The Result of Mme. Victurnien's Suceess. Volume 1, Book 5, Chapter 10.

Clips from <Il cuore di Cosette>.

Fauchelevent is hilarious. 

While Hugo’s descriptions of him here are fused with his critiques of Catholicism/religion more broadly (stupidity as a “great merit in religion”), the irony is clear from his words to the nun. Stressing his infirmity, his “brother’s” age, and the chance that Cosette might become a nun all work to gain her confidence, suggesting that she’d merely be assuring the future of the convent rather than introducing another man into the environment. 

The fact that Fauchelevent knows everything about the convent but doesn’t take advantage of that (until now) is also a fascinating contrast with the gossips of the novel. Like him, they have a desire to know all about those around them. However, they both actively seek out that knowledge through their networks and are willing to weaponize it. In contrast, Fauchelevent absorbs knowledge passively (learning to filter out the sounds of bells to better listen to people, for instance), and this is the first time he’s used this to anyone’s advantage. Of course, Fauchelevent couldn’t really gossip in the way others in society could because of his isolation; the nuns have some fondness for him, as illustrated by his nickname, but it’s not appropriate for him to interact with them often. Consequently, he doesn’t have people to share his knowledge with or to use it on. Still, it’s notable that the first time we’re seeing this all-knowing social figure in a positive light is with an outsider. Women like Mme Victurnien were very much a part of their community, while Fauchelevent, as a man in a women’s convent, is on the edges of that community: he’s vital to it, but he’s also not central in it. That marginalization of sorts seems to change how this knowledge works in his grasp, making it an instrument to benefit other outsiders (Valjean and Cosette) rather than a tool to enforce existing hierarchies.

The contrast between Fauchelevent and Valjean is intriguing as well. I don’t want to go as far as to say that Valjean can’t be clever in social situations. That’s not true, as he handled Thénardier quite deftly. However, he stands out a lot more than Fauchelevent, with his awkwardness and anxiety (stemming from the trauma of imprisonment) making him seem off to others. Even as Madeleine, when he was in a respected position, his strange manners were a source of gossip in the town. Fauchelevent’s social skills are on another level. Perhaps he wouldn’t have the same ability to work around shady figures like M Thénardier, but he is able to put others at ease by seeming inconspicuous, and that, too, is a strength at times. It’s wonderful to see how that ties into his intelligence, with his invisibility serving as a chance to learn and as a way to appear non-threatening when making requests.

I also love the nuns. Mother Innocente’s last comments imply that she has a scheme of her own, and while the secrecy of the convent is an issue (how can there be democratic, communal decision-making without transparency?), it also makes for very entertaining drama. 

how weird is it that javert is so close, i mean in a literary way, to women?

like he is the dog son a wolf and he recognizes eponine, daughter of a wolf. He is the perfect cop faced with a moral dilemma with no easy answer to (defy his morals with either choice) like simplice. He hates Fantine I believe in part cause he sees himself in her. He tells Mme. Thenardier (the other character in the novel that's as compared to animals as he is, kind of) 'you have a beard like a man but I have claws like a woman'. Javert and Mme Victurnien are almost the same person

this man is so gender is what I'm saying

Actors who appear in adaptations of both "Les Misérables" and "A Christmas Carol"

Because of course there's some overlap. Just for fun I thought I’d list them.

Fredric March: Jean Valjean in the 1935 Hollywood film/Scrooge in the 1954 TV Christmas Carol

Frank Finlay: Jean Valjean in the 1967 BBC miniseries/Marley’s Ghost in the 1984 TV Christmas Carol with George C. Scott

Angela Pleasance: Fantine in the 1978 British film/The Ghost of Christmas Past in the 1984 TV Christmas Carol with George C. Scott

Caroline Langrishe: Cosette in the 1978 British film/nephew Fred’s wife Janet in the 1984 TV Christmas Carol with George C. Scott

Meredith Braun: Éponine in the London and UK Tour productions of the musical, 1992-93/Belle in The Muppet Christmas Carol, 1992

Dominic West: Jean Valjean in the 2018 BBC miniseries/nephew Fred in the 1999 TV Christmas Carol with Patrick Stewart

Fra Fee: Courfeyrac in the 2012 musical film/voice of nephew Fred (or rather Harry, as he’s renamed) in the 2022 animated Scrooge: A Christmas Carol

Olivia Colman: Mme. Thénardier in the 2018 BBC miniseries/voice of the Ghost of Christmas Past in the 2022 animated Scrooge: A Christmas Carol

Johnny Flynn: Félix Tholomyés in the 2018 BBC miniseries/voice of Bob Cratchit in the 2022 animated Scrooge: A Christmas Carol

And 2004's A Christmas Carol: The Musical features many veterans from productions of Les Mis on the West End stage.

Claire Moore (Mrs. Fezziwig): Fantine in 1993, Mme. Thénardier in 2006

Ruthie Henshall (Scrooge's mother): Fantine in 1992 and in the 1995 10th Anniversary Concert

Linzi Hately (Mrs. Cratchit): Éponine in 1988 (and the prerecorded voice of Éponine’s scream from then on), Mme. Thénardier in 2012, and a “Turning” woman in the 2012 film

Gay Soper (Charwoman #1 at the Royal Exchange): Mme. Thénardier in 1988 and on the Complete Symphonic Recording

Jenny Galloway (Charwoman #2 at the Royal Exchange): Mme. Thénardier many times

Dave Willetts (one of the charity solicitors): Jean Valjean in London 1988-1993, and in Australia, 1997-1998

There are more too (if I'm not mistaken, the actor who plays Young Marley was understudying Marius in London at the time), but these are all the names I can think of.

