#3.5.3

From the chapter abstract: “young people learn over and over again that happiness is theirs only if they work hard enough to control their negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors on their own...the chapter demonstrates that the therapeutic narrative allows working-class men and women to redefine competent adulthood in terms of overcoming a painful family past.”

Who does this sound like? Now, this doesn’t map perfectly; Marius didn’t grow up working class and, if anything, has voluntarily opted into the mood economy. But in defying his grandfather and reconciling with the memory of his father, in the process losing significant material attachments, Marius finds a level of self actualization that he never could have otherwise.

I could tell you the positives of this, but Hugo has already covered that extensively for me. But what are the dangers of buying into the mood economy? Silva says, “However, [the mood economy] also transforms the self into one’s greatest obstacle to success, happiness, and well-being.” This is the key failure of the mood economy. Hugo almost touches upon this in regard to Marius, saying, “He had even, to tell the truth, gone a little too far on the side of contemplation.” This isn’t quite the same thing that Silva points out, but it stems from a similar flaw. Young people in the mood economy disregard the failures of the system, just as Marius disregards the value of his community. The individual triumphs over the collective. The problem is, nobody exists outside of society. There is no idea of the individual without the influence of societal context and ignoring one in favor of the other is harmful.

Monarchies and capitalist systems are motivated to encourage this misplacement of blame onto individuals, to encourage the mood economy because it keeps the blame off the inherently exploitative nature of the system that keeps those in power rich and everyone else poor. In the mood economy, working class young people are encouraged to think, “the reason I haven’t succeeded is because I haven’t overcome my own demons,” and not, “the reason I haven’t succeeded is because the system is set up to reduce class mobility because it needs to exploit the labor of the working class.” And it works, doesn’t it, because how much easier is the first statement to conceptualize? It’s incredibly difficult to part the veil, especially when every aspect of society is centered around the concept of an individual’s merit. (And to be clear, this is a false concept. To prove it, all I have to do is point out the very existence of the House of Bourbon, a hereditary monarchy.)

NOW, Marius stumbles into the mood economy, quickly adopts it, and immediately makes it worse. I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now and it started with my opinion of Marius being knocked down a few pegs but ended with my opinion of Marius as a character written by Victor Hugo being tainted. I don’t think this is something I can fully express at this point but for now I’ll say this: thematically, Marius is the worst of both worlds. First, he is emulating the negative aspects of the mood economy when he doesn’t need to, because he has means. In doing so, he has legitimized it, both to himself and to those that exist around him (and to the readers!).

Second, and stay with me if social theory isn’t your thing, Marius is alienated from the fruits of his labor (as is everyone who exists in capitalism), “but to give up his liberty! to work for a salary, to be a kind of literary clerk!” He takes this feeling of alienation and, because he is steeped in the mood economy mentality, emerges with this idea: “to work as little as possible at material labour, that he might work as much as possible at impalpable labour; in other words, to give a few hours to real life, and to cast the rest into the infinite.” Oooh boy, this is not a good look. I heard you like alienation so I put some alienation in your alienation so you can alienate while you alienate! Marius’s solution to the struggles of exploitative capitalism are to remove himself from the system as thoroughly as he possibly can and this is bad.

On one hand, this is very reminiscent of Fantine in poverty, Hugo praises these characters for making the best out of the worst circumstances, even though Fantine’s poverty was out of her power to fix though she still tried her best to actively make it work by sewing as much as she could and living in a tiny room. There’s a very big difference between real crushing poverty like Fantine’s and temporarily not having enough money to live on like Marius and I do wish that Hugo had made that distinction much clearer. 

On the other hand, this also feels very reminiscent of the Petit-Picpus nuns enduring hardships voluntarily to reap rewards. And here too, there is a focus on how good it has been to develop character, with the whole ‘great feats are performed in small struggles.’ 

I do have to maybe give Marius a little credit for being so young and trying to make the best out of his circumstances and finishing law school (oh no, Bossuet, Bahorel and Courfeyrac would have been so disappointed in him for qualifying as a lawyer :P).

