First, let me be clear: I read this book twenty-ish years ago, between my junior and senior years of college. I also am quite happy to read very long classics. And French classics. The Count of Monte Cristo, which was published nearly twenty years before Les Miserables, and is at least as long and very equally French, is my second-favorite book of all time. The problem here is not that I don't know how to read and understand books from the 1800s, that I don't appreciate the French, or that long books tire me out.
The problem here is twofold:
One, I should not have read Les Mis during the summer. I get a mild case of summertime S.A.D. in late July that lasts through August and into September. Les Mis was not the sort of thing I need to read during that time. In late summer, I gravitate to dark and cool mysteries, ala Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett, and to frothy romps, ala P. G. Wodehouse. I should not have attempted to read this book during this season. But a bunch of friends on Bookstagram got together a buddy read for it, and I have read lots of other books with them and really enjoy our discussions, so I decided to join. Also, I'd totally read it once before (and during the summer, no less), so I knew I could finish it. I just didn't reckon on the S.A.D. factor turning this book into a big bummer, or this book adding some extra grey tones to my S.A.D. or something. Maybe both.
Two, Victor Hugo is not my kind of writer. I like writers who can give me a good story, well told. And who don't hesitate when doing so. I do not appreciate entire chapters devoted to sarcastic remarks about famous Parisians I have never heard of and can't get the joke for. I do not appreciate multi-chapter-long digressions about French slang. I do not gravitate to writers who can't stay on track for more than about two chapters in a row. I want to read about the characters that I have come to care about, and when you continuously wander off to look at the architecture or the flowers or the social customs... you lose me. I don't care. I care about your characters, and when you refuse to stick with those characters, I get frustrated and angry.
I think Victor Hugo needed a blog. He needed somewhere to publish all his thoughts about heroism, sacrifice, the importance of Napoleon, the meaning of loyalty, and all the other extremely random rabbit trails he pursued throughout the book. If he could only have had a blog, he could have pontificated about each one to his heart's content without gumming up a fiction book with them. Perhaps he had ADHD. Perhaps he got paid by the word. I don't know.
What I do know is, y'all, this book wearied me. And, having read it twice, I don't think I ever need to read it again. I love the musical, I love the Manga Classics version, and those will content me whenever I feel a Les Mis need. I really love Jean Valjean, and his journey to forgiveness and insistence on living out a life of love and mercy and contentment are absolutely beautiful... and I wish Hugo would have presented that story in a coherent fashion instead of rambling like a senile old man. I really do.
If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG-16 for reasonably tasteful discussions of prostitution, a very frilly and oddly twee explanation of why Hugo decided not to describe a wedding night, quite a bit of violence, and a very long description of what it's like to wade through a disgusting sewer.
This is my 17th book read for my fourth Classics club list and my 6th for my #20BooksOfSummer23 list.
I QUITE AGREE. The characters are interesting, and thus the soul of the story (as explored in the musical) is quite glorious. But HUGO. My MAN. Stop RAMBLING.
ReplyDeleteOoh, your remark about sarcastic remarks makes me wonder--do you think Hugo is sincere when he goes on and on for pages about the glory of revolution? How men getting killed is worth it in the long run etc. etc.? It really bugged me when I read it in high school (as well as his long rant against nuns), but seeing as how I was a painfully serious-minded teenager and incapable of detecting subtlety, it's entirely possible that he was JOKING and I've been down on him a little more severely than I ought to be down on him for years. I would very much like to know your thoughts on how seriously Hugo takes his enlightenment philosophy.
Nutmeg, I do think Hugo was sincere about his lauding of things like heroism even in a doomed cause. I think that's what made this book so popular in the Confederate States of America, actually. He is definitely scathingly sarcastic at times, but that tone doesn't carry through when he is praising something, only when he is poking fun at/denigrating something.
DeleteThis is perhaps terrible, but I actually...enjoyed his ramblings? I love the characters, too, but honestly, in Les Mis the book, I don't love them /that much/. And I found his thoughts on revolution, the Parisian sewers, and nuns to be extremely interesting, and I blew through those parts really fast. (The only part that made me really bored was the part about the Napoleonic Wars. Blech.)
ReplyDeleteI can definitely understand how you'd just want him to KEEP TO THE DANG STORY, but one thing I've discovered about myself is that I appreciate long books with many digressions...like Hugo, and even most of the Russian authors.
(I'm not sure why I felt like I needed to say this, except that I had an inkling that this comments section might turn into mild Hugo-bashing, not that there's anything really wrong with that, but I wanted to be the dissenting voice, lol.)
Samantha, actually, of the twelve or so people who were at the last online discussion for the reading group I'm in (we do a Zoom chat after every volume), I was the only one who voiced frustrations about the endless digressions. Everyone else was like you and loved his conversational rambling. So, don't feel alone!
Delete"a very frilly and oddly twee explanation of why Hugo decided not to describe a wedding night"
ReplyDelete^^ NO BECAUSE REALLY. That part annoys me so much. xD I don't really WANT him to describe a wedding night, but it almost seems like that would have been less icky than what he actually did. Blech.
This book is A Time. Not a good time, mind you, but A Time nonetheless.
Olivia, yeah, that whole wedding and wedding night scene just devolved into utter weirdness. Just... no.
DeleteAs you say, this book is A Time. I'm not sad that I reread it, but I definitely did not enjoy it the way a lot of the other group participants did. Oh well.
I have never read Victor Hugo. I apologize for nothing, gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteThis post makes me feel vindicated, so thank you XD And I love the idea of Hugo with a daily blog! Although let's hope it wasn't a Tumblr blog, because he would UNQESTIONABLY hit the "post limit" on the regular
Katie, you will have a perfectly good and valid and enjoyable life without him.
DeleteBut he definitely could have been an amusing blogger!
I have been slogging through this book as well since I dearly love the musical (well, most of it! 😀) & the basic storyline. I agree with you 1000%! I love to read things that are very plot-driven & character-focused, preferably with a healthy amount of dialogue. I don’t mind & even want descriptions that add to the story & make it come more alive, but too many tangents quickly wear me out. I want them to put me more into the story, not make me think, okay, can we get back to the story now? So I guess what I should say is just amen to your post! 😀 It was fun to hear your thoughts on a book I’m also reading right now.
ReplyDeleteAmy, yeah, it is simply... not my thing. It's nice to hear I'm not alone in that, although I'm also a little sorry someone else is not enjoying it, as it's always so much nicer to enjoy what you're reading, right?
Deletewaw
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, waw? What A World? Women Are Weird? Why Ask Why? Or was that a disgusted 'wow' because I was not a fan?
DeleteI ploughed my way through "Les Miserables" about 30-ish years ago and, while I'm glad I read it, I have no need either to ever read it again. I'll be interested to read your thoughts eventually about another book on your Classics To Read list, whose author also takes frequent deep dives into tangents and obscure areas -- "Moby-Dick." It took me 6 years to work my way through it, but I'm sure you'll breeze through it in much less time. On the upside, and quite seriously, it truly is (in my opinion) the Great American Novel. I'm actually longing to read it again. Guess I'm a masochist.
ReplyDeleteDebra, I actually had half planned to read Moby-Dick this summer, but then some friends announced a read-along for Les Mis, so I reread it instead. Maybe I will tackle MD this winter instead :-)
DeleteOh, dear, I have this one on my list, too.
ReplyDeleteWhatMeRead, well, don't despair! Of the ten or twelve people participating in the buddy read with me, it appears I'm the only one who hasn't just gobbled the book down with joyful abandon. And I did enjoy it a lot more the first time I read it. So you might like it a lot!
Delete"I think Victor Hugo needed a blog." — Ha!
ReplyDeleteHis blog could have swung wildly between unhinged academic discourse and deliciously vicious gossip, probably.
I also tried reading this one several years ago and just couldn't get through it, so I admire your dedication in tackling it a second time.
Looloolooweez, yes, his blog would have been Something to See, I'm sure.
DeleteI enjoyed Les Mis a lot when I was in my twenties. Perhaps I had more patience then. Or enjoyed all the bon mots and witty asides and Deep Observations more. Or something.
I've been the musical, seen the movie & listened to a Focus on the Family audio version (very abridged) but I have no inclination to read the book. Everyone I know raves about it but I don't share their raptures. I can't think of any other classic that I've avoided like this one.
ReplyDeleteCarol, I think reading the book is a Unique Experience, but not one I think is essential for everyone to have! Maybe it's for you like Wuthering Heights is for me -- I did read it once, in high school, and I have seen the Olivier version twice, and nope, it is Not For Me.
Delete