#waterloo digression

[littlefallof-rain]

Me after finishing book 1:

Wow I wonder what’s going to happen now that Fantine is dead and Valjean is on the run from the police again.

Victor Hugo:

[victorhugewhore]

Les miserables, everything is the same but right after The Confrontation finishes Waterloo by ABBA starts playing and we see a bunch of dead soldiers on the ground of a battlefield. No explanation given. The songs ends, A Castle on a Cloud starts and everything goes on as normal

[purplet1inuviel]

Waterloo! "Waterloo" is, of course, one of Hugo's lengthy digressions, which as a whole get poked fun at quite a bit. To be clear, I am not against poking fun at Hugo's wordiness - I mean, we call the novel "The Brick," after all. Upon rereading this section, however, I am of the opinion that it does a lot of important things (thematically, contextually, plot-wise, etc.) and although it is long, a lot of the text is important. The only part that I really hold feelings against is the comment on pages 314-15 (trans. Donougher) about "barbarous" versus "civilized" peoples, for obvious reasons. (Denny and Wilbour use similar language in their translations.) I love reading nineteenth-century literature - something about the period and its texts fascinates me - but unfortunately passing claims such as this are common in it.

Why, however, is the "Waterloo" section important? 1. It situates a story concerned with social revolt/upheaval in a period of change. Hugo is clear from the start that he is examining from the present a world that belongs to the past; the narrator reflects on the remains of Waterloo almost five decades after the battle. He also explicitly writes about Waterloo as a turning point and Napoleon as a figure of bygone days. The sentences "On that day the prospects of the human race changed. Waterloo is the pivot of the nineteenth century" (trans. Donougher 310) reflect the former, and the metaphor of Napoleon as "the past" (trans. Donougher 321) highlights the latter. By writing that the future is "liberty" (trans. Denny 321), Hugo suggests that Napoleon cannot coexist with contemporary efforts for change. He exists within a past generation of revolutionaries, and the new generation must move forward in his absence. This is significant, as it foreshadows the June Rebellion of 1832 that his fictional characters engage in. Hugo, in discussing a devastating battle in French history, gives readers tools to think about the latter rebellion. For instance, is death, and even loss, a part of moving forward?

2. Wellington and Napoleon offer an interesting parallel with Javert and Jean Valjean. Take the following passage:

(In order of appearance: Donougher, Denny, Wilbour.)

Sounds a lot like Javert and Jean Valjean, doesn't it? Like Wellington and Napoleon, there is both a "striking contrast" and "extraordinary comparison" between them. They are not so much enemies as they are "opposites." Additionally, if Javert and Jean Valjean are like Wellington and Napoleon, then their deaths are foreshadowed this early in the novel; if they are like these men, then they are of an intangible past. The storyworld, which aspires towards a brighter future, cannot hold them.

A little tidbit: this chapter was what made me finally decide to read Donougher's translation instead of rereading Denny's. In his introduction, Denny writes that he "very slightly abridged" this section and that "only the last chapter . . . has any real bearing on Hugo's story" (10). I wanted to come to my own conclusions about the significance of this section, and now, frankly, I disagree with Denny's sentiment.

[pilferingapples]

The detestable maxim, Live on the enemy! produced this leprosy, which a strict discipline alone could heal. There are reputations which are deceptive; one does not always know why certain generals, great in other directions, have been so popular. Turenne was adored by his soldiers because he tolerated pillage; evil permitted constitutes part of goodness. Turenne was so good that he allowed the Palatinate to be delivered over to fire and blood. The marauders in the train of an army were more or less in number, according as the chief was more or less severe. Hoche and Marceau had no stragglers; Wellington had few, and we do him the justice to mention it. Nevertheless, on the night from the 18th to the 19th of June, the dead were robbed. Wellington was rigid; he gave orders that any one caught in the act should be shot; but rapine is tenacious. The marauders stole in one corner of the battlefield while others were being shot in another.- LM 2.1.19 , Hapgood translation

What's that, Hugo? You think the leader of an armed force is morally responsible for ensuring strict discipline? Even if it means summary battlefield executions for people who break the rules of combat? That it's not just necessary, even, but morally laudable to make such a judgement to ensure no one associated with their cause is , say, pillaging the dead, or maybe attacking civilians?

