I really just want to discuss Les Mis. Anyone out there have something to say please?

[Kemathenga]

Oh, I like Bahorel. He's the one, Gavroche takes a liking to. He comes from a peasant family which should count for good common sense ;-).

And I also like Feuilly. For several reasons. He's not a student, so he provides common sense, too, and a realistic look on life. And he's an orphan and knows what it is like to belong nowhere but other than Grantaire he does not choose one hero to make up for this but to give himself to everybody, especially to those as deprived of a home as he himself is. Poland, for instance, just dealt out to the nations like a bag of candy and it hasn't recovered to this day. It indicates a strong soul and character if you lack something as vital as a family and a home not to try and CLING to something/someone but to rather GIVE. I admire Feuilly.

As for my hero. Its difficult to write about that on the internet. It's somebody who was very important to me and who is dead now.

And as far as freedom is concerned - there'S an article on our newspaper today. Some business, our public transports and the local soccer club are running an experiment together: a bus stuffed with sensors and cameras to save all the passengers reactions, temperature, movements and habits in order to "better understand their behaviour". What is it we are to them? Guinea pigs? Or is this 1984 reloaded? I'm still fuming from reading this at breakfast this morning!

[bluesun777]

=] Well, if Gavroche likes him...

Indeed, I like Feuilly for his hard work and peseverence. Which is probably why I always get him mixed up with Bossuet.

Oh wow. That's just awful. Jeez. Life is becoming more and more like a science fiction novel all the time. On the up side, despite technology's exponential increases, literature remains prevalent. In fact, websites like this one are even used for discussing novels. Literature and technology working together. Thus, all hope is not lost for avoiding a Fahrenheit 451.

What are you thoughts on Marius? Can he be forgiven for his stupidity and selfishness? Or is he a hero?

Also, http://bluesun777.deviantart.com/art...ored-152840617
Click on it to enlarge. This may be a bit pretentious, but I thought you might like it. =]

[Kemathenga]

Hi, bluesun,

thanks for the link. I like the idea of letting them all have a good time together. :-)

Well, Marius, he's certainly the kind of idiot you'd expect him to be. Idealistic, eager to prove himself and absolutely NOT eager to accept help and advise. Like: I'm going through this wall even if there's a door right beside me. Of course he must be forgiven if only because he never lets others pay for his stupidity - not even his aunt. I like it that Hugo describes him in several stages of development. How he learns to love his father and immediately idolizes him and tries to become like he would have wanted him to be (probably) and then after meeting the ABC-friends he wants to be with them and be accepted by them and realizes he can't be accepted by his father (posthum) AND his friends, blast it! :-) Just like he can't love Cosette more than life itself AND go on studying and living and maybe even earning some money. Let's do something almost unforgiveable and compare him to Harry Potter. Harry was almost perfect from the beginning on. Dumbledore never fails to emphasize it. Harry, you can love! How wonderful and handy in fighting Voldemort. And how very unrealistic. A child who never knew love and attention, who was abused by his relatives, mistreated and punished at home and at school arrives at a wizard-school and is able on the spot to make friends, adapt to a community and show extraordinary powers and skills. Excuse me, Mrs. Rowling, but whom are you trying to fool?

And then there is MArius. A lonely child growing up with his grandfather, never knowing much love and tenderness but learning from early age on that his father was no good. And he then learns after his father's death that this man loved him deeply and made sacrifices for him. The young man, overwhelmed by this proof of love, identifies with the dead father at once and tries to stabilize this identity by opposing his grandfather. Then he meets friendship and tries to identify with THAT to the point of joining a bloody insurrection and then he realizes that he, who WAS loved after all by his father and therefore MUST be loveable, can love another person and throws himself and his soul which must be craving for love full heartedly into his adoration for Cosette.
If I had to choose who is the better psychologist I'd take Hugo any time.
Don't you agree?

[bluesun777]

“Like: I'm going through this wall even if there's a door right beside me.”
- That made me laugh out loud. An excellent description of his character.
I don’t know. I think others certainly do pay for his stupidity: his father, Eponine, M. Gillenormand, Jean. Marius does hurt people.

