Les Misérables

This book is a masterpiece.It is an incredible story of temptations, redemptions, evil, love; it describes how miserablelife in that era of France was for the common people. A story about real life, with fictional characters creating real people, and the social perspective is as true today as it was in the past.

It exceeded my expectations. :))

I read this book during my sophomore year of high school. I think that its when we had the KBAR (kick back and read) period. This allowed me to read the novel bit by bit at a leisurely pace.

What I remember most is how Hugo chose to write this work. Some areas of the novel followed a pattern of one chapter of details and "setting the scene" followed by one chapter of story action.

I enjoyed reading it, although this book requires patience. You might not finish if you aren't a patient person or create a schedule to help see you though.

Victor Hugo's editors wanted to remove copious amounts of text. I agree with them, but I won't recommend buying an abridged version, for what *I* think should go out is not necessarily what the translators took out. Read this book and skip the extraneous details; Hugo took scenic detours often throughout this work. That out of the way, this book was stunning, beautiful, and ultimately uplifting, a "take that!" on behalf of the human spirit. Jean Valjean's battle to let the angel on his shoulder get the better of the demon on the other shoulder (metaphorically; nothing so crass appears in the book) provides the pivots on which the story turns. This is a book meant to be re-read; I believe it will say something new with each reading, especially as the stages of your life change.

Finally, I have defeated the behemoth. Les Misérables has been vanquished and will probably never again stray from my bookshelf. Which is a shame, because the story itself is really good, and Jean Valjean will go down in my personal literary history as one of my top ten characters. He's very well-written while also being almost completely admirable, which is somewhat rare. But Victor Hugo felt it necessary to give the complete history of every aspect of anything mentioned in his story. Something happens to one of the characters during the battle of Waterloo? Forty pages detailing the entire battle, but not in such a way that a person who doesn't already have a good grasp of Who's Who In The Napoleonic Wars can understand it. A character escapes through the Paris sewer system? Let's have a lengthy treatise on the history, advantages, and shortcomings thereof. Yes, OF THE SEWER SYSTEM. (not for reading while eating, that section). And then there were the discussions of all these little barricaded city uprisings in early 19th century Paris which I was supposed to already know about, but which I was basically just hearing about for the first time (thank you public school system), and let's not forget the pages of tribute to the city of Paris itself and all its beauties and uglinesses and street urchins, and all the pages devoted to discussions of royalists and how they felt about republicans and how everyone felt about Buonapartists, and all the allusions to Voltaire and Rousseau... all of which succeeded in making me feel like a complete idiot because I had only the faintest of faint ideas what they were talking about. All this extra stuff seriously dampened my enjoyment of what was otherwise a really, really superb book.I am reminded of a discussion on an author's weblog about how much the author should tell, and how much s/he should assume her readers will be able to figure out (the author in question had been accused of being overly subtle, since she runs little subtexts through her stories which are so well-hidden that almost nobody finds them). Hugo seemed to miss the boat completely on both sides of this issue. He assumed knowledge on his readers' part about the intricacies of French (and even more specifically, Parisian) government and customs in the early nineteenth century, while simultaneously feeling the need to go into far too much detail about nearly inconsequential side issues. If he'd made five or six books out of this one -- one ripping good yarn and several academic treatises on various subjects in which he was obviously quite interested and well-versed -- he'd have saved at least this reader a lot of frustration. For once there's a book for which a condensed treatment on film would be a blessing. I can't wait to see the movie of this one.

Formidabel epos, maar zeer heterogeen samengesteld met soms wervelende of aandoenlijke stukken, soms saaie beschouwingen. Vooral de figuur van Jean Valjean overheerst het geheel, imponerend, maar overdreven donker-dreigend. Typisch stijlprocédé: beschrijving van een actie of karakter, daarna opengetrokken naar algemene beschouwing over kleine of grote zaken. Zeer zwakke vrouwenfiguren. Marius is de enige figuur die echt een evolutie doormaakt en menselijke trekken vertoont.

One of the great novels of all time. I like the unabridged version best, by far.

I had to re-read Les Miserables. I fell in love with the story on the first read, but not the language. Having seen a few adaptations on stage and screen in the few years since my first read of the book, it has not lost any of its original appeal but I noticed that in all the adaptations I was drawn to Javert almost more than to Valjean. So, it was time to rediscover the original characters from the book... I still don't find the language used adequately telling the story - but maybe that's a translation issue. (And yeah, Javert is still the character that intrigues me most.)