Cool, noted, surely this will never be relevant again.

[pontmercii]

I get that the amount of Napoleon dickriding found in the Waterloo digression can be off-putting to some people BUT I just find the entire narration of the battle so funny so I can't relate. If someone asked me to sum up the Waterloo digression I would say that Les Mis!Napoleon is basically this french ignorant slut and Wellington is a petty stubborn bitch from England, and this explains the entire battle and its outcome, unironically. Napoleon is just so unbelievably cunty throughout the whole thing "I command the earth and the wind and the birds and God himself wouldn't dare touch me everyone does what I say 24/7" while Wellington is looking at his clock like "when is this slut gonna start the attack it's late I wanna go home and have my tea and attend a ballroom or sth equally useful". And then eventually Napoleon unleashes his most precious most beloved most envied hottest best dressed 3500 riders on Wellington, and 1/3 of them literally falls into a ditch that nobody had seen and they just die. And Napoleon is like whatever. And then the remaining 2/3 hottest best dressed riders slay the English and Wellington is like "wow these guys are hot", literally in the text. Then one of Wellington's generals asks for reinforcements and Wellington responds "we dont have those he can just die". Blücher or the night, bitch. At some point Hugo explains everything that went wrong in the beginning of the battle one by one, in a single one-page long phrase ending with ".... and none of it bothered Napoleon for 2 seconds he dgaf and he's so real for that". And then his fangirling reaches stan twitter levels: "Napoleon was so majestic and so hot and so genius and so mastermind and so cunt but that Englishman just had to be a stubborn petty piece of shit and refuse to die and that's just so annoying" (I wish I was making this up). Add to the mix the iconic mic drop that is "merde".

And then, after 80 pages of all that, Hugo starts the next chapter saying "well. We sort of have to mention that Valjean was recaptured, technically the plot requires it. But we won't dwell on this. Moving on".

So yeah that is the Waterloo digression for you.

[the-wraxall-illustrations]

[cliozaur]

JSAMN 20 Readalong. Week 9. Chapters 40–44

This is well-written, but a few minor adjustments could improve flow and clarity. Here’s a refined version:

When my Susanna Clarke meets my Victor Hugo: the chapter on the Battle of Waterloo feels almost intimately familiar, with the fateful rain, the siege of Hougoumont, Highlanders, and French cuirassiers doomed to die. However, here, they don’t fall into an abyss but are pulled into mud by gigantic hands. I really didn’t expect this Waterloo encounter to bring me so much joy!

Segundus, as usual, forgets he’s already met Childermass—twice. Why does Childermass want him to forget they know each other? I like the description of Childermass ‘with his long, ragged dark hair’ as ‘the portent of doom in a bad play.’ Though he’s threatening and blackmailing Segundus, Childermass doesn’t seem entirely hostile, even apologizing and offering to help if Segundus ever considers opening a regular school.

There are two types of authors: those, like Mr. Norrell, who plan to write a book but never start, and those, like Mr. Strange, who actually write it.

The chapter titled Strange Decides to Write a Book spends only its first two pages on this subject; the rest centres on the Gentleman and Stephen. This often happens in their chapters, as if they’re hiding behind other characters.

The Gentleman’s fine aesthetic taste never ceases to amaze me: this time, he’s indignant over Mr. Strange’s ‘battered and ugly’ old penknife. So sensitive!

The end of Chapter 44 is indeed heartbreaking.

[claireverlasting]

*Vaguely threatening piano music intensifies, you can’t escape it, it’s coming*