#javert meta

[ghastlychamber]

i think it's very sad how in bbc les mis (2018) "javert derailed" is conveyed through dialogue between javert and this rivette guy -badly written dialogue that i think misses the entire point of the chapter but that's a story for another day- and i obviously understand that this was because in the book it's all javert's inner monologue and that doesn't work for visual media so we have to *show* javert's thoughts being spoken out loud; but it made me think how truly and utterly alone book!javert was. in the series he talks to someone, he makes his inner conflicts known, at least this one person KNOWS why javert threw himself off a bridge. in the book it's just "eh he just lost his marbles lol he was nuts or sth idk lmao rip bozo"

not to quote the musical on a post about the book but in canon javert indeed has "nowhere he can turn", he has no one and nowhere to turn to, nobody ever learns THE REASON javert drowns himself. his body is found, a brief -and insulting- mention is made in the papers, and that's it; no one gives it any more thought. in the words of thénardier, "the river's the real graveyard. after a month they fish your man out of the nets at st-cloud. well, so what? it's a dead body! who killed him? Paris."

[wisteria-lodge]

Bird vs Lion (Javert vs Valjean)

I've been wanting to annotate this scene for ages, because it's SUCH a good example of a really loud Lion primary (Valjean) and a really loud Bird primary (Javert) just being... unable to communicate.

So, background. Inspector Javert has just arrested Fantine (a sex worker.) But Fantine insulted Valjean, alias Mayor Madeleine, while she was being taken into custody.

***

“Sergeant!” [Javert] shouted. “Can’t you see this hussy is making off! Who told you to let her go?”

“I did,” said Madeleine. (...) 

It was obvious that Javert had been ‘knocked through a loop,’ as they say, to have allowed himself to say what he did to the sergeant after the mayor’s invitation to set Fantine free (...) Had he wound up telling himself that it was not possible for any person of authority to have given such an order and that Monsieur le maire must certainly have said one thing when he meant another altogether? Or else… did he tell himself that it was necessary to resort to extreme measures… and that, in this dire extremity, law and order, morality, governance, society as a whole, were personified in himself, Javert? 

Whatever the case, when Monsieur Madeleine let out that “I did” we heard a moment ago, the inspector of the police was seen to turn towards Monsieur le maire, pale, cold, his lips blue, his eyes desperate, his whole body shaking with a barely perceptible tremor, and he was heard to say something unprecedented: “Monsieur le maire, that can’t be done.” 

So - Poor Javert is having two equally important parts of his System collide here: ‘Respect all authority figures’ vs ‘punish all criminals.’ In this moment, he can’t find a way to do both simultaneously... and it’s sort of breaking his brain. 

“How’s that?” said Monsieur Madeleine.

Madeleine (Valjean) does not get what his problem is.

“This wretched woman insulted a gentleman.” 

She broke the Law! (Objectively true.)

“Inspector Javert,” Monsieur Madeleine replied in a calm, conciliatory tone, “listen. You are an honest man, so I don’t mind spelling things out clearly for you. It’s like this. I happened to be crossing the square as you were carting this woman away. There were still people milling around, I asked a few questions and I found out the truth: it is the gentleman that was in the wrong, and if the police were doing their job, he should have been arrested.” 

The lady only technically broke the law, for understandable reasons. 

She broke the Law!!!!!!!!!

Javert could not stop himself: “This miserable creature just insulted Monsieur le maire.” 

She insulted you, the mayor, a symbol of authority. It is a VERY important part of my system that authority figures need to be respected for society to function.

“That’s my business,” said Monsieur Madeleine. “My insult is mine, if you like. I can do what I like with it.” 

I’m not personally upset about it, so I don’t see why you care. 

“I beg Monsieur le maire’s pardon. The insult is not his, it belongs to the system of justice.”

She must be made an example of. People can NOT be allowed to get away with this, especially not to a symbol of authority/structure/governance. No matter how much you PERSONALLY may not be bothered by this specific incident, she MUST be made an example of, or others will follow suit and the morals of society begin to crumble. How can you not understand this? The mayor who has done so much for this town and whom I respect for both his accomplishments and authority?

