Talk:Les Misérables/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plot Summary

i have a problem that the entire summary is based on the musical and has many plot gaps that are main components in the book. Such as Fantine dying be of the shock of knowing Jean Valjean is an ex-convict and the javert is a police detective. These need to be fixed in order to provide a better summary of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.167.13 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have added a title for this question so that it gets listed in the table of contents. You should also, in the future at least include the date of the query, so people know when it was asked. I only know from checking the history it was the most recent change.

The entire summary is not based on the musical. For example, the convent is never mentioned in the musical, even though it is mentioned in the summary. Nor am I certain the example you list is a main component of the novel. I seem to recall Fantine pretty much near death before she found out, so saying she died from shock is a bit of a stretch. It may have precipitated death, but she was not healthy beforehand. That said, you are right that there are a few gaps I might fill in. Most important in my mind is the scene from Volume III, Book Eight, The Noxious Poor, where Marius agrees to help Javert catch Jondrette, and then discovers Jondrette is Thernardier, the man he thinks saved his father's life at the Battle of Waterloo.

However, for the main article there is going to need to be huge gaps in the summary because we're dealing with a 1400 page novel. Even if one leaves the digressions out of the summary, there is still a lot to cover. If you follow the link immediately under the Plot Summary header, the one that says: "Main article: Plot of Les Misérables" you will find a more detailed plot summary. One that will likely be more to your liking. It does mention Fantine's shock, and of course the scene I mention above. No, it should not be moved here, because there just isn't room for a detailed summary in the main article. That's why a separate entry was creataed. Gavroche42 23:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

TYPO? Shouldn't the following sentence end with the word Javert instead of Valjean, or am I missing something? "Thénardier sends Éponine and Azelma outside to look out for the police. When Valjean returns with rent money, Thénardier, with Patron-Minette, ambushes him and he reveals his real identity to Valjean."

73.8.106.145 (talk)ChgoLarry

Musical question

Can we have a citation on the Musical Les Miserables being the second longest on Broadway. I thought both Cats and Phantom of the Opera lasted longer. Les Miz is back on Broadway, of course, but longest-running has to be continuous. I think it can be said that Les Miz is the second longest running musical in the world, since it's been running continuously in London, where it began before Broadway. Second only to the Off-Broadway The Fantasticks. Gavroche42 15:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Would someone mind puting a phonetic pronunciation for the title? lay-miz-er-ob? I know that's not right, I've seen some really cool phonetic spelling here on wikipedia before... little accent thingies and what not `~' et cetera..

That'd be good, but PLEASE don't use the hideous "lay" pronounciation of english speaking people. It's really horrible. "Les" would rhyme with "heh", not with "hay". /Daniel Lindsäth 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Les" as "lay" has led to some terrible puns! Tom129.93.10.80 (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's criminal to write the title should be pronounced /leɪ ˌmɪzəˈrɑːb/. Really unacceptable. If the Anglo-Saxon public can't pronounce /ble/, then that's their problem, but at least write it the correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5010:7730:28EF:9D1A:4A22:1543 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Original talk

mav, you changed the wikiquote link to be listed under 'external links'. why isn't wikiquote considered internal? - fagan

Because it is on a different wiki in a different project. --mav

synopsis

I've hit a wall in my attempts to make the plot synopsis any shorter, and everybody else who edits it seems to be bent on making it longer. Should I admit defeat, and create a separate sub-article for describing the plot at length? --Paul A 08:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, the answer is "yes". --Paul A 02:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

ROFL. Sorry, Paul, I hadn't read the talk page before jumping into the editing of the synopsis (since it clearly needed some fine tuning, IMO). Sorry. I think you may have over-reacted, in that there should still be at least a small (attempt) at a summary that's at least as long as the discussion of "grace and legalism." I think most encyc. readers would first want to know what the book is about before getting into a discussion of themes. With all due respect, as the task of summarizing this novel is a tough one. Reminds me of the old Monty Python's Flying Circus w/the game show based on competitive summarizing of the works of Marcel Proust. Kaisershatner 15:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right: there should also be a short synopsis on this page. I intended to do one all along, but I needed to pause and get my breath back first.  :)

It's just that it was becoming clear that we needed a long description as well, because any short synopsis will inevitably leave something important out. --Paul A 03:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Student revolt

Did the student revolt ever actually occur? many sources claim that is did but all the leaders are fictional.--Gary123 00:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The key point, as I understand it, is that there was more than one barricade involved in the uprising: the barricade featured in Les Mis is fictional, but the others that the book mentions in passing were all real. --Paul A 06:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The revolt actually did happen. Victor Hugo (the author) fought in it. Like in the book, it was completely crushed by the government. --Thirteen Figure Skater 8:50, 12 September 2006(UTC)

Insurrection of 1832. See entry for General Lamarque. --Goneja 22 January 2007

Victor Hugo did NOT fight on the barricades of 1832 (I just checked his diary), because at the time he still had royalistic views and was a supporter of Louis-Philippe. He did, however fight on the barricades in 1851, against Louis-Napoléon. The rest of his description is rather accurate, except for this one barricade, of course.

New Plot Summary

I realize that some people want to have a short plot summary for this novel. However, this cannot be done, as the novel is far too long even to have a short synopsis. I have lengthened the summary but made it more readible; that is, I divided it into several shorter paragraphs rather than that large block of text. Personally, I think my new synopsis is far superior to the original one; of course, all authors would think that of their own writing :) Mipchunk 06:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work. --Paul A 05:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Night Watch Edits

There is no evidence that Pratchett's novel is a "direct satire" of Les Mis, though it certainly has similarities. But the events of the novel certainly can't be directly linked to the Jacobins, either. As for the comment about Les Mis being about Louis-Napoleon, this is erroneous. The uprising was during 1832 during the reign of Louis-Phillipe (the July Monarchy, for those who know their French history well).Mipchunk 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

24601

There's a lot of duplication between the Cultural references section of this article and the article 24601 (number). I propose that all the information be put at one location, with a note at the other saying "For details of references to Jean Valjean's prison number, see..."

The question is, which should be which? --Paul A 04:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia and Cultural References

The end of this page is plagued with various trivia and cultural references, almost none of which seem appropriate. Yes, they do bear some connection with the main topic, but the information seems incredibly unnecessarily and certainly unencyclopedic. Does anyone else agree that we should remove these sections? Mipchunk 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some of them should definitely go, but not all. (The one about peeing in a room with a painting of Little Cosette, for instance, is so outrageously irrelevant that I'm going to clip it right now.) --Masamage 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just worried that trivia just makes the article unencyclopedic. I'm not sure if that's a concern of others, but it just seems silly that you are reading this article about a famous book from literature, and then at the end there are just some various cultural references items that don't really give you any more information about the actual subject matter. Mipchunk 07:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I recently read these guidelines on talking about a work of fiction. Note the out-of-universe perspective emphasis. This is what we need to transform this article into. Mipchunk 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the guidelines, under 'out-of-universe perspective' there's a bullet point: the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. This is where the Cultural References come in, but not the trivia. Unless there is some evidence that Hugo intended any of the numerological coincidences, and no references are cited for that, those items are conceivably just that - coincidences, and meaningless. The Cultural References about the musical belong on the entry about the musical, not the entry about the novel. So...I would delete the first three sentences under 24601, and just leave the pop culture references to 24601. I would delete the subheader Musical Adaptation and move that information to the Musical's page. I'd leave the information under Other. And the only trivia I'd keep would be the one on the telegrams between Hugo and his Publisher, since it is footnoted. Those would be my suggestions.