I know I read at least parts of this book many years ago and I was familiar with the story and the characters. However, I thought it would be a great book to listen to and I was able to download a copy of the audiobook from my library. The story is compelling but the narrator, David Case, practically spoiled it for me. I kept losing the thread because his voice was annoying and monotonous. He also had a very odd way of pronouncing the French names that made them almost unintelligible.Jean Valjean was convicted of theft of a loaf of bread which he stole to feed his sister's children. He spent many years in the galleys and when he was finally released he was treated as a pariah. One man, a bishop, was kind to him and gave him food and shelter for a night but Jean Valjean took the bishop's silver and fled in the night. When he was apprehended by the police he told them the bishop had given him the silver and the bishop confirmed the story. He also gave Jean the silver candlesticks. By this man's example Jean determined that he should turn over a new leaf and help others. He successfully started a business that made him a lot of money but also provided jobs with good wages which improved the region's economy. He was even appointed the mayor but one detective. Javert, realized who he was and had him arrested just as he was trying to help one of his employees dying of TB get reunited with her daughter. Although Valjean was again relegated to the galleys he managed to escape after a few years in a way that made it seem he was dead. He found his employee's daughter, Cosette, and adopts her, moving to Paris and changing his name again. When Cosette is grown a young man, Marius, sees her in the Gardens of Luxembourg and falls in love. Javert has again found Valjean and Valjean has determined that he and Cosette should leave for England. Marius and Cosette wanted to marry so Cosette writes a letter to Marius to tell him of this plan. Marius gets caught up in the students' revolution and Valjean saves him from certain death by spiriting him away through the sewers of Paris. When Marius recovers he marries Cosette but he is appalled when Valjean discloses his past. He banishes Valjean from their house but when he realizes that Valjean is the man who rescued him he and Cosette go to Valjean and are reconciled before Valjean dies.It's quite a convoluted plot and relies extensively on coincidence and synchronicitiy. Nevertheless Valjean comes across as a heroic figure and the reader can't help but feel sorry for him.

This is a slow read, but well worth the effort. Hugo chronicles the time and place in detail, with many digressions that may seem unneccessary to the modern reader, but I think are essential to the texture of the work. The novel's main story deals with the convict Jean Valjean, and his search for redemption against the backdrop of 19th century poverty and a vindictive penal system. Lots of food for ethical thought.

Amazing. I know a lot of people read the abridged version to skip all the digressions about convents and sewer lines when really all you want to know is how Jean Valjean escapes, but I think you lose some of the experience by doing that. Yes, its long. Yes, I began to lost patience with the digressions by the end, but I also felt I understood not just the characters but also the world they lived in.

Victor Hugo is one of my favorite authors. He wrote very politically-charged works.This one focuses on themes of revolution, poverty, classism, and injustice. But the story is not just about the French Revolution. Hugo builds some very lovable and very hateable characters. Jean Val Jean has a rare dignity and integrity that perseveres through all his many misfortunes. The protagonists are also well-illustrated. Javert struggles when his firm belief in order contrasts with realities, and the resulting cognitive dissonance is not often so well portrayed.Les Mis is so full of weaving plot twists and coincidences that made me gasp in surprise. I really got attached to the characters, and had a hard time when bad things happened to them.This version of the book is abridged, and I'm glad of that. I think they did a good job of keeping the plot lines in tact, while removing Hugo's out-dated ramblings about .. architecture, or whatever. (He does make fine points in his ramblings, but could do so in 2 paragraphs!)While the movies and musical are also very good, they do cut out much of the plot, so the book is worth reading.

Probably my favorite novel of all time.

