So is this actually good? Does it have any literary or philosophical qualities? I see it on charts all the time and it's very popular, but the same could be said about Count of Monte Cristo, which is, despite being a fun revenge story, as deep as a puddle.
I haven't finished it, but I'm about halfway through and so far it's very good.
He breaks up the plot regularly to ramble about things like the enlightenment, Waterloo, whether slang belongs in literature, the relationship between insects and stars.
His prose is very preachy. He uses a lot of repetition w/ little variations to get his point across. He's very sarcastic towards the rich and extremely forgiving of the poor, and the criminals.
He writes about the little nooks and crannies of 1800's Paris. You can look it all up on a map. Lots of little stories about what wall was used for firing squads and who scratched their name in it etc.
I'm pretty sure it's all quasi-historical though. For some parts he'll jump in and say, "I got the idea for this part in a newspaper article I saved." In the waterloo section he has horse falling into a ditch and till they fill it up and then other horses charging over them... which doesn't seem very realistic.
All the characters are tied together in weird little coincidences. So far, the plot also seems tied together so that it's not just a series of disconnected adventures.
Which translation would you anons suggest? inb4 learn French. I did learn to speak French, I'm more interested in reading long, complex books in my native language.
Denouncing handouts in favor of better wages has been a leftist talking point for more than a century.
Yes but Victor Hugo was literally a right wing monarchist throughout most of his life until his exile to the Channel Islands. He hated Napoleon III and came to accept republicanism around that time but he still thought France wasn’t ready to be a republic just yet which is why he included the abc cafe as a critique of dogmatic left wingers.
Also to answer your question I am reading Christine Donougher’s translation.
Thanks for the recc.
Also bonus fun fact: Hugo was a mystic who created his own religion which is still practiced in parts of Vietnam nowadays. He claimed he was psychic and could talk to Shakespeare and Napoleon the first, whom he claimed hated III as much as he did.
wat
First English translation of Victor Hugo’s writings on his experiments in spiritualism
• Reveals Hugo’s conversations with renowned discarnate entities such as Shakespeare, Plato, Galileo, and Jesus
• Examines his contacts with aliens from the planets Mercury and Jupiter and the revelation that our entire universe is a quantum hologram
• Discusses Hugo’s possible role as a grand master of the Priory of Sion
During Victor Hugo’s exile on the Isle of Jersey, where he and his family and friends escaped the reign of Napoléon III, he conducted “table-tapping” séances, transcribing hundreds of channeled conversations with entities from the beyond. Among his discarnate visitors were Shakespeare, Plato, Hannibal, Rousseau, Galileo, Sir Walter Scott, and Jesus. According to the transcripts, Jesus, during his three visits, condemns Druidism, faults Christianity, and suggests a new religion with Hugo as its prophet.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Victor-Hugos-Conversations-with-the-Spirit-World/John-Chambers/9781594771828
Its simultaneously one of the best books I've ever read and one of the most exhausting.
No, a multi-chapter, hundred page long explanation of the Battle of Waterloo is not necessary to learn about while the reader is waiting to see Jean Valjean meet Cosette. I'm sure its fantastic for someone who wants to immerse himself in French history and culture, but for the sake of the actual story, it feels like its dragging its feet.
>Hugo was actually a schizophrenic heretic
Maybe I should stop reading and stick with the musical
>Hugo talked with ayys, a frickton of historical figures and believed that God made flesh had instructed him to become Muhammad 2: electric boogaloo
I wish that creatives were still allowed to be eccentric. Nowadays even the so called crazy ones only do it for clout/aesthetic's sake while repeating boring takes from social media.
Amiel’s Journal showed much admiration for Hugo’s apparently massive imagination and knowledge. But of course, he’s one of those gays who blames all crime and poverty on social injustice. I doubt it’s anywhere near as good as Count, but might be worth checking out for sure. I’m prioritizing The Chatterhouse of Parma over this though. Looks extremely promising judging by what other writers like Balzac have had to say about it.
“They (working class) have been corrupted by handouts that corrupt the heart rather than wages that satisfy it.”
Hugo wrote that after one of the many rebellions in the 1830s which the “ABC club/ Enjolras” were modeled on. He was farther right than most people assume based on the core story. Throughout his life he went from Bonapartist to Monarchist to virtually non-political.
Whaaaaat, thank you for this, I did not suspect that. Now it’s a must read for me.
He disliked the protests in the 1830s because he was supportive of the government at that time. His views on Napoleon I flip flopped a lot but he did seem to hold a favorable viewpoint, especially Waterloo which he said was fought by men of the revolution. He specifically hated Nappy the third and only left during his reign. Hugo thought Republicanism was inevitable in France but it had a long way to go before being achieved and that rabble rousers hurt their cause more than helping it.
Had to do a play as a teenager in choir class to that story
I haven't read it yet but it's one of Forest Anon's favorites so I'm sure it's good
Forestanon knows his shit, this book is amazing.
his mouse damaged copy
it's one of the best books i've ever read. just read it and form your own opinion. "what am i in for?" threads are stupid, just read the book.
Well, they're stupid if the book isn't like 1200 pages long. In this case I think it was okay to ask.
This book is about as deep as a bowl of soup, and about as sharp as a soup spoon.
>Critical reactions were wide-ranging and often negative. Some critics found the subject matter immoral, others complained of its excessive sentimentality, and others were disquieted by its apparent sympathy with the revolutionaries. L. Gauthier wrote in Le Monde of 17 August 1862: "One cannot read without an unconquerable disgust all the details Monsieur Hugo gives regarding the successful planning of riots." The Goncourt brothers judged the novel artificial and disappointing. Flaubert found "neither truth nor greatness" in it. He complained that the characters were crude stereotypes who all "speak very well – but all in the same way". He deemed it an "infantile" effort and brought an end to Hugo's career like "the fall of a god". In a newspaper review, Charles Baudelaire praised Hugo's success in focusing public attention on social problems, though he believed that such propaganda was the opposite of art. In private he castigated it as "repulsive and inept" ("immonde et inepte").
Does IQfy prefer this or Monte Cristo?
Count of Monte Cristo for me, but I am not speaking for the board.
I read Les Mis and I'm halfway through Monte Cristo. Les Mis had higher highs, but some of the essay parts were really tiresome, especially Waterloo which dragged for 80 pages IIRC. Meanwhile Monte Cristo hasn't had a "bad" chapter so far.
Hugo could spin a yarn but it's overly-sentimental and meant to wash the reader in emotion. Certainly takes talent but not sure it touches on anything monumental. The sewer chapter was best.