--Gavroche42 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it seems as though the cultural references part has been deleted completely. By the way, the "24601"-references are not coincidences. I've found them too, in an anotated version of the Brick from "Livres de Poches". I guess, whoever added the section had the same book...

Cultural References Proposal!

As a final solution to the clean-up that obviously must be done for the Cultural References section, I hereby propose that we remove all the Cultural References items and replace it with a section that explains the impact on popular culture, rather than a long list of specific instances. In this proposed section, exceptionally notable cultural references will be specifically spelled out. Look at the Lord of the Rings popular culture section to see what I mean. Please post some input or suggestions, etc, about my proposal. I honestly believe that this section is growing without end, and it is both ugly, visually and stylistically, and above all incredibly un-encylopedic. Mipchunk 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I like that, and LoTR is a good article to emulate, being Featured. One concern is that they didn't actually eliminate their list of specific pop culture references; they moved it to another article. How would that be handled here? --Masamage 17:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think some of the information should just be eliminated. I think lots of the cultural references that we're dealing with are actually related to the musical version, anyways. There's not much point in listing every single various TV show from Family Guy to the South Park that happens to mention Les Miserables.Mipchunk 02:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I commented above, blindly not seeing this proposal. There probably are enough cultural references to the novel Les Miserables to justify a separate page for those individuals interested in a list. On this separate page I'd add the movie The Fugitive, which I've heard said to be "extremely loosely" based on Valjean/Javert. I'd add a couple issues of an X-Men comic from the 90's that had a prisoner branded with the numbers 24601 chased through some sewers. And I'd add an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine where a character compares Capt Sisko to Javert. But that's probably just scratching the surface. In this entry we could write the section on the impact on popular culture, and link to the separate entry that actually contains the list, in the same way the LOTR article links to the other articles. --Gavroche42 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Eponine

There used to be an article on Eponine that I linked to, what happened? 69.156.93.133 23:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Usually, characters of novels are only given their own articles if they are individually significant, or perhaps have some special importance. Examples include, say, Luke Skywalker from Star Wars, or Gimli from the Lord of the Rings. This is obviously a rough guideline; there are no rules regarding this (I don't think), but the character of Eponine would not be one to fit this mold. Anyways, your article was erased and became a redirect to the main article. I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do without any discussion, but I don't think Eponine deserves her own article. You can look at the history here. Mipchunk 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are a bunch of other little/insignificant articles on Wikipedia as well, that doesn't mean we should remove them all..69.156.93.133 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I do see your point. But I think the idea is, Eponine info belongs in the "main" Les Miserables article. So, if you want, you can create a "characters" section and start adding...but that would be a lot of work.Mipchunk 06:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. But I still think that the article shouldn't just "die". 64.228.194.48 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world is Gimli more important than Eponine? And note that for Star Wars, we have articles on people like Nute Gunray and Boba Fett, not just Luke. It was ridiculous to turn that article into a redirect when it contained tons of information not currently in the main article, and much of which probably shouldn't be in the main article, as being too much detail. john k 02:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, why is there a page for a minor character (Eponine), but not one for the main characters? Cacophony 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Two answers. 1) Because the other pages haven't been written yet. If that doesn't satisfy you, and you find yourself asking, but why? If you're not really concerned about appropriateness, but about the mentality that results in Eponine being the first character written about. 2) Many female viewers of the musical strongly identify with the character. They see her as in love with a man who barely sees her. Perfect tragic heroine for a girl suffering from teenage angst. The article does a good job, in my opinion, explaining why some don't view the novel's character in the same way.--Gavroche42 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My Name Is Earl

Would the NBC show "My Name Is Earl" be considered somewhat of a take off of Les Mis? I mean, considering the plot similarities... they [the characters] did bad, thus they want to redeem themselves through acts of good, while providing morals/social commentary.

I think that is crap! Whoever said that should NOT have. This story is WAY more complex that that stupid TV show! - ktahnx-Ally

Whoever wrote that didn't say it was a 'good take off', just that it was a take off. A work of literature can inspire stupid television shows, and brilliant ones alike. (note: I am not agreeing or disagreeing that 'My Name is Earl' is stupid. I haven't seen it.) However, the idea of redemption is an old one. CF. Pilgrim's Progress. So the fact "My Name is Earl" is based on the concept of redemption doesn't make it a take off of Les Mis. Is he being chased by anyone for his past misdeeds? Does he adopt the daughter of a woman he has wronged? Are there any characters that resemble revolutionaries?--Gavroche42 01:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Musical quote in discussion of Grace vs. Legalism

"Les Misérables is, among its many other themes, a discussion and comparison of grace and legalism... in the musical adaptation of the work, this is expressed very well in the solo "Stars", with the lines..."

Isn't it a little silly to be using a quote from the musical when trying to prove how well Victor Hugo expresses the argument of Grace and legalism? Shouldn't we use an actual quote from the book rather than a lyric from a song written a hundred years later by someone who wasn't Victor Hugo? This doesn't make sense. Someone please find a good quote before I'm forced to. --Goneja

It is also my understanding that Wikipedia isn't for 'original thought', so unless we're able to cite someone else on the comparison of legalism and grace, that entire section is original thought. Might be a fine analysis of Hugo's intent, but irrelevant, since that isn't the role of Wikipedia. Gavroche42 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Translations

Is an adbridgment of a particular translation worth noting separately? I hesitate deleting someone else's addition, but James Robinson's abridgemnet of the Charles Wilbour translation doesn't feel like a separate entity to me. It's still the CE Wilbour translation. And, alas, there are likely dozens of abridgments out there. Gavroche42 05:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. Removing it seems very reasonable to me. --Masamage 06:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gavroche/Eponine

It's exquisitely lame that somebody created a redirect from Gavroche to here, with the edit summary "there should not be an article on this, so to prevent it's creation, I'm making this redirect", without insuring that Gavroche is actually mentioned in this article (which, in fact, he is not). Way to go. I've also restored the article on Eponine, which has lots of detailed information not present in this article. We have tons of articles on characters in various Dickens novels. The fact that other characters redirect here is no reason to destroy a lot of decent work that people have put in. john k 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's make a Gavroche article. :P --Masamage 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

done! (and it's the first article I wrote from scratch to boot!) Gavroche42 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest first that we improve this article so that it mentions him, but I don't see why it would be a particular problem. Why shouldn't we have articles at Fantine, Cosette, Jean Valjean, Javert, and so forth? john k 02:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit I am biased, as is obvious by my signature. However, there are arguments that Gavroche is third on the list of most familiar characters from the novel, behind only Valjean and Javert. There are restaurants world-wide named after him. There is an European organization benefitting orphans named after him. There's a French beer named after him. And I have read that the word 'Gavroche' has come to mean 'mischievous child' in French, however I have not been able to confirm this. There are also some great 19th century illustrations that could be included in the article, including two sketches Hugo drew. So yes, I agree that an entry should be written on Gavroche. And he should be mentioned here too. --Gavroche42 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a character list, and lo and behold, some of the pages have been written, just not referenced in this article. Some of these still need some serious work, as they seem to be written by someone more familiar with the musical than the book, in my opinion. I will focus my wiki attention on the characters for a bit. Gavroche42 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Javert's Mother?

