#Valjean/javert parallels

[secretmellowblog]

Another thing I think people miss about Valjean and Javert is that they view Valjean as the emotionally honest/open/expressive one, while Javert is the dishonest "closed book" who is impossible to read. In the novel it's almost the opposite, at times? Javert is compulsively honest; he's repeatedly described as being so honest that his entire soul is visible on his face, or so honest you can look into his eyes and see all the way to the bottom of his conscience. He's physically incapable of pretending to feel things he does not feel or believe things he does not believe. He is literally unable to lie. Yeah Javert generally expresses his emotions in restrained, stoic, austere, controlled ways (except when expressing glee/fury during arrests)-- but he is honest about them. He may not break down weeping in Madeleine's office, but his entire soul is visible in his face when he earnestly (if stoically) discusses his failures.

Jean Valjean is an excellent liar, out of necessity. He's often described as being utterly opaque and unreadable. If Javert's entire soul is visible on his face, then Jean Valjean's face is often blank. He needs to play the part of the Respectable Polite Bourgeois perfectly or he will be discovered and dragged back to prison, and so he plays the part very well. One of his greatest assets is that he has a perfect "pokerface" in moments of great tension and distress, which helps him defuse conflicts or evade suspicion. His politeness/strict control over his emotions/tranquility are described as his defense mechanism, the shield he uses against people who are trying to hurt him. He is serene, he is polite-- he lies constantly and no one ever knows who he is or what he's thinking. I think the scene in Madeleine's office where Javert is trying to get himself fired really shows the difference between the two of them, for me? Javert and Jean Valjean are both obviously very good at restraining and controlling the way they express their emotions.

But Javert is entirely earnest in this scene. He's not breaking down and weeping, but "his entire soul is visible in his face." He doesn’t lie. He is utterly sincere in everything that he says, including his hilariously deranged rants about hating kindness. Jean Valjean spends the entire scene lying. In "Tempest in a Skull" we see that scene from Valjean's point of view, and are explicitly told that everything he says/does is out of terror of the "great danger" Javert represents. He’s attempting to remain as calm and polite as possible, because that's what "Unsuspicious Bourgeois Madeleine Who Has Nothing To Hide" would do. He spends the entire scene being insincere. Jean Valjean isn’t emotionless: he IS kind, and sweet, and often feels genuine care/pity for other people. I think the line "he smiled to avoid speaking and gave to avoid smiling" (and the way he breaks into people's houses to give them money) is a good summary of the way Jean Valjean's genuine kindness rubs up against his terror of sincerely connecting with other human beings.

But, except in rare instances of extreme emotion, Jean Valjean is also very hard to read.

He's calm, tranquil, serene, mild, kind, pitying, polite-- and he is opaque.

[fluentisonus]

[shitpostingfromthebarricade]

For Jean Valjean's redemption, it was important that kindness be shown to him by a person with authority.

For Javert's redemption, it was important that kindness be shown to him by a person with nothing.

[iambecomeahamburger]

Like Jean Valjean, Javert asks himself 'Who am I?' And his answer is, 'I am the Law.' I find this so interesting as a parallel because the way that Javert sees himself is purposefully dehumanising. He uses the dehumanisation of himself to engage in the systematic dehumanisation of others, specifically wrongdoers, especially Valjean. By disregarding Javert the human, he enables himself to act inhumanely, and gives himself permission to do whatever he feels is for the 'highest good.'

In contrast, Valjean post-conversion (conversion as a metaphor for turning his life around and thinking of others before himself) purposefully humanises himself and others. His 'Who am I?' does not place himself as a larger entity, but takes accountability by placing himself as a human among humans. His position of power is a position of responsibility. This is illustrated through his interactions with Fantine, the man Javert mistakes for him, and others.

And so this is why, when Valjean forces Javert to confront his own flawed worldview and see him as a fellow human, not as an escaped convict, he must kill himself. He has nothing else now to live for, because his whole career, ideology, and life have been bound up in this systematic dehumanisation of both himself and others. He is so fascinating to me.