And two more indirect Christmas Carol connections from the 1967 BBC Les Misérables:

Michele Dotrice (Fantine): wife of Edward Woodward, the Ghost of Christmas Present in the 1984 TV Christmas Carol with George C. Scott.

Eileen Moore (Mme. Victurnien): wife of George Cole, Young Scrooge in the 1951 Scrooge with Alastair Sim

If anyone can think of any more, please let me know!

f.antine never having a close "girlfriend" to confide in and any trust she had in her g.ender being decimated not only the quartet, but by mme. victurnien and, had fantine lived, mme. t.hénardier.

and i think that's what makes her loneliness so much more isolating. not being able to trust men after t.holomyès, and again after having to turn to p.rostitution, makes sense. she is an outcast ostracised by other outcasts; the only person she can confide in is herself, but god, she just wants one person to tell her that they care, that her burden can be shared.

Okay but 35 francs is around $700 USD today: what exactly did Madame Victurnien spend that kind of cash on?

Brickclub: 1.5.8

Fantine has never had a single ally in her entire life.

I’m starting with this, because it’s so crucial to understanding her and how she frames the world. Fantine has never had a single person she can trust or rely on. The closest she’s ever had to that was Tholomyes, and we all saw how that turned out. As a child, she had no family and had to fend for herself. We don’t know what her life was like on the farm, but it doesn’t seem like the family remembers her, so she was probably pretty solitary. In Paris, her only social connections seemed to be the grisettes, who tolerated her at best and mocked her at worst. Here in M-sur-M, the other women immediately take a dislike to her and work to bring her down.

I’m saying this, not to cruelly reinforce how tragic Fantine’s life has been (although, on that note, Jesus Fantine’s life is tragic) but to say that this is where she comes from when people tell her to appeal to the Mayor. Not only has she just been fired on his explicit orders (or so she was told), but literally nothing in her life has ever suggested that going to someone for help will result in anything other than apathy at best, active disdain or malice at worst. Of course she’s not going to ask the mayor for help. She’s going to do what she can on her own, just like she always has, because it’s the only thing she knows how to do.

Anyway, moving backwards, this is where Hugo’s carefully set up gossip theme starts really coming into play. We’ve seen that every newcomer gets gossiped about and judged. The Bishop gets it, Madeleine gets it, Valjean got it, and now so does Fantine. But here’s the thing: the less social power you have, the more power that gossip can have, and thus the more destructive it is.

The Bishop arrived in a position of power. Regardless of his weirdness and his poverty and how much he offends his colleagues, the Bishop has power in his society. And this matters, because it means the only impact the gossip really has is a)temporary and b)on how he is perceived. No matter how corrupt or wicked he was, he would still be received in society and still have power. For the Bishop, the gossip is mostly harmless and amusing.

Madeleine arrives in M-sur-M as a neutral outsider, who proves his character with a heroic feet and rapidly makes his fortune. Unlike Myriel, the gossip surrounding him has the potential to have more social impact, not that he cares about his reputation, but like Myriel he’s got the social power and status to, again, mostly just ignore it.

Meanwhile, Jean Valjean and Fantine, two people without power, as a convict and a poor, unwed mother, have their lives ruined by town gossip. Jean Valjean is run out of town and probably would have gone straight back to prison had the Bishop not happened to him. Fantine, meanwhile, doesn’t have a Bishop yet, and the gossip around her lost her her job and, eventually, will lead to her death.

And this ties back to his main point, his overarching theme, the entire reason this book exists, which is that society is most harmful and toxic to its most vulnerable members. The rich and powerful, i.e. the ones with the resources to survive society’s attacks, are mostly insulated from them. The poor and vulnerable are not only poor, they are then attacked and ostracized for that very poverty. A social phenomenon that probably at most provides the Bishop with a few laughs over dinner with his sister sends Fantine to her death.

(That said, I do have some side-eye about him going out of his way to personify this one, female gossip, in particular. Not that she doesn’t deserve to be judged, because wow does she ever, but Hugo is Bad At Women and choosing this particular woman as the mouthpiece for his virulent social commentary is... not great. But that’s for a different post.)

Brickclub 2.8.7, “In Which We Find the Origin of the Saying, ‘Ne Pa Perdre la Carte’“

The conclusion of the caper. 

A fifteen-franc fine--three hundred sous--is a horribly harsh thing to hold over the head of a workingman. It’s so inordinately steep, but the horrible thing is that I can actually see it not having been punitive in intent--a chain of “for sanitary reasons, we need to make sure no one gets into the graveyard after dark because of the dangerous miasmas!” “Yes! Let us impose a fine--one high enough to act as a deterrant--on anyone trespassing there after dark, where no one has legitimate business being anyway.” “But what about the gravediggers? They might be detained there after dark.” “Ah yes. We will issue all the gravediggers passes, and anyone caught without a pass will pay the fine. This solves the problem completely with no unintended consequences whatsoever.”