Well, Harry’s also a whiny little thing at times. (To quote a funny parody I saw, “I’m feeling angsty and pubescent today and I don’t know why! I’m going to take it out on people I like!”) And he never does anything but yell at his friends about it. But you are right about his adaptation. It is strange that he should be able to do all of those things. However, he does have to make friends with other outsiders as well. Perhaps due to his feeling like an outsider. I suppose it is just Rowling using the underdog theme. Nonetheless, Harry seems far more realistic and easier for me to relate to.

That is an interesting analysis of Marius’ personality. I have always attributed his passion simply to romanticism. Kind of like how Romeo is thrown into despair or happiness depending on his seeing Juliet. In fact, Marius and Cosette are compared to the Shakespearean couple several times in the book. However, perhaps the reason is because of his childhood and latent discoveries of love. Comparatively, however, at least Marius’ grandfather loved him growing up. I don’t think he had it quite as bad as Harry.
Marius (and sometimes Harry) can really anger me sometimes. But Harry has much more reason. Marius, on the other hand, indirectly causes Jean’s, and less importantly, Eponine’s, deaths. Killing my favorite character is not easily forgiven. On the other hand, his heart is in the right place, and, as I mentioned a while back, he does have his instances of badassery (saving Gavroche and Courfeyrac). He is also quite cute at times when he is with Cosette. (“If no one loved, the sun would go out.”) Also, when he realizes where gratitude is due, he shows it; as in the case of Jean and his father, etc. I suppose he is just too naïve for me to take seriously. I prefer heroes like him to be a little more down to earth. I’d choose Harry over Marius. But comparing the two novels is a bit of a stretch in some places.

(So, would that make Cosette Ginny? I don’t know about that. Thenardier would be Peter Pettigrew. Gavroche ~= Fred/George. Javert would beeee... Snape! Oh, well that works out well. Jean doesn’t quite fit Dumbledore though. Wow. This is hard. Any others?)

[hoope]

I will discuss Jean Valjean personality in short.. though it's so deep and every scene needs a whole day to talk about .... But i hope you will accept my simple intrusion

He was an ex-convinct not that commit a crime but just wanted to feed his poor family who were starving , he was imprison for breaking in store and stealing a loft of bread !I see an injustice in this.. How poor people lived back at those days ? Hence, Vlajean was known as a convict not that he was a one because his morals & attitudes were far away from that of any convict. It was the unjust community that they lived in back then... It was the life that turned him that way . He hated the government and blamed them but yet he couldn't do anything but become what they wanted him to be a prisoner .

He meets the saint who when he intended to steal him ; he hesistated because of his spirit but then he did steal him and the saint knew that but he didn't take any action and let him go . However when he was caught with those expensive silvers ; and the police accused him of stealing them for where the hell could a filthy poor man with no money & job get them from. There the Saint said i gave them to him .... In that particular moment , he started seeking the redemption. A new beginning . For he is not who the people want him to be .. that saint gave him hope and a motive to change for the saint saw thebeautiful part of Valjean that he can make a new start .. people are not what life wants them but what we want to be .

Jean Valjean changed and what i most admire in him is not only his strenght for bearing everything life has done to him but also his love for young Cossett and when he gives his life for her.. he becomes the only father she ever knew and saves her beloved one Marius ... No man can do anything like that .

And when he save Javert from being killed ... that also not only proved to us the noble character that he had but also to Javert , who puzzelled Valjean's behavior . How can one save a person he was a reason to destroy his life and chase him all this years... How can one forget all this hatred that Javert carried to him ? Simply because Valjean knew that life is not about revenge but about forgiving .

Hugo has drawn one of his masterpiece in the character of Jean Valjean. And what most touched me was the tragedic death of Jean Valjean .


" He is asleep Though his mettie was sorely tried,
He lived, and when he lost who loved, died,
It happened calmy , on its own
The way night comes when day is done "



Regards,
Hoope

[kiki1982]

Just a remark. Your translation was just a little bit off:

"Il dort. Quoique le sort fût pour lui bien étrange.
Il vivait. Il mourut quand il n'eut plus son ange;
La chose simplement d'elle même arriva,
Comme la nuit vient lorsque le jour s'en va."

