Meeting Jean Valjean

So, the detailed description of Bienvenu's saintliness didn't exactly add fireworks to the opening, however, I am starting to get into the book. It started with the description of the Bish attending the deathbed of a former revolutionary and having a bit of an epiphany about the political situation of the time. I enjoyed reading the descriptive language and the Bishop's reactions, although I could see G was acting as Hugo's mouthpiece here. 

This was followed by the townspeople's suspicions about the mysterious man visiting. Here, the character is introduced gradually, allowing the reader to speculate why he's being treated like that instead of being given a whole history upfront as we get with the Bishop. Perhaps H wants us to see the man through the Bishop's eyes instead of judging him on the basis of his background. So far, Valjean's ambiguity (is he a hero or a villain?) provides a wonderful contrast to the moral certainty of the Bishop. I suppose all that stuff about the silver candlesticks and cutlery must've been a French custom I don't really get - I know the Bish was trying to show Val some respect, but it seemed rather a cruel thing to do to the poor convict, like he was trying to deliberately tempt him or something. 

Anyway, it was good that Val wasn't completely reformed straight away by the promise he made the Bishop; that we saw one more act of cruelty that Jean does almost automatically, having been imprisoned for such a long time with no idea of reform, before he realises properly that he has to choose between a life of crime or a life of trying to keep his promise to the Bishop. In the metaphorical chapter Sea and Shadow the ocean is compared to "...the pitiless social darkness into which the penal system casts those it has condemned, an unfathomable waste of misery." (Penguin, 1982, p103) and the convict is the drowning man, thrown overboard. Hugo highlights the systems both in France and England where prisons existed to harshly punish rather than to reform. The only benefit that Jean has gained from his experience is the ability to read - he has earned some money from working in prison for nineteen years but has left feeling cheated with little chance of redemption or assistance to gain employment or to begin a new life. Wherever he goes he is accompanied by a yellow slip telling people that he is dangerous, so naturally, people are suspicious of him. It is only by chance that he meets someone who is willing to give him his dignity and the benefit of the doubt; as we are told, he has left prison nursing a bitter rage against society for his imprisonment for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving family and subsequent repeat punishments for his escape attempts, this is a choice of becoming "the best of men...or a monster of depravity". (Ibid, p116). 

Just a little word about the structure. I'm not sure if this is an 18th Century French novel thing or a Victor thing, but the book is divided up very thoroughly in a way that helps the reader - the book is divided up into parts, then books, then chapters. Each chapter is only a few pages long and there are not that many chapters in each book, which is great for spurring you on to finish a book . Even if you are reading a chapter that seems to have no bearing on the story, you know that it will soon be over. It is much easier to read than the two books I read that preceded it! 

So, onto Book 3.

Monseigneur Bienvenu

...And the extremely wordy introduction. 

Forewarned by the introduction about Hugo's 'extravagances' I am nevertheless hit by a tidal wave of description of the sainted Bishop. Here, at the very start we can already see how literature has changed since this was published. In the modern novel we might be shown a few scenes to demonstrate to the reader about Bienvenu's character, here we are treated to description upon description of his personality and behaviour towards people. He is a demonstration of the principle of how not to 'show don't tell'. 

He's a charming man, but, lacking even a sniff of a plot at the moment, he is starting to grate slightly in his complete and utter perfection. I think here we have a rather old-fashioned archetype of a holy man, accompanied by his archetypal saintly spinster sister and his archetypal protective cynical servant. The only slightly more worldly aspect of their personality is the love of the silverware including the inherited silver candlesticks. I think I might see where this is going. 

I suppose I should try not to be so harsh, however. I am only on chapter seven of book one, there is plenty of time to make the Bishop a more well-rounded character and introduce some more action and dialogue to the book. 

 

A New Book

So, I guess it's time I stopped blogging DFW on Tumblr and got on with the next book. After a lot of deliberation I've decided to move away from the footnotes and the modernist/post-modernist literature and head back in time for some 19th Century French melodrama. Les Miserables [sic, cannot put accents into Blogger] is out in the cinema in December and I am awaiting it with baited breath having inevitably performed songs from the musical in 6th form choir. My knowledge of the plot is rudimentary, as per I've started it in the past and not got that far.I've also always meant to try and watch the musical, so I figure now's the time to read it.  

I'm planning on reading the Penguin Classics 1976 version translated by Norman Denny, in book form rather than ebook. 

The cover image shows a detail of the man on the right, from a painting called 'Le Repas des Pauvres' (link)

I've owned this book for a number of years and I wanted to read something in a 'classic' translation (it looks like Penguin are yet to update the translation), I'm not sure about the validity of the Kindle ebook, and after finishing Infinite Jest I am looking forward to scribbling all over a book again . 

Reading the introduction I see that Denny has abridged it slightly and moved some of Hugo's most confusing and irrelevant discussions into an appendix. I admit, he does not really excite you to read the book that much, but I understand why he's done what he's done. Although it is tempting to wish for a book with an entirely accurate translation, a sympathetic translation is probably better. True to the spirit if not the letter, especially as it seems that the French edition was loaded with more footnotes. 

I am intrigued by Hugo's political background, I hadn't realised that he was exiled for his political beliefs.

Having read the introduction I feel suitably fortified to begin the journey, admittedly not having done a great deal of research this time.  

The End of Infinite Jest and a Review

Possible spoilers.