But of course there are unintended consequences, as of course we see when Fauchelevent, his ruse with the card having successfully gotten Gribier out of the way, comes to his garret to return the pick:

Lids were displaced, ragged clothing was scattered about, the jug was broken, the mother had been weeping, the children had probably been beaten: signs of a distraught and bad-tempered search. It was plain that the gravedigger had been frantically hunting for his pass and held everything in the garret, from the jug to his wife, responsible for its loss.

Gribier is not a good person. The incidental beating of the children is not neutral in this book, but it would have been in some books of the day, and that last line seems meant to make certain readers don’t give him a pass (as it were): Gribier is desperate and frightened, but his first instinct when frightened is to blame and punish other people for his mistakes.

But the text goes on: “But Fauchelevent was in too great a hurry to bring this adventure to a conclusion to notice this sorry side of his success.”

THIS. THIS IS BAD. This is a level of neon flashing bad I can’t believe I never noticed. The text even echoes the title of the chapter where Fantine sells her hair and teeth: “Consequences of Her [i.e., Mme Victurnien’s] Success.”

Being unaware of the collateral damage of one’s actions does not excuse them--the book has made that very clear and Valjean knows that; he feels his debt to Fantine all the more keenly because he did not know the harm his policies had done to her, and he should have. He feels, ultimately, grateful for his chance to save Champmathieu, rather than live ignorant of the level of harm his existence as Madeleine would have caused.

(I am also reminded of how Valjean’s attempt to get the wheel fixed en route to Arras is thrown into relief by Champmathieu’s speech about working as a wheelwright, in winter, for pushy customers who want things done immediately--retrospectively showing how things look on the other side of a transaction.)

Valjean is outside in the street, and when Fauchelevent stole the card he was unconscious, but this is still his plan, and its success has done harm that Valjean cannot remedy because he doesn’t know about it. This is a WRONG TURN.

And yet, on their way to Gribier’s, Fauchelevent, who one page ago was weeping, says “How well everything’s going! What a good idea that was of yours, Père Madeleine!”

Fauchelevent had the right of it before, when he thought Valjean was dead: “But how did he get inside the convent in the first places? That’s how it all started. People shouldn’t do things like that.”

(And, a bit later, asking a question that’s equally relevant to Valjean’s next burial: “What would you expect me to do if you’d died? And your little girl?”)

For all that Fauchelevent is happy--”Joy is the ebbing of terror,” Hugo remarks, as though that’s a normal thing to say, Victor are you ok?--he and Valjean are still feeling the Gothic uncanniness of the cemetery: “Even restored to their senses, these two men without realizing it were troubled in spirit and felt a strangeness inside them, which was the sinister effect of the place.”

And we see it in Valjean, who in contrast to Fauchelevent is completely impassive: 

Jean Valjean had some difficulty in moving and walking. He had grown stiff in that coffin and become a little corpse-like. The rigidity of death had taken hold of him inside that wooden box. He had, as it were, to thaw out from being in the grave.

“You’re numb,” Fauchelevent says, and Valjean’s response is “A few steps, and my legs will be fine.” Except it’s not just his legs, it’s his everything--and his manner continues to be weirdly numb all the way through his interview next chapter. Look at what he says in this chapter: “I fell asleep [i.e., passed out],” “I’m cold,” the line about his legs, and, in answer to Fauchelevent asking him to point out number 87, “This is it here.”

He doesn’t express any joy over being alive, or over the plan having worked.

He doesn’t ask after Cosette.

He doesn’t ask after Cosette.

Fauchelevent mentions Cosette! Valjean doesn’t, not even after Fauchelevent brings her up. That, more than anything, underscores what a very, very wrong path he’s on.

One character note I liked a lot--when Fauchelevent conceives of the ruse with the pass, the dialog shifts from Gribier addressing Fauchelevent as “Peasant” or “Provincial” to Fauchelvent addressing him as “Novice” or “Newcomer.” Fauchelevent is very, very aware of where the power lies in an interaction.

Beauty as Morality in Les Mis

(aka part 1 of a write-up no one asked for about how Victor Hugo takes the classic idea of beauty=goodness, ugliness=evil and dials it up to 11)

So I’ve been reading Les Mis through for the first time, and something that struck me is how often a character’s morality and personality is reflected in how their appearance is described. That is, the more a character embodies Hugo Approved™ virtues like honesty, compassion, courage, conviction, and faith, the more beautiful they are. Likewise, negative traits are consistently expressed as ugliness.

To start, here are some brief examples from part one (Fantine): 

M. Myriel - “good-looking...elegant, graceful” (1.1.1)

There’s an entire book just about how much of a saint M. Myriel is—he embodies all the more gentle virtues, especially compassion and faith.