Under Major Themes: Grace, the article currently has "In a way, his view at this point is similar to that of Javert's Mother, with the exception that Javert does think the punishment just." That doesn't look right to me. Going by the rest of the article (or even the rest of the sentence) it seems like it's Javert's view we're talking about, not that of Javert's mother. However, I haven't read the novel so I don't know for sure. Can anybody who has, take a look at it? By the way, the revision in which the "mother" appeared was "20:44, 18 February 2007" by 72.179.135.181. -- Why Not A Duck 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. The book tells us Javert had a mother, and she was a fortune-teller, but that's about all we know of her. Gavroche42 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Confederate soldiers reading

I find the claim of Confederate soldiers reading the novel during the American Civil War dubious. The book wasn't published until 1862. How could a book be published in the French language in France, be quickly translated into English despite its enormous length, and become popular enough on another continent during a devasting war, and be purchased by poor soliders whose homeland was been ravaged, all within three years? This definitely needs a citation. 70.153.231.83 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hugo was already popular in English for Notre Dame de Paris (I'm reading The Woman in White, which was written in 1860, at the moment, and there's a mention of Hugo's novel). According to our article, it was published in English for the first time, in, um, 1862. Dickens was certainly popular in America, and I see no reason to think that Hugo was not as well. There should still be a citation, but it's a perfectly plausible claim. john k 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Les Miserables was published in French and English simultaneously. A pretty harsh July 1862 review, from the Atlantic Monthly, can be read here: http://gavroche.org/vhugo/review.gav --Gavroche42 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the reference to Confederate soldiers calling the book "Lee's Miserables" comes from Gone with the Wind, where Melanie keeps a battered copy of the book and Confederate soldiers passing through refer to it as "Lee's Miserables". I've never heard of it actually being carried by the soldiers.

If you follow the link used as the source for the first three English translations, you'll see a quote from William G Stannard of the Virginia Historical Association, referring to the Richmond edition, saying, "Few perfect copies were left after 1863...They were read to pieces by the soldiers."

I've found the reference to "Lee's Miserables" in Gone With the Wind by a 'search-through-the-book" at Amazon. It's not clear whether Mitchell made this up, or perhaps she also had read this somewhere else, and put it in her novel. Gavroche42 11:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Eureka! Found a reference in the book, Pickett and His Men, dated 1899. Written by the widow of General Pickett. Gavroche42 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Long Sentence

I have read that "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo contains a sentence that is 823 words long. Is this an urban legend or is it something that should be mentioned in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.225.210.205 (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not too sure which sentence it is. Some trivia books have listed it as 'the longest' in literature, but this is nowhere near the case. A sentence from Joyce's Ulysses has over 4,000 words, Jonathan Coe's Rotter's Club has a sentence containing almost 14,000 words, and a Polish novel contains a 40,000 word sentence. So while 823 words is certainly a long sentence, I doubt this is a 'notable' piece of trivia. [1] Gavroche42 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Norman Denny Translation

If I recall correctly the Norman Denny translation is, for practical purposes, unabridged. Although technically abridged the sections removed were placed in two appendices at the end of the Penguin Classic edition. This is how my Penguin Classic is and the comment on the edition should reflect that. Also, I have not liked what I have seen of the Signet Classic version. Is there a source to corroberate the claim for it being the most readable? (I gave away my copy on loan so I can't check the foreword.) 69.148.118.175 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'abridgement' of the Norman Denny translation doesn't refer to the appendixes. In addition to moving two sections to the back of the book Denny cut sentences, and paragraphs elsewhere he didn't feel significant. He didn't move those anywhere; they're completely gone. The foreward does make this clear. 'Most readable' is an opinion, obviously, and as such probably should be excised. However, the Signet Classic edition being the only in-print unabridged paperback translation is not an opinion, but a fact. Gavroche42 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok then, I was unaware of that. It has been a while since I read the foreword. When I reread it I will have to read the signet classic instead. Thanks. 69.148.118.175 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Too long?

I'm not putting a "too long" tag on this article yet, but I honestly believe that this article has become vastly bloated. A descriptive list of all the characters? Why is that needed? We have a plot summary. A completely random "major themes" section that cites a passage from the musical!? Ridiculous. I have several suggested reforms. Firstly, rename the section "Cultural references" into "Cultural impact" and write a more extensive passage that describes the cultural impact of Les Miserables rather than just citing various specific instances. Secondly, we need to take an out-of-universe approach - we should talk about things such as how well it was received, the circumstances under which Hugo wrote the novel, etc. Mipchunk 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked a few other entries on novels (Oliver Twist, Catch-22, and Crime and Punishment were the three I randomly checked.) All of them had character lists. Though I think a good solid argument could be made that we don't need to list the 'secondary characters'. I've commented elsewhere on this page that I think we should remove the Major Themes section, not only due to its reliance on the musical, but since it doesn't cite any sources for its analysis. Who says these are the major themes? Until we have a source, it's original thought. (How much consensus do I need to just do either of these edits?)

A separate page for the adaptations might also be appropriate, since there have been so many over the years (and there are more that can be added). It can be annotated, so it is more than a list. I deleted the "Roses are Red" entry under cultural references. I put it there originally, I think, but have since discovered earlier occurrences of the rhyme, proving Hugo borrowed it, instead of originating it. I agree a "Cultural Impact" section makes sense. It could include a history -- the reaction at the time of publication, to today. Gavroche42 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: A cursory google search has turned up a few references one could cite for the grace/legalism section. However, they are all discussions on Grace and Legalism in literature. On the surface, that seems like a good source, but I'd prefer a source that was focusing on the major themes of the novel, and decided that was one of them. Gavroche42 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Film adaptations

Is it really necessary to mention all of them? This seems like {{examplefarm}} fodder... 81.153.110.68 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to list them all. You don't have to write about all of them, but where if not in an encyclopedia is the place for a complete list? Another thing: I have never heard of an adaptation by Rappeneau, neither has the the imdb or an internet site that lists all Hugo adaptations. Whoever put that movie on the list, could you please explain where the information came from?

a modern version

A discussion about lying to get a job made me think that a modern versions of Les Misérables is in order.

Main character starts out in a regular IT (computer) job around 1995 and everything is pretty normal. Then the dot-com boom hits, things go upward but crazy; finally it all crashes down in the bubble burst. He manages to find another non-dot-com job, but is soon forced to train his offshore replacements from India and Israel, and is terminated.

A medical complication forces him to sell everything and ends up living in a box under a bridge. One day he decides to forgo his religious upbringing and to start lying on resumes and job interviews and finally it produces a job. He eventually moves up in rank, until one day his lies are discovered after making a small accounting mistake that could land him in jail due to the Sarbanes Oxly laws applied against his forged cridentials....

But then he would be just a criminal, and Jean Valjean was not just a criminal. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't wikipedia list this as one of the greatest novels rather than a well-known novel? I have read this book and loved it, but i also read war and peace by tolstoy and i thought it was a load of crap. please appreciate this book as the masterpiece it is!

Because that wouldn't be NPOV /193.11.202.125 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might be NPOV if we could find significant criticism that agreed with your assessment; as it stands, the critics simply don't agree with you. Many of them probably loved the novel; I like it myself, but a book's "enjoyability factor" doesn't translate directly to literary quality (whatever that might be.) Hubacelgrand 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

parody

The plotline of Terry Pratchett's 28th Discworld novel, Night Watch, is a direct satire of Les Misérables. I thought it might be. Or else I'm slowly going insane, and everything I read is starting to resemble The Brick.