“Inspector Javert,” replied Monsieur Madeleine, “the highest form of justice is one’s own conscience. I’ve heard the woman out. I know what I’m doing.” 

EXCUSE ME? No. Why would you think that? That's not how any of this works.

“And I, Monsieur le maire, don’t know what I am seeing.” 

*brain broken* 

“Then make due with obeying.” 

I don’t know what your problem is. Do you need direct orders or something? (Valjean is very Badger secondary, and you can see it start to kick into gear here. He’s trying to find ANY way to communicate with Javert.) 

“I’m obeying my duty. My duty tells me that this woman should do six months behind bars.” 

I am REMINDING you of the law, which you should ALSO have a responsibility to. 

Monsieur Madeleine responded gently: “Listen to me carefully. She will not do a single day.” 

… I feel that the law is wrong. 

At these decisive words, Javert risked a glare at the mayor and said to him, though in a tone of voice that was still scrupulously respectful: 

because you still must RESPECT AUTHORITY

“It causes me despair to go against Monsieur le maire, this is the first time in my life, but he will deign to permit me to observe to him that I am within the bounds of my responsibilities. I will confine myself, since Monsieur le maire wishes it, to the case of the citizen in question. 

In this moment, Javert is changing the way he perceives Valjean in that quick, dramatic way Birds do. The Mayor is SUPPOSED to be on the side of Law, just like Javert... but has let him down. And Javert (under stress) is just going to get even more icy and more polite. 

Valjean (under stress) gets angry.

“I was there. This girl threw herself at Monsieur Bamatabois, who is a voter and the owner of a magnificent house with a balcony on the corner of the esplanade, three stories, all in hewn stone. At the end of the day, some things count for something in this world.” 

So we’re starting to get more of a sense of Javert’s system here. People have roles/symbols/functions in society, which must be respected if society is to stay intact. (Also, Victor Hugo was obsessed with architecture, and you can tell that he’s a Bird primary who… absolutely identified with Javert. Which is honestly probably why he comes down so hard on Javert in the text.) 

“Anyhow, Monsieur le maire, this matter is a case for the street patrol and so it concerns me, and I am holding this woman, Fantine.” 

The structures that I believe in say that this situation is the responsibility of the Law. Stop getting in the way of my duty to enact this vital societal function. (also I respect you a whole lot less than I did five minutes ago.)

At these words Monsieur Madeline folded his arms and said in a harsh voice that no one in town had ever yet heard: “The case you are talking about is a matter for the municipal police. By the terms of articles nine, fifteen, and sixty-six of the code of criminal law, I am the judge of it. I order this woman to be set free.” 

Okay, screw you. If you want letter of the law I will GIVE you letter of the law. (This is one of the places where aggressive Bird secondary model Valjean shows up. He *knows* how to do his job.)

Javert struggled to make one last stand. "But Monsieur le maire -” 

Valjean just threw the book at him, and the book is holy. There’s not much Javert can do here, Valjean might as well be quoting Bible verses. 

“Let me refer you to article eighty-one of the law of December 13, 1799 on arbitrary detention.” 

Yeah. I’m not going to waste time with you. 

“Monsieur le Maire, allow -” 

“Not another word.” 

I’m pissed now. 

“But - ”

“Not another word” 

I’m PISSED now.

Javert took the blow standing, full on and bang in the chest like a Russian soldier. He bowed practically to the ground to Monsieur le maire, and left.  

And Javert ends the scene experiencing a contradiction in his System that is physically painful for a Bird as rigidly dedicated as he is. Honestly a huge part of the tragedy of Javert is that a fix-it is *so plausible.* He is so earnest, and tries so hard, and you get the impression that if he had a few more interactions like this he might have been able to transform his system into something more elastic. But Les Mis is a tragedy and so he... doesn't.