Tholomyès -  “ill-preserved...wrinkled and gap-toothed, with a bald patch...and a weakness in one eye” (1.3.2)

We all know Tholomyès is an asshole, but in his introduction the only explicitly negative thing Hugo says of him is that he is “superiorly sceptical of all things”. This right here is why I specified “Hugo Approved” virtues—because in modern readers’ eyes, being sceptical and questioning might be seen as a more positive and “intellectual” trait than blind faith. But Hugo clearly holds a negative opinion of sceptics: only two characters are described as such in the entire novel (Tholomyès and Grantaire) and how do they appear? “ill-preserved” and “inordinately ugly”, respectively—and in Grantaire’s intro, Hugo calls scepticism the “decay of the intellect” (3.4.1). ((I’ll go more into R’s description later I promise))

Madame Thénardier - “a woman of no very attractive appearance...Had she been standing upright, instead of sitting crouched in the doorway, her height and general look of a fair-ground wrestler might have alarmed the stranger...and so shaken her confidence as to prevent the events to be related from taking place.” (1.4.1)

Notable here is the fact that though Mme T’s appearance is described as “alarming”, this is hidden from Fantine while she’s seated—instead, she gives off the appearance of a doting mother, and fools Fantine into trusting her with Cosette’s well-being.

Madame Victurnien - “a countenance of mingled age and ugliness….Dry, withered, acid, thorny, malicious, and venomous...cruel of heart” (1.5.8)

Yeah just take every negative adjective you can think of and it’ll stick

Sister Simplice - “Her smile was pure and her gaze was pure; there was no cobweb or any grain of dust on the unsullied mirror of that conscience.” (1.7.1)

And here we have an explicit reference to one’s appearance as a mirror of the conscience! 

The next segment of this post will go into more complex characters (Valjean, Fantine, & Javert) in part one, and how Hugo deals with character growth!

xx

Most quotes are taken from the Donougher translation, but I also compare them to the original French to try to get the most accurate version—e.g. using “inordinately ugly” (Hapgood) instead of “astonishingly ugly” (Donougher) to represent “laid démesurément” (Hugo).

Brick Club 1.5.8 “Madame Victurnien Spends Thirty-Five Francs On Morality”

Hugo does this with so many of the societal tragedies in this book. He sets everything up like everything is great and everyone is happy, only to have the facade crumble. It happened with the students/grisettes outing in 1.4 and in the description of the Thenardier children at Montfermeil, and it’s happening now with the description of Montreuil-sur-Mer’s prosperity. Everyone’s so happy and has good income and pays taxes! Oh wait, here’s how the people of this town fucked over one poor woman. (And how many other women have had something similar happen to them because of the nosey people.)

I’m really stuck on the line that Fantine “forgot many things.” She admired her appearance and thought about Cosette and the future and was almost happy, but she also forgot many things. What did she forget? Not Tholomyes, I don’t think, because on the next page he says she thinks of him. It’s such an odd little phrase. I just can’t think of what “many things” she could forget.

Hugo says she rented a room and furniture on credit, “a remnant of her former disorderly ways.” Fantine thinks she’s getting herself back on track, that this renting stuff on credit will be the last time she’ll have to do something “disorderly” and that now that she’s making a living with her own work she’ll be fine. The Hapgood translation is “improvident,” by the way, which I think makes more sense. However I find it interesting that Hugo calls her renting a room on credit a lack of foresight, when really it’s just a necessity out of extreme poverty. She had 23 francs when she left Montfermeil, and I can’t imagine she has much--or any--left when she arrives. Her behavior in Paris, of not taking job opportunities when they arose because of her affair with Tholomyes, I think that makes at least a little sense to call improvident. But not her renting and furnishing her rooms on credit, which seems desperate rather than prodigal.

The townspeople whisper that Fantine “put on airs,” which is the same accusation Favourite had of her back in 1.3.4 while on the swing. Something about Fantine’s odd sort of innocence makes people think she feels superior to them. I was going to say I wonder if this is another way of Hugo insinuating her goodness, but I don’t think Fantine’s “goodness” is the same as Myriel or Valjean’s. Hugo called Fantine “wise,” and I think an aspect about her is that she’s wise on an emotional level, not on a social level. She understands the importance of emotional connection and devotion on a level we don’t see with the other grisettes or with the people of M-sur-M. She doesn’t seem to have any idea about the whisperings going on around her, she has no idea that her child has been discovered until she’s fired. And yet even when she hardens due to her suffering, she never loses the softness about Cosette. Her wisdom is about sacrifice, which is exactly the kind of wisdom that these nosey townspeople (and probably Favourite) lack.

I love Hugo’s condemnation of gossip and rubbernecking. It also makes me laugh because it’s so similar to the way that cops act. This feels like a condemnation of both gossips and cops. What’s the phrase? Kill the cop inside your head? Anyway, he sounds so frustrated and exasperated here. I haven’t read very much further into the Hugo bio, but I’m wondering if there was some rumor or scandal that he personally experienced that made him feel so strongly here.

Hugo’s really hammering home the beauty of Fantine’s hair and teeth here in preparation for two chapters ahead. Weirdly, this reminds me of the Bishop’s silver. Back in 1.1.6 we learn about Myriel’s silver, and it’s mentioned multiple times afterward. When he gives it up, he’s giving up the last thing that connects him to his past life and is put on the same level as any of the poor parishioners or citizens of Digne. When Fantine gives up her teeth and hair, she sacrifices the last two things that tie her not only to her old life in Paris, but to the possibility of success in society as a woman.