Maybe there should be something in here regarding the title "Miserable Les", used by the opera ghost in Maskerade for one of his musicals? I don't know where to put it, doesn't seem to fit with any of the reference categories in the article. /193.11.202.125 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read Night Watch, and I'm sure it wasn't particularly Les Miserable-ish at all. Can you clarify by laying out the parallels, please? Secondsilk (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The few parallels I can think of now:

• Carcer claims that his first crime was stealing a loaf of bread.
• Vimes' concept of law and order resembles Javert's
• A revolutionary in a frilly shirt and red vest (Reg/Enjolras)

Look up the "Night watch" article for more information. I think, Pratchett himself outlined the parallels.

Prison Break

It was Alex Mahone that Scofield traps, not Paul Kellerman. I hope I've corrected it properly! 131.111.139.100 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

more plot

After Champmathieu's trial, at which JVJ discloses his true identity, he is not immediately arrested but goes to visit Fantine, where Javert arrests him. It is at this point that Fantine dies, apparently from shock/fear that it is she that Javert has come to arrest. VJV immediately escapes from the local jail, before he can be sent to prison. He sets out to rescue Cosette from the Thenardiers, but is re-arrested before he can do so. This time, he actually does serve 5-6 months, and THEN he escapes. He dives into the water from a ship's mast, where he was working as a convict laborer. He does not so much feign his death as escape in a way that leads people to believe that he probably drowned, and that is what they assume. After that, he resumes his attempt to rescue Cosette. After doing so, they go to Paris, where they live not in a convent but in a rundown house called maison Gorbeau. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why "dubious content"?

All statements in the Summary section that are noted as "disputed statement" are actually true. 217.173.181.29 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

translation of title

Can anyone tell me why the title of this work is never translated into English? Was it just that "The Miserable People" doesn't sound very good? Mjklin 20:33, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

As I recall, translating Les Miserables as "The Miserable People" isn't accurate as it refers to the impoverished and other such groups as well in French. I know the description is somewhere in my copy of the novel, so I'll have to check it out sometime. I might modify the plot summary if I have time too. CountMippipopolous 2005, April 14

In the translator(Norman Denny)'s introduction to my book (Penguin Classics) I found the following comment: "An untranslatable title: the first meaning of the French misere is simply misery; the second meaning is utmost poverty, destitution; but Hugo's miserables are not merely the poor and wretched, they are the outcasts, the underdogs, the rejected of society and the rebels against society."CountMippipopolous 2005, April 15

I strongly disagree- the first meaning is poverty/destitution, the second that was almost never used during that time is misery. the title maybe should be translated as "the wretched ones" or something of the sort? allow me to read an excerpt from charles baudelaire (yes, the famous one)'s intro to my edition- he defines miserables as "ceux qui souffrent de la misere et que la misere deshonore" and he is obviously using the poverty definition as an synonym. User:SardinoUser talk:Sardino 8 feb 06 01:21

I read a novel set during the Civil War which claimed that the Southern troops who read the novel called themselves "Lee's Miserables". RickK 07:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

First off, I wonder if that's actually true. Secondly, it would be good to get a citation for the novel mentioned. Third, as this is more of a point about who read Les Miserables than anything factoring into the influences which played a part in its being written, or in the plotline or elements of Les Miserables itself, I think it's somewhat offtopic. As it is now part of the page on the novel itself, introduced on Dec 15th in a shoddy typo edit, now moved around and cleaned up, I think it's total crap. --10.1.1.100 05:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are several novels that refer to "Lee's Miserables", one of which is Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind, which wasn't the first, but may be the most well known to people today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.147.10 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just translate the title literally, making it "The Miserables?" Seems sensibel to me. Thirteen Figure Skater 12:24, Sept 9, 2006 (UTC)

Here's my tuppence worth: Les Misérables does NOT mean "the miserable ones" - it's a "false friend", ie. where the foreign word looks very like an English word but the meaning is different. It's more like "poor and downtrodden" - take a look at http://www.wordreference.com/fren/mis%C3%A9rable for a better idea of what it means. To put this in context, I have a degree in French if that adds any weight?! - Paulfp (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Musical Student Edition Incorrect

The year for the student edition of the musical is listed as 2007. This is definitely incorrect, however, I don't know the year it was introduced for sure (though it was before 2005 because that was the year it was produced at our school). My guess is 2003 or 2004 maybe. Jeannedb (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the best books ever

Hugo is one of greatest writers ever, and this book not only represents the past but the future.We see unjustice, there is still bondage and humiliation of man women and children, the love story is one of the best details. Jean Valjean represents justice and man who didn't gave up hope (the detail that every good writer of book movie comic and manga must apriciate) etc etc. Now I know there is someone who will say that this is not factual discussion and that I am an idiot but this book is giving hope to those who need it...Best detail Valjean saved Marius from certain death for love he feels to Cosset and she is not even his own child... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.137.70 (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Enjolras?

It doesn't make any sense that the page for Enjolras redirects back into the main article, especially when there is a link to Enjolras's page in the article itself. I think that he's important enough to warrant his own page. What do you think? 76.23.55.61 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New sections at the bottom, please. :) And yeah, I think he could probably stand to have his own article, if someone who has read the book (not just seen the musical) wants to write one. --Masamage ♫ 00:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The musical emphasizes Enjolras a lot more than the book does. The book focuses more on Marius than Enjolras. At least that is my reading... Still, he merits an article. Wrad 00:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors,

Enjolras is actually Tholomyes`. It says so in Les` Miserables.

Signed, Professor Nonya Floopinhagin (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

There is no way Enjolras could have been Tholomyes; since at the time of the 1832 Paris uprising Enjolras is described as "charming young man" (Volume III - Book IV - Chapter I) while Tholomyes was in his 30's when he fathered Cossette (Volume I - Book III -Chapter II) making Tholomyes in his late 40's at the time of the uprising. (Mediatech492)

Dear Mediatech492,

Oops. I think I meant Courfeyrac, not Enjolras.

Signed, Professor Nonya Floopinhagin. I am a Mochingquondo! 01:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Needs a section on historical background against which the story is set.

Needs a section on historical background against which the story is set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Characters

I have reduced the lengthy character list to only the major characters. If a full character list is needed, it should be started as a separate list article: List of characters in Les Misérables. It is not appropriate to list them all here. Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The list has been added back. This was done because there are other Les Misérables related articles that include names of other characters, which are also linked to go directly to that list. However, your suggestion of giving the whole character list its own article should be done. 205.189.94.11 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What is "The Brick"?

If "The Brick" refers to the book Les Mis, someone might want to add that to the article. Something like "The book is often referred to as 'The Brick'..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.174.11 (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like notable information to me. Stephen King's "The Stand" could also be called a brick since it's a large book. Or any number of other large books (like anything by Robert Jordan.... ;-) ). --MikeVitale 15:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it just IS the only book ever refered to as "The Brick". Or have you heard of any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.159.136 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is why it's called the brick.

Standard dimensions of a housing exterior brick: 8 x 4 x 2.25 inches. Standard dimensions of a Victor Hugo brick: 7 x 4.2 x 2.5 inches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.64.145 (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

connection with Goethe's Faust?

This may not be the proper place to raise such a question. But it seems to me that part of the power of the novel stems from its relationship with Goethe's Faust. In the latter, Mephistopheles buys Faust's soul in order to damn him. In the former, Bishop Myriel buys Jean Valjean's soul in order to save him.

Richard M. Waugaman, M.D. (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Richard M. Waugaman October 4, 2012

It's an interesting point, but probably not relevant. I believe the Roman Catholic principle of paying for ones soul (i.e. Indulgence) precedes Faust by several centuries. It certainly isn't an idea originated by Goethe.Mediatech492 (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

1934 French Film Adaptation

Far and away the best film version, it is still available, on DVD. Starring the great Harry Baur as Valjean and Charles Vanel as Javert, it should not be missed. Abenr (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

adaptations section split

Hi all, as discussed [here], we want to take Les Misérables to GA. One of the things that we deemed necessary was to split the adaptations section to its own article, Adaptations of Les Misérables.

