If On A Winter's Night a Traveler

Having been warned by reviews that this was a 'difficult' book I ploughed on, undaunted. And gladly. I sometimes wish that people wouldn't label books this way, although I am attracted by a challenge. I can see why people would hate it, it is like a Russian nesting doll of novels and makes you question the very nature of reading itself. It can mess with the brain, yet here I am in the sure knowledge that I could read it dozens of times and still get something out of it.
The structure is somewhat mind-bending in the way that it is narrated. The book begins in the second person describing how you, 'the Reader' goes to a book shop looking for Calvino's new novel and begin reading it, the second chapter is purportedly that novel, but only the first chapter. At the end of the first chapter, the novel returns to 'the Reader' who realises that he is not reading the book he is supposed to have bought, and the rest of the novel is missing. The rest of the book is divided into second person narrative sections describing 'the Reader' on a frantic, fruitless quest for the rest of the novel, and the ten first chapters of the rest of the novels he encounters, all vastly ranging in genre and breaking off at a plot climax. If you didn't know what you were letting yourself in for, you would probably find it a really frustrating book to read, but there is some sort of plot in 'the Reader's' quest and his meeting of a fellow reader, Ludmilla and the other characters. It could all become too mind-bending, but is saved from this by the author's playfullness and the fact that it is not just one good story to read, but at least eleven (not counting the anecdotal stories 'the Reader' hears on the way).      
It's an extremely postmodernist book and I can see the way that it relates to the dreaded structuralist and post-structuralist texts I had to study at uni. On one hand it would have been great to study this alongside that part of the unit, on the other hand, I'm not sure I would have 'got' it at the time. We can't all be David Mitchell (the novelist who wrote a review in the Guardian describing how he was amazed as an undergraduate but not so much re-reading it). It also relates to the idea of the death of the author in that there is seemingly no unifying 'author' or 'authorial voice', there is the narrative voice of 'the Reader' sections, then the voices of the ten other authors. I can also see how it has influenced subsequent fiction. 
Anyway, hopefully I will re-read it again one day and perhaps study it in more detail.

Victor and the Tale of Many Coincidences (and Political Viewpoints)

Part Three opens with an extended description of the life of a Paris urchin (or gamin), in this case, Gavroche, the homeless son of the Jondrette family, who are apparently the much reduced impoverished Thernadiers (although it is not clear at this stage who they are, only that they neglect him in favour of his sisters, as they did when they lived in the tavern).  Hugo portrays the gamin as suffering extreme poverty with a kind of bravery or insolence towards his situation; whereas Cosette is pathetic (in the sense that she inspires pity) in the way that the Thernadiers abuse her, Gavorche doesn’t recognise that what they are doing is abuse and neglect and seems to take poor treatment without complaining. However, it has affected him: “…while the laughter of his years was on his lips, there was only darkness and emptiness in his heart.” (p509). Nevertheless, Gavroche is free, an extremely important concept in the book. 

Again, Hugo seemingly digresses from the plot, and it’s only at the end of book one that we discover that Marius lives next door to the family.  The reader is then introduced to Monsieur Gillenormand, another seemingly unconnected character. If Gavroche represents the children of Paris, the urchins, Gillenormand represents the traditionalists, the bourgeois monarchists. Books two to five of part three explore the conflict between the political ideals of the Monarchists, the supporters of Napoleon and the Republicans. Gillenormand has two daughters, the living one a religiously bigoted spinster who looks after him, the other one dead who was married to a colonel in Waterloo, whom the old man is ashamed of. Marius is the old man’s grandson, the son of the colonel and the dead daughter. Gillenormand is harsh towards Marius and teaches him to hate his father by taking him to pro-monarchist anti-revolution salons, where the visitors revile Bonaparte.

In a third digression Hugo describes the town of Vernon where the old man’s son-in-law Georges Pontmercy lives. In one of a number of coincidences in the novel, Pontmercy is the man Thernadier robbed, who believed that Thernadier saved him. Hugo is criticised for the sometimes implausible coincidences in the plot, but according to Adam Thirwell, in his review in the Guardian (12^th July 2008), the main theme is that of the Infinite, there are no digressions because everything is relevant to the plot, the plot’s coincidences are “exaggerated” deliberately; “Hugo wants a plot that is at once about total randomness, and also predetermination.”  He does this through characters repeatedly failing to recognise each other and through the way that the narrator withholds information from the reader like what the significance of a character or an event is in the plot. The novel is partially naturalistic in the way that the poverty is described in a realistic way, yet the coincidences prevent it from being completely naturalistic in say the way that a modernist or post-modernist novel would be. 

Pontmercy’s final message to his son is to protect Thernad at all costs. Pontmercy’s death affects Marius in that he begins to change his political ideas from those of his grandfather to the ideas of his father, becoming fanatical about Napoleon and changing his name to Baron Marius Pontmercy (a title awarded to his father by Napoleon which is unrecognised by the restored monarchy).  Hugo describes how he falls into a mystical trance contemplating the Battle of Waterloo; it is almost like a Damascene conversion. He worships Napoleon even more than his father did. Through Gillenormand getting his great nephew Theodule to spy on Marius, the old man discovers that Marius has been visiting his father’s grave and throws him out. 

In another apparent digression, we are introduced to the ABC Society, representative of the Republican/Revolutionary viewpoint. The Society’s mission is universal education but it serves as a counterpoint to the kind of salons Marius grew up in, a place where a great many different subjects can be discussed freely. Marius meets Leigle (or Bossuet) at school, and then he becomes friendly with Courfeyrac who introduces him to the society, which causes Marius to change his political views once more.  