[secretmellowblog]

I just want to say to all my followers that you should definitely check Breadvidence’s analysis under the second readmore— it’s one of the best analyses of Valjean/Javert’s dynamic in that I’ve read in a very very long time! It’s great! It's extremely good meta! (The goofy analysis under the first readmore is also very accurate and fun XD. But I wanted to draw attention to the second bit.)

(Also @breadvidence I am eyeing that comment about possibly writing fanfic in the future 👀👀👀 I hope you do!!)

Subjective ranking of I.VI.II versions, chapter title “Punish Me, M. le Maire”. Judged primarily based on horniness and comedy.

1. The Brick. The silent treatment. “The strength of your loins.” “It is lucky that you recognize the fact.” The long aside about accents and the evolution of names, because Victor Hugo wrote this, which somehow does not derail the vibes. I have serious thoughts on this scene but this list is not about literary analysis, it’s about how much Javert wants to be licking M. Madeleine’s boots (to the max), Valjean opposite him with actual dom energy (present), and the lol factor (top of the line).

2. ’98. No, hear me out. Rush’s Javert despairingly tries to lead Neeson’s Valjean to the right conclusion like an experienced sub guiding a vanilla top through a scene. Neeson is bewildered. Rush exudes frustrated erotic energy. I am having flashbacks to bad hookups and dying on the inside. A+

3. A hundred different fanfic rewrites of this scene in which dicks touch. Bless y’all.

4. ’78. Perkins doesn’t bring as much frustration to the table as Rush, making this less funny, but in his defense he’s opposite Jordan, who is as vacant as a beach ball. Solid rendition regardless.

5. ’25. Faithful to the novel, but lacks spice. Best moment occurs when Gabrio gestures with open arms and Toulout looks blankly horrified, as if thinking Gabrio might go in for a hug.

6. 2012 (Hooper). I debated the ranking but this *is* a scene that launched a thousand fics, so while it seems to me that Crowe’s Javert needs aftercare more than a spanking (so wrung out), clearly fandom disagrees. Loses points for lack of comedy.

7. Stage musical. “But Bread,” you might say, “The musical doesn’t adapt this scene.” I am counting the end of “The Runaway Cart” as an honorable mention, since it still includes Javert embarrassing himself.

8. ’35. All I remember is Laughton quivering and maybe a repetition of the line about laws good, bad, and indifferent (a line which reflects such a misunderstanding of the character I can only squint). Erotic levels at 0%, not amused.

9. ’52. I have zero recollection of how the scene plays out and can’t be fucked to rewatch.

10. BBC 2018. I do recollect this scene and I wish I didn’t. I watch, I’m bewildered, Oyelowo telegraphs meaningfully into the camera, his meaning is unclear, none of the implications are derived from the source text. Oyelowo tries to look like he’s experiencing gay lust and fails. They shake hands, I clutch my pearls. -100

[randomwholocker]

hear me out "My name is Jean Valjean" "And I'm Javert" parallels "My name is Marius Pontmercy" "And mine's Cosette" thank you *goes back to writing fic*

[landfilloftrash]

If I told you there was a series of games created before I was born, developed by Capcom, and that I was obsessed with a pairing of middle aged men within; The pairing being comprised of a someone around a decade or so older than the younger, lighter colored hair, stern and serious with a very deadpan sense of humor, along with “this is my job. I shall do it perfectly” demeanor about his work— very cat-coded in general, if you can think it, it will most probably apply— and the younger being very a determined brunette with firm morals who goes toe to toe with the older man and is frequently one of the only ones who can do so with their hell-bent insistence to do good and defend those who cannot, no matter the cost, who is quite dog-coded in reverse. They spend a few years in each other’s company, learning about each other (even if it’s at a distance and professionally) and then. Something happens. The older one of the pair betrays the brunette — his strings being pulled by a higher power, but it does not excuse him— and in the process reveals a cowardly and vengeful side after the event, causing the entirety of the franchise we play to happen. And then only a bit later in the storyline, one murdered the other, in cold but passioned blood, because destiny deemed it this way and they only heed the call of it. And whether or not it was intentional, leaving said murdered man’s child an orphan completely alone in the world as a side effect. For years after the event, they are satisfied with what happened, if burdened by guilt. But they were right to do so, weren’t they? They proceed to be metaphorically haunted by the man they killed for the rest of their life, however. And that will come to a head for them.