So this is what I've done:

• I created the new article
• I took the content of the section over to the new article using all the correct edit summaries
• I wrote a summary for the original section
• I added an image highlighting one of the most famous adaptations
• I wrote a first version of the lead of the new article. This lead will definitely need expansion.
• I added to the new article all the images from the adaptations that, for obvious reasons, we couldn't add when the section was still part of the main article
• I placed all the necessary templates on the talk pages of both articles
• I left this explanation on the talk pages of both articles

If there are any issues, problems, or anything I missed, please let me know. Azylber (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting this article to GA is going to take a lot of work. The prose is generally sub-standard. The "plot summary" omits all the non-plot elements, all the lengthy asides about street urchins, sewers, Waterloo, etc. The list of characters tries to re-tell the story and is written in a far from encyclopedic tone. Etc. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bmclaughlin9, thanks for your input. Would you be able to help? Azylber (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been making edits on and off since Dec. 11 and will keep doing so. It would be useful to read here what others think is needed. (Perhaps we need a new heading for that.) I should say that I'm interested in improving the article in general. I've never cared about getting to GA, just improving. It's a lot better now than it was a few weeks ago. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Javert or Thénardier?

Javert is described as "the main antagonist", I would question this. Javert's actions are definitely a serious impediment to Fantine and Jean Valjean; however it is Thénardier that is the scourge of almost everybody in the story. Wouldn't it be beter to describe Thénardier as the main antagonist? Mediatech492 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. The general misconception is that Javert "pursues" Valjean and is his nemesis. But actually both Javert and Thénardier encounter Valjean repeatedly and each then abuses him, one in the name of the law and one as a criminal. They are a pair of nemeses with Valjean in between and attacked/threatened on both sides. 174.252.62.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Context of "ghoul" quote from nethack?

I haven't read this novel, but I saw a quote from it while playing a game of Nethack when querying a ghoul:

The forces of the gloom know each other, and are strangely balanced by each other. Teeth and claws fear what they cannot grasp. Blood-drinking bestiality, voracious appetites, hunger in search of prey, the armed instincts of nails and jaws which have for source and aim the belly, glare and smell out uneasily the impassive spectral forms straying beneath a shroud, erect in its vague and shuddering robe, and which seem to them to live with a dead and terrible life. These brutalities, which are only matter, entertain a confused fear of having to deal with the immense obscurity condensed into an unknown being. A black figure barring the way stops the wild beast short. That which emerges from the cemetery intimidates and disconcerts that which emerges from the cave; the ferocious fear the sinister; wolves recoil when they encounter a ghoul. [ Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo ]

What context was this description of a ghoul? Are there fantasy/horror elements in this novel, or was Victor Hugo using ghouls as an metaphor for something? I'm curious as to the overall context this paragraph is set in... but I don't really have the urge to read the book at this point in my life. --69.234.208.76 09:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There aren't any fantasy elements in Les Mis, though in a couple of chapters Hugo deals with some characters's beliefs in things like ghosts and ghouls, and at one point describes a legend about the devil burying gold. It's a metaphorical description of criminals; Eponine has just prevented her father from robbing Jean Valjean's house, and that's the way Hugo describes them disappearing into the darkness.--70.156.16.155 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hugo tends to go off on a lot of tangents like that. A substantial portion of the book has nothing to do with the actual story but, anecdotal type things that lead to a greater understanding of the story. There was also a page-long description of a man dying out on sea after falling off a ship and although it is nothing to do with the story, it's extremely chilling and powerful, and leads us to a greater identification with the sufferings of his characters. --User:Goneja--

This is Hugo's meditation on criminality and the powerful force of evil it represents. Nothing more. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Plot Summary yet again

The synopsis says.......... "As Valjean broods over these words, he steals a child's money, and chases the child away." I suggest that this a simplistic and misleading account of the passage in question. The way I read the text, Valjean is unaware that he has put his foot on the coin dropped by Petit Gervais, and is mortified when he later realises what has happened. In no way can he be said have stolen the money (even though the event is reported as a crime to the police). Isn't this one of the greatest ironies of the plot of the novel, that Valjean is pursued for several years of his life for a "crime" that never actually happened?Lazzeez (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen the famous musical production of LM, but I am reading the book, and in the book it is quite obvious that JVJ stole the 40 sous coin from Petit-Gervais DELIBERATELY. It was not an accident. P-G repeatedly asks JVJ for the coin, and points out to him that his foot is upon it. After the fact, JVJ has a crisis, and it was not until this point that he decided to become a good person. In his reflections during his crisis, he thinks "Dans cette situation de l'esprit, il avait rencontre Petit-Gervais et lui avait vole ses quarante sous. Pourquoi? Il n'eut assurement pu l'expliquer ; ... ". See premiere partie, Livre deuxieme, XIII "Petit-Gervais". At the end of this chapter:" ... ce vol de quarante sous a un enfant, crime d'autant plus lache et d'autant plus monstrueux qui'il venait apres le pardon de l'eveque, ...". Thomas.Hedden (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, P-G's coin does not "roll under his shoe": it rolls up to JVJ, and he puts his foot on it. There is no question that JVJ stole P-G's coin, and that this action was deliberate. His crisis and "salvation" comes after this point in the story, when he comes to realize what he has become and reflects on the bishop's words. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the description of "Petit Gervais" to reflect this. There are not two views. The words "Jean Valjean set his foot upon it [the coin]." could not be clearer. The point here is that Valjean behaves brutishly ("his savage face"). The reader learns from this theft, even more than from the theft from the bishop, what sort of man Valjean is at this point. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Tasks?

1. I think we need a brief summary of the plot before the detailed account. One paragraph.

2. The characters. We need just one list because distinguishing major from minor is very debatable. (Enjolras?) The sequence should be the traditional style, not the unclear one now in place. Like this:

Bishop Myriel

Baptistine Myriel, his sister

Madame Magloire, servant to the bishop and his sister

An obvious advantage would be that we could get the entire Thénardiers family in one place, not scattered as they are now. The overall sequence will still be difficult. And there is still much to be trimmed from the character descriptions.

3. We need a section for Hugo's "essays"--I'm not sure what else to call them--on the sewers, street urchins, etc. Inserting them into the plot summary would make it even harder to read and understand the plot, so I think a separate section, with one- or two-sentence descriptions.

4. The fact that an English translation appeared in 1862 is noted under the heading "English translations" but should probably be made elsewhere...if we had some examples of contemporary reception in the English-speaking world, that might be the appropriate place. We need such a section and not just for contemporary reaction. What has been and what is the work's critical status?