Did I really just read 1200 pages of a book only to give it 3 stars? Apparently so. My thoughts:- Unlike everyone else, I enjoyed the diversions. The story of Waterloo at the beginning of book 2 is one of the best bits. The sweep of history is this book's strength, but also its weakness. Everyone feels like a pawn in a overcooked plot, set against the backdrop of historical determinism. - The characterisation in this book is profoundly weak. Over 1200 pages, only Valjean comes close to appearing actually human, rather than a cartoon, and even then not wholly so. - Of the characters, perhaps only Fantine, Gavroche, Eponine, Javert, and a few others are actually interesting. The rest are either comically villainous (Thenadier et al) or dully virtuous (Valjean, Cosette, the bishop). Marius is a plot device, nothing else. - Hugo manages to hold many divergent threads together quite well. Perhaps a little too well, relying on sometimes quite desperate narrative acrobatics to bring Thenadier and Valjean together again. Some of the happy coincidences (e.g. Fauchelevent and the convent) are too forced and absurd.- I'm unsure if it's the translation, but there is some very clunky language employed in this book (I picked out the end of 3.III.ii as a particularly egregious example).- Worse than the language is Hugo's contrived narrative style, which I confess I frequently found grating. Example: in the last chapter, Thenadier visits Marius dressed in disguise. Hugo gives us this scene by first introducing us to "the Changer", the "ingenious Jew" who disguises criminals for a living - twenty pages from the end of the novel... Trying to add this kind of colour/detail doesn't give add up to depth - and it just serves to highlight how insufficient Hugo made his main protagonists. - The main thrust of the novel is enjoyable, and the significant deaths genuinely moving. The over-sentimentality didn't bother me at all, although the over-moralisation did. "No writer enters a girl's bedchamber"? Well that's why Hugo isn't Dostoevsky. - The musical retains a surprising fidelity to the book, that I wasn't expecting. I don't feel cheap in saying that the musical is worth most people's time, and subsequently reading the book is probably unnecessary.

I didn't realize I was listening to the abridged version of the book until I saw that the page number was supposed to be over a thousand pages, which would have been impossible in a audiobook of 13 hours. Once again I have been mislead - the first time when I read The Count of Monte Cristo abridged. And yet I did not feel as if I were missing pieces of the story. Perhaps because I went into this having seen the movie adaption and the musical play? I'm not sure I have the patience to go through another 700 pages of Hugo, to tell the truth, but I've heard the experience of the unabridged book is wonderful. I will take everyone's word on it. I haven't decided if I like the book as much as I do because I loved the play and movie first or not but regardless this is a classic I enjoyed reading. There's a charm to watching Jean-Valjean redeem himself but yet is always just human in his emotions.

I know this is a classic, but I just couldn't get into it. I found it terribly boring, and I gave it a good try--about ten chapters. I simply couldn't make myself care. Major blah.




Added a "gave-up-on" shelf to put this book on.

Where do I begin? Maybe I should start with this: I love epic novels. There are not many therapies quite as effective as books with the ability to transport you out of your problems and into fictional ones. This book came at just the right time; half of it was read during a tumultous two week period in which my family moved slightly abruptly; the second half was devoured last month, while I recovered from some unexpected goodbye's. I started Les Miserables with high expectations, and was not disappointed. Victor Hugo is champion of the touching moment. He will spend chapter after chapter setting up every tiny detail for the perfect moment. I found myself having to stop multiple times, I could read no more because I was crying too hard. Please do not be intimidated by this. The title is "The Miserable," and Hugo isn't afraid to bring you down to the level of the lowest to show you what must be the depths of despair. But woven into these troubles and woes are themes of hope and redemption. Thus, the tears and sorrow I felt were of the most satisfying variety. It was those sweet little moments that make this novel so great. Victor Hugo is not afraid of spending adequate time to set things up for a devestating paragraph or shocking sentence. Victor Hugo is certainly not concerned about wasting your time. For example - he spends over four chapters describing the history of the sewer systems of Paris. Was it really necessary? Maybe some of us enjoy having this random bit of history to share with our naughty nerd friends. I wasn't quite so enthusiastic. I attempted to immerse myself in the quality of his writing, and forgive the putrid subject matter. We must allow these great novel writers some lee-way in this area. They spend so much time and thought masking their genius behind characters and intricate story plots. The greatest epic novels tend to have the longest diversions; if we take advantage of the treasure they have handed us, we must also submit ourselves to the occasional ramble. And when you realize exactly how smart this man is, you shan't mind submitting yourself to a (maybe) unnecessary diatribe. So we plow through the history of Parisian sewers and find ourselves in a climax worthy of the highest accolades. For those of you worried about the time and stamina it takes to make it through a 1000+ page novel, have no fear. The book is constantly progressing, becoming more and more beautiful with each succuesive chapter. Before I finish this perhaps conservative and certainly not over-exaggerated praise, I must mention the characters. To me, the characters are the most important element of any novel or work of prose. Hugo's characters were interesting. Although a few bordered cliche, they each had their fair share of peculiarities and were (to some extent) relatable. They certainly had not the four dimensional reality of Tolstoy, neither were they the caricatures of Dickens. Hugo found a lovely middle ground. Although his characters are life-like, they also seem to embody themes, ideas, and philosophies that play and interact within the story - creating a suprisingly interesting philosophical thought box. Kudos to the man- for creating a novel that will outlive every rebellion and continue to reach the multitude with a message of the existence of undying love.

