Victor Hugo: Les Misérables

Les Misérables

Victor Hugo

Published 1862

⭐⭐⭐⭐

Unread

This book had been on my unread shelf for a really long time -- a decade!  Out of curiosity and need for encouragement, I created a GoodReads poll asking which unread book (I named seven) should I read next, in 2024. Les Misérables received the most, with 1/3 of the votes. 

Staying true to the results, I began reading Les Misérables on January 1, and also discovered and joined a Les Miz read-along via Instagram. Unfortunately, I did not utilize the read-along, and quickly my expedition became a read-alone. And unlike the group, I was reading an abridged version. Given the size of the abridged, I was not about to exchange it for the unabridged. 

Before starting, I had limited knowledge of the plot and characters, which I had obtained over the years through various children's versions, musical theater, and the 25th Anniversary concert at the O2 Arena in London (which is awesome). Naturally, reading the abridged novel filled in missing information, connected relationships, and introduced me to countless new characters. 

Usually, with a tome like this, I prefer to write about my reading experience, rather than give a long review since readers have either already read it and know everything there is to know, or readers have not read it and do not want to be exposed to spoilers. This post is about how I did not fan over Les Misérables, yet, why I gave it four stars anyway. 

Firstly, I rated it four stars because I did value some of the background features about characters, history, and places, which demonstrated depth and thoroughness to detail. Obviously, this was an important work to Hugo, and he took great care to write this novel. 

Secondly, Hugo touched on all the major emotional themes of humanity: injustice, poverty, misery, compassion, sacrifice, selflessness, grace, redemption, forgiveness, love, hope, mercy, empathy, and morality. Engaged readers may find themselves cheering for particular characters and burning with retribution for others. 

And thirdly, a major part of Les Misérables displayed the good side of humankind, that which warms hearts and produces hope. Maybe it even inspires readers to do what is good and right. 

But now about why I did not fan over this novel. 

For one, I was not overall moved while reading this. I read through it, not lived through it. While I recognized the scope, weight, and worth of the novel, as explained above, personally, it was more of a three-star experience.

As I have explained, it was excessively drawn out in places, and while I have not complained about long and drawn out works in the past, lately I no longer have a desire to peruse a long book. Does anyone else feel this way too? I say lately because this is new with me, in these last few years. When I look at the remaining tomes on my unread shelf, I know I am avoiding them, partly because I am not interested in the commitment. I only made myself read Les Miz because it was time. Unfortunately, I endured through the extensive storytelling as unimportant and grumbled as it veered off in tangents that I did not care about.

Now, a second and more concerning matter is that the Christian gospel message seemed obscured. I know, I know! An author is not required to share the gospel message, but my pet peeve is when the gospel message is rescinded by or equated with doing good works. While some point to the bishop showing grace toward Jean Valjean as the moment he gave his life to Christ -- I understood this as the Bishop "bought [Valjean's] life for God," and it was not explicit that Valjean made the personal decision to get right with God because of what Christ did for him. The bishop gave Valjean a second chance, a challenge, to live for God from now on or, what appeared for the remainder of the story, to do good works indefinitely. But I do not recall a time when Valjean recognized his depravity and corruption, the pending wrath of God, his need for a Savior, then, his repentance, and finally, a turning to Christ as his Lord and Savior for what Jesus did on the cross.

I was a definitely exasperated by Valjean's excessive, obsessive, bizarre behavior to continuously do good and right, to the point where he was often in mental peril and conflict; this novel felt like another one of those that placed good works on the same plane as the Christian gospel. Maybe I missed the gospel spelled out, but all I remember is Valjean's continuous striving for doing good. Of course, in the end, he wins the prize, which was obvious. But let it not be because he did good. This would be false promotion.

Maybe I am being legalistic or grumpy (like Javert, the law follower). Valjean obeyed the law of Christ moreso, to love one's neighbor as himself. He sacrificed for others and put others above himself. That is not arguable. Nonetheless, I was uncomfortable to think that maybe Hugo was making him a representation of Christ because of his ongoing sacrificial works. If Hugo meant to exploit good works and overshadow the reason we need the gospel message of Christ's sacrifice, then I am struggling with the story. But if I missed the clear gospel message that we are not good and therefore need a Savior, and that our good works are not to earn salvation but out of our graciousness for what Christ did for us, then I stand corrected. 

And that is really all I have to say about it. I probably will never read it again. However, I will always watch the 25th Anniversary Concert at the O2 Arena, over and over again, because if nothing else, Les Misérables makes an poignant musical. It still gives me goosebumps.

* * *