Marius’ whole experience of poverty, however, is also wrapped in shame, he feels shame whenever buying meat and clothing himself always in mourning, whereas Fantine’s poverty was long-lasting so she quickly had to get rid of the shame that came with it. It’s also why there is such a contrast between Marius and Bossuet when they first met, Bossuet has learned to adapt very well to his circumstances of being out of luck money wise. Marius has not and is also too proud to seek more help than the basic from Courfeyrac. Courfeyrac continues to be a great friend however, and does not interfere or push Marius because he knows him well.

Marius sends a letter to Gillenormand who is angry but also it seems like he cares about Marius underneath, but I personally could not care less about Gillenormand and his feelings. Marius is bitter towards his grandfather and maybe that bitterness echoes how Valjean and Fantine also felt, Valjean in prison, Fantine during her poverty and prostitution years was bitter towards Monsieur Madeleine. I still really like Aunt Gillenormand for continuing to send six hundred francs to Marius, she does possess a kind spirit towards Marius, I wish they had had a chance to be close and friendly with each other.  

3.5.2

Marius works so hard at translating the languages that somehow, he is able to come out of his poverty quickly. I do find it interesting that as a bourgeois, Marius might not even have looked at other professions that would have been beneath his class. More examples of Marius being a bourgeois include him paying money to have someone sweep his floor, and also eating out frequently, instead of cooking food himself, while living on an annual rent of 30 francs in the Gorbeau House and by all purposes, trying to save money. 

For someone trying to save money, he spends way too much on food and household chores, twenty sous every day plus thirty six sous for housekeeping, is a lot, when cheaper alternatives are available and he could so easily sweep his floor and do his own laundry. He lives like a bourgeois student and still manages to save money, he isn’t even earning a lot through his translation, 700 francs a year does not seem much, Feuilly is earning more. 

I want to feel something towards Marius for never contracting a debt but mostly, I keep thinking how much he really does not have to live like that, and I end up feeling very little sympathy for The Pontmercy, especially since it highlights that he might be terribly judgey to other people who may have to borrow money to climb out of their circumstances, which is so many levels of nope, Marius what are you doing? 

In the midst of everything, Marius finds a new goal, that of finding Thenardier and making amends to him as per his father’s memory. This highlights another of his attributes of his blind devotion/adoration to people. He attaches himself to Thenardier for the sake of his father, while coming across as rude to everyone else due to his shyness and thinking that poverty can make you low-minded? What the heck, Marius? Why are you like this?  

3.5.3

This chapter wants me to care about Gillenormand, because as Hugo tells us, underneath it all, he really cares for his grandson, which yeah, that’s not going to work on me, especially since his adoration is harsh words and physical abuse, which has bound to have had an effect on Marius growing up in the household and being who he is (You cannot make me care about Gillenormand, Hugo, I hope Gillenormand continuously steps on legos for his entire life, I hate him so much). 

Marius’ anger towards his grandfather melts away and he finds that comparing his hardships to his father shows that his father suffered all through his life and he might like Marius for suffering and enduring hardships, which also highlights how much Marius does not know his father. He expressly would not want you to suffer, the whole point of him giving you up to live with your grandfather was because he did not want you to suffer, why are you like this, Marius?

Maybe not having money in his youth he is saved from becoming an idle young man of property, like Tholomyes and Bamatabois, who have so much money to live on and are major nuisances to everyone, as Hugo mentions in this chapter but I still cannot feel anything with Hugo emphasising how good poverty is for the soul and how it makes you reflective. Hugo’s class bias is so much visible here, just no. 

Also, what contemplation is he even supposed to do, he is dreamy, yes, but his contemplation is just that it is ‘good to be poor’, instead of it filling him with a sense of injustice against how many people have to live in poverty from which they cannot escape and coming to the amis point of view. 

His dreaminess, I would counter, prevents him from such a reflection. He does not see people around him because he is so caught up in his own thoughts and reflections. It is obvious he has spent so little time with the amis. And he also rejects an offer of work for the sake of having enough time to dream, on one hand Hugo is saying work is noble, on the other hand, Marius is rejecting work with good pay, to have more time to dream and therefore live in ‘noble poverty’?