April 25, 2015
God damn it. There was a lot about this book that pissed me off. Note that as I go over these points, I won't include the proper accent marks over certain names. Hapgood's translation neglected them, so I'll be using the spellings that I stared at for over three weeks.
I didn't hate this book. In fact, I really liked the first couple of volumes. The Bishop, M. Myriel, was a great character. I think I've written before about my distaste for Christian hypocrites. This guy rejected all of the pageantry and glamour traditionally associated with his position. He only used the minimum amount of income that he and his sister could live simply on, and the rest went directly to the poor. When a gang of thieves give him some fancy articles stolen from a cathedral, it is implied that he flipped these items and gave the proceeds to the needy, rather than giving them back where they'd come from. He was willing to confront his own prejudices and admit his faults. He was a model Christian, and it absolutely makes sense that he would be the one to influence a major life change in Jean Valjean.
Now, if a man is sentenced to the galleys for a crime...say, breaking the window of a bakery to steal a loaf of bread...rehabilitation is not the goal. It is meant to punish the prisoner, to break him down utterly. And once the man is freed, he has a black mark for life. French society in the early 19th century was not as forgiving of former convicts as today's world. I think that most people want to root on a non-violent ex-con who is attempting to turn his life around. But people are ruthless to Jean Valjean, and this rejection, as well as the inhumanity he faced in the galleys, made him an asshole. But the Bishop's kindness, and his regret at robbing a young boy, give him the push he needs to change it all around...if only society would let him!
Now, though I did pity the characters, those wretched ones, there's a lot here that made me mad. I'll start with Fantine, the idiot. So I know that the text describes her as being "innocent," but how naïve could an orphan who's had to fend for herself be? And why would she leave her child with total strangers? That's bad enough, but the fact that the Thenardiers are subhuman pieces of shit makes it worse. Also, if Fantine had taken the advice given to her and gone to talk to "M. Madeline" after she was bullied out of her job, she never would have had to go through such horrible experiences just to keep the Thenardiers satisfied. Fantine was the biggest dumbass in this book. I felt bad for her, but she created her own hell for sure.
Most people regard Javert as the main antagonist in this story. Perhaps this is so in the movies or the musical (none of which I've seen, though I may watch the musical film tonight), but I'd highly disagree. Javert is a jerk, sure, but he's kind of understandable. He came from tough circumstances himself, and he has a very black-and-white view of the world. Jean Valjean is an ex-con who broke parole, so he's a bad guy, right? Javert doesn't relentlessly pursue Jean Valjean for years and years, though he is a legitimate threat...like, if he'd ever happened upon him on the streets of Paris, he'd arrest him in a heartbeat. But after he realizes that Jean Valjean is a good person, in spite of his sketchy past, this causes him a moral crisis, especially since he owes Jean Valjean his life. Javert seemed like such a badass when he busted in on the Thenardiers' hovel the night they ambushed Jean Valjean, so it was disappointing to see that he was actually very weak. Rather than let the whole thing with him go, he kills himself. How very French of him.
Cosette was a character who started off with a lot of potential, but she ultimately disappointed me. Of all the messed up things that the Thenardiers did, their treatment of young Cosette was among the most despicable. When Jean Valjean comes for her, she's a very broken child. Through his love and care, which she hadn't received since before she could remember, she learned how to love others. Considering the extreme trauma she'd been through, that is a triumph.
However, her "love" for Marius, and his for her, has a shallow basis. It is love on sight, and they become obsessed with each other on that alone. Had Hugo shown us more of their conversations after they began meeting in secret, maybe their love would be more believable. Instead, after marrying, Cosette becomes rather obnoxious, and she and Marius are sickening. Barf. I found Cosette more interesting as a concept, a survivor of child abuse, than as an actual character.
And another thing: how did she forget all about her life with the Thenardiers? She was already eight when Jean Valjean rescued her. I wonder how many papers have been written on the psychology of Cosette? She's quite a case, I'd say.
I also found Jean Valjean's dramatic death at the end to be unnecessary. His reasoning for revealing his true identity to Marius and allowing himself to be separated from the girl he regards as his daughter isn't sound. He's had no problem living under other identities before; he only gave up the M. Madeline charade to keep an innocent man from going to the galleys for life in his stead. He lived as M. Fauchelevent with Cosette for many years, and the threat of being found out was greater then. Javert died before Cosette and Marius got married, so really the only person on the lookout for Jean Valjean was gone. It seems like, though many of the wretched circumstances and deaths were grounded in reality, this sad ending was forced. And that's really crummy for such a long book.
But here's what ticked me off the most. There were several points in the book where Hugo would go on for several chapters on a topic only loosely related to the plot. He goes on and on about the Battle of Waterloo; the niche that convents serve (or don't serve); the history of sewer systems...there is literally an entire chapter about shit. These tangents had very little bearing to the story. One of his biographers apparently said the Hugo's "digressions of genius" are excusable. I beg to differ. I came to dread these frequent interruptions to the story. That's probably what pissed me off most while reading this lengthy text.
In spite of the fact that M. Thenardier and his wife are the true villains of this novel, a couple of their poor kids are my favorite characters. Eponine was in love with Marius, even though he thought she was gross. She went so far as to save his life in the June Rebellion, literally taking a bullet for him and dying instead. Sure, her intention was for him to die, too, but she was honest, and brave, too. And he wasn't all that grateful to her for saving his life. Marius was an ass in many ways.
Gavroche was a great character, too. He was the oldest of the Thenardiers' three neglected sons. He mainly lived on the streets, but in spite of this lack of love and protection, he was a decent person. He helped two little wretched boys, not knowing that they were the two brothers that his mother had sold to a shady gold digger years before (by the way, those two little ones probably starved to death on the streets at some point). Gavroche's attitude makes me think of a little French Tom Sawyer. He was reckless and fearless, but that's what brought about his end in the June Rebellion. Poor kid.
I agree with the social points that Hugo makes, and many of them are applicable to this very day. People talk too much shit, and it causes damage. People don't care enough about those in need. Prisons don't do anything to help those who have turned to a life of crime. Although things are very different 200 years after the story takes place, a lot of the bad stuff is still true. So I definitely see value in this book.
I mentioned that Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho mentioned the musical Les Misérables a lot; it was the Book of Mormon of its time, the hot Broadway must-see. Now that I know the story, I see the irony of rich pieces of shit like Bateman's crowd claiming to love it so much, yet not giving money to a homeless person on the streets.
I didn't expect a story called Les Misérables to have a happy ending. I just didn't expect the ending of a 1,400ish page book to be so sloppily constructed. It's like Jean Valjean forgot his own life's purpose. After "losing" Cosette, he was in despair...essentially he killed himself, but I thought he was too religious for that? He didn't consider the good he still could have done, especially with Javert out of the picture. I'm glad I read this classic, but in spite of its good message, it wasn't that great of a story.
No comments:
Post a Comment