Awasome book! This is one of the few books that actually made me cry.

This is the biggest book I've ever read and one of the best. I like how it goes through Jean Valjean's entire life, from being a prisoner, to a good man, to his death. I like how everything worked together in the end, and how Marius realized Valjean wasn't bad after all. I also liked the digressions that Victor Hugo goes into. They were all very interesting.

Long, but worth reading.

Okay, I'll just put it out there - I didn't like Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. When I finished it this afternoon, I cheered - I was so very glad it was over. I found the whole thing to be mawkishly sentimental and utterly predictable. The characters contained virtually no shades of gray, and the narrator's continual need to digress - and digress - and digress - drove me bonkers.Here's the thing. The story itself could have probably been told in 300 pages or less. The other 1,162 pages were filled with the narrator's (Hugo's?) opinions about everything from the uselessness of convents, the history of riots in Paris, the greatness of the French people in general, the sanctity and purity of women and children, and even the worth of human excrement flowing through Paris's sewers. It seems as if Hugo decided that Les Miserables was his opportunity to discuss every fleeting idea or thought he'd ever had. In detail. With lots of name dropping. It drove this reader crazy.And the story itself. I expected a little more in a "classic." I don't know about anyone else, but I found myself predicting the outcome of almost every scene. And it was so cloying, so maudlin - a paragon of 19th century melodrama at its worst.So why am I giving Les Miserables 1.5 stars rather than one or even a half a star? 1. There were times when Hugo made me laugh. 2. Gavroche was a great character, finely drawn. 3. Because I read every one of its 1,463 pages.

Amazing. A passionate tale, full of nostalgia for days gone by. A tale of redemption, of a convict with a conscience, of the great arc of life told through fully-fleshed out characters. As much social commentary as it is a fictional piece, in Les Miserables the genius of Victor Hugo is on full display.

I won't even lie, this book took me 3-4 months to read? I did put it down a lot, but I always picked it up again.

Having said that, this book is probably one of the most rewarding books I've ever read. This book left one of the greatest impressions on me. I don't usually have 'favourite' books - I can't pick one book to end all books, but when I think about the books that affected me most, this book comes out on top.

I read the unabridged version of this book and I have to say it did take me quite a while to get used to Victor Hugo's writing style. He will build a world meticulously, talking of a village and its history, building it brick by brick. Nothing will happen, and as a reader, I would often drown in the details.

Then, suddenly, a character enters the scene and so much happens in 20 pages that I can't even look up because the plot grips me so much. World-building aside, I adored a lot of Victor Hugo's characters.

Jean Valjean, Javert and a couple of other characters all have very distinct character arcs and it's wonderful to watch them transform.

This book has one of the strongest and most resonant voices I've ever read. It talks about class, about judging people prematurely, about compassion, about love, about how a person's past is always their future. These are all still very relevant ideas and so it's not as antiquated as you might think.

Fair warning, though - this book will make you cry. I cried for the last 100 pages or so. (I suppose it is called 'The Miserable', which is sort of indicative and warning enough - but still.)

This book does a really brilliant job of finishing the plot into a nice little dovetail, which I really appreciated. And afterwards I wondered how one man could write a book like that, and what an incredible feat it must've been.