Perhaps Hugo tries not to have a bias towards any one political viewpoint in the novel. He believes that Napoleon’s defeat was inevitable, the character who supports the monarchy is portrayed as being rather cruel towards his nephew and here Grantaire represents the ABC Society with a speech he gives when drunk. Hugo dismisses his attitude: “Scepticism, that dry-rot of the intellect, had left him without a whole thought in his head.” (p565). Graintaine is dismissive of everything. 

Marius argues fervently for Napoleon and the idea of the French Empire, but Combferre causes him to check his words by talking succinctly of the ideals of freedom and the sacred mother the Republic. It is telling that Marius himself is motherless; this is true of many of the characters who either have absent (for whatever reason) or abusive mothers.  Hugo uses imagery of the earth being furrowed for the sowing of seed, or a wound to describe how Marius feels. He fears that embracing this philosophy will lead to him losing his father and becoming even more isolated. 

What is worse is that he is penniless, but like Valjean before him he is determined to control his own destiny by working hard and not getting into debt. The poverty he endures then overcomes affects his personality in that he becomes “aloof...withdrawn to the point of surliness.” (p587). He is “inclined a little too much to the side of contemplation.” (p591), and avoids certain financial security for the sake of his freedom. 

During his poverty Marius had searched for the Thernadiers without success, but Hugo drops in another apparently insignificant event where Marius takes pity on the “wretchedly poor” Jondrette family (p598), the reader is still unaware of their identity.

In the final chapter of Book 5 Gillenormand rages against Marius, the Republicans and romanticism, particularly the idiots who attended the play Hernani (by our very own Victor Hugo). “The story is set in 16th-century Spain and extols the Romantic hero in the form of a noble outlaw at war with society, dedicated to a passionate love and driven by inexorable fate.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica), similar to Les Miserables? Gillernormand both fears and derides the young and their philosophy, but doesn’t seem to want Theodule to criticise Marius. 

Back to the Plot

Valjean has been re-captured and the subject of two newspaper reports, one reporting truthfully about his re-arrest and the missing money, the other a sensationalised completely biased account of a cunning rogue who conned people so that he could become mayor and live with his concubine and it is lucky that due to the ‘indefatigable zeal’ (Penguin 1976, translated by Denny, p325) of the police that he was re-captured, sentenced to death but had his sentenced commuted to hard labour for life.  As far as the tabloid press are concerned, it looks like nothing changes. 

It also gives us a glimpse into the way the press (or at least a certain type of press) view the King. Although it doesn’t really interfere with the plot so far (except the giant Waterloo rant), Hugo frequently reminds the reader about the backdrop that these events are taking place against, so here we have the insinuation that the King is merciful to someone who doesn’t necessarily deserve it.  Later on there is a description of the broken down ship Orion, something that is seemingly unconnected to the story and which Hugo uses to point out the expense of military action particularly when used in the Franco-Spanish War for the French King to restore the Spanish King. Although France won, Hugo sees it as being an affront to liberty and democracy and the origin of the events of 1830 as he reads it as a sign that Louis XVIII believed that if could restore the Spanish monarchy he could also re-establish the divine right of Kings in France. 

"Prince Charles has an outrageous amount of influence. For me, [the future] Charles III, although he will probably rule as George VII, is most like Edward VIII. He believes in his right to interfere. The idea that a constitutional monarchy has interference rights seems to me a scandal." Mark Gatiss in an interview with Mark Lawson, Guardian 21st October 2012.

As the scandal of Prince Charles's letters has shown, this is something that societies with any sort of monarchy, even a constitutional one can be concerned about.

The narrative perspective is these parts of the book is interesting. We are not directly told that any of this is about Valjean or what his feelings are about any of the events. Firstly, Hugo narrates an apparently unconnected superstition linking it to Boulatruelle and Thernadier observing a stranger burying something which they cannot find. At least we know where Valjean’s stash has come from when he shows up at the Thernadier Inn (can’t remember the name, just that it was something to do with Waterloo after Mr. Thernad passed himself off as a brave soldier). Then we have the story of a convict bravely trying to save a seaman but apparently drowning in the process. Only by the end of the chapter do we know that the ‘drowned’ man was Valjean.  

The next chapter opens with the Thernadier’s Tavern and poor Cosette. Most of this chapter is narrated from the perspective of the greedy Thernadier’s and Cosette, who meets a stranger in yellow when she is sent out in the dark on Christmas Eve to fetch a huge bucket of water. Instead of seeing things from Valjean’s perspective here, we see the greed, cruelty and all-round unpleasantness of the Thernadiers, and how they view Valjean and are unable to decide whether to be deferential or unfriendly towards him. I thought about why Hugo chose to narrate the story in this way, I think that adding Valjean’s voice in as well would have made this chapter rather too confusing. It makes the Thernadiers look even worse as we see all their scheming, plotting and abuse of Cosette, without making the chapter too maudlin by adding Valjean’s voice (although admittedly Hugo does his best to tug at our heartstrings). Cosette’s perspective is very important to the chapter as well, how she thinks of herself and how she views this mysterious stranger whom she instinctively trusts yet fears his gift of the beautiful doll. It also gives the next chapter more power by focusing on Valjean’s re-birth outside the Tavern. It is quite an exciting chapter with the reader not knowing if Valjean will escape with Cosette.

The next book focuses on Valjean and Cosette’s new life in the Gorbeau tenement and Valjean’s re-birth as a man who is able to love (after his first re-birth where the Bishop taught him re-birth).  Again Hugo touches on the theme of destiny, in this case Valjean’s belief that it is his destiny to take care of Cosette and teach her to read. Hugo really tugs at the reader's heartstrings here with the portrait of Valjean taking care of Cosette and Cosette calling him father and seeing their meagre lodgings as some sort of palace. Yet, there is an undercurrent of Valjean drawing unwelcome attention to himself despite his best efforts, and I am sure that it is not the last we're going to see of the Thernadiers.