So from what I can tell, the Bernardines are a Catholic order also called “Cistercians.” Originally they tried to observe the Rule of St Benedict and focused mostly on manual labor, but later become more focused on intellectual and academic rigor. There was a semi-successful reform movement to go back to old ways in the 17th century. By the 19th century it seems it was mostly dissolved. The “Bernard” of Bernardine was Bernard of Clairvaux, a powerful French abbot who actually wrote up rules that allowed Templar knights to pass through all borders freely. He also encouraged the Second Crusade, though it failed. The Jacobins were anti-royalist republicans who encouraged dechristianization of the country. The Jacobins spoke on behalf of the people but many were bourgeoisie.

So Mme. Victurnien’s ex-monk husband went from being a monk of a fairly intellectual order who observed pretty strict Benedictine rules to joining the fairly atheistic, republican, radical Jacobins.

Madame Victurnien was strict and harsh because her husband was strict and harsh to her. Something I’ve noticed about the way Hugo writes about toxic/abusive/bad relationships between people is how children are affected versus adults. Victurnien and her dead husband, the Thenardier parents, even Gillenormand (with his spinster daughter) to some extent, are all horrible relationships where the treatment of each other means they both turn out pretty awful. However, the same treatment to children (Thenardier parents to their children and even more so to Cosette, Gillenormand to Marius) actually creates an opposite personality. Eponine and Gavroche are both pretty rough, but they’re also both fairly kind in certain ways, which their parents are definitely not. Marius is socially awkward but happy to help when he can. Cosette defies her childhood completely. It’s just an interesting observation that adults abused as adults become abusive themselves while children who were abused have the chance to end the cycle.

“She was a nettle bruised by a frock.” Does Hugo use “nettle” in this metaphor as a verb or a noun? Because to nettle someone is to annoy them, which works, as Victurnien seems to be an extremely annoying individual. But also we have nettles as prickly, stinging plants and as a metaphor from a few chapters ago for the way people become hurtful when neglected. Here we have Victurnien, this nettle bruised by a frock, hurt and damaged by this ex-monk, who becomes prickly and abusive herself. Perhaps with better treatment she would not have turned out this way; but she continues the cycle, beating down others and turning them into stinging nettles rather than them becoming useful.

Fantine is given her fifty francs upon her termination “on behalf of the mayor.” Madeleine is not even Madeleine at all in this chapter. He’s just “the mayor,” as Fantine had been just “the mother” back in 1.4.1. To her he’s this entity that has power over her, that even hates and persecutes her the way the townspeople are. She doesn’t see him, and neither do we; by this point he seems to have relegated factory admin jobs to others, who are then able to make the choice about who to dismiss and why. Again this presents a problem to his rules. People can make up any old rumor or reason to dismiss a person they don’t like or see as morally unfit, and because Valjean doesn’t seem to play as much a part in the running of the factory as before, there’s no way to dispute, except to go to him. And who’s going to go to him, if they feel the same shame that Fantine does?

Fantine is in limbo; she’s told to leave the city but she cannot because of debt. Hugo’s characters in limbo are usually on the edge of an emotional or ethical breakthrough, as with Valjean leaving Digne, Marius just outside the barricade, or Javert at the bridge. Fantine’s limbo doesn’t seem like the edge of a breakthrough, more like the edge of collapse. She really doesn’t have many avenues open to her anymore.

Also, what about sex workers who are more obvious? Later, we see Fantine walking the street in a ballgown. That’s very unsubtle. And, I don’t know, maybe it goes with her sort of social innocence that she would do something like that, but surely there are other desperate women who blatantly walk the streets like that. They haven’t been kicked out of the city. Surely they don’t--or can’t--hide their trade completely. It must be some sort of open secret. I understand that the reasoning for her being banished from M-sur-M is that Valjean has very strict rules, but it still seems so weird to me to set these rules up for some of the city but not all.

Fantine feels shame more than she feels despair. Which. Is a lot. It’s just awful that she has to feel ashamed for this thing that she would have kept hidden if the townspeople weren’t so awful. She has to feel ashamed for the one thing in her life that she truly actually loves and sacrifices for. Which is another parallel between her and Valjean. Fantine feels ashamed not because of her love of Cosette, but because of the “mistake” and stigma that Cosette’s existence implies. Valjean loves Cosette but he always feels a little bit ashamed, not at loving her, but because he feels she doesn’t deserve his love. Despite both of their shame regarding their love for Cosette, both Fantine and Valjean will sacrifice anything for her. It’s definitely a statement about the power of Love, but I think it’s also a good illustration of how both Valjean and Fantine seem to think of themselves as people meant to Suffer For The Good Of Another.

Fantine was “advised to see the mayor; she did not dare.” She believes this was his decision, and not some foreman’s. This is a failure on her part and on Valjean’s part as well. It’s a failure on Fantine’s part because had she gathered her courage and gone, she could have avoided everything that soon comes. But Fantine is so optimistic and sees through rose-tinted glasses, all the way until the moment everything collapses on her, and then she can’t go on. Her optimism doesn’t get her far enough to stand up again immediately; it has to rest first. But more than Fantine’s failing, this is Valjean’s. I assume he gets notified of who is hired and fired at his factory; does he not reach out when someone is dismissed to make sure they’re okay and to see if he can help? Even more of a failure is this rigid system he’s set up combined with his kind-but-mysterious air. He’s so nice and fair that the townspeople see these rules as kind and fair as well, when they’re very much not. But no one--including Fantine--is going to question it because they assume it’s set up in the spirit of kindness. Which I suppose it is, from Valjean’s point of view, but it’s misguided and twisted and ends up being far more damaging than it could ever be helpful.

