, if available, and read those first. That way you won't be stuck in a blind commitment, and end up regretting a few weeks of reading a novel you don't like.

Actually I love the diversions, the picture he paints of Waterloo was one of my favorite pieces of the novel. I like writers who get distracted, it shows that they don't take their main plots too seriously, and it is healthy to be fascinated with the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bIGwIRE

I always try to find some short stories, or at least shorter works, if available, and read those first. That way you won't be stuck in a blind commitment, and end up regretting a few weeks of reading a novel you don't like.

---

:iagree:

You're absolutly right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly

I'm a huge fan of the musical Les Miserables. I love the music, the story, the characters, and because the movie version is coming out soon, I decided to read the book. I wish I hadn't. When he's writing events that are part of the plot-line, it's interesting, exciting and I'm enjoying it. But he goes on these massive rants about stuff that is both very irrelevant and uninteresting.

He spends fourteen chapters on the bishop (in my mind, seven would have been quite enough), he spends fifty pages describing the battle of Waterloo (this is especially irritating because he suddenly throws it in when up until then the reader has no reason whatsoever to believe its connected and really wants nothing more than to go on with the story. Although its not at the climax, its very anti-climactic. He does this in other places too), and spends a long while explaining the history of French nun organizations when really I don't care at all. I could go on, but I know a lot of you have already read the book and know what I'm talking about. I have simply run out of patience with him. If a hundred pages were cut out of the book, I would would say its great, but otherwise, I'm faced with my only option: saying the book isn't great. In fact, I don't think the book is great at all.

Please understand, I'm not trying to start an argument, but really I'm doing two things. 1) Is it really worth reading Les Miserables? Should I force myself to endure the off-topic rants that render me so impatient? 2) How would you react if I suggested that Victor Hugo is not a good author? Is it fair to say someone's not a good author just because they go on off-topic rants? Is it fair for someone like me to say that that man--that man who is so respected in the literature world--is overrated?

---

Ha! Let me warn you, if you're still reading and haven't reached that part yet, that Hugo stops at a real cliffhanger moment and then devotes an entire chapter to an essay on the Paris sewer system! I just skipped the whole chapter.

I don't remember the Waterloo part, but I can't agree with you about the bishop chapters. I just adore that hoplessly altruistic bishop. He's one of my all time favourite literary characters. :)

As for your questions, in my opinion Les Mis is a little overrated, but it's still well worth finishing the book (with a little skipping and skimming over, perhaps).

I'm a huge fan of the musical Les Miserables. I love the music, the story, the characters, and because the movie version is coming out soon, I decided to read the book. I wish I hadn't. When he's writing events that are part of the plot-line, it's interesting, exciting and I'm enjoying it. But he goes on these massive rants about stuff that is both very irrelevant and uninteresting.

Unfortunately there is a manner of teaching literature... especially in high school... that places the emphasis upon narrative, characters, theme, and moral to such an extent that everything else is thought of as superfluous. The goal is to get to the end... as if the "goal" of life is death. I have long been of the mind that the goal of reading lies in the appreciation of the experience. Certainly this includes the narrative, characters, theme, moral etc... (where these are relevant)... but it also includes the language, the atmosphere, the mood, the digressions. Mutatis-Mutandis you love Moby Dick... as such I would expect that you could appreciate the value of digression.

Personally, I loved Les Miserables and The Hunchback of Notre Dame and I agree with Pip that Hugo was perhaps an even greater poet. Hugo was a 19th century author. He was writing for an audience with a much greater attention span... one that had not been weaned upon television dramas in which the conclusion must be reached within 60 minutes (minus commercials) or the instantaneous internet. A great majority of the novelists of the period wrote large, voluminous novels... rich in descriptive detail, language, and digressions: Dickens, Hardy, Melville, Scott, Tolstoy, etc... Digressions were not always within rhyme or reason. Les Miserables and War and Peace especially make a point of contrasting the "smaller" struggles, tragedies, successes and failures of the main characters with the "larger" events of history. I fully agree with Alex in that I love many of the digressions of Les Miserables... especially the Battle of Waterloo. I hold vivid memories of this narrative as depicted by Hugo some 15 or more years after having read the book. Certainly a good editor could have stripped a lot of material from Les Miserables (or Moby Dick, Don Quixote, War and Peace, etc...) and achieved something far more streamlined... far more polished... and far more focused upon the central narrative and rushing toward the conclusion... but I would sincerely miss much of that which was removed.

Is it really worth reading Les Miserables?

That's for every individual to decide. That fact that there are elements that remain vividly within my memory a good many years after having read the book speaks well enough to me.

Should I force myself to endure the off-topic rants that render me so impatient?

Over time, I have come to recognize that the pleasure of reading does not always come without some effort upon the part of the reader. Each individual reader must make up his or her mind as to whether the efforts demanded of them are likely to be worth the pleasure.

I will suggest something, however. Have you thought to ask yourself whether or not one of Hugo's aims in employing the sudden digression at a moment of extreme drama is to instill this very impatience you speak of?

How would you react if I suggested that Victor Hugo is not a good author?

I would suggest that you can certainly declare that you don't like what you have read by Hugo, but I question whether you are qualified to state that Hugo is not a good author based upon your having partially read but a single book by him.

Is it fair to say someone's not a good author just because they go on off-topic rants?

