Take a photo of a barcode or cover
bupdaddy 's review for:
Les Miserables
by Victor Hugo
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.