The Beginning of Fantine's Descent. Volume 1, Book 5, Chapter 8.

Clips from <Il cuore di Cosette>.

Hugo’s choice to describe both the woman who fires Fantine and the woman who teaches her how to live in poverty as “spinsters” indicates that there are parallels between them. The former is “full of the charity which consists in giving, but not having in the same degree that charity which consists in understanding and in forgiving”, while the latter, Marguerite, is “pious with a true piety, poor and charitable towards the poor, and even towards the rich.” I think what we’re once again seeing is the debate over the place/value of charity. The woman who fired Fantine is praised for her charity - that is likely what convinced Madeleine to hire her - but as her charity is limited by her idea of who is “deserving,” it can never truly have that great of an impact. In contrast, Marguerite is willing to help everyone. As we know from the latter half of this chapter, Fantine is scorned by the rest of the townspeople, so interacting with her could be risky. Marguerite, however, cares more that there’s someone in need, making her charity more impactful. At the same time, Marguerite is poor herself. While this may be exactly what gives her solidarity with Fantine, it seriously limits her ability to change her situation. It’s true that without her, Fantine wouldn’t have been able to survive after losing her job. But it’s also true that Fantine’s health is constantly deteriorating (her cough is getting worse) and that, even with all of the time she spends working, her payments to the Thénardiers have become irregular. Charity is wonderful, but only social change and a real support system could help Fantine.

This is less direcly related, but I’m fascinated by the number of women in this book who don’t have husbands, given the expectation for women to marry. Some of them, like Mme Victurnien, are widows, but many of them (Baptistine, the two “spinsters” in this chapter) simply never married. To some extent, it’s possible this is simply a realistic representation of France at the time. After years of war, it wouldn’t be surprising if many women lost their husbands either during the Revolution, one of the wars relating to it, or during Napoleon’s campaigns, for instance. These women would also be more directly vulnerable to poverty. We don’t know how much Fantine was paid while she worked at the factory, but afterward, she makes 12 sous a day, which is less than what Valjean made working on his way to Digne (and that’s even after he was paid half as much because he was a convict). Consequently, they’re less likely to be able to support themselves, as their salaries are very low and, if they don’t have a male relative to provide for them in the way that Baptistine does (and that Valjean’s sister did, although poverty still caught up to her), it’s very hard to live off of what they earn alone. Additionally, these women would be more likely to work for that same reason: they need the money if they don’t have a husband who can work. And on top of that, their behavior in relation to men is constantly scrutinized. Even their titles - Madame, Mademoiselle - automatically indicate to us if they have ever been married. Hugo himself pointed out the difference in status accorded to women based on marriage and motherhood while describing Baptistine, and that’s certainly at play here (although without one, the other isn’t given value; otherwise, Fantine would be much more respected as a mother). As an unmarried woman who hasn’t been in town long enough to establish “respectability” in the same way that, say, the woman running the factory, has, Fantine’s behavior in relation to men remains what is used to condemn her (the idea that she had a relationship with a man that left her with a child outside of marriage). For once, this horrible treatment of women is actually not on Hugo, but it’s very frustrating to read about.

Javert/ Mme. Victurnien

JEESE you went straight for the kill there, Pilf

1. My take on their canon relationship: They never interacted, but you bet they at least nod solemnly to each other when they cross on the street

2. Do I ship them: No but. In the mirrorverse they probably got married

3. Reasons why I do/don’t ship them: Both of them are obsessed with maintaining the social order to an extreme level. They are both kinda outcasts. If only Javert didn’t have the world’s most repressed homosexuality

4. Headcanon, if any: In a modern AU they do their nails together and get salty about people they mutually hate (they are 100% frenemies)

5. How much do I ship (%): it’s a great ship! 0%, never want that to happen ever

Brickclub Les Mis 1.5.9

In the ~1.5 years Fantine has been in Montreuil, she’s gone into debt to the tune of 150 francs on rent and furniture. The first six months of that she had pre-paid the Thenardiers, then paid them 42 francs over the next 6 months, and around 72 for the next half year (12/month after the first year), and now needs to find 15 francs/months aside from her own food, and lodging. As Hugo points out, by time Fantine’s sewing, she’s earning 12 sous/day and needs 10 of those just for Cosette. The remaining two sous per day (totaling 3 francs over a month) isn’t going to feed her*, much less cover the rent or put anything towards her debts. 

Poor Fantine.

[Err, I think I started figuring things to approximate how much Fantine may have been getting paid in the factory, but all we know is that it’s probably more than 12 sous per day, and that she was going into debt at nearly the same rate as she was initially paying for Cosette. Looking at the other working class labor** we see in the book, and noting that Fantine isn’t particularly good at what she’s doing, but that JVJ is generous, she was maybe in the ballpark of 20-25 sous per day.]

Anyway, Mme Victurnien is horrible, and everyone else sucks, except Marguerite, who is a blessing, and deserves all the nice things.    

The landlord and the furniture dealer both address Fantine with “vous”.

