#champmathieu

Okay. It's beginning with the First Volume of the Entire Brick, <Fantine>.

I know this is the most important volume of Les Mis, since what Bishop did to the traveller who entered Digne influences a lots of things in the later in the Brick plot.

But honestly, it's the most hard-to-read volume at the same time. This does not mean Mr. Hugo enterferes with his endless speech, but It's really harsh to the characters suffer.

Like Valjean stole bread for saving his sister's children and became a convict named 24601, Cosette getting abused by the entire Thenardiers and became the housemaid, and Fantine wretched by her 'lover' and falling into the woman of town. It's just like Mr. Hugo mentioned in the preface, 'the degradation of man through pauperism, the corruption of woman through hunger, the crippling of children through lack of light'.

However, there are still best scenes in volume 1 too! I pick three.

First is of course, Bishop Myriel doing his job to Valjean, which leads the later incidents that happening in the entire Brick.

Second is Madeleine lifting the cart of Fauchelevent. Though he got suspicious sight of Javert but he gained another strong patron for him and this resulted him became the mayor.

And finally, the third scene is that famous 'Who am I?' scene at the Court of Arras. He did saved the innocent man, though he could not be done with the town and poor mother.

In conclusion, it might be too harsh to read, and might be less dramatic than the later volumes, but this volume 1: Fantine is the most important one since it makes the hardened base structure of the plot. I will be back tomorrow with the Volume 2!

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Volume 4

Volume 5

les misérables 1.7.11

my dude literally just

“To climb a wall, to break a branch, to purloin apples, is a mischievous trick in a child; for a man it is a misdemeanor; for a convict it is a crime. Robbing and housebreaking—it is all there.”

The phrasing of the statement alone indicates its absurdity. While the main part of the “crime” is “purloining apples” (stealing), Javert starts with simple things like “climbing a wall” and “breaking a branch” that have no discernable impact on anyone’s well-being, financial or otherwise. All of them are grouped together into the category of “crime,” highlighting the absurdity of that label in the first place.

LES MIS LETTERS IN ADAPTATION - The System of Denials, LM 1.7.10 ( Les Miserables 1925)

The man ceased speaking, and remained standing. He had said these things in a loud, rapid, hoarse voice, with a sort of irritated and savage ingenuousness. Once he paused to salute some one in the crowd. The sort of affirmations which he seemed to fling out before him at random came like hiccoughs, and to each he added the gesture of a wood-cutter who is splitting wood. When he had finished, the audience burst into a laugh. He stared at the public, and, perceiving that they were laughing, and not understanding why, he began to laugh himself.

Remember the parable of the lost sheep? Basically we have this shepherd who has 100 sheep but when one gets lost he goes looking for it, even if that means leaving other 99.

“I am the master of hundreds of workers

They all look to me

Can I abandon them, how would they live if I am not free?”

IX. A Place Where Convictions Are About to Shape Up

This courtroom is really grim, and it must be so much worse for Valjean, who’s been in the same kind of setting already. “This man was the man. He did not look for him, he saw him at once. His eyes gravitated toward him of their own accord, as though they had known in advance where he was.” Oh noooo!

Only, above the president’s head there was a crucifix, something that was missing from the courtrooms at the time he was convicted. When he was tried, G-d had not been there.

Except the mercy and humanity that’s so integral to Hugo’s vision of G-d is completely absent in both of the lawyers, it’s so awful.

Would anyone have cared about the Petit Gervais incident if it weren’t evidence to make Valjean’s crime even more severe, and thus a way to make it “clear” that Champmathieu must be guilty of this theft as well?

“That provincial lingo that had long constituted the eloquence of the bar and that lawyers used to use in days gone by...” Oh good, a preview of the Argot digression! <3

But what proved that this thief was Champmathieu? A single thing -- his status as an ex-convict. The attorney did not deny that this status appeared, unfortunately, to be clearly proved [...] but supposing he were the convict Jean Valjean -- did that prove that he was the stealer of the apples?”

AUGH, even the defense attorney doesn’t believe him and thinks he’s half-guilty and “obviously a cretin” D:

I despise the prosecution too, and I’m really sad!

X. The Strategy of Denial