It's been an emotional journey. Infinite Jest does entertain, but it also educates and forces you to question the nature of your own addictions and attempts to avoid the uncomfortable elements of life. Yet I did find the message ultimately hopeful; redemption is possible for everybody, you just need to 'Abide' and not lie to yourself. Try to read it without thinking too much about the death of the author, you can think about that at the end once you've finished the book.

On first reading the ending I was inevitably surprised and confused as for the last part the reader expects that as with most books, loose ends will be tied up and there will be some sort of easy conclusion. There is no easy conclusion, we are left to puzzle it out on our own. I turned to the internet which in hindsight was a little too easy, DFW leaves clues in the text and re-reading the first chapter can give some idea of what happened afterwards. It is, as the title says, 'infinite'.

I think a second reading will improve matters, but not yet! I think that once I re-read it I will stop looking for the last part's denouement and instead concentrate more on the writing, as I read the last part in something of a hurry. Note-making helped as I could go back and check for reoccurring characters I'd forgotten, however, I think I did miss an actual physical book - I would've liked to have made notes in a physical copy. I love the ease and accessibility of reading ebooks, but there is something wonderful and permanent about having a copy of a book you've properly loved, and covered all over with pencil marks (not pen and certainly not highlighter). 

The plot was intricate, sometimes confusing and the central themes were deftly weaved in around the plot and the characters. The characters themselves could at some points be rather exaggerated (adding humour, sometimes black humour in the case of Poor Tony), yet Don Gately was wonderfully human and the parts about his addiction and dealing with his injuries after being beaten up were beautifully written. Joelle van Dyne (Madame Psychosis) added imagery to the novel.  

The black humour and sick humour worked well too, I particularly remember Poor Tony making off with the woman's artificial heart. 

Although the structure was more difficult to read than some books (apparently using the Sierpinski gasket, where smaller parts come together as a larger whole, and all the triangles are linked together, hoping I've explained that right, maths is not my forte), it kept me on my toes with the way that different types of writing were used such as interviews, transcripts and JOI's filmography. 

So, some of the A.F.R parts were more difficult, perhaps because of the major amount of time they spent sitting  on top of a hill talking rather than actually doing any spying or assassination. Yes, there is rather a lot of tennis, but that can be forgiven for the sake of the Eschaton match.

Overall, it just amazes me that someone managed to write this book in three years and publish it when he was thirty three (same age as me). I gave it four stars on goodreads. I'm really glad I read it and I will re-read it in the future, but at the moment, I can't really call it one of my favourite books, perhaps because of it's difficulties and the self-examination it made me do. I love a challenge and I really like books that make you think, but maybe I read this at the wrong time of my life or I will like it better on the next time of reading. Anyway, I'll still look out for DFW's books and I'm sure he'll be appearing on future lists.


 

Just finished Infinite Jest...

...Mind blown now. Going to re-read the first chapter then put it aside with the aim of re-reading the whole thing again one day. I don’t think I’m ready to write a review tonight, I’m going to have to sleep on it.

Bret again.

Since his outburst against Foster Wallace [sic], Easton Ellis has been accused of being a green-eyed monster who can't stand another author being hailed as "great". I think he should be more concerned that's he's becoming the literary version of Elton John – someone who can be relied upon to kick off at random targets for no reason.

Barbara Ellen, "What's Made Bret Easton Ellis such a Sourpuss?" The Observer, 9th September 2012

And end up looking like a t**t (litshaming)

 I think Bret just called me a fool, a 'literary douchbag-fool' even (alongside all other people who like Wallace's books, note the lack of Foster as you can get corrected for that in literary circles). I have to admit to never having read any of Bret's books (I have no idea whether he's referred to as Ellis or Easton Elis, only that he's only got one 't'); I found the idea of American Psycho a bit off-putting and have heard about the mixed reviews for the rest of his work. If I'm in the mood for American contemporary literary fiction there are other books that I find more to my taste, although I should probably be a bit more open minded about him. He amuses me with his Twitter comments as he reminds me of a small child calling their parents a rude name in the hope of gaining some attention. I can't take the man seriously as his comments are ludicrously written in order to provoke the maximum amount of controversy and in this case, make him look like a jealous asshole. As Barbara says, step away from the Twitter. I think if I was on Twitter more I'd probably find his ranting a bit more annoying, however. 

According to Gerald Howard, who edited the work of both of them, they envied each other and David parodied Bret's style (in The Girl with the Curious Hair), rather sad that Bret feels the need to still carry around his anger after all this time (as well as the death of Wallace). Don't know what he's so mad about anyway - firstly, he admits that he think that Every Love Story is a Ghost Story is well written, and secondly, why should it bother him that people admire Wallace's writing - just because I like reading DFW's writing it doesn't automatically mean I will hate his. 

I've been reading about people's opinions of his rant on Tumblr, one blogger found that although BEE had gone about it in completely the wrong way, he had a point about people canonising DFW. Although I really like Infinite Jest (as the poster does), I do agree with him. The first time I read any Wallace it was a library book I picked up by a writer I'd never heard of, not some kind of Bible written by a man surrounded by all this emotional baggage and the inevitable eulogizing that comes with suicide. I was drawn to his work through his writing style, and in some ways I wish that I had finished the book without knowing anything about his death, because it does cloud my reading and it can prevent honest criticism (not that I would call what BEE is doing honest criticism, that's not really what Twitter is for, in my opinion). Okay, so resorting to personal attacks isn't great, but then neither is putting someone on an after-death pedestal.

So, at 70% finished I'm reserving judgement, but still hoping to be able to finish the book and then write an honest critique. As a progress report, I'm finding the second part harder than the first but I'm hoping to finish soon.