Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.16 AVERAGE
4.16 AVERAGE
Definitely takes a lot of time to finish this. I still loved the movie more than I liked this. There were too many backstories and scenes which were really dragging at places. I realised why they weren't all included the movie. Give it go if you like historic class literature. This was one long nice ride.
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Don't quite know what to say that probably hasn't been said before. Amazing, wonderful, powerful, absorbing. Sad to see it end.
It's not that Hugo goes off on long lectures about the Napoleonic Wars, or tells the long history of a nunnery, or gives a long lecture and history about the sewer system underneath Paris. In fact, I liked those. Tangential non-narrative writing works well in Moby Dick and War and Peace. And just plain stupidly long books don't scare me anymore. If I die, I die.
And it's not that he tells such a convenient story, where everybody does just what they need to to be perfect or evil or whatever, and characters illustrate real humans by doing stuff real humans never ever really do. Lots of authors do that too. Like Ayn Rand. Hugo used these characters that are like nobody who ever lived to demonstrate God exists, but whatever. I don't mind.
IT'S THAT HE MAKES IT LIKE FRANCE HAS MAYBE FIFTEEN PEOPLE TOTAL AND EVERY TIME YOU TURN AROUND YOU'RE GOING TO RUN INTO THE SAME COP, OR SAME SWINDLER, OR SAME CHAIN-GANG-MATE, OR SAME GUY YOU SAVED WITH YOUR SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH FROM UNDER A HORSE CART THAT YOU RAN INTO EVERY OTHER PLACE YOU WENT IN FRANCE.
God that's annoying.
I understand about conservation of characters, too. And that unlikely coincidences are OK, because after all there's a reason we're hearing the story about this guy - this is the guy who an unlikely coincidence happened to. But, like, twenty-seven bazillion times?
I'd read a story about someone who won the lottery. People do win the lottery, though the odds against it are astronomical. I might read a story about someone who won the lottery twice. If Garcia-Marquez was writing the book, I'd read a story about someone who won the lottery once a week. That's not the point.
Imagine a story where it's not about winning the lottery, but the hero happens to win the lottery every six to eight years in the fifty years of the character's life we follow.* And this story was supposed to teach us all a lesson about the real world.
Well, I'd tell that story to go to hell.**
* Yes, I know he didn't win the lottery. Ever. Nor were all the ridiculously improbable things all good. It's just that each one was as improbable as winning the lottery.
**Still, I'm too intimidated by the book's reputation to give it fewer than 3 stars. And for whatever reason, I stayed entertained.
And it's not that he tells such a convenient story, where everybody does just what they need to to be perfect or evil or whatever, and characters illustrate real humans by doing stuff real humans never ever really do. Lots of authors do that too. Like Ayn Rand. Hugo used these characters that are like nobody who ever lived to demonstrate God exists, but whatever. I don't mind.
IT'S THAT HE MAKES IT LIKE FRANCE HAS MAYBE FIFTEEN PEOPLE TOTAL AND EVERY TIME YOU TURN AROUND YOU'RE GOING TO RUN INTO THE SAME COP, OR SAME SWINDLER, OR SAME CHAIN-GANG-MATE, OR SAME GUY YOU SAVED WITH YOUR SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH FROM UNDER A HORSE CART THAT YOU RAN INTO EVERY OTHER PLACE YOU WENT IN FRANCE.
God that's annoying.
I understand about conservation of characters, too. And that unlikely coincidences are OK, because after all there's a reason we're hearing the story about this guy - this is the guy who an unlikely coincidence happened to. But, like, twenty-seven bazillion times?
I'd read a story about someone who won the lottery. People do win the lottery, though the odds against it are astronomical. I might read a story about someone who won the lottery twice. If Garcia-Marquez was writing the book, I'd read a story about someone who won the lottery once a week. That's not the point.
Imagine a story where it's not about winning the lottery, but the hero happens to win the lottery every six to eight years in the fifty years of the character's life we follow.* And this story was supposed to teach us all a lesson about the real world.
Well, I'd tell that story to go to hell.**
* Yes, I know he didn't win the lottery. Ever. Nor were all the ridiculously improbable things all good. It's just that each one was as improbable as winning the lottery.
**Still, I'm too intimidated by the book's reputation to give it fewer than 3 stars. And for whatever reason, I stayed entertained.
adventurous
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Really, what is there that I can say about Les Mis that hasn't already been said? Powerful, wordy, and compelling pretty much sums it up for me. So hard to read it without comparing it to the musical version which I've seen several times. The songs were playing in my head the whole time I read the book.
