Read Les Miserables
Henry Gallagher
Les Mis' is not a nice book. There is quite a bit of, um, questionable content. Most of the questionable content is NOT detailed, and it is in context, BUT it can get graphic. I'll go into details at the very bottom of this post under the stars *** if you want a spoiler.
Also, the book is NOT an easy read. I read it years ago and have ZERO intention to read it again. (I'm one of those people who reread books on a regular basis.) It was a hard book for a college student to read. So the question needs to be asked, what level does she read at? If she reads below 10-12th grade reading level, then no she shouldn't be reading it.
*** Les Miserable is not a fun and enjoyable book. Translated Les Miserable basically means the low-lifes. The miserable people at the bottom of the barrel. The wh*res, the prostitutes, the criminals, the thieves, the people who only survive at the edge of society. This book is their story.
Things happen to the main characters that are not pleasant. One character sells not only herself (in the prostitute sense), but sells her hair, her teeth, her self. She gets to the very end of her life to support an illegitimate child. This child is being raised by less than scrupulous tavern owner who treat her like a slave and treat their own children like royalty.
My teen, a great lover of the musical Les Mis, chose to read the book in 9th grade from a number of choices that I gave her. It was the first book that we read that really made us aware of the fact that a translator can make a significant difference. The first translation we read was like wading through mud; the book dragged and dragged. Then we tried the translation by Norman Denny which made the book so much more enjoyable. We recommend that translation.
Thank you all for your posts. My son is taking an acting class this summer, and he saw a poster on Les Miserable at the theater. He asked me if he could read this book, and I really wasn't sure for I have never read this book.
I have seen the movie before and the part about Fantine is the very reason I hesitated. I did not know how the book would portray her life or how explicitly it detailed her story. I will have to read it myself first and we shall see in about couple more years.
I did not know the story (hadn't seen the musical or movie) when I decided to read Les Mis a few years ago in my early 40's. I found it to be tough going at times. For example, the Battle of Waterloo took 60 pages to get through and by the end the words were going in one eye and out the other :D.
This story is better understood in light of its historical context, too. There are some great points made. Yes, these were the low people, but you see such wonderful things. You see how the protagonist (sorry, I'm having a brain jam and can't remember his name) is sentenced for stealing a loaf of bread, how he escapes, how a merciful act of kindness inspires him to change, how he becomes a just man, how he helps the dying Fantine, and more. You see how Jean Valjean (sp) who represents the mind of many at the time, cannot fathom how a man can change, etc.
The musical and the book ARE very different, as Eliana mentioned. I also like both of them, but I hate that ghost part they added to the musical and thought it unnecessary. There are some brutal things, I suppose, but some hope and promise the way some of the revolutionaries thought. The musical made the young hero more sensitive than the one in the book was to the girl who dies to save him (can't believe I've forgotten her name because I liked her song about being in the rain in the musical.)
As for reading it at 13, that really depends on the dc. My eldest still wouldn't be interested, but my 11 yo might be when she gets to be 13. At some point I think my dc need to see things that are questionable, to see how hard life can be, and to read things that aren't necessarily squeaky clean. I think Les Mis can fit that, but even in the abridged version there is a lot of "lecturing" as I call it by the author (his name also escapes me at the moment.)
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I've been "reading" Les Misrables for more than a year now. This isn't because I'm a slow reader (although I often am) or because my life is unbelievably busy. It's because I've constantly picked it up, only to set it aside again when things get slow -- and yeah, things can get slow.
Victor Hugo famously gets off track, leaving main characters aside for chapters as he recreates the battle of Waterloo, waxes philosophical about something, or obsesses over the design of the Paris sewers.
These digressions can be interesting and informative, if occasionally offensive ("A little girl without a doll is almost as unhappy, and quite as impossible, as a woman without children." Really, Victor? REALLY?). But sometimes I'm just not in the mood for a dry essay about sewers. I was some fiction! I want some action! I want to know what my man Jean Valjean is up to, and where Javert is lurking!
But I'm a purist and a completionist and a literary snob, so I'm not about to skip the dry parts. Instead, I end up avoiding Les Mis and cheating on it with something faster-paced.
