Brick Club 5.1.17, 5.1.18
“The father died, the son expected to die.”
Marius rushes out! He really listens to his heart without hesitation and always commits and I have to appreciate that. He also gets clipped in the head but don’t worry, it’s one of those flavor head wounds that just makes you look badass. I’m intrigued at the idea proposed in the title that Gavroche is a father while Marius is a son. It’s a very good way to frame their social roles.
Combeferre has really been fascinating me these last couple of chapters, he seems to be addressing and embodying a wide spectrum of radical positions. He says of Valjean, “Here's a rare eccentric…he finds a way of not fighting in this barricade.” I said the same thing of Valjean a couple chapters ago, albeit with a more critical tone, but Combeferre seems to be somewhere between impressed and reproving. It’s interesting that Combeferre, the pacifist who brought three guns to the barricade, is the one who takes note of this while Enjolras doesn’t have any concerns or misgivings. It’s maybe a glimpse into how the dynamic between Enjolras and Combeferre operates; they have very different ideas about revolution, but have recognized they have the same ultimate goal and have worked to make their positions not only compatible but complimentary. In turn, they both are more receptive to outside methods, even if it may appear to fall outside their code. Combeferre clearly does not want to go to war and does not agree with it, but he has, at some point, accepted its need. I like to imagine Enjolras and Combeferre disagree and argue quite a bit, but where Grantaire disagrees like a cynic, Combeferre does so as a genuine skeptic.
Enjolras is certainly putting the work in the absorb all the perceived sin of the barricade. I couldn’t find Epidotas at first, but luckily it has been tackled before! I’d diagnose Jesus figure, and there is an aspect of delivering others from sin, but I think this has more to do with the contradiction of taking ‘bad’ actions to bring about ‘good’ outcomes. The idea that, while moral demands might conflict with each other, the greater moral good outweighs personal morality—but the personal moral transgression must still be punished. Better one individual be immoral and accept retribution than all of society be immoral. Comparing Enjolras to Orestes is another take on this particular catch-22 (though the subsequent comparison of Grantaire to Pylades, even an unaccepted Pylades, doesn’t quite work). I don’t agree with this system, because the requirement of punishment becomes nonsensically cyclical (see the entire Oresteia and basically any Greek tragedy). I talked about this in the Le Cabuc chapter; Enjolras’s determination to be judged necessitates that the revolution be a suicide mission and demands that all violence be punished with equal violence which just…doesn’t work for a bunch of reasons.
“Combeferre, wearing an apron,” can we just enjoy this image and ignore anything else? Thanks.
“There is something of the apocalypse in civil war, all the mists of the unknown are commingled with fierce flashes…One has been surrounded with conflicting ideas which had human faces; one's head has been in the light of the future.” In a situation so horrible, you find something horrible within yourself that was always there. But, as the depths grow darker and deeper, so too do the heights arise brighter and higher.
Can we talk about Feuilly, the architect? Feuilly who knows and understands structures not because he has studied them but because his hands have built them? Both literally and figuratively?? Feuilly who wants to build homes and families but instead builds barricades and armies?
“[Enjolras] felt that, since such men were to die, their death ought to be a masterpiece.” You’re testing me today Mr. Hugo, sir. Javert tells them, “You are in no better case than I am.” As if they doesn’t know that!