A story about the French Revolution, following Jean Valjean, a former prisoner who broke parol to start a new life. When he becomes the mayor of a town, he is presented with many problems, including escaping the ever persistant Officer Javert, and granting the last wish of the prostitute, Fantine, to care for her daughter, Cosette. It follows his life from his release from prison, to his death after Cosette's marriage Marius.Though a slightly taxing read, because it is a classic, it is quite fascinating. It explores the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' and all the different shades in between. Most of the characters, Valjean of course standing out the most, have conflicts on whether what they do is correct or not, and which descion is for the greater good.It was a worthwhile read, but not one for light readers. Being a classic, it contains complex language, and ideals not of this century. Perhaps I would reccomend this to those used to reading these kinds of books, or those who want to further study the story that the musical of the same name is based on.

Les Miserables is generally recognized as a ground-breaking work of fiction, a masterful and epic tale of social condemnation and individual redemption that serves as a foundation work in Western Culture. And, indeed, Les Mis itself has become a cottage industry, with its poor, miserable characters now gracing Broadway theatres, Loews cinemas and home theatre systems around the world. After reading Les Mis, I am convinced that it is indeed one of the most deservedly influential works in Western Literature. Hugo’s deep thoughts on the French revolution and its children have long challenged the imagination of middle school Parisians and untutored heartlanders struggling to follow a broadway score. His influence continues to be felt through stories that interweave historical fact and individual psychological turmoil, including such epic sagas as the Thorn Birds and the Forsyte Saga. Hugo simultaneously gives us insight into the society and culture, much as a good article in Newsweek might, and the kind of deep understanding of individual pathos I remember having upon first reading Freud when I was 15. It is a powerful combination. While other great works, works like Moby Dick or Paradise Lost, challenge the reader, assume some reasonable level of knowledge and intelligence, and urge the reader to stretch their world view, Hugo has the wisdom to write for the less literary, indeed, we might even say, less literate, and meticulously clarifies everything that has already been made clear, and then repeats it again, helping us to understand even the most trivial points in great detail. Indeed, one of the beauties of this book is that if you miss something the first time, you will likely be able to catch it the fourth time, and thus need not read too closely. It is as if Hugo has anticipated the entire genre of the modern daytime serial drama.In sum, Les Mis was everything I thought it would be, and deserves to be recognized as the groundbreaking, influential work it is, a work fully worthy of television serialization. Indeed, after completing it, I thought, "Wow! Now that's almost as good as the Epic of the Wheat!" High praise, indeed.

Les Miserables is one of those books that is perpetually on the shelf of books that should be read when you have spare time. At 1300 pages - that's a LOT of spare time. Is it worth picking up? If you've seen the amazing Broadway musical, then you already know the story of Jean Valjean, a convict who seeks redemption through good acts during his life. Does the book really add more? Yes! Les Miserables is more than the story of a single man. It is a social commentary about class structure in 19th century France and the inability of the poor to receive justice. It is a story about how a person can change - starting as a convict and ending as a saint. It is the story of heroism - people giving their lives for a cause. It is a story about love and the sacrifices people make for love. It is an amazing masterpiece worth every one of those pages.

Victor Hugo's classic Les Misérables is a good story bogged down by many digressions. It's probably what anyone should expect from the era. Authors of the time did frequently step away from the narrative and give their opinions about this matter or that, then tell you about the historical context (Hugo departed from his opinions occasionally to tell the story). More than once, Hugo wrote, “The following is an authentic incident which, although it has no bearing on our story...” “Although it has no bearing on our story”--this is a problem. Half the book could be eliminated and you'd still have the same story. Fortunately, the tale that is the backbone of Les Misérables is memorable enough than the reader still recalls the story by the time Hugo finishes his thirty or forty page rant.So I will say flat out that Hugo was not a great novelist as we think of it today. Not only did he try to lure the reader into a book of philosophy, political theory, and whatever other train of thought Hugo wanted to follow, but he tried (unsuccessfully, I believe) to trick the reader with moments of suspense. He played this game where he tried to suspend the revelation for several chapters. Maybe it's effective the first couple times, but it becomes clear too early that it is a gimmick. This man, the man you've been reading about for the past thirty pages, is really...All that thrown to the streets and left to beg, Hugo was a wonderful storyteller. The tales of Valjean, Fantine, Cosette, Marius, et al are epic. They may only be loosely connected to one another, but their bulk is comprised of one theme. Parallels can certainly be made to the Bible when viewed as a work of literature. Both are filled with tragedy, history, love, and enough digressions to reinterpret and make a religion out of. But the stories that many people remember from the Bible—Cain and Abel, Joseph and his brothers, Moses and the exodus, the birth of Jesus, the prodigal son, Paul on the road to Damascus, et cetera—these stories carry much of the same love, jealousy, anger, and hope that the stories in Les Misérables impart on the reader. And when you take a step back, look at the story in its full context, try not to let your annoyances or biases get in the way, you'll find a story of redemption. That is the Bible. And that is Les Misérables.

