I can't stand Hugo's writing style

[stlukesguild]

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.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

[stlukesguild]

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".

[Chilly]

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.

[WyattGwyon]

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.

[Chilly]

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.

[namenlose]

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.

[kelby_lake]

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.

[ennison]

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.