MNRfan Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 So I've almost finished reading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. I'm enjoying it aside from the ridiculous length and tangential ramblings. Anyway, I started reading it because I heard Hugo was Rand's favorite author and I was interested in getting a fresh perspective on her. Some reasons I think she liked him: his deep respect and reverence for the human spirit, especially its infinitely depth; his respect for industry as seen in some passages regarding M. Madeleine; his support of popular revolution and belief in the rights of the people; some others I can't think of right now. A few things seemed decidedly anti-Randian though: his belief in God, which isn't a belief in religion, he has long passages on his disdain for organized religion and monastacism. His belief in God seems to be a belief in the infinite. God to him seems almost to be the highest potential of man, which seems to be the kind of God Ayn would support. Also, he seems to have a deference for altruism and generosity. The examples of this are so numerous it is pointless to list them for those who have read the book. For those who haven't, take my word for it, they're there. It makes me wonder if it is altruism per se that Rand rejects, or if it is just the belief that one is obligated to give, or the belief that one is entitled to gifts. I don't know, can anybody shed some light on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 I'm on page 850 or so of this 1500+ page novel, and thus far I'm enjoying it. If you're looking at Les Miserables from the perspective of Ayn Rand liking it, you have to recall that she said in The Romantic Manifesto, in her introduction to '93, that she disagreed strongly with almost all of Victor Hugo's explicit philosophy. What she adored about his writing was his portrayel, his dramatization, of man the hero, of man's volition, which is what Romantic literature is all about. (Not to mention his fantastic grasp of the dramatic, and of a suspensful plot.) Compared to that, Hugo's religious tendencies (and his frequent pushes for free universal education) are laughably small lapses in what's otherwise a great book. I do wish it didn't contain so many historical names I don't recognize, though! But I do get a small moment of pleasure when he mentions one that I do happen to know. It might be fun to go through and look up all the ones I didn't recognize to find out who the heck they were, but since I'm trying to enjoy the plot of the story, not give myself homework, I'm not doing it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNRfan Posted November 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 I do wish it didn't contain so many historical names I don't recognize, though! But I do get a small moment of pleasure when he mentions one that I do happen to know. It might be fun to go through and look up all the ones I didn't recognize to find out who the heck they were, but since I'm trying to enjoy the plot of the story, not give myself homework, I'm not doing it now. It certainly was written for a French audience. How about that rant on how Paris is the king of the world and determines what the rest of the world does. And on the note of historical names, who the heck is this Napolean fellow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 (edited) It certainly was written for a French audience. How about that rant ...And the description of the battle of Waterloo that "celarly" shows that Napoleon was just really unlucky that one time. From memory, I think my translation said: "a first class battle, won by a second class general". (OTOH: It may be the truth. I was never curious enough to investigate further.) Edited November 7, 2005 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaVache Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 Also, he seems to have a deference for altruism and generosity. The examples of this are so numerous it is pointless to list them for those who have read the book. For those who haven't, take my word for it, they're there. It makes me wonder if it is altruism per se that Rand rejects, or if it is just the belief that one is obligated to give, or the belief that one is entitled to gifts. I don't know, can anybody shed some light on this? Altruism is a synonym for neither generosity nor charity. The altuistic ideal is to give what you have earned to someone who is not worthy of it and to get no enjoyment from the giving. Because the object of altruistic giving should ideally be the most worthless person you can find, it amounts working for two weeks and then taking part of your wage and running it through a paper shredder. Because no enjoyment is derived from purely altruistic giving, the motive for such gifts much be an obligation, sense of duty, or pressure from a coersive source...I guess a feeling of unworthiness or one of not derserving your pay could also lead one to give their resources away to those who deserve it even less. Those two reasons make altruism immoral. Generosity and charity can be virtuous. If you decide to give part of what you have earned to someone who is "down on their luck," but who will use the money to rebuild their life and become productive once again, that would be a good thing. You are by no means obligated in any way to give away what you have earned, but if you give something to someone who is worthy of it because you want to, then you are by no means an altruist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNRfan Posted November 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 thank you for that clarification Please don't quote the entire post directly above yours--JMeganSnow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 One other similarity is that both Hugo and Rand fully embraced romantic characters. They don't use too many "average Joes." Characters don't get much better than Roark and much worse ( morally) than Thenardier. Both also created epic works. Even their lesser novels are better that most other novelists'. Toilers of the Sea's plot doesn't sound very grandiose, but Hugo really shows why he was a master in talking something simple and creating a masterpiece. IMO As has been said, Hugo reaaallly takes his time building his stories. I remember reading The Man Who Laughs trying to figure out what was supposed to be "important," and what was "Waterloo." Of course, these "Waterloos" almost always enrich the story, but it can be a pain getting through them Rand OTOH got right to it. Everyone I know who appreciates The Fountainhead liked Roark before they had read 10 pages (meeting the Dean.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNRfan Posted November 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2005 Well I just finished it and was satisfied with the ending, though I regret that it was somewhat bittersweet. Also, I wish there had been a sequel. There's alot more French history in that period to observe, and there are characters to keep up with, though Hugo does a fairly good job of tying it up. Oh well, a great book all in all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rearden_Steel Posted November 10, 2005 Report Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) To cause constellations of victories to flash forth at each instant from the zenith of the centuries, to make the French Empire a pendant to the Roman Empire, to be the great nation and to give eagles on all sides to conquer, to dominate, to strike with lightning, to be in Europe a sort of nation gilded through glory, to sound athwart the centuries a trumpet-blast of Titans, to conquer the world twice, by conquest and by dazzling, that is sublime; and what greater thing is there? To be free, said Combeferre That is on of my favorite quotes from the book. “To be free” such a simple and powerful phrase that instantly tears apart Marius's idea that there is value to be had by conquering and surprising other people. Combeferre conveys that it’s better to be a free individual than live through collective pride in the accomplishments of a nation. Hugo may have been in love with Paris but I believe that he understood the value of the individual over the idea of nationalism. If you like the book you will most likely enjoy the musical as well. The 10th Anniversary performance is available on DVD and contains some outstanding performances and scores. One thing I never liked about the musical though is at one point Enjolras exclaims, “Our little lives don’t count at all” in reference to the revolution. A quote that certainly wasn’t in the book, and I feel that it wasn’t very true to what Hugo was trying to portray in the quote I listed above. Despite that little adlib to the story it’s still a very good play. Edited November 10, 2005 by Rearden_Steel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted November 13, 2005 Report Share Posted November 13, 2005 I finally finished it as well. I've never had a book take me that long to read before! I didn't think the ending was so tragic: Jean Valjean made it that far without violating his principles. Javert surprised me, though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlav Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 You can definitely see the same principled nature of the characters in Rand's work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotCrazyDan Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 This thread is dead but I'll toss in my 2 cents anyways... I read the unabridged version of this book in highschool, and I was hooked almost immediately. This book is an awesome tale of redemption. The Jean Valjean stood over the sleeping body of the priest who had taken him in, a candlestick in his hand, ready to smash the priest's head in with it so that he could continue looting the church. At that point the realization of where the path he was going down would end set in, and he couldn't go through with the act, knowing that that final act of violence would be the end of him just as surely as it would be the end of the priest. The book was filled with wonderful scenes like that, many of them heartbreaking. This is a book that everyone should read once in their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 The book was filled with wonderful scenes like that, many of them heartbreaking. This is a book that everyone should read once in their lives. Agreed, although I'm only 3/4 of the way through at present. Great novel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.