Now… am I talking about Chrisker (Chris Redfield/Albert Wesker), or Shingou (Mitsurugi Shin/Karuma Gou) ?

[iced-depresso-macchiato]

You know I’ve gotten which two ships give me the same energy?

JavertXValJean

and

BlaineXKarofsky

[cometomecosette]

It's too bad that the musical of Les Mis downplays the parallels between Fantine and Enjolras and between Javert and Éponine. They're so unexpected and easy to miss the first time you read the novel, because the characters occupy such different worlds, but once you realize them, they're so striking!

And in the novel, both of these pairs of characters do seem to "trade" deaths.

Most obviously, Javert expects to die at the barricade, while Éponine contemplates drowning herself in the Seine, but the reverse happens.

More subtly, Fantine's last months seem to be leading toward Valjean reuniting her with Cosette. Even if we think her death is inevitable, we have reason to hope that at least she'll die happy, having seen her daughter, knowing she'll be cared for, and knowing her own sacrifices weren't in vain. But instead she dies in despair, thinking all is lost for herself, Valjean, and Cosette. Later, Enjolras is set up to die bravely but in total defeat and despair. But then Grantaire comes to his side, so he dies with a smile, knowing that at least one person, who once seemed to embody all the cynicism and apathy of Paris, was transformed by his ideals, which undoubtedly gives him hope that those ideals will live on after him and lead to change.

[genderfeel]

normal things here. was comparing the petit gervais chapter to derailed and ended up noticing some parallel metaphors that made me want to chart this out

i could very well be missing more because hugo uses animal metaphors incredibly frequently, especially when it comes to both valjean and javert, but i’m confident these are the main ones. much to think about

[secretmellowblog]

I'm so fascinated by how conservative reviews of Les Mis often recreate the same attitudes towards Valjean/Javert that Victor Hugo criticizes in the novel. If you've been following @psalm22-6's work collecting contemporary 19th century reviews of Les Mis (and you should!) you'll know that contemporary conservative reviewers often despised Valjean and praised Javert. This is also true for many modern conservative reviewers. And that's interesting because the larger commentary Hugo was making with the Valjean/Javert parallels is that....."Both Valjean and Javert were born in dire poverty and stigmatized because of the time they spent in prison. But wealthy conservative society hates Valjean because he's an outcast who will break their laws in order to defend marginalized people....while they approve of Javert, because Javert would happily destroy himself and everyone around him in order to lick their boots." Valjean is hated because he's "rebellious," Javert is accepted because "knows his place." Jean Valjean is "repugnant" because he would steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, and Javert is "noble" because he would happily sentence his entire family to die for the sake of obeying authority. Valjean is treated like a wild animal, while Javert is praised for his constant bootlicking subservience in the patronizing way you'd praise an obedient dog. I don't know, it's interesting to see these reviews recreating the same bigotry Hugo comments on in the novel. Reviewers make insulting bigoted comments about Valjean, and then praise Javert for how obedient/subservient he is and how he shows the Correct way for a lower-class inspector to behave, without any shred of self-awareness.

[secretmellowblog]

AH YES ALL OF THIS :_:

I think @everyonewasabird once described their relationship as.... Eponine is like the shadow of Cosette, and Javert is like the shadow of Valjean. But while Cosette and Valjean end up finding each other and having this deep loving father-daughter relationship that changes both of their lives....to me there's this feeling that something was supposed to happen between Eponine and Javert, but it never actually formed. Largely because Javert sucks and is a cop. What I mean is: Valjean and Javert both come across their younger narrative foil being abused by the Thenardiers. Valjean's forced labor in the galleys is mirrored in Cosette's forced labor for the Thenardiers. Javert's childhood in prison is mirrored in Eponine's childhood in a prison-like environment with criminal parents. But when Valjean comes across Cosette, his heart breaks for her, and he prevents her from continuing to endure the trauma he had to endure. But when Javert comes across Eponine after the Gorbeau House raid-- he only notices her to decide she's an Accomplice of the Thenardiers, then indifferently "nabs" her and sends her to prison. His entire worldview is so warped by his mindless worship of Authority and Law that he literally just, ARRESTS the girl who could've been his Cosette. It's like he arrests his Cosette! Because he just...doesn't see her as a person, in the same way he doesn't even see himself as a person. And he's utterly unaware of what he's missed. Valjean comes across a child enduring the trauma he suffered and sees someone he desperately needs to protect; Javert comes across a child enduring the trauma he suffered and only sees someone he can violently punish.