Writing: 3.83
Story: 5
Overall: 4.41
I really want to give this book 5 stars. I just finished it, and it left me tearful for a few minutes. It was FANTASTIC, and might now be my favorite novel. However, it did have one glaringly big fault; it was much too verbose. This is something I knew about the book before going into it because a friend had forewarned me and I had previously read another Hugo novel(Notre-Dame De Paris).
Les Misérables could have been a full 30% shorter, maybe even more, and you would hardly, if at all, have missed anything that was conducive to the plot. I don't know what it is about Hugo that causes him to go on these long tangents. I'm not sure if it's pedantry, a word quota, or that he genuinely believed that these things were of great importance to his novels. Whatever the reason, I was not pleased. I'm not one who can skip chapters so I read it all, but let me warn you in advance. SKIP those chapters. Unless you really care about Napoleon, Waterloo, the French sewer system, convents, The July Revolution, Paris history, the bourgeoisie of Paris, etc.
I am one who absolutely detests overly verbose literature, but this novel was so great that it made up for it. The diction, the pacing, the characters, the dialogue, all top notch. If it wasn't for the near useless chapters, I might have given a novel 5 stars for the very first time. Which is extremely high praise considering I've read most of the literary giants touted to be "the best novels of all time".
Story: 5
Overall: 4.41
I really want to give this book 5 stars. I just finished it, and it left me tearful for a few minutes. It was FANTASTIC, and might now be my favorite novel. However, it did have one glaringly big fault; it was much too verbose. This is something I knew about the book before going into it because a friend had forewarned me and I had previously read another Hugo novel(Notre-Dame De Paris).
Les Misérables could have been a full 30% shorter, maybe even more, and you would hardly, if at all, have missed anything that was conducive to the plot. I don't know what it is about Hugo that causes him to go on these long tangents. I'm not sure if it's pedantry, a word quota, or that he genuinely believed that these things were of great importance to his novels. Whatever the reason, I was not pleased. I'm not one who can skip chapters so I read it all, but let me warn you in advance. SKIP those chapters. Unless you really care about Napoleon, Waterloo, the French sewer system, convents, The July Revolution, Paris history, the bourgeoisie of Paris, etc.
I am one who absolutely detests overly verbose literature, but this novel was so great that it made up for it. The diction, the pacing, the characters, the dialogue, all top notch. If it wasn't for the near useless chapters, I might have given a novel 5 stars for the very first time. Which is extremely high praise considering I've read most of the literary giants touted to be "the best novels of all time".
I struggle to write reviews for many books but this is one where I am completely lost for words, something Hugo never seemed to deal with. I am in awe and I am inspired. I am also exhausted. And if I never read about the history of the paris sewers again it will be too soon.
Hugo is utterly incredible. Sure he can be dialogue heavy and at times (many times) he can ramble on and on about things that have no importance or relevance to the plot but nonetheless the man could write. I was awestruck by the political and societal opinions he had - the poor, women, even hints towards sexuality. Though this book is gaining on 200 years old, it is still relevant today.
I long for the day I can read Hugo's words as he wrote them in French. I would also love to see a modern take or even just an abridged version without the digressions and with certain scenes being cut down by about 100 pages to make this book more accessible and less daunting. Everyone should read this, everyone should see how similar our world is to 200 years ago. In some respects, I think our world is worse than 200 years ago. But politics aside, this was an incredible view of the time and Hugo's portrait of Paris was so incredible I can only hope I love the real thing just as much.
Hugo is utterly incredible. Sure he can be dialogue heavy and at times (many times) he can ramble on and on about things that have no importance or relevance to the plot but nonetheless the man could write. I was awestruck by the political and societal opinions he had - the poor, women, even hints towards sexuality. Though this book is gaining on 200 years old, it is still relevant today.
I long for the day I can read Hugo's words as he wrote them in French. I would also love to see a modern take or even just an abridged version without the digressions and with certain scenes being cut down by about 100 pages to make this book more accessible and less daunting. Everyone should read this, everyone should see how similar our world is to 200 years ago. In some respects, I think our world is worse than 200 years ago. But politics aside, this was an incredible view of the time and Hugo's portrait of Paris was so incredible I can only hope I love the real thing just as much.