"He sleeps. Though his lot was quite strange.
He lived. He died when he had his angel no longer;
It [(death)] came simply of itself,
Like the night comes when the day goes."

[hoope]

Oh ! thanks kiki .. for the correction

[kiki1982]

The poem is just a little ambiguous. The it inthe third line (in French 'la chose', which means 'the thing') could also be the fact that Cosette left her father (Jean Valjean), to go to another man. That is also by itself, because nearly all girls (and boys for that matter) go away from their parents to stand on their own two feet. As Jean Valjean's death is inevitable if he loses Cosette (not only because she is the purpose for him personally, but also on a more metaphysical level), the two (his death and Cosette leaving) come together in that third sentence. Night will come after the day; the night of eternal sleep will come after the light Cosette has gone out.

The second sentence expresses the analogy of the bishop and his candelabras. If the candelabras burn, the bishop/angel is there. He is there until the end, when Jean Valjean gives them to Cosette (will he be there for her all the time?).

His death, or the leaving of Cosette, is a gradual thing, though. The day goes away, like a person. One can see the other getting further away until the latter is just a speck on the horizon and so is the leaving of Cosette: she does not disappear in one go, she gradually gets further and further away from him (from the day she starts puberty to the day she gets married, to the day he doesn't come and see her anymore. cfr the gradual taking away of furniture and things like that in the room where Jean Valjean and Cosette meet after her marriage). His death is also a process of a gradual nature. Eventually, he goes, but he gets further and further away from Cosette, and thus dies, like a candle that has reached its end.

ah snif

[hoope]

The poem is just a little ambiguous. The it inthe third line (in French 'la chose', which means 'the thing') could also be the fact that Cosette left her father (Jean Valjean), to go to another man. That is also by itself, because nearly all girls (and boys for that matter) go away from their parents to stand on their own two feet. As Jean Valjean's death is inevitable if he loses Cosette (not only because she is the purpose for him personally, but also on a more metaphysical level), the two (his death and Cosette leaving) come together in that third sentence. Night will come after the day; the night of eternal sleep will come after the light Cosette has gone out.

The second sentence expresses the analogy of the bishop and his candelabras. If the candelabras burn, the bishop/angel is there. He is there until the end, when Jean Valjean gives them to Cosette (will he be there for her all the time?).

His death, or the leaving of Cosette, is a gradual thing, though. The day goes away, like a person. One can see the other getting further away until the latter is just a speck on the horizon and so is the leaving of Cosette: she does not disappear in one go, she gradually gets further and further away from him (from the day she starts puberty to the day she gets married, to the day he doesn't come and see her anymore. cfr the gradual taking away of furniture and things like that in the room where Jean Valjean and Cosette meet after her marriage). His death is also a process of a gradual nature. Eventually, he goes, but he gets further and further away from Cosette, and thus dies, like a candle that has reached its end.

ah snif

That is so well written Kiki , i just love those lines.. and admire your explanation.
Thanks for make it clear .

[BienvenuJDC]

As far as Valjean's innocence, even he admits that there were other ways that he could have obtained the food that he needed, so the injustice was not that society did not provide for the needs. The true injustice is found repeated throughout Javert's attitude. Gilbert and Sullivan summed it up very well in one of their performances....
"Let the punishment fit the crime." The French judicial system failed in this. Five years for stealing a load of bread....hardly solved the problem. Their focus was only on punishing and dividing the "scum" from the piety. Furthermore, the extended sentences for attempted escape...not seeing the REAL problem, which was the inhumane treatment of prisoners. No concept of rehabilitation...the true answer is found in my favorite quote below...

(more to come)

[hoope]

Well maybe that quote proves that Javert wasn't bad after all ; he conscious woke up late .. When he kills himself ! Because he can't live with !

Cultivators refers to humans - when we are unable to correct the system . The French system failed then .. isn't that why the revolution started in France!
The system failed Jean Valjean ... as it always does and we conclude that even now things like this happen .

