I’m writing this response realising you haven’t read the book. I assume from your comments that you’re also not very familiar with the period and political dynamics of the era in which “Les Miserables” is set. Please allow me to present some counterpoints to your comments to provide context and understanding, as I believe you’ve inadvertently done a very great injustice to Enjolras and to the republicans of the period. Regarding your suggestion that the fandom often makes Enjolras out to be “perfect”, I’ve tended to find the opposite – that his character and actions are often greatly distorted, and while he does have very enthusiastic fans, most will acknowledge the nuances in his character.
To address your dot points:
“In essence, les amis de l’abc was a terrorist organization — by today’s standard’s, at least. At the time, I’m not certain if it could be classified as terrorism, but if the same thing were to happen today, absolutely.”
I don’t think this is a valid argument either in context or today – and it’s very hard to judge what you mean by “today’s standard’s” (do you mean retrospectively applying an anachronistic term to the era, or trying to transpose the group and its methods to another era, country etc? Either decontextualises them). Definitions of terrorism may vary based on what side of a war you’re on, and one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, but even given this latitude, the Amis don’t fit into the category. Broadly, the term applies to those who use terror for political ends, which is not what the Amis are doing at all – they are involved in as insurgents fighting a war against a regime in an urban landscape, not seeking to achieve their ends by spreading fear. Indeed, like his historical counterpart Charles Jeanne, Enjolras will not tolerate any violence (“terrorising”) inflicted on non-combatants. Further, the government they oppose – and whose legitimacy they did not recognise – was brought to power merely two years before by means of the same barricades, often by the same combatants (men like Charles Jeanne). As Alexandre Dumas expressed it: “The men who did the work of the Revolution of 1830 were the same men who, two years later, were killed at Saint-Merry.
”Except this time they had changed their names, precisely because they hadn’t changed their principles: instead of being called heroes, they were called rebels.
”Only turncoats willing to disown any and all opinions are never rebels against any power.”
If you regard the men of June 1832 as terrorists because they fought against the July Monarchy, what do you make of the fact the July Monarchy came to in a Revolution using the exact same methods – urban barricade warfare?
“Enjolras is insensitive. He does a lot of what he does because he loves the people, but so often his love doesn’t show to the people around him. With headcanon, this becomes explained and given reason, but not in natural canon.”
One of the strengths of Enjolras’ character is how he evolves in canon from an abstract love of “The People” into expressing a more individual love (from the man who does not notice the appeal of Evadne into the man who notices an elderly woman with a candle (inferring that she is waiting for someone at the barricades and talking to Combeferre about it), a man willing to compromise his rigid principles to try and save Prouvaire, and the man who takes Grantaire’s hand. He’s also the man who values his friends explicitly for some very, very human characteristics – in his internal musings, we see it’s traits like “Bossuet’s sarcasm” and “Bahorel’s laughter” that he values. I’m not sure what you mean by “doesn’t show it” – he’s not extraverted, true, spending his time quietly in a corner while his friends are carousing, but he doesn’t disapprove or try to curb their high spirits. The only person he reigns in is Grantaire, and that is only when he’s actively interfering in revolutionary business – otherwise, he allows him free reign to ramble and doesn’t silence him. Just because someone isn’t effusively demonstrative doesn’t mean they don’t show they love people, and it should be remembered that the main interactions we see with Enjolras are at moments of intense revolutionary discussion or action, not intimate personal moments. But even then, we see him reach out to Marius as grasp his shoulder at the end of the Bonaparte incident – he’s not harsh, he’s actually trying to connect with him in a very human way.
“Enjolras is not, by any means of the word, humane. He’s direct, and he’s not afraid to kill… I mean, clearly, he did kill.”
He is the warrior priest of the idea, and yes, Hugo tells us that he is violent in response to violence. However, unless you’re claiming that everyone who kills in war is “inhumane” including all the combatants who fired a gun in 1832 ( in which case I don’t know why you’re singling out him), he actually shows surprising touches of the humane in the midst of battle. Not only does he acknowledge all men are his brothers rather than otherising and de-humanising his opponents, he also attempts to make Javert comfortable by putting him in a prone position and getting him water.
“Enjolras does show misogyny. Whereas Combeferre says that he believes that women have no place in the revolution, Enjolras ignores their existence. This is frequently used as a means of sexuality, but lack of attraction is a bit of a step from literally ignoring the existence of a large fraction of the population.”
The only women Enjolras ignores are those who make unwanted sexual advances – otherwise, women have a very prominent place in Enjolras’s vision of the future, and he specifically mentions them in his View from a Barricade speech. Combeferre’s speech on the impact of warfare on women actually starts off with him talking about the old woman that Enjolras has told him about – the woman Enjolras saw on his reconnaissance. What’s more, women (the wait staff of the Corinthe) actually help build the barricade, and Enjolras raises no objection to their presence at all. Enjolras may well share the sexist notions of republican movement of the time (which tended to relegate women to the role of wives and mothers), but we can only surmise this, and there is no particular reason to single him out above other men.
“Allowing children in a place where there will be death is so negligent that it goes a step above, “Well, Gavroche came on his own accord” — The allowance of Gavroche’s death was negligent, on Enjolras’ part, and the rest of the amis. [Though — the soldiers who shot him have quite a bit of blame to follow through as well.]”
