#les mis: the brick

[krakenartificer]

I am so far behind on Les Mis daily, but I have made it to the descriptions of Petit-Pipcus.

which I took to mean I was almost caught up

but with each new email that arrives in my inbox, I begin to wonder. How many chapters does this convent fill??

[maggie44paint]

"I wish to write bl about parisian sewer system," victor hugo (1862), probably

[fulladeroure]

It's always "spill the tea" and never "tell me quickly what's the story, who saw what and why and where, let him give a full description, let him answer to Javert!"

[ohplaart]

Happy (?) Barricade Day!

Here's a fake cover I did few months ago that I didn't post here yet

[kim-the-miserable-rat]

SCREAMING AND CRYING WITH THE GERMAN VERSION OF "EMPTY CHAIRS AND EMPTY TABLES"

(THE WAY HE SAYS THEIR NAMES, ESPECIALLY GRANTAIRE, ENJOLRAS -oh my gosh my jaw dropped with Enjolras- AND COURFEYRAC)

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

YOU CAN SEE MUCH MORE INCREDIBLE LES MIS RELATED VIDEOS LIKE THIS IN THE ACCOUNT THAT APPEARS IN THE WATERMARK, ITS FULL OF WONDERS AND MY FAVORITE "LES MIS" RELATED ACCOUNT EVER!!!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Link to the whole performance:

[fruity-pontmercy]

Happy Barricade day everybody :))) this is just a part of a larger drawing im working on, but it’s taking me more time than I wanted so, have it here in the meanwhile :))

[headoctopus]

I was bored at work, so here's a little sketch

trying to start draw again

[protectionsquad24601]

Og clickbait

[bam-bo0zle]

Julian draws les mis again?!?? holy fuck?!???

[avalaryx]

he only interrupted him like a gazillion times

[krakenartificer]

It is necessary that society should look at these things, because it is itself which creates them.

It's possible that people who have read all the chapters up til now are sick of him harping on this, but I absolutely love the reiteration that Hugo is not trying to pretend that all of life can be fair, or railing against acts of God, or anything. He just objects to "artificially creating hells amid the civilization of earth, and adding the element of human fate to divine destiny."

It reminds me of one of my favorite Robert Frost Lines: "there was a law of God, or man." We are so bad at identifying whether an outcome is inevitable or if it's the result of our own actions. Even when it's really really obvious.

"We chose those things!" Hugo is yelling. "We could choose something else! We could just do it!"

He constituted himself the tribunal.

He began by putting himself on trial.

He recognized the fact that he was not an innocent man unjustly punished. He admitted that he had committed an extreme and blameworthy act ... Then he asked himself:—

Whether he had been the only one in fault in his fatal history. Whether it was not a serious thing, that he, a laborer, out of work, that he, an industrious man, should have lacked bread. And whether, the fault once committed and confessed, the chastisement had not been ferocious and disproportioned. ....

Whether it was not outrageous for society to treat thus precisely those of its members who were the least well endowed in the division of goods made by chance, and consequently the most deserving of consideration.

These questions put and answered, he judged society and condemned it.

He condemned it to his hatred.

This is what recovery from abuse feels like. You start off thinking that it wasn't abuse, because you really were bad. And at some point, it dawns on you that yes, you have faults.; perhaps quite grievous ones; and perhaps you have done some truly awful things, made some truly awful decisions. BUT, all the same, the penalty you were given for those deeds was ridiculously, outrageously out of proportion to the harm you did. And the moment that sinks in, the moment you truly believe it ... the natural, sensible, and incredibly uncomfortable reaction is ... outrage. Fury. That's what anger is for, after all -- anger cares a lot about things being fair. This wasn't fair; this isn't fair, and the rage you experience burns you down to your bones, until you feel like it will destroy you, and you have no outlet -- the abuse happened because you were powerless to stop it, and in most cases that's still true. So what can you do? What use to condemn it? What penalty can you apply to those who can hurt you and never hear a breath of reprimand for it?

Hatred feels like the only recourse you have available to you. (It's not, of course, but since that will be relevant in later chapters, I'll leave that discussion for later chapters)

And besides, human society had done him nothing but harm; he had never seen anything of it save that angry face which it calls Justice, and which it shows to those whom it strikes.

I have no commentary on this one; I just need to highlight it

The peculiarity of pains of this nature, in which that which is pitiless—that is to say, that which is brutalizing—predominates, is to transform a man, little by little, by a sort of stupid transfiguration, into a wild beast; sometimes into a ferocious beast.

This is actually quite literally true: under stress, the areas of the brain responsible for abstract reasoning and strategic planning lose priority, and resources are re-routed into the parts of the brain necessary for survival -- one of many reasons that high-stakes testing is a profoundly stupid idea. Under repeated and unrelenting stress -- and it should be noted that for a socially-oriented organism like humans, there is almost no stress greater than being surrounded by other members of its species who don't respond to its pain or needs -- the "rational" parts of the brain atrophy, and the likelihood of "irrational" responses increases. They use torture techniques to make us bestial, and then use our bestiality as proof that they needn't bother treating us like people.

The point of departure, like the point of arrival, for all his thoughts, was

What a fantastic description of a thought spiral!

The point of departure, like the point of arrival, for all his thoughts, was hatred of human law; that hatred which, if it be not arrested in its development by some providential incident, becomes, within a given time, the hatred of society, then the hatred of the human race, then the hatred of creation, and which manifests itself by a vague, incessant, and brutal desire to do harm to some living being, no matter whom.

