Talk:Les Misérables

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/s/Talk%7ELes_Mis%C3%A9rables_76a7.html"