Gavroche is there on the barricades as he was in 1830, and it would be difficult to get him away (although Marius tries). Ideas on childhood and combat roles were different (children as young as 8 served as powder monkeys, and those not much older as drummer boys). This is a society that will let a child starve to death in the streets and face daily risk, so when one insists on the being at the barricades, it is not surprising it is accepted (gamins – including Gavroche, he mentions it - had fought in 1830 and would again 1832). The unthinkable thing here is not that the Amis would allow this boy to fight at their side –it’s that their opponents would very deliberately pick him off. What’s more, even when he’s not at the barricade (when he delivers the message to Cosette, handing it to her father), he comes under fire from a unit for no greater reason than that he gives them a cheeky response.
“People were starved to death on the barricades, and he placed the cause over their lives. No matter what cause you’re promoting, that’s not going to help. With a mass of people, you can ration the work to allow for survival.”
No one starved to death on the barricades. They lasted around 24 hours. Barricade warfare did not play out like a full scale siege – it was short term, and you only had to hold your stronghold a day or two (e.g. the successful barricades of 1830 and February 1848). Enjolras actually managed the barricade and partitioned the work very well. There is a line in the book about having nothing to eat – it’s actually borrowed almost directly from Blanc’s “History of Ten Years”, and is an intentional echo of Charles Jeanne’s lines.
“He doesn’t follow through with everything he does. This can be taken in any way but: He doesn’t make sure Vajean does as he says he will, and he trusts strangers to not betray him at the barricades. This can be well attributed to naivety. “
Hugo actually says of Enjolras that he “possessed that quality of a leader, of always doing what he said”. It’s difficult to think of instances when he doesn’t follow through (and you don’t provide any examples). There is his agreement to attempt to exchange Prouvaire for Javert, but that speaks to the love of friends that you say he doesn’t demonstrate (and also to flexibility rather than rigidity). As for trusting strangers at the barricades, given that not everyone there is an Ami, gathered as they have by force of events to react to the threat of violence, of course there are going to be strangers and of course he will have to trust them to an extent – that’s the nature of the warfare he’s engaged in, not naivety. He doesn’t have the time or means to vet everyone. He responds very swiftly and decisively when someone acts to undermine the barricade.
“He’s pompous. He carries himself and speaks to make his knowledge appear wider, even when he is frequently naive and cruel.”
No, he isn’t. He’s actually the antithesis of pompous. He’s quiet, reserved and far removed from self-aggrandizing, he communicates for the most part succinctly and in an almost terse way. When he does launch into what Hugo describes as soaring, he has a tremendous impact on his listeners because he is eloquent and inspirational – indeed, Hugo uses him as his mouthpiece to discuss many of his own very cherished ideas (for example, there’s a brilliant paper on how elements of Hugo’s ideas regarding the future of a European state prefiguring the European union made their way from a paper he delivered in the 1840s into the text of Les Miserables). I’ve yet to see any support for the idea that he is either naïve or cruel, let alone “frequently” so.
“The way he treats other people is terrible:Telling Grantaire that he is unworthy of even death. Besides Grantaire, he’s needlessly cruel to Éponine and to Pontmercy.”
He does not tell him he is “unworthy even of death”. Read the exchange – Grantaire is being drunk and disruptive at the barricade, and tries to send him away…very rightfully so. At a time when they’re building a barricade that their lives may depend on, Grantaire is actively harassing a female staffer from the Corinthe who is assisting them. He’s a potential danger to himself and others. Enjolras tells him to go away and Grantaire carries on, just as he ignored Courfeyrac who also tried to get him to settle down. He insists he wants to stay there and die there, and Enjolras finally snaps and tells him he’s “incapable” of willing, living, dying (not “unworthy”). Yes, Enjolras is harsh – but nothing has penetrated Grantaire’s drunken, disruptive state up to that point.
At no point does he even interact with Éponine, let alone be “needlessly cruel” to her. As for Marius, far from cruel, he’s the opposite. When Marius barrages him with a rant about Napoleon, he makes a couple of short remarks then falls silent for the bulk of it (it’s Combeferre who delivers the “To be free” line). Afterwards, when everyone else has filed out, Enjolras remains behind to talk to him. Rather than berate him or cut him down, he puts a hand on his shoulder and tries to connect with him, telling Marius that his mother is the Republic. Other than that, when Marius saves the barricade he accords him a symbolic role as chief and treats him with respect. There is not a shred of “cruelty” in any of his actions towards Marius – quite the opposite. Even when Marius hasn’t been at the Musain for a while, he mentions he’d hoped he be able to assist their cause.
“Now please understand, I do love Enjolras, I love les amis, but they are not unworthy of criticism. It’s impossible to truly understand a character and their meaning without also understanding their faults — Enjolras is no exception.
Being uncritical fans of a character, and such a fan that you will jump to attack for any criticism, makes you a pointless fan.”
Criticism is fine, but it has to be based on a solid grasp of the character. There are very interesting discussions to be had around Enjolras’ character development and the ways in which Hugo uses him to explore the nature of political violence, but there is so much in your posts that distorts, is inaccurate or is just utterly baseless that it isn’t a criticism – it’s a character assassination.
dailybridgerton
areudirty
ellievsbear
romaincrisis
gummygunk
snowghoul
germansingergirl