Still, I keep coming back. Why?
For whatever reason, Les Mis has a hold on my heart. Maybe it's my innate attraction to all things French. Maybe it's the compelling social justice arguments that endure more than a century later. Maybe it's stuff I read between the lines. Maybe it's all about Javert; I've always had a bit of a thing for dark, complex, not-exactly-good-but-not-evil-either characters. Maybe it's just a damn good story.
The novel is divided into five "parts" -- Fantine, Cosette, Marius, The Rue Plumet Idyll and the Rue St-Denis Epic, and Jean Valjean -- and into several "books" within the parts. Those "books" are further divided into the segments I'm referring to as "chapters." Many of these are quite short, which makes tackling at least one a day a painless prospect.
After reading, I'll post a brief blog entry about whatever I found notable about the chapter. These will likely focus on visualizing the scenes, historical facts I learned, or other random stuff I didn't know about 19th century France.
Quick translation note, on the incredibly remote chance that both 1) someone is reading this, and 2) that someone is nerdy enough to care which translation I'm using: After a bit of research and reading some sample passages, I chose to go with the 2013 Christine Donougher translation released by Penguin Classics. I read the first couple hundred pages using the old Lee Fahnestock translation, however.
(On the off-off-off chance that someone reading is trying to choose a Les Mis translation, I found this post helpful -- although it doesn't include Donougher's version, which I recommend.)
Up next: Part Two (Cosette), Book 5 (Silent Stalkers in the Dark), Chapter III (Consult the 1727 Map of Paris).
I have both of these on my home bookshelf. How many of you have actually read them, and did you REALLY like them or did you read them just to be able to say you read them? LOL! (In other words, are they like "Satanic Verses" in that they are famous, but nobody is actually reading them?)
I've read both. Honestly, Les Miserables was worth it, but it took effort. All that Jean Val Jean stuff you have to really push yourself through. In fact, the whole book took effort, and really was one that I read to say I'd read it.
War and Peace, on the other hand, is one of my favourite classics. It's not boring at all. Even the battle stuff is good. Tolstoy is not a hard read - he's a bit like Trollope, he tells you what to think. No wading through obscure symbolism. He just lays it out for you and it's actually a good, easy read. I say go for War and Peace, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I bought the unabridged Les Mis last year. I read up to the part where Valjean comes in, but after trudging my way through the opening with the priest, I lost the will to read (LOL :D). I definitely want to finish sometime in the future, and W&P has caught my interest lately. I do think Les Mis will definitely be a worthwhile read should I ever have the time and energy (especially to lug such a thick paperback!).
I've read Les Mis, and it is definitely worth it! Yes, it takes time (a LOT - I'm usually a quick reader, but I took nearly a year to read this) and sometimes it is hard to understand, or boring, but just keep ploughing thru, and you'll make it! It's nice that Hugo varies the descriptions with action, and once you get to the action parts, you'll see that the long descriptions really were nessesary. And it really is an enjoyable read once you get used to the style.
I'm reading War and Peace right now. However, I'm reading just a few chapters (they are short) a day and reading other books also. It was supposed to be my classic for June; however, I didn't begin it until the middle of the month. At the rate that I'm reading it, it may be my classic for June and July. However, I do enjoy it when I'm reading it. I don't make a big effort to keep the characters straight. The way that Tolstoy writes makes it enjoyable reading even if I do get them mixed up. I'm trying to buy a leather-bound classic each month on ebay. I got a great bargain on W & P that looks brand new. So, it's even fun to hold this beautiful book in my hands while I read it.
War and Peace, on the other hand, I loved, loved, loved. I never wanted it to end, even after 1500 pages. It's just a wonderful book on every level. I never had any trouble keeping the characters apart (though I did get a little tired of hearing about the "downy upper lip" - seriously, I don't need that kind of clue to keep them separate in my mind!). I highly recommend it.
Read them both and loved them. Caveat. I have never re-read Les Miserables, and probably never will. W&P, however, I have read many times. Sometimes, though, I just read Peace (ie, alternate chapters). Anna Karenina is very good, but it is so sad. Try Tolstoi's shorter works as well. Quite good.
c80f0f1006