Thoughts? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bmclaughlin9, and thank you for all your editions to this article. Also thanks for creating this much needed section in the talk page. Here's my opinion about your 4 points: 1) Yes, I think it's a good idea. 2) I'm not sure. This is often done like that. We need more opinions. 3) I don't think we need more than a paragraph about this. 4) I'm not sure we want to talk in great detail about the reception in the English speaking word. It's already mentioned briefly in the "contemporary reception" section, and I'm not sure we need more than that. If people think we do, then I reckon we should include it as a subsection of the "contemporary reception" section. Azylber (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sequels

Are the 2 sequels mentioned in the article notable enough to have their own section? I mean, if they were notable enough perhaps they should have their own article. What do you reckon? Azylber (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The 2 volumes that provoked the lawsuit on the part of Hugo's heirs is. Unquestionably. But not worthy of entries in their own right. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Les Misérables/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 04:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it. A quick fail I guess. — Yash ^[talk] 04:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

? Azylber (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Which of the quick fail criteria does the article meet? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm I'm sorry. It was just a misunderstanding. — Yash ^[talk] 08:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• (usually pron. - remove usually  Done
• In the English-speaking world the novel - rmv In the English-speaking world Done
• link Paris  Done
• including a musical and a 2012 film version of that musical. - including a musical and a 2012 film adaption of it.
• Critical reactions were very diverse, but most of them were negative. - Critical reception were diverse, however most of them were negative.
• Commercially, the work was a great success, not just in France, but also in the rest of Europe and the world. - Commercially, the work was successful in France as well as in the world.

Novel form

• The novel contains many subplots - The novel contains various subplots  Done
• but the main thread is the story of ex-convict Jean Valjean, who becomes a force for good in the world but cannot escape his dark past. - however the main thread is the story of ex-convict Jean Valjean, who becomes a force for good in the world who is unable to escape his dark past.
• the construction of the Paris sewers, argot, the street urchins of Paris - the construction of the Paris sewers, argot, the street urchins of the city
• three hundred sixty-five - 365  Done
• usually no longer than a few pages - commonly no longer than a few pages  Done
• 1900 - 1,900  Done

Hugo's sources

• Vidocq helped Hugo with his research for Claude Gueux and Le Dernier jour d'un condamné (The Last Day of a Condemned Man) - need ref
• Hugo's description of Valjean rescuing a sailor on the Orion drew almost word for word on a friend's letter describing such an incident. - need ref

Contemporary reception

• was a highly anticipated event, as Victor Hugo enjoyed a reputation - was a highly anticipated event as Victor Hugo was considered  Done
• A massive advertising campaign[17] preceded the release of the first two volumes of Les Misérables on 3 April 1862. - A massive advertising campaign preceded the release of the first two volumes of Les Misérables on 3 April 1862.[17]
• The remaining volumes appeared on 15 May 1862. - ref needed
• Critical reactions were wide-ranging and often negative. - Critical receptions were wide-ranging and often negative.
• The work was a great commercial success - rmv great  Done
• Hugo telegraphed his English publishers a one character query: "?". Hurst & Blackett replied: "!". - Hugo telegraphed his English publishers a one character query: "?" and in response Hurst & Blackett replied: "!".  Done

Mark the issues with {{done}} to keep a track of issues fixed. I'll review the Plot and Characters sections tomorrow. Thanks! — Yash ^[talk] 13:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

the reviewer has retired

Hi, User:Yash! has retired from Wikipedia. What do we do now? Is the article ready to be listed as GA or not? Azylber (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The review should be closed and the article not listed. It doesn't meet GA criteria 2 due to the [citation needed] tags, 3 due to the excessively detailed plot/character and lack of analysis (theme/style/genre) section and 6 due to a fair use image without a valid rationale. maclean (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I reckon it doesn't need to be closed. I will deal with 2 and 6, and we can work together on 3. Azylber (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am willing to email you some of the scholarship to base such those themes, etc. sections on but I won't be taking on this GA review. maclean (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe proper procedure does call for this review to be closed, which is a shame. The problem is there is no longer a reviewer to agree to its listing, unless someone else comes on board. I'm willing to help correct any outstanding problems if there's a chance of its still being successful, but I'm not too sure about that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This should have been quickfailed. The article has no sections on "Themes" or "Genre" or "Style", for example, and cites next to none of the published scholarship on this novel. Compare this to an article such as Cousin Bette, another 19th-century French novel. There are literally hundreds of books written on Les Miserables by literary scholars and this article does not summarize that scholarship. This is a good start, but it still needs a lot of work to cover the basic topics. Wadewitz (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is a disaster. Not only for the gaps, but also for the writing style and the absurdly long plot summary. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The police were probably not "fooled" by the Bishop

but he is their social and legal superior, and they simply don't have the right to question, let alone challenge, his word or his authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.243.17 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I made the suggested edit. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

D____ or Digne

In Charles Wilbour's translation, the town name Digne is given as D____.

- Can someone explain why Mr. Wilbour might have done this? - Do other English translations use D____ or Digne?

Also, having read this book MANY years ago, I've decided to reread it. I would appreciate the opinions of the people who edit this article as to the merits of the various translations into English.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Hugo initially identified the town as D. and also referred to M____-sur-M__ or M.-sur-M. When reviewing the novel for republication in the 1880s, he decided to identify the towns as Digne and Montreuil-sur-Mer. When I have time, I hope to find a good source for this. This WP entry needs to document the fact that Hugo remained actively involved in the preparation of subsequent editions and made such alterations. I don't know what other changes he might have made, if any. As to your second question, I only know the Wilbour and it's free on Kindle. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Themes analysis

I've been revising the plot synopsis to make it briefer and reflect the POV of the book more; but the Themes section seems seriously flawed to me, and I'm not the best person to fix it. Is anybody else interested? --70.156.16.155 20:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a case to be made for removing the Themes section entirely; literary analysis is, as I understand it, one of the things that Wikipedia is not for. Good work on the plot synopsis, by the way. --Paul A 06:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The page you link to says no such thing.

In any case there is currently almost nothing about the themes the novel touches upon, which means the article really is inadequate because it ignores most of its subject matter.

You simply cannot say anything meaningful about a book like this without covering its themes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Valjean character summary

"He saves Marius from imprisonment and probable death at the barricade, reveals his true identity to Marius and Cosette after their wedding, and is reunited with them just before his death, having kept his promise to the bishop and to Fantine, the image of whom is the last thing he sees before dying." A couple of things. Firstly, Jean Valjean does not reveal his identity to Cosette, only Marius. It is not until the very end that she realises who he is. Secondly, Jean Valjean is banished, at his own request, by Marius, after telling him this. The article does not make sense as is, as it says he is reunited with them, without explaining that they were separated. It is many years later that Marius finally realises and hunts him down. Not a particularly urgent correction, but a significant one. Thanks Alcatraz ii (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious that some of the editors here are basing their knowledge of the characters and story as depicted in the musical and other derivative works, and have clearly never read the book. These edits may be in good faith but need to be more actively corrected. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Friends of the ABC

The Friends of the ABC character section is difficult to read, biased, and contains inaccuracies. I submit that it be changed from:

• Bahorel – A dandy and an idler from a peasant background, who is known well around the student cafes of Paris.
• Combeferre – A philosophical student who is second to Enjolras in the group.
• Courfeyrac – Marius' closest friend in the book, who provides him with financial assistance and with lodging after the Gorbeau house affair. Courfeyrac is charismatic and one of the more enthusiastic members of the Friends of the ABC.
• Enjolras (see Major characters)
• Feuilly – A fan maker who studies the subject of revolution deeply.
• Grantaire – Grantaire is an alcoholic student who has little interest in revolution or democracy (and at times scoffs at these ideas), but is part of the Friends of the ABC purely out of his deep love for Enjolras. Grantaire is cynical and upholds a philosophy of Nihilism, yet has an immense adoration for the passionate faith that Enjolras exudes. They are described as two halves of a whole, and more or less, incomplete without each other. This is emphasized in the novel where their relationship is compared to that of Orestes and his companion Pylades as well as Alexander the Great and Hephaestion, Achilles and Patroclus, Castor and Pollux, and Nisus and Euryalus. However Enjolras, rejects this connection and is highly critical of Grantaire, his drinking habits, and lack of conviction. After Enjolras drives him away from their barricade during the uprising, Grantaire holes-up in a wine shop and drinks himself into a stupor. Upon awaking he finds Enjolras in the shop, cornered by the National Guard. Despite his pessimism and lack of faith in the revolution, Grantaire declares himself a believer in the republic, that he's one of them, and requests he be allowed to die alongside Enjolras. Touched by the gesture, Enjolras smiles and takes Grantaire's hand, and they die finally united.
• Jean Prouvaire – A very well-spoken romantic.
• Joly – Student of medicine who has unusual theories about health. He is also a hypochondriac and the happiest of Les Amis.
• Lesgle [also Lègle, Laigle, L'Aigle (The Eagle) or Bossuet] – The oldest member of the group, Lesgle's father was granted a dukedom by Louis XVIII after helping him into a carriage. He is considered to be notoriously unlucky, a theory which he assumed when he started balding aged twenty-five. Lesgle is the one who introduced Marius to the Friends of the ABC, and saved him from expulsion from college by calling out "here" when Marius' name is read from the register in his absence.

to:

• Bahorel – A dandy and an idler from a peasant background, who is known well around the student cafés of Paris.
• Combeferre – A medical student who is described as representing the philosophy of the revolution.
• Courfeyrac – Courfeyrac is the centre of the Friends. He is honourable and warm, and is Marius' closest companion.
• Enjolras – The leader of the Friends of the ABC. A resolute and charismatic youth, devoted to progress.
• Feuilly – An orphaned fan maker who taught himself to read and write. He is the only member of the Friends who is not a student but a workingman.
• Grantaire – Grantaire has little interest in revolution. Despite his pessimism, he eventually declares himself a believer in the Republic, and dies alongside Enjolras.
• Jean Prouvaire (also Jehan) – A Romantic with knowledge of Italian, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and an interest in the Middle Ages.
• Joly – A malade imaginaire student of medicine. He is described as the happiest of the Friends, and has the habit of touching his nose with the tip of his cane.
• Lesgle (also Lègle, Laigle, L'Aigle [The Eagle] or Bossuet) – The oldest member of the group, Lesgle is the son of a man who was granted a dukedom by Louis XVIII after helping him into a carriage. He is considered to be notoriously unlucky, and started balding aged twenty-five. Lesgle is the one who introduces Marius to the Friends of the ABC.

Shrlot (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, mostly. I used the plain English "hypochondriac" rather than the obtuse "malade imaginaire", and omitted Joly's nose-touching habit as it did not sound germane. I also tweaked the language in places. Please let me know if you think any of my changes are mistaken. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Javert's Mother - Origin

Javert's mother is described as a "g*psy," but that is a racial slur and should be changed to "Roma." Or removed, since it has no citation. Belldam (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually the book says Javert's mother was a "Fortune Teller" ("tireuse de cartes") I find no mention the terms "gypsy" or "Roma" in either my French or English translations of the book. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2014

The CliffsNotes link at the bottom to Les Miserables is wrong.

Original Text: External links Les Misérables at CliffsNotes.com

The site went a URL re-haul in May and the new link to the book is: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/l/les-miserables/book-summary

So the "Les Misérables" link just needs to be updated.

Thanks! CheshireCat321 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, LittleMountain5 00:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Character Lists

The secondary character lists includes Petit Gervais and Marius's aunt. Both these characters have themic importance, but more so than Grantaire or Combeferre? And the Thenadiers and separate people (worth separating, too, I feel, because Mme. Thenadier is changed quite a bit in the Musical). I don't have time now (I'm only because I assumed I'd be able to double check the spelling of Combeferre's name), but I'll be going through the lists soon. Does anyone have any suggestions for other changes?

I'm thinking I'll put the 'main characters' in order of appearance and 'secondary characters' in alphabetical order. But how are they distinguished? Secondsilk (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the statement about Fantine that she is "... abandoned while pregnant ..." is incorrect. According to my analysis of the chronology, Cosette must already have been at least one or two years old when Tholomyes abandoned her. Premiere partie, livre troisieme, is entitled "En l'annee 1817". This livre ends "... et la pauvre fille [Fantine] avait un enfant.", which could be interpreted in different ways. However, the second paragraph of the the very next chapter (livre quatrieme, I) gives the date as "... un soir du printemps de 1818 ...", and further in that chapter Mme Thenardier asks Fantine "-- Quel age a-t-elle [Cosette]?", to which Fantine replies "-- Elle va sur trois ans." If she is going on 3 in the spring of 1818, then in 1817 she must have been at least one, possibly two, but in any case she must already have been born, which is to say that when Fantine was abandoned, she was NOT still pregnant with Cosette, but already had her as a 1-2 year-old child. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the book, the man that Fantine attacks does not try to force her to have sex with him. He is with his friends and sees her after she has sold her hair and her two front teeth, and repeatedly insults her about her appearance. Then, he sneaks up behind her and puts snow down her back. Fantine reacts by attacking him and ruining his hat. When Fantine is apprehended by the police, the man does not stay to give a statement to police, but runs away. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

After Champmathieu's trial, at which JVJ discloses his true identity, he is not immediately arrested but goes to visit Fantine, where Javert arrests him. It is at this point that Fantine dies, apparently from shock/fear that it is she that Javert has come to arrest, never imagining that Javert might have come for "M. le Maire" (aka JVJ) instead of her. She does have tuberculosis or a similar disease, and this disease may have contributed to her death, but she appears to have died of shock at the thought that Javert was going to arrest her. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it said that Tholomyes abandoned Fantine after Cosette was already two. However, he leaves her before it is even known that she is pregnant.99.51.77.96 (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The book clearly states that Fantine leaves Cosette with the Thenardiers ten months after she was abandoned by Tholmeyes, and that Cosette was "about three years old" at that time. Cossete would have to have been over two years old who Tholmeyes abandoned Fantine. (See Book IV, Chapter I) Mediatech492 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

The articles says "The latter has been published in an English translation." It should say "The former has been published in an English translation."

110.174.166.224 (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done This source agrees with you. Stickee (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Les Misérables. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131030202023/http://www.univ-rouen.fr/flaubert/03corres/conard/lettres/62b.html to http://www.univ-rouen.fr/flaubert/03corres/conard/lettres/62b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hugo's exile

" While exiled in England shortly after its publication, Hugo telegraphed his English publishers a one-character query: "?". Hurst & Blackett replied: "!".[34] " My understanding was that during his exile, Hugo lived in the Channel Islands, first Jersey, then Guernsey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.82.66.16 (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June, 2016

The litteral translation of the novel no should be added to the article behind the name: (litterally "The Miserables"). This also helps clarify the alternative translation names.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Recapture Valjean?

Hello

I've never read Les Misérables itself, but I read the article. It appears that shortly after being officially released from the prison, Valjean was hunted by Javert, but no reason is given. One would think he is wanted for a crime committed after the release. The only thing mentioned in the article is the theft of the bishop's silverware, but it is also stated that the incident was closed as not a crime, after the bishop denied a theft.

