I was surprised at how in sync the movie and play were. I expected greater variation. Actually, I expected the movie to contain a lot more detail than the play, but I was pleasantly surprised that the play contained all the elements of the movie. However, there is one major difference. In the play, there is a substantial sub-plot involving Eponine. Eponine does not appear in the movie at all.
For those who have read the novel, which version is accurate? Does Eponine appear in the novel at all? Or was it a plot addition by Mssrs. Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schönberg?
Second question, as an aside…
For all the non-English works of literature that I am aware of that get translated into English, from Kafka to Dostoevsky, the title of the work is also translated to an English equivalent. Does anyone know why this was not done with Les Miserables?
okay, you have to understand, the novel is Very, Very Long. After seeing the play, I went through my novel, and found that the entire play is taken from approx 12-15 individual pages of text. All major elements from the play are from the book (including Eponine, Gavroche, etc.) Its just that they are much, much more complexly interwoven in the book. I was trying to give an example, but it’s just… too complicated. As soon as you start talking about one character, you almost have to talk about them all.
Of course there are whole sections you can just skip, as they have little do with the narrative, notably the section on the battle of Waterloo and a section describing a Paris convent (if you are a fan of Napoleanic history, or 19th century convent life, by all means read them).
I have the Penguin Classic translation, which I personally recommend far over the Signet edition that has the musical’s art on the cover.
re: the title. I don’t think it translates well. “Miserable” isn’t accepted as a noun in English. The closes you can come is, perhaps, is “The Wretched.”
I do realize that the original book is very long. With some embarrassment I have to confess that that is the reason I haven’t read it.
It is interesting to learn that Eponine is in the novel and the play, but not the movie. I would’ve guessed that the play would be more prone to simplification than the movie. It also seems to me that Gavroche would’ve been an easier character to eliminate from the movie, with less impact to the overall story.
Regarding the title, given the ethnocentrism of the typical American, I’d have guessed that calling the translation “The Wretched” (or “The French Fugitive” ~grin~) would be a less risky move than leaving the original French title.
Anyone know of other examples of non-English titles being retained in a translation?
Add a few more "Very"s to the Very, Very Long description of Hello Again. Hugo takes 50 pages to describe M. Francois Bienvenu Myriel, the Bishop of D___ (the bishop from whom Jean Valjean steals the candlesticks), a character who is never again seen in the rest of the book. The description of the convent is not so long, but the description of Waterloo (right in the middle of the book) takes 65 pages and its main purpose is to introduce a secondary character, Thenardier, the innkeeper, father of Eponine and persecutor of Cosette.
Don’t get me wrong, the book is one of my favorites and I went out of my way to get an unabridged edition. But I definitely think some editing would be necessary for it to appeal to most readers. (And there are some good abridged editions out there.)
There are two Thenardier sisters- Eponine and Azelma. Both are mentioned in the French version of the musical.
And the chapter on Waterloo also ties in Marius’ father, making his connection with Thenardier. In fact, much life-saving goes on in many, many ways. With everyone. And most characters do come back…I think the Bishop is nearly the only important one who doesn’t re-visit us physically.
One of my favorite very, very, very, very, very long books- I could probably chat for hours about it. I don’t particularly like the abridgement because of the loss of the beautiful bits about the argot of Paris- and because Gavroche seems to have no connection at all (and he does).
Marius’s father is connected to Thenardier via Waterloo?
And Gavroche has some other connection too?
Interesting. What a complex web Hugo wove. I wonder if I can summon up the courage and patience to read the book.
The play was never very clear where Valjean and Cosette spent the nine years in Paris, much less mention that the man Valjean rescued from under the cart was at that convent too.
I was grateful to the movie for that bit of information. Yet, in addition to there being no Eponine, the Thenardiers never re-appear in the movie either.
Yes, the interrelations of all the characters are one of the more fascinating aspects of the story. I’ll put the two you named in a spoiler box for those who don’t want to know in advance:
Marius’ father is “saved” at Waterloo by Thenardier. (Actually, Thenardier is looting the “corpse” and accidentally revives him.) And Gavroche is the son of Thenardier, abandoned and unloved by his mother, whose affection only extends as far as her husband and two daughters.
If you want to read a shortened version of the book, I would recommend one of the scholastic editions that are usually printed for high-schoolers. Then, when you fall in love with the story, you can go back and read it entire, 50-page descriptions and all.
Les Miserables is by far the best, most beautiful, moving novel I have ever read. I read the unabridged version. Hugo is brilliant. On the other hand, I tried to read The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and found it unengaging, never finished it. I never saw the musical or movie.
Does the book tell what happened to Valjean’s sister and nephew? I know he stole the bread to save them, but he apparently either makes no attempt to contact them after his parole or otherwise they’re dead.
Also, in the musical Javert sings “I was born inside a jail”. Does the book mention this? Was he born to a prisoner?
Thanks-
I absolutely HATED the movie - I am assuming you are talking about the one with Uma Thurman and Geoffrey Rush in it - there were so many problems with it! Eg, I do not recall ANYWHERE in the book or in the musical where Valjean and Cosette are running a soup kitchen that Gavroche visits.
However, an excellent movie version/adaptation of Les Miserables is the french version made in 1995 which takes place during the second world war.
And cbcd, I too had problems getting through Hugo’s Notre Dame de Paris, although I found once I plowed through his chapter on Paris from a Bird’s eye view, I found it ok. Actually, I figured if you skipped all of his detailed Parisian-life chapters (which don’t actually focus on the story), you could read the book a bit more easily!
However, Notre Dame and Les Miserables are two completely different kettles of fish. Considering that the former was written when Hugo was in his twenties (or thirties) and the latter written some 30 or so years later, there’s a vast contrast in style and content.
Another of his books, though lesser known, is The Last Days of a Condemned Man and it is well worth reading.
you think it’s long in English? Try reading it in French. I insisted on doing that one summer in my youth - to say I was obsessed with the musical would be putting it mildly. I even have the original French verison of the musical - which actually gives Eponine more songs.
Is it true that one reason it was so long was because Hugo was paid by the word?
I tried reading it several times, but the furthest I ever made it “without biting” was the 440,000 page dissertation on glassmaking.
Funny. I just saw the Liam Neeson version on Braco too (I liked it). This reminded me to order the 1978 Richard Jordan / Anthony Perkins version. I haven’t seen it yet (I saw it ages ago) and I hear it has been edited from its original length.
From what I recall, the '78 version was quite good. I hope it does not suffer from the editing. Perkins was so scary and twitchy as Javert—he made a big impression on me. Richard Jordan (as Jean) was quite good too. Jordan has always, (in my opinion) been underappreciated.
