A review by hannahtosh
Les Misérables by Victor Hugo
2.0
"History neglects nearly every one of these little details and cannot do otherwise if it is not to be swamped by the infinite minutiae. And yet, the details, which are wrongly described as little - there are no little facts in the human realm, any more than there are little leaves in the realm of vegetation - are useful."
I am in awe that this novel took over thirty years to complete, but you can also tell…y’know? You get the distinct impression Victor Hugo was paid per word, however it turns out this was not the case.
The method Hugo uses in his other works, devoting enormous sections to argue a moral point or show off his vast knowledge, takes up more than a quarter of Les Misérables and these little (monumental) deviations do not advance the plot, or even the numerous subplots at all. Mister Hugo, was it absolutely necessary to devote over four full chapters to describing the poetic side of the Parisian sewers? He titles one part of the novel: “Parenthesis” to alert the reader that the relevance to the main plot is zilch. He visited the battlefield of the Battle of Waterloo, where he completed the novel, I’m not sure the 19 chapters he dedicated to the reflection on its place in history was absolutely fundamental though. A whole 19 chapters.
This novel achieves its gargantuan length due to…digressions (it doesn’t even begin at the beginning, but at the beginning of a digression!), yet also from extensive speech and ‘extensive’ is putting it mildly. The convolution does nothing to help keep your attention, no matter who is monologuing. It appears that Hugo repeats himself, tiresomely, or repackages identical messages multiple different ways in consecutive sentences, which makes you think you weren’t paying attention (I was 100%, all the time…).
His continuous evangelising was eventually exhausting, one wishes Hugo would have just taken a moment.
Hugo based the plot on such exaggerated coincidences that you can’t help but believe them. Also, was Javert really that hell-bent on apprehending a guy that stole a loaf of bread (the proverbial crime of the poor) instead of the murderers and whatnot flitting round Paris?
His aim was to include the unknown (mission: accomplished), to almost rewrite history with microscopic details – clearly wanting to teach us all a lesson in philosophy and politics.
"If it hadn't rained during the night of June 17-18, 1815, the future of Europe would have been different. A few drops of water, more or less, brought Napoleon to his knees. So that Waterloo could be the end of Austerlitz, Providence needed only a bit of rain, and a cloud crossing the sky out of season was enough for a whole world to disintegrate."
I am in awe that this novel took over thirty years to complete, but you can also tell…y’know? You get the distinct impression Victor Hugo was paid per word, however it turns out this was not the case.
The method Hugo uses in his other works, devoting enormous sections to argue a moral point or show off his vast knowledge, takes up more than a quarter of Les Misérables and these little (monumental) deviations do not advance the plot, or even the numerous subplots at all. Mister Hugo, was it absolutely necessary to devote over four full chapters to describing the poetic side of the Parisian sewers? He titles one part of the novel: “Parenthesis” to alert the reader that the relevance to the main plot is zilch. He visited the battlefield of the Battle of Waterloo, where he completed the novel, I’m not sure the 19 chapters he dedicated to the reflection on its place in history was absolutely fundamental though. A whole 19 chapters.
This novel achieves its gargantuan length due to…digressions (it doesn’t even begin at the beginning, but at the beginning of a digression!), yet also from extensive speech and ‘extensive’ is putting it mildly. The convolution does nothing to help keep your attention, no matter who is monologuing. It appears that Hugo repeats himself, tiresomely, or repackages identical messages multiple different ways in consecutive sentences, which makes you think you weren’t paying attention (I was 100%, all the time…).
His continuous evangelising was eventually exhausting, one wishes Hugo would have just taken a moment.
Hugo based the plot on such exaggerated coincidences that you can’t help but believe them. Also, was Javert really that hell-bent on apprehending a guy that stole a loaf of bread (the proverbial crime of the poor) instead of the murderers and whatnot flitting round Paris?
His aim was to include the unknown (mission: accomplished), to almost rewrite history with microscopic details – clearly wanting to teach us all a lesson in philosophy and politics.
"If it hadn't rained during the night of June 17-18, 1815, the future of Europe would have been different. A few drops of water, more or less, brought Napoleon to his knees. So that Waterloo could be the end of Austerlitz, Providence needed only a bit of rain, and a cloud crossing the sky out of season was enough for a whole world to disintegrate."