Of course, I tried to raise the issue through the proper avenue of inserting a {{Why}} tag. Yet, Mediatech492 treated me like a vandal, reverting me without an edit summary. (This behavior is typical of those who want to assume ownership of an article.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if you have not read the book, every film adaption of the story clearly give the reason. On leaving prison Valjean is given a "Yellow Passport" which as part of his parole requirements he is required to carry and identify himself to police wherever he goes. He soon finds out that his status as a convict makes him a pariah, he is denied basic services and even housing, and even when he can find work he is paid less than regular workers. So he destroys the paper and assumes the name Madeline. This makes him a parole violator, and under the laws of France at that time this was a crime punishable by life imprisonment. There is also the issue of his encounter with Little Gervais in which he (possibly unintentionally) robs the boy of 40 sous, which also makes him a thief. As a Police Inspector it is Javert's duty to apprehend and imprison criminals, the actual crimes and their severity are irrelevant. Valjean is a criminal and it is Javert's job to catch him. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mediatech492: Finally! That wasn't difficult to write, was it?

Now, it is time to add that to the article. So, for the sake of politeness, I am compelled to ask: Will you be adding it or are you comfortable with me doing so?

Oh, and one more thing: I didn't watch any of the film adaptions either (along with millions of other films). And that is exactly why I read the article. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that people who read this article are those who have watched the films or read the books; reading the article at this stage would be pointless to them.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Was it really necessary for me to explain to you what a policeman does? Mediatech492 (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It was necessary to explain that Valjean was not set free (as the article suggests) but was released on parole. And that he violated the parole. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

And it is still necessary to explain how can one accidentally steal 40 sous. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the book. Mediatech492 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Les Misérables. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929190326/http://librairie.auchandirect.fr/librairie_livres/fortune_miserables_victor_hugo_au_2747507459.htm to http://librairie.auchandirect.fr/librairie_livres/fortune_miserables_victor_hugo_au_2747507459.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The story about the "?" and "!" telegrams is not in the citation given and seems to be an urban legend.

The citation is Encyclopedia Britannica - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Victor-Hugo

The story about the "!" telegram does not appear there in any way.

This page makes a convincing case that the story is false: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/06/14/exclamation/

The anecdote should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1045:F:7CD6:E072:69F9:6E28 (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request for Friends of the ABC section

Lesgles' entry should be edited to remove the part about him being the oldest. Nowhere in the text is it mentioned and this misconception is only from fan interpretation. -- Ranichi17 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The source for Lesgle's age is likely the lesmiserables.wiki, where it states 1803 as being his DOB. This year is the earliest of all the dates given for the other ABC characters except for one - the character Grantaire, who is also given a DOB of 1803. This would seem to place in dispute the claim of Lesgle as being the oldest. I believe in the least that a citation needed tag ought to be added to the article's claim that this character is the oldest of that group.  spintendo  22:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Characters in order by first appearance

I have created the following page: Characters in les miserables. It applies the same principle I've used in a couple of Dickens and a Dostoyevsky that feels very satisfying. By presenting the characters in order of their first appearance, the Characters section takes on the same flow as the plot itself. I'm not an autoconfirmed user, so please let me know what you all think. Hungrydog55 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Country

Given that country of first publication was Belgium, where Hugo was had been in exileat the time, I've corrected the "country" in the infobox (in accordance with the parameters of the infobox template specifying "Country of original publication"). Should a source be required, the first one Google turns up is this newspaper article about the publisher. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

1832 Revolution?

The article mentions the 1832 revolution in France. To my knowledge there was one in 1830 (the July-revolution, leading to the 'peoples monarchy') and then again in 1848 (the February revolution, leading to the 2nd Republic). Maybe it's worth mentioning that Hugo uses a fictional revolution, because Cosette is born at least one year after Waterloo (1815) and is therefore 13 to 14 years old in 1830. That would have raised a few eyebrows in 19th century France as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frentrop (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Number of pages

The article is quite divergent on the number of pages in the work. First it says 1500, then 1900, then 2783. Surely this isn't a subject of opinion and there is an accurate count of the pages in the novel? I do not have a copy myself so I cannot check personally.

The number of pages would vary depending on the print version. There are a number of factors such as font size, page size, number of lines of text, words per line, etc. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

misleading description of the page ratio

• More than a quarter of the novel—by one count 955 of 2,783 pages

955/2783 is approx 0.343... which is more than a third. It's true that this is also more than a quarter but the current wording still leaves a misleading impression 2001:14BB:410:21D6:F068:389A:9CC5:D5CD (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Make sure that Michael Bednarek doesn't delete the pronunciations as on "Rigoletto", "La traviata" or "Il trovatore"... --92.184.96.116 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Error.

The country of origin is France, not Belgium. Rogarbos (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I was similarly baffled when reading this article. Resisting the urge to just revert the change I delved into it for a moment, it was a bit of a rabit hole. In the end, I conclude there is something to say for this claim, but it needs more context in the article. ISBN 9781559701563 has quite a colourful origin story. Stating that Victor Hugo declared the book finished in Waterloo, and as a clever businessman asking 300,000 franks for publishing rights which his old publisher wasn't able to front but a brussels based publisher Albert Lacroix did. There seems to be consensus the book was published there first. If that justifies "country of origin" I will leave for others to decide. The manuscript was written in several countries over a long period of time. Pinfix (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The Little Prince was first published in New York. Is it fair to put " country of origin : USA"? Rogarbos (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Template documentation calls for place of first publication. Les Misérables might well be the Frenchest book ever, but it was first published in Brussels by a Belgian publisher while Hugo was in exile. That's a not insignificant fact in the biography of the author and the history of the book's creation (and it is a fact). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September, 2016

Pardon my ignorance of the talk page standards, but I do not see the information referenced in source [35] to Encyclopedia Britannica actually contained in the source itself.

In the Volume I of the plot description there is a statement: "has become a wealthy factory owner and is appointed mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer". In fact it was Montfermeil, not Montreuil-sur-Mer. AgataUbiq (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, my bad it was Montreuil-sur-mer :) AgataUbiq (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Rename, redirect

I think this page should be moved to Les Misérables and replaced by a redirect. Any idea why it is the other way round ? François

I also think it's a good idea, so I've just done it. I think the answer to your question is simply that whoever first named the article didn't know how to do the é. —Paul A 01:12, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

the musical

I'm confused as to why there is so much information about the musical on this page. This is about the novel, surely? The musical already has a page of its own. And the image of the programme - now that's just foolish. As such, I'm going to remove some references and information to the musical, esp. the image, and just you try and stop me without a good reason. --AdamM 22:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, I've removed the image, corrected some grammar, made a few sentences more readable, etc. etc. That plot synopsis looks remarkably like the musical one and not the novel at all. I can't change it as I've only seen the musical and therefore don't have the right, but reading this plot synopsis, which is about the novel, makes them contrast rather strikingly. Anyone agree with me, or has read the novel and can inform me of the changes? --AdamM 23:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The superfluity of musical information is mostly residue from before the musical had its own article; I can't see anything wrong with any of the changes you've made. The plot synopsis is seriously flawed (it's not even an accurate synopsis of the musical), and it's on my list of things to fix in my copious free time. --Paul A 04:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have made a start, although perhaps all I have achieved is to demonstrate how far there remains to go. :/ --Paul A 09:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get the feeling that when I'm done we'll have a colossus on our hands. Still, we can always compress it again later, and the summary will be the better for having been laid out in full beforehand. --Paul A 04:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We now have a reasonably complete and accurate plot synopsis that is definitely of the novel and not the musical. Next step: a readably short and accurate plot synopsis that is definitely of the novel and not the musical... --Paul A 10:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Characters section

The "Characters" section here is very, very long, but there is also a separate page for this already, List of Les Misérables characters. A lot of the work looks duplicated across the two articles. Is there any reason not to move most of this material to the list page, and remove (or significantly condense) it on this one? -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)