Again, no commentary per se, but it does explain a great deal about certain parts of our world

My final thought from this chapter:

Victor Hugo: it had been an act of madness for him, a miserable, unfortunate wretch, to take society at large violently by the collar

Also Victor Hugo: Writes a 531K-word rant taking society violently by the collar and screaming in its face

[la-pheacienne]

I feel like I understand people's blorbofication of Javert because I get why someone would really cling onto a complex (male) antagonist with a traumatic past whose entire life is a lie and who kills himself when he reaches that final moment of realization. It is absolutely tragic, and it is easy and natural to cling onto that, we've all been there. But you need to understand that two things are in motion here: the first one is Javert's individual tragedy, and the second one is the broader system he personifies. He's a symbol. His primary function in the narrative is to personify the hateful, bigoted, cruel, inhumane legal system that intervenes after the fact and crushes all those that society has already put down. He, the incarnation of that bourgeois legal system, delivers the final blow. He finishes off what society started, and he does it with joy. When we say that he killed Fantine, it's not even about Javert the individual per se. It's about the entire system he represents. That system killed Fantine and Javert is its flesh and bones. Fantine was a poor girl that was exploited and let down by society in every single way and when she was herself a victim of actual physical violence, the Law, personified by Javert, instead of protecting her treated her like an animal, dehumanized her, humiliated her. The Law was scandalized that a woman like her dared attack the bourgeoisie. The Law was horrified that such a disgusting creature got medical care because she should just drop dead on her street. The Law rejoiced in tearing down her sole protector. The Law prevented her from getting her child back from the con artists that have been stealing her for years because the Law doesn't care about the crimes committed against marginalized people. That's not its function. Its function is to use its discretionary authority in order to dehumanize and punish people that ended up on the wrong side of the street.

So when you come at me with nonsense that Javert "didn't tEchNIcALLy kill Fatnine", "he was just rude", "he was just bitchy", "he just stole her final happy moments", respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Javert absolutely killed Fantine. He's not the only one who did but he eagerly and enthusiastically precipitated her execution, and that is the entire point Hugo is trying to make. Your arguments against it are nothing but a mere technicality that stems from the fact that the individual's actions technically do not qualify as manslaughter. It's as if we literally had an individual at court and we were thinking of whether or not to condemn him for manslaughter. It's not about that. It's not about your blorbo and his sadness. Your blorbo has a whole other function in the narrative. You have completely missed the mark of the entire book and you have let your personal emotional attachment for a character prevail over Hugo's main argument about the structural punitive violence that literally kills people. Javert being the product and the embodiment of an entire system that exceeds his individuality does not mean that, as a police officer, he's not responsible for his actions or their consequences. On the contrary, he's precisely entirely responsible for the structural violence committed against Fantine, that's what "embodiment" actually means, that's what we mean when we say that he personifies that system. Absolving Javert of his crimes goes directly against the themes of the book, because while systems operate above individuals by definition, they need those individuals to function. The system needs Javerts. Javerts are everywhere around us, yes even today and it is important to hold them accountable for their crimes. I can't believe I have to explain this tbh.

[marnieorange]

and now, my favourite image ever

[tjjamess]

To YOU he’s just a 192 year old dead revolutionary medical student who represented the logic of the revolution who lived much more normal than his counterpart, who was more human than man, the homo to vir, who liked the word citizen but preferred the word man and would gladly say hombre, who read everything, did theatres, followed lectures, explained the functions of artery’s, followed science, deciphered hieroglyphics, broke stones to look inside them, drew silk moths from memory, corrected the dictionary, both asserted and denied nothing, daydreamed, who was involved in issues of education, wanted society to raise intellectual and moral standards, believed that the narrowness of teachings and the scholastic prejudice would turn collages into artificial oyster farms, who was well-read, a purist, precise, polytechnical, hardworking, imaginative, who dreamed of trains and better surgical operations and fixing cameras and electric telegraphs and steering hot air balloons, who was the guide to the leader, who was not incapable of fighting but would rather be gentle, who wanted neither halt nor haste, who would rather let progress take its course rather than worship and incite revolutionary adventures, coolheaded but pure, methodical but irreproachable, phlegmatic but imperturbable, and who believed ‘good must be innocent’

To ME he’s everything

[hyperfixationstation1]

Enjoltaire is waaaayyyyyy too interesting a dynamic to be boiled down to one guy is politically determined and has autism and the other guy is sad, drunk, and has ADHD and then they kiss.

Like, Enjolras does not love Grantaire. Or, at least, no more than he loves Bahorel or Mabeuf or Claqesous.

And, hell, I’ll go further to say Grantaire doesn’t truly love Enjolras. No more than Cosette loved Catherine the doll she couldn’t have before she received her.

Because neither is a complex person to the other.

But I also think, that out of all of Les Amis, Grantaire best represents “the people,” those that Enjolras romanticizes in his pursuit to cure the illness that is injustice in his Patria.

Grantaire exemplifies the city of Paris. His winding prose mimic the narrow streets with back alleys and grotesque buildings, both beautiful and hideous. His dedication to his friends mimics s dedication to the Parisian identity, taking it as it is. He’s the ugliness, messiness, and drama of the city, but the jovial nature of a community of people who occupy a shared identity.

But Enjolras doesn’t love Paris. Or he doesn’t love Paris in its contemporary state. He loves an idea of France as an beacon of democracy. He loves the future and it’s untouched possibilities for equality that he vows to make unmanipulatable.

The two are inherently a battle between the present and the future. The beauty of them dying hand in hand is due, in part, to them never coexisting well while living.

[kim-the-miserable-rat]

EVERYONE SHUT UP! STEWART CLARKE (THE BEST JAVERT EVER) HAS AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT TO MAKE: