
How Victor Hugo came to write “Les Misérables” - ghosh
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21717357-extraordinary-story-book-changed-world-how-victor-hugo-came-write-les?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/bythebookhowvictorhugocametowritelesmisrableshismagnumopus
======
david927
The article would better be titled, "How Les Misérables changed the world."
Its impact is sadly lost in generations since who would rather view the film
or musical at the expense of reading the novel.

I'm not surprised it's also the most adapted novel of all time as it is, in my
opinion, the greatest novel ever written and a monument to what literature can
be. But I definitely worry that its impact will be more and more limited by
alternatives to simply reading the original.

~~~
pathsjs
I read the book and found all the characters extremely simplified and shallow.
I guess the audience was not ready for sophisticated personalities - there are
the evil Thenardier, the saint Myriel, the disgraced Cosette... Most books
written today are better written than that

------
devindotcom
Hugo is fantastically intelligent but also unabashedly romantic - perhaps even
sentimental. I loved Les Miserables, and one of the good things about it was
its exoneration of the conscience, of what the main characters unshakingly
feel to be be good.

He also packs a fair amount of (occasionally apocryphal) history into it. I
love the many pages spent describing Waterloo from start to finish, and his
judgment of the battle is sobering:

[http://coldewey.cc/post/19163335604/the-victor-of-
waterloo-a...](http://coldewey.cc/post/19163335604/the-victor-of-waterloo-
assembled-from-les)

~~~
clairity
what do you mean when you say "exoneration of the conscience"? it's an
interesting phrase that can be taken many ways.

i also loved les miserables, and took the story to be an implication of the
state: of law & order and it's imperfections and corruptibilities. of how
right and wrong aren't forever attached to labels, titles, persons, or any of
the other mental shortcuts we take in our daily judgements.

it's really interesting to see how this dichotomy continues to play out in the
current political environment. some people believe we are safer when we lock
up criminals and thugs, to separate our good selves from those bad selves, to
harshly punish in the hopes of instilling order in the world. yet we are each
but a single mistake away from crossing that divide into a label we would
never apply to ourselves. it goes against our own ego to understand that we
are, in the same person, at times lawful and at other times lawless, and the
application of justice against that backdrop is often neither fair nor just.

~~~
devindotcom
I think that in Les Miserables, the main characters are driven by their
consciences, and unfailingly make their decisions based on what they feel is
right. Sometimes that has ugly or unforeseen consequences, or is even fatal.
Many of the characters are plunged into poverty or despondency because they
chose to act according to their conscience. Meanwhile people making choices
out of expedience or because of external forces they obey (Javert, Thenardier)
prosper at least temporarily.

But ultimately the story and characters who do what they think is right end up
on top. Now this is also in a way the case in many a moralistic book (the
patient Christian triumphs over the predatory thief or what have you) but in
Les Miserables I think it is deeper than that, an indication that it is the
strong and principled that buoy those around them and feed the matrix of
society, even at times with their own lives.

Naturally it's all a bit artificial but I liked it immensely nevertheless.

~~~
curun1r
> Meanwhile people making choices out of expedience or because of external
> forces they obey (Javert ...

It's really interesting to me that you include Javert in the group that
doesn't act according to conscience since I've always seen him as, perhaps,
the most conscious driven character in the book.

It's been over a decade since I read the book and I've seen the musical so
many more times, so I might be misremembering the story from the book, but it
seems like Javert's character arc is one where he starts from seeing the law
as absolutely correct and himself as an instrument of enforcing that
correctness. His actions aren't expedient or imposed on him by others, but are
the result of that steadfast belief in the correctness of the law. It takes
the example of Valjean to show him that the his conscience is distinct from
the law and there are times that the law might not be correct. And his suicide
is the result of his inability to reconcile that steadfast belief with what he
begins to see might actually be right.

Categorizing him along with Thenardier, a character with little-to-no moral
compass seems wrong since Javert's actions, while shown to us as bad, come
from an intention to do good. He always does what he feels is right. And when
he arrives at a situation where either choice will lead him to doing something
he feels isn't right, he'd rather die that make that choice.

------
mauvehaus
A contract that paid by the word, perhaps? I got 700 pages in one year over
winter break when I was in college. A (mostly, it was many years ago now)
complete summary of the events that had happened that would be familiar to
those who have seen the musical:

1\. Jean Valjean acquired some silver from the bishop. 2\. It was established
that M. Thenardier looted the deceased soldiers at the battle of Waterloo. 3\.
The existence of Fantine and possibly Cosette had been established? 4\.
Perhaps Valjean had become the mayor of some town after using what was
formerly the bishop's silver to become an honest man?

Note that Javert, who is the other major character besides Valjean has yet to
put in an appearance, despite showing up in perhaps the first 10 minutes of
the musical. M. Thenardier is, at best, a minor player in the musical, and
prior to his introduction, we get ~50 pages on the history of the Battle of
Waterloo.

The Princess Bride gently mocks the genre by advertising itself as "abridged".
I can't help but feel it's justified.

~~~
david927
Why would you write so many sentences to simply say that you couldn't finish a
great novel? There's nothing wrong with The Princess Bride... but it's for
children.

Try reading it again. It's worth it, I assure you. It's vastly better than any
of the film adaptations or the musical.

~~~
mauvehaus
I'm not going to claim to be a connoisseur of literature, so perhaps I've just
overlooked the greatness. The point I was trying to make is that the book
takes a great many pages to advance the plot relatively little. If you're
familiar with the musical adaptation and are expecting a more plot-driven
novel, you probably won't find that the book meets those expectations. I have
not seen any of the movie adaptations, and cannot comment on them; on the
basis of your recommendation, I probably will not.

As I recall, structurally, the novel is somewhat like The Grapes of Wrath,
with expository sections interspersed with sections that directly advance the
plot. I quite liked that about the Grapes of Wrath. I'm not sure if I take
issue with the exposition/advancement ratio in Les Miserable, or if I feel
less of a connection with the period Les Miserables is set in.

For children or not, I certainly won't hold The Princess Bride up as example
of greatness. I would claim that the fact that it works as a send-up of a
genre, including the alleged abridgement, is illustrative of something.

~~~
david927
> perhaps I've just overlooked the greatness

You have. Hugo takes his time because great artists don't tell you, they take
your hand and lead you somewhere so that suddenly you open your eyes and
you're in a place you never expected to be.

I understand you, of course. The book is longer than War and Peace. It's huge.
When he spends the entire first book just on the Bishop, you're forgiven for
thinking, "Why?" That's answered immediately, however. The great scene that
follows between Valjean and the Bishop feels utterly natural, rather than
stilted or artificial if done another way.

The same is true with Fantine. Her story is _light_ when it starts. Hugo
spends a lot of time so that _you will feel the lightness of her situation_ so
that he can then turn the lights out, and now you're with her in the dark.
She's not some loose woman who should have known better; she's you.

He does this again and again. For the entire novel he doesn't tell you
anything, he doesn't even take your hand later but simply grabs you by the
collar and shows you, immerses you in these characters. It's the greatest
novel I've ever read and I would recommend fully reading it to anyone.

------
pavel_lishin
It doesn't really explain how, or why. Just that he did, in 1845. And then had
to do so from exile, after 1848.

------
jhbadger
It's interesting that this is the second book for the general public this year
to be about another book and its influence. I recently read "The Book That
Changed America: How Darwin's Theory of Evolution Ignited a Nation" which is
about the Origin of Species.

~~~
tjr
In 150 years or so, just for kicks, somebody should write a book about _that_
book.

------
7Z7
Show HN: I wrote a book?