[meta-squash]

I have no idea if this means anything, but it’s interesting that Javert very specifically does not jump off a bridge. The area he jumps is on the street, between bridges and quays.

Part of the reason is because a lot of bridges over the Seine had houses or buildings built along the side so you couldn’t even see or access the river. But Pont Neuf at least (and probably other bridges) didn’t have buildings on the sides. He could have gone there to jump. Instead he remains on the side of the river, nearby the police headquarters.

I think it’s interesting that he doesn’t jump over a bridge. He just doesn’t fully climb across that metaphorical bridge into the acceptance that Valjean may have been a good person. In fact, despite all his internal debate, he still remains on the same side as the police headquarters and the “comfort” or “familiarity” of a certain type of justice. His letter is an attempt at posthumous reform but he can’t change his mind or his convictions enough to even really begin to learn and cross that “bridge” of values or morality.

[lyledebeast]

A Few Thoughts on Javert and the Finale

I’ve been reading so many interesting reactions to this post that I couldn’t just go back and read the novel. like I’m supposed to be doing, until I added my two cents.  It’s pretty clear that while Javert commits suicide in both versions, his actions prior to his death take on very different meanings.  In spite of his ruthlessness throughout both texts, his final act before his suicide is one of compassion.  While the prison reform letter is omitted from the musical--and, I have to admit, it’s not exactly the stuff of power ballads--he does let Valjean go in the sewers, a choice that saves both Valjean and Marius.  If he had arrested or shot Valjean, not only would all of the good people end badly, but Javert would have survived along with all the other completely evil people in the story. In the novel, he’s completely aware that he’s done something good, even if he is freaked out by it: “He was forced to acknowledge that goodness did exist.  This convict had been good.  And he himself, unprecedented circumstances, had just been good also.” The difference between the novel and musical is that in the former, this good act gives rise to another one, and contributes to the ambivalent and varied interpretations of his death.  In the musical, it counts for absolutely nothing, which seems inescapably harsh to me.

The replies to this post give a few different reasons for why Javert is damned in the musical; one is that he doesn’t change, and one is that he doesn’t love anyone.  In the first case, his decision to let Marius and Valjean go does reflect a change of heart; this is something he never would have contemplated before the events of the barricade.  The only way this doesn’t reflect well on Javert is if we give Valjean all the credit for it, which seems wrong to me for reasons I discuss here. The other reason is more problematic. 

It is definitely true that Javert does not love anyone, but it’s equally true that no one loves him.  I’ve encountered the argument that Javert chooses to isolate himself, or chooses not to love, but it is only a choice if he has the opportunity to do otherwise. There is no evidence in the musical or novel that Javert has been offered love and rejected it.  Valjean shows him mercy, by not dismissing him at Montreuil-ser-Mer and not killing him in the barricade, which Javert shows in turn by not arresting him, but that’s not the same thing. This idea seems to assume that there’s such an abundance of love in the world that it’s impossible for an individual to never have it offered them, but look at how long some of the characters have to wait for anyone to love them.  As important as love, compassion, and charity are, the characters who possess these qualities are not a significant majority.  For every Bishop of Digne there is someone like that catty woman who outs Fantine as having an illegitimate child; for every Jean Valjean, there’s a Thenardier.

Of course, Javert makes bad decisions, and he’s responsible for them, but I’m very uncomfortable with the assumption that not loving is one of them. This story is full of people who are punished, usually by Javert, for making choices that aren’t really choices.  It’s easy to not steal bread if you’re not starving; it’s easy to be a respectable woman if no one seduces, impregnates, and abandons you; it’s easy to love if you receive love.  One of the main points of the story seems to be that it’s incredibly unfair to punish people for being unfortunate, but there is more than one way to be unfortunate.

Ultimately, I don’t think there is any moral or ethical justification for why Javert’s goodness is so completely discounted; it just makes things easier and simpler.  He has to spare Valjean, because where’s the happy ending if Marius dies? And he has to be damned because his bad deeds definitely outweigh his good ones, and the musical insists on a strict binary opposition between the saved and the damned that is completely foreign to the novel.  How ironic that Javert is damned by a black/white morality that is strikingly similar to the one in which he himself believes.