*Marius’ exemplary poverty involved 20 sous per day for food, with 4 of that covering an egg and a bit of bread for breakfast. Messing around with the historical currency converter (giving 1 pound sterling ~ 25 francs) and someone else’s stats on historic English bread prices, I’m getting a very approximate cost of 2 sous per pound of bread, which puts Fantine at maybe 1200 calories per day, if she spends all her non-Cosette money on bread. 

**”Unskilled” is a terrible term, and we hates it forever, Precious.

Los miserables, 1971 – “Holy Hugo, they included ‘insert rare scene here’!”

Wrote this a while ago and realised I never posted it. So here goes.

Do you have a favourite obscure scene or detail in Les misérables that hardly ever makes the cut in screen adaptations? If you do, this might just be the adaptation for you. If you want to see an adaptation that tells the story well, however, this is not for you.

It's a nineteen-part (coincidence? I think not...) TV adaptation by the Spanish channel RTVE within its show “Novela”, a show of multiple literature adaptations that ran for fifteen years in total!

And the best part: You can see it all online on RTVE's webpage: http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/los-miserables/

You can skip all episodes with mod 5 = 1 (except the first one), those are the episodes originally shown on Mondays, recapping what happened last week.

Like the Italian TV adaptation, this is unfortunately hindered by its budget. Unlike the Italian TV adaptation, this has the additional problem of its screenwriter's frankly bizarre understanding of concepts such as “pacing” and “importance”.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's rather cool to have an adaptation that includes many of the more obscure scenes, but I know the book and I know the context for all of these. I think asking how much sense the plot actually makes to someone who only knows this adaptation is a legitimate question.

Time is “wasted” on montages, dream-sequences and scenes of characters tossing and turning in bed, all of them many times longer than they have any right to be. Partially, it feels like the screenwriter couldn't decide which plot details to include and then just tried to incorporate as many of them as possible – continuity be damned. As an example, he took the time to include Mabeuf's death at the barricade, but it doesn't mean anything, since it happens to a character we have never seen before. Because Mabeuf's entire background is missing. To top it off, the watching students call him “le conventionel”, probably just to tick another box on the check list. To get another time saver, “show, don't tell” is occasionally blatantly violated. We get Valjean's entire history from him telling his life story to the bishop. The backstory of Marius and Gillenormand is conveyed in their fight before Marius leaves, meaning all the info is solely for the benefit of the audience, because all characters involved already know this stuff. Yet, bizarrely, they occasionally have time for a “show” where none would have been necessary. We get a far too long montage of Fantine with Cosette in Paris, that includes Fantine getting fired from her old job. Honestly, you can cover the question of why Fantine leaves Paris with a single line – you know, like it's done in the original?

I wouldn't usually mind, but it not only messes up the pacing, but it also takes up time that could have been used to flesh out some of the details. Or even some of the main plot points. We have Marius letting Thénardier go at the end, but Marius doesn't owe him a debt in this one. It might have made the Gorbeau robbery easier, but at the end, Marius has no real reason to not call the police. That is, if Thénardier is even a prison escapee. It's never shown nor mentioned how he got out of prison after the Gorbeau house robbery. On a smaller scale, it leads to a few bizarre moments, where introductions or transitions are missing, as if someone was trying to cut the corners wherever possible. For example, one episode starts with Marius' and Gillenormand's fight, without any introduction to their conflict or any real introduction of the characters (apart from Marius being the cute boy from the park). Or take the Champmathieu trial. The prosecutor asks for the witnesses to be heard and the very next moment, the judge is already questioning Brevet. No scene of the witnesses entering the room or at least the camera pointing out that they've been there all the time (because I definitely missed that in the overhead shots of the fairly small courtroom set); no scene of the judge calling the first witness, which becomes even worse when he does it to every subsequent witness.

Between this kind of overly short editing and long, drawn-out scenes of Marius healing (which commits the additional cardinal sin of making us think that it's finally over with a short conversation, only to continue for another minute or so) or of Fantine tossing on her bed (which we only later realise is prossibly Cosette's birth!), it feels a bit like there were too many people involved and no two of them could disagree over the tone and style of this adaptation.

I have another, if slightly petty, complaint: Why do the opening credits contain pictures of scenes we never get to see? It makes it pretty hard to identify which actor played which character and it also made it look they would include scenes that end up not being there. From the credits, you could be forgiven for thinking that there are scenes in Toulon, that Valjean's sister shows up or that they include the scene where Éponine stops Patron-Minette from robbing the house in the Rue Plumet. None of these actually happen.

Just to finish my list of complaints about this adaptation, let me talk about Javert. Now, I like the basic idea of what they did with the character, if only because it is the opposite to what most other adaptations do. In many adaptations, Javert is portrayed as a far more villainous character than in the book. These guys went the opposite way. Javert is calm and polite most of the time (making his one outburst when he arrests Valjean even more meaningful) and in one scene seems concerned about Fantine's safety (while she's still employed at Madeleine's factory that is), when he meets her in a disreputable part of town after dark and insists on accompanying her to her destination. Yes, it's later made clear that he still uses this to find out what she was doing there in the first place and this is what kicks off the chain of events leading to Mme Victurnien finding out about Cosette, but the two scenes taken together imply that Javert is both caring about the safety of an innocent civilian and spying on said civilian, just in case they're not as innocent as they seem to be. If they had done it like this throughout the movie I wouldn't be complaining.

