Les Miserables - Abridged or Unabridged?

[Jozanny]

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.

[kiki1982]

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??? ).

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...