[lyledebeast]

Javert, Fantine, and Poverty

I read  this post full of fascinating information about French police officers at the time when Hugo wrote Les Miserables about a week ago, so I’m way behind, but it brings up a few issues I’ve been wanting to address.  I think it’s definitely important to be aware of these facts about Javert’s poverty, and it does add a lot to my understanding of the character.  But, I’m a bit skeptical of readings that focus on Javert as a marginalized person at the expense of his utter contempt and lack of empathy for other marginalized people.  It’s an easy mistake to make; when I reblogged that post, one of my tags reads “no wonder he’s such an asshole.” Now that I’ve given it more thought, though, I’m not sure his poverty has much, if anything, to do with that.  

As much as I appreciate this post, I find the comparison between Javert and Fantine a bit troubling.  The OP writes:

“For the purposes of comparison: Fantine at her most hopelessly indigent, sleeping five hours a night and sewing the rest of the time, made 12 sous a day - the annual equivalent of 219 francs, and as a prostitute, she is said to have made 100 sous a day - the annual equivalent of 1,825 francs.“

Javert, according to the OP, would have made 8-16 sous a day, potentially less than Fantine as a seamstress and significantly less than Fantine as a prostitute.  The significant difference here is that Fantine does not want to be a prostitute.  She sells her teeth before she’s willing to succumb to that fate, and she does succumb quite literally.  Hugo describes her taking up prostitution as “society purchasing a slave.” The money, of which she sends nearly all to the Thenardiers, is the only condition that makes this job acceptable to her; there’s nothing else she can do that will pay so well. 

When Hugo describes Javert, though, it is as someone who could not be better suited to his job; he writes, “he possessed the conscience of his usefulness, the religion of his function, and he was a spy as other men are priests.”  Javert never complains of, or draws any attention to, how little he makes.  When he goes to demand that Madeleine discharge him for insubordination, he says, “I have arms. I will till the soil; it makes no difference to me.  Mr. Mayor, the good of the service demands an example.” As devoted as he is to the service, Javert is aware that he has other options.  He’s not acting as a police inspector out of desperation.  This is his dream job; it just doesn’t pay very well.

The other issue that the OP raises with Fantine and Javert is, of course, the arrest and the question of who exactly he has the authority to arrest: “When Javert arrests Fantine instead of Bamatabois, it’s pretty much because Fantine is the only one he *can* arrest: slapping the cuffs on a citizen and an elector is simply outside of the boundaries of his authority.” No. If Javert only wanted to put an end to the disturbance, he could have taken Fantine into custody and released her that night, or the next morning.  Instead, he tells her, “You will get six months. [. . .] the Eternal Father in person could do nothing more.” This is obviously a ridiculously severe sentence for a woman who’s guilty of nothing more than slapping someone who was really asking to get slapped; Javert is not the one who’s helpless here.

I don’t really think he has it in for Fantine in particular; as we see in the scene where he demands (”asks” really doesn’t cover it) to be dismissed in disgrace, he doesn’t believe in a light sentence for anyone, ever. That seems to be a very important consideration when reading him as marginalized, whether as an impoverished inspector or perhaps the only racially diverse character in the novel.  Hugo tells us he had “an inexpressible hatred for the race of bohemians whence he was sprung” and that “he would have arrested his own father, if the latter had escaped from the galleys, and would have denounced his mother, if she had broken her ban.” Even if there are few characters who are more marginalized than he is, no one is harder on the marginalized than Javert.

He’s still my favorite character, though.  I find him fascinating, largely because of all of his contradictions.  But, I find that I’m usually at odds with whatever I read, whether its defensive or critical.  My last Les Mis meta is probably a little too defensive of him.  Either way, I don’t think I’ll be tired of writing about him for some time to come.