y’ know Victor Hugo is indeed an entire attic of problems, in terms of gender theory etc 

and yet atm I don’t see that we’re ever going to get an adaptation that has the guts to go in on the parallels between Fantine and Enjolras, or Eponine and Javert, or even to examine the way Valjean’s parenting of Cosette challenges the gendered roles assigned to parenting 

and that’s …well it’s not great and people making adaptations should feel Not Great about it 

[lesbian-thesbian]

I’ve been reading Les Mis and I noticed an awesome parallel. It’s not really an obscure one but it is so elaborate and poetic and REALLY got me thinking.

In the Petit Gervais chapter, Valjean considers that giving him the candlesticks and forgiving him was the cruelest thing that the bishop could have done to/for him.

“He dimly felt that this priest’s pardon was the hardest assault, the most formidable attack he had ever sustained.”

We later learn that Valjean eventually holds himself to very binary standards of morality, labeling himself as either the bishop or the convict.

This made me think of Valjean’s pardon of Javert much later. By releasing him at the barricades, he fully embodies the bishop in that moment, DIRECTLY paralleling the most formative moment in his own life.

What makes their reactions so different? They both sustained years of anger and abuse that shaped them into cold, cruel people. They both had their perceptions of the world shattered by an act of kindness. They both escaped their worlds, but in very different ways.

The melodic and lyrical parallel of “I am reaching but I fall” with Valjean and Javert obviously indicates that Boublil and Schonberg made this same connection. (Like I said, it’s not a difficult connection to make. It just makes me think.)

It also reminds me of one of my favorite musical theatre parallels/callbacks from Fun Home. Medium Alison in Changing my Major singing “Am I falling into nothingness or flying into something so sublime?” And Bruce singing that same line in Edges of the World.

Same question, different answer.

[bumblingest-bee]

my les mis hot take is that the idealogical conflict between valjean and javert is much more compelling in the musical than in the brick. obviously they share the overarching idea of forgiveness vs. punishment, but hugo writes it as a very straightforward "good guy christian and bad guy atheist" whereas the musical offers, in my opinion, a much more interesting juxtaposition of worldviews. characterizing javert as devoutly religious makes their conflict that of two different interpretations of christianity: black-and-white, fire-and-brimstone legalism vs. love and forgiveness. that, to me, is what makes valjean and javert such compelling foils and parallels to one another.

[fluentisonus]

the thing is that unlike a lot of '[character] lives' aus which often necessitate ignoring or even working contrary to central themes or narratives in a way that often feels shallow or unsatisfying to me I would argue that the narrative itself in les mis itself actually suggests the potential of a life & redemption for javert because of the way it deliberately textually parallels his crisis of conscience in the scene before his suicide with valjean's crisis of conscience at the beginning of the book. of course this is not how it works out, but the possibility, the idea it could happen, is very much presented to the reader through this repetition! & also (without hopefully coming across as too sappy about it because it's a serious thing that takes a lot of work & not just a way everyone can live happily ever after) this suggestion by the text i feel actually strengthens the theme reiterated throughout the work that anyone is capable of change at any point. it may not actually happen & it's up to the individual to take that chance but it Could. it's never completely too late for anyone. do you see what I mean

[ofpd]

oh i forgot to mention that the moment that the previous episode had been paused to was the line where sokka, while tripping on cactus juice, starts talking about yue. so.

whenever i go to watch an episode of atla daily and i see this im like. yeah