#but at least THEY understand that saying that jvj was at fault because he tried to escape was THE WRONG POSITION.

[ineffable-gallimaufry]

just read a review of les mis from after the publication of the first volume that was like. actually funny how wrong they were.

"here's the preface in english, translated as literally as we can make it!" "victor hugo's preface was soo unreadable" OH, WAS IT?! gee, who would have thought that a LITERAL translation of a french author's work to english would be a bit wordy and awkward? also. it literally was perfectly readable.

"well, jean valjean ALMOST inspired some to feel better but... the five years for the loaf of bread was the only unreasonable thing. he really did deserve the other fifteen because he did CHOOSE to try and escape prison. really, he should have considered that consequence before he tried to run away" BITCH‽‽ i mean, do you FUCKING HEAR YOURSELF‽‽ "i mean, i had sympathy for his plight as a galley slave but really i think he should have just accepted that and endured being used for SLAVE LABOR because i think trying to escape from jail is wrong and bad" DID YOU READ THE NOVEL‽‽ victor hugo explained this and you're just a fucking idiot. you know who said this exact thing? gee. let me think. oh i know IT WAS JAVERT. if you ever find yourself agreeing with javert, you should consider... not. there is a reason wwijdddt is a phrase in this household

"really i didn't like the extended talk about french politics. wasn't really explicable to my good and amazing and sensible country" it's almost like victor hugo was writing about french politics. for a french audience. because he lives in france. i think this reviewer may have their head too far up their own ass to consider that there are people in other countries who have intentions that are not writing for this specific reviewer (who i think was british but i could be wrong). you're a fucking moron.

"clearly the bishop's lesson doesn't stick because he robs a kid and then the author makes him feel bad about it" do you think becoming a good person is an easy one step thing? did you read this book thinking that jean valjean was a better person JUST because of the bishop? i mean, we already know this stupid fucking reviewer does not have basic thinking skills but i'll give them a hint: the bishop is where he learned that people can be good and kind but he does not realize that he is being a huge asshole until he realizes what he did to petit gervais! it's a common misconception among adaptations but this is worse than average because what do you mean it didn't stick?? you said it yourself; he FELT BAD. he realized it was wrong. clearly the bishop's lesson DID stick. if it didn't, he wouldn't have felt bad. for a guy who gets on victor hugo for supposedly contradicting himself all the time, you sure do know how to write a fucking review that contradicts itself in the same sentence.

"i think the only character who felt really alive was javert!" yeah. that checks out. it really does with everything they said.

"he really didn't make his point by showing us only the bad sides of a prostitute and a convict" he did not. you're just missing the entire point of the book. if you saw fantine and jean valjean as just a prostitute and a convict i think you really do need to go back to FUCKING SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU CANNOT READ.

"well