Yet, it also means they had Javert come up to Madeleine, stating that he is happy to be the first to congratulate him about his appointment as mayor. It makes Javert's later resentment of Madeleine seem quite petty. Or the end of the “Confrontation”, where Javert, rather than leading Valjean out  of the room, just makes a hand gesture to ask him to step out. Which again could have worked, but then he would have had to stay polite for all of the scene. Which he didn’t. They also decided not to stick to it for the entirety of the series. The portrayal of Javert in the later parts is more “traditional”, so to speak.

The acting is solid, for the most part, but hardly ever outstanding, although I’m likely not the best judge. Valjean's acting is fairly, occasionally too, subtle and he's a bit too calm for my taste in his entire encounter with the bishop. The actor, Pepe Calvo, is better known for his work in spaghetti western movies and I've by now realised that the reason he seemed familiar to me from the beginning is because of the western “Dead Men Ride” which I saw as a child, in which he plays a Myriel-like character of all things. I've described my thoughts on Javert, but I think that is due to decisions by the director and the scriptwriter, not the actor. Fantine has an annoying tendency to overact, especially in the later parts of her appearance. Cosette, fortunately not played by the same actress, is a bit boring. Little Cosette, however, does outstanding work for a child actress. Both Thénardiers are decent; they went the “Mme Thénardier needs to look sufficiently trustworthy for Fantine to leave her child with her”-route and she doesn't quite manage to be as scary as she should be. Everybody else is rather unremarkable.

Oh, and while we're at it: If you cast as Cosette an actress who actually looks like a teenager and as Marius an actor who might be in his early thirties, you need to specify that Marius is only a few years older than Cosette. Please!

But now to what I like about this adaptation: It's occasionally insane attention to details.

I've complained about the over-abundance of dream-sequences, but some of them really work. Showing one of Cosette's daydreams explains her life, character and dreams much better than any number of “real” scenes could have. Even more awesome is the inclusion of Valjean's dream before the Champmathieu trial. I mean, “Tempête sous un crâne” is usually going to be a weird scene anyway, you might just replace it with a weird dream while you're at it. Also, holy shit, they included Valjean's dream! That's a definite first.

Here's a list of further uncommon scenes this movie has: -Valjean steals Petit-Gervais's coin, although he does it before meeting the bishop -The bishop gets some exposition. It's only done in two conversations with his sister and Mme Magloire, but it's there -The scene of Tholomyès and Co. dumping the girls -A meeting of the Amis verbatim from the book -Gillenormand believes Marius to be dead and faints when Marius opens his eyes.

And here's a list of crazily uncommon scenes this movie has: -Fantine's meeting with the Thénardiers includes the girls using a cart chain as a swing -Details about work in the jet factory -Fantine thinks she hears Cosette outside the hospital -Cosette lying about watering the guest's horse -The coffin-escape! In full, glorious length and details. -Javert has a letter from the prefect in his pocket -Marius' note to identify his corpse -Escaping from the barricade in National Guard uniforms (although Valjean doesn't put in the one he is currently wearing) -Valjean writes the letter explaining to Cosette the origins of his fortune

Also, the ending is really well done. I really recommend you watch it for yourself, I don't think describing it can do it justice.

Generally, avoid this for a first look at Les Mis, but for a fan this is an interesting adaptation to watch and I suggest you give at least some parts a look, if only for the novelty.

Brickclub 1.5.9 - Madame Victurnien’s Victory

Oh, no. Nothing good can come of a title like that. So Valjean really doesn’t know what’s going on. He delegates full authority over the women to Victurnien, who he has been assured is a “respectable” woman. I feel like at this point, Valjean hears “women” and basically thinks “space aliens.” He’s *trying* to do right by them, but he seems to think there’s some secret to dealing with women that he doesn’t understand. Turns out that doing right by women would actually means treating them as he would the men! Crazy, right? Fantine can’t find real work, and learns to live in miserable conditions. She has no fire, sells her bird, and has very little food. Her elderly neighbor Marguerite teaches her how to survive in abject poverty, so at least there’s one good kind woman in Montreuil-Sur-Mer. Fantine is sewing prison shirts, which feels Symbolic. She doesn’t go to get Cosette because she doesn’t want her to share her poverty. But if she wasn’t paying the Thenardiers, wouldn’t that alleviate a lot of her financial problems? If she spends 10 sous a day paying the Thenardiers to look after Cosette (she’s behind on payments, so let’s say 8), isn’t that 8 sous a day that she could spend on Cosette? But then, she thinks Cosette is happy and comfortable where she is. So from her point of view, it’s safer to leave her with a supposedly happy and stable family than to have her witness desperate poverty. Everyone disrespects Fantine, so she adopts an attitude of indifference. Mme Victurnien takes this as a sign that she was right about Fantine, and takes a moment to revel in self-righteousness. God, she’s detestable. She’s worse because there are absolutely people exactly like her in the world today. Awful hypocrites that have so little going on in their lives that they have time to enforce their half-baked version of morality on everyone else. Fantine has an ominous cough, and her hands are hot. Sounds like tuberculosis, question mark? Even in her bleak life, Fantine enjoys a moment in the morning when she brushes out her hair. Oh, that foreshadowing hurts.