[kiki1982]

Didn't Hugo write in Les Misérables at some point (I seem to remember some time after he escapes prison for the last time) that France (the king at that point) needed people to row on the galleys, because there were not enough? So, they needed people and they got them through convicting people to forced labour, which was Jean Valjean's lot. They exaggerated their sentences because, in those days, they did not believe that a person could get better (I mean, for God's sake, for one accusation (not necessarily true) a life sentence. If we were to try to introduce it now...). There was physiognomy that said that certain faces were doomed anyway (a person with a concave nose was avaricious, for example). Through the ages those views changed particularly in the age Hugo was writing in, there was a belief in bettering people by kindness.

I think Hugo's sentiment was rather anger at post-Revolution France.There was 1789 from which year on, everything would get better, but did it? No. They killed a whole load of people, including the king in 1793, who were alledgedly against the revolution, Napoleon became emperor and then lost half his troops in Russia because of bad planning and then France got forced onto it a king again by the rest of Europe which they kicked out in the 1830s (the barricades in the book). All through this, though, nothing got better for anyone. Maybe for the bourgeoisie (who really didn't have anything to say in the old days, but also really had a good life). They used the common people to storm the Bastille (the state prison for political prisoners), then now they became the new 'royalty'/'nobility'. They were so much in love with their own power that they ceased to care about the poor (emphasised in Jean Valjean, Cochepaille, the Thénardiers, Gavroche (part of the Thénardiers), also in Javert's attitude) although professing egality, liberty and fraternity. Hugo was disappointed with it because he started off very enthusiastic (like Marius and his friends), but clearly saw that it was not happening.

[kiki1982]

Well maybe that quote proves that Javert wasn't bad after all ; he conscious woke up late .. When he kills himself ! Because he can't live with !

That's just it!

But see it like this:

Javert has been trained as a policeman and has been trained according to certain principles (see above my post about physiognomy). He doesn't believe that a criminal can ever get better. Only, when he realises that he has been wrong about that all his life when he witnesses Jean Valjean convinced of Marius being alive instead of killing him and robbing him of his money, he cannot live with it. His self knows that he has been wrong, but his self cannot reunite with his material manifestation as a policeman. That is his problem. (I have mused on this in an earlier post) Notice that at that point, he calls Jean Valjean for the first time 'vous'. I know it cannot be translated in English, but the French form 'vous' is the form used for politeness. The common familiar you is 'tu'. All through the book, Javert has called Jean Valjen 'tu' (as an old convict who does not merit any respect), but just before he kills himself when they arrive at Gillenormand's place to deliver Marius barely alive, he calls Jean Valjean 'vous' as someone who deserves respect. It is such a poignant moment in that story and it shows Javert's changed mindset.

Ever seen John Malcovich as Javert? He IS Javert.

[BienvenuJDC]

The cultivators refer the the human systems. The French judiciary system failed both Valjean AND Javert. The religious system would have failed just the same. However, the true Christian system that M. Myriel had adopted instead of the current religious system that he was under succeeded through the blessed Bienvenu. Instead of punishment and seeing the evil in men, the perspective of the Bishop was grounded in mercy and seeking the humanity in man.

M. Myriel saw the good in man. Valjean was also good at finding the good in things...after his conversion. Here is the excerpt from my quoted chapter...

One day he saw some country people busily engaged in pulling up nettles; he examined the plants, which were uprooted and already dried, and said: "They are dead. Nevertheless, it would be a good thing to know how to make use of them. When the nettle is young, the leaf makes an excellent vegetable; when it is older, it has filaments and fibres like hemp and flax. Nettle cloth is as good as linen cloth. Chopped up, nettles are good for poultry; pounded, they are good for horned cattle. The seed of the nettle, mixed with fodder, gives gloss to the hair of animals; the root, mixed with salt, produces a beautiful yellow coloring-matter. Moreover, it is an excellent hay, which can be cut twice. And what is required for the nettle? A little soil, no care, no culture. Only the seed falls as it is ripe, and it is difficult to collect it. That is all. With the exercise of a little care, the nettle could be made useful; it is neglected and it becomes hurtful. It is exterminated. How many men resemble the nettle!" He added, after a pause: "Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators."

Give men the right influence and understanding...and who knows what can be gleaned from them.

[BienvenuJDC]

Ever seen John Malcovich as Javert? He IS Javert.

No...where...when...Malcovich would no doubt make a perfect Javert. Geoffrey Rush wasn't bad, but I have to see John...