No... because digressions are in no way a negative aspect of writing. Lawrence Sterne's Tristram Shandy is virtually an entire novel of digressions... and one of the greatest novels in English. Lord Byron's digressions in Don Juan are among the best parts of that epic poem. Pushkin's digression in praise of women's feet is among the most famous parts of Eugene Onegin. And Moby Dick...?

Is it fair for someone like me to say that that man--that man who is so respected in the literature world--is overrated?

You can say what you will... it has no bearing whatsoever upon Hugo's reputation which was established as a result of the continued admiration for his work by a large enough portion of the audience of those who have invested the most in the study and appreciation of literature, be they academics, subsequent writers, and experienced readers.

Again... I would ask you whether you truly feel your opinion, based upon your incomplete reading of but a single novel, is truly enough to allow you to make any sort of value judgment... let alone suggest that Hugo is "overrated" and thus, infer that all those who do admire his writing must somehow be mistaken.

Oh, I definitely see the value in digression . . . I'm not always up to reading it, though. Moby Dick is sort of an odd book for me to love, because if I look at my general tastes, it's a book I shouldn't like as much as I do; I find that the beautiful prose and the humor that is laden throughout the novel, even, and especially, the digressions, more than make up for the slow pace. Like you said, a slow pace isn't a negative (well, it can be, but a slow pace alone isn't), it's just a matter of changing your mindset while reading.

Still, I think these digressions are legitimate reasons for someone not to like Hugo. Some people just aren't going to like stuff like that. I usually don't. Of course, one mustn't confuse their like or dislike of a certain aspect of Hugo with an evaluation of his works' quality.

I'll finish by saying this. Digressions are neither good nor bad, but they're like everything else--there are good digressions and bad digressions. Melville's philosophical and humorous digressions in Moby Dick? Good. Tolkien's long-winded, descriptive digressions in The Lord of the Rings? Bad. I'd honestly put Hugo somewhere in the middle.

I think these digressions are legitimate reasons for someone not to like Hugo. Some people just aren't going to like stuff like that. I usually don't. Of course, one mustn't confuse their like or dislike of a certain aspect of Hugo with an evaluation of his works' quality.

Exactly. Length alone may be enough reason for some to personally dislike a given writer. Some readers dislike short stories because they are enamored of character development and rich description and others may dislike big novels because they just want to "get to the point". Neither of these, however, are valid reason for suggesting a given writer is "bad" or "overrated".

Also, I realized that I was reading a version translated in the 1880s. After looking at the copy my sister owns I realized hers was translated in the 1970s. In the introduction to hers, the translator explains that the earlier translations were trying to translate word for word rather than in a way that focuses on showing the author's intention. It seems that the translation I've been reading is heavier than it needs to be, and maybe that was part of the problem. The 1970s translation is apparently different that way, and I'm going to switch to reading that one.

A note on digressions in Hugo:

The Waterloo scene in Les Miserables is brilliantly tied into the plot of the novel. The description of the momentous historical events of the day, the horror of its carnage, the grand twists of Fate, chance and topography upon which it turns, and especially the towering heroism of some of its historical figures are all there to set in relief the final Chapter of Book I in the section titled Cosette, which describes the nocturnal aftermath and the human vermin crawling across the battleground to despoil the corpses. It is an elaborate set-up whose punchline is just a few lines from the end, a punchline consisting of a single word: "Thernadier," spoken by the man himself. In this line we learn the truth about the man who is to be Cosette's guardian—the man who has memorialized his own alleged heroism at Waterloo on the sign hanging above his tavern's door. The sign depicts the tavern owner carrying a wounded officer from the field of battle. Now we know that he did so only because he had been caught with his hand in the man's pocket.

In general, however, the digressions are not integral. The whole opening section of Toilers of the Sea, for example, is a sort of travel guide to the Channel Islands that may enhance one's understanding of the novel's geography, but with which one can readily dispense. Likewise chapters on architecture ("This will kill that") and "A bird's-eye view of Paris" in The Hunchback.

Rather than complaining about such chapters just don't read them! I'm sure many nineteenth-century readers employed this handy strategy and I suspect Hugo would not have been surprised or particularly shocked at this.

Hey everyone, I finished Les Miserables and it's great! It felt like the last three hundred pages flew by. It was engaging to the point of being epically intense, and the characters were so lovable yet complex. Yeah it took me half the year (I was reading off and on throughout) but it was well worth it.

I usually get the feeling that much which made Hugo a great novelist was also what made him a great poet. I can't imagine Les Misérables without its poetic descriptions, its contrasts between the marginalized individual and the infinity of human society and history, to say nothing of the dramatic style of its prose and the overwhelming conscience of Hugo as the voice of his work.

I think Victor Hugo is great. Who else has written a love letter to a piece of architecture?

The digressions in Hunchback of Notre Dame are not entirely irrelevant. How many people are familiar with fifteenth century France? And of course the original French title is "Notre Dame de Paris". The cathedral stands, whilst the people around it are crumbling. I don't think that anybody has achieved what Hugo did with that novel- not that I think he is the best writer but he is pretty impressive.

Digressions in a massive book are often a way in which a reader becomes educated but there are writers who could do with an editor with more red pen. Stephen King for one. Some otherwise good books could do with having been shorter. The Friendly Ones is a great massive modern novel that needed trimming by about a hundred and fifty pages. There is a difference between digressive and bloated. The former may take a narrative off in apparently random but interesting directions the latter is usually a writer who has too big an ego or who cannot be succinct. I like some digressive texts. Hugo is fine for me. Difference between bathing or showering maybe.