It's always a daunting task to write a review of a book not only widely read but also extremely popular. Especially after one read of the primary text (and no knowledge whatsoever of the musical, aside from the minute or so of the previews shown for the upcoming release). So rather than wax poetic about Hugo's insanely thorough, beautiful writing as many others have done, let me simply give you my impression of Les Misérables.The first 10% or so of the Kindle edition that I read dealt primarily with a description of Bishop Myriel. About 5% in I was a bit confused, wondering why all this information was necessary for a character that, admitted by Hugo, was not an integral part of the book. However, I managed to fall in love with that sacrificing Bishop and felt I knew him so intimately that by the time Jean Valjean arrived on the scene, I could predict the good Bishops movements. And aside here, the letter and actions of the Bishops sister and housekeeper had me laughing and thoroughly enjoying myself, mostly because I, as an unmarried woman in today's society, would never have been able to so meekly assist my brother in that way.Jean Valjean - such a character. 19 years spent in horrific conditions all because he stole some bread. After his run-in with the Bishop, his encounter with Petit Gervais, and his arrival in Montreuil-sur-Mer I began to get an idea of why the Bishop was such an important character to begin the book with. It was a beautiful thing to see the changes being wrought in Valjean.And then there comes Fantine. Honestly, I think Fantine is my second favorite character of the book (second to Bishop Myriel, I really did love that old man). She is the perfect tragic figure: mother to a beautiful child, abandoned by her lover, trust-worthy to a fault, abused, neglected, self-sacrificing, and all of it unrewarded until she lay on her deathbed... but even then happiness is denied to her. As miserable as Valjeans life was throughout the book, I think Fantine's situation is what really gives weight to the title that Hugo chose.And from Fantine there comes Cosette. Although there is plenty in the book about the girl, and then the young woman Cosette, I came away with less of an impression of her than of the other characters. In fact, I felt more connected to Marius than Cosette - although that might have been simply because Cosette comes off as a bit of a wimp, not due to anything that Hugo does, necessarily. It's just strange to read about her passive behavior from a 21st century perspective.The only other main character I want to touch on is Javert. Javert was the epitome of fear to me. He had a nasty habit of always showing up in a city filled with people, leaving the correct impression that he and Valjean were connected in a way that could never be broken. I appreciated Hugo's treatment of the torment that filled Javert at the end of the book and thought that his story ended in a most fitting manner.Hugo spends time not telling the stories of these main characters by elaborating on everything from an incredibly detailed description of the Battle of Waterloo (of which I now know more information than I know how to deal with), slang, the street urchin or gamin, the sewers of Paris, religious orders, and politics. Of these I found Waterloo, the religious order description, and the information on slang to be the most interesting. I read the Hapgood translation of the book for Kindle, and was rewarded with a lengthy introduction and beautiful illustrations throughout the book that enhanced the reading. I laughed, cried, felt sympathy, and completely immersed myself in this story and came away from it feeling richer - and that feeling is how I know I just read something incredible.

Les Miserables was a wonderful novel. The novel seemed to me to become a full circle in the end from when Jean Valjean was a convict to being a beloved hero who granted the love of his life, his daughter, what she previously had only shown him-love. It was a very passionate, real life story that touched millions including myself.

I loved this book. I was expecting something somewhere between Trollope's extraordinary writing and Zola's wonderful stories - and I got it! Great literature indeed, and what a character Jean Valjean is.

His story is almost biblical, one of redemption. One who travels the path from evil to good with scarcely a stumble but many an obstruction along the way. Hugo uses the book, much as Tolstoy liked to do, to expound his personal philosophy and also the condition of the peasants, les miserables.

Good, excellent, as the book was, I am left with one question, how come Valjean never recognised Thénardier no matter how many times he met him?

If you like classics and sagas, its a good holiday book. Start before you go, read it on the plane, a little by the pool and when lying on the beach, and then when you get home, there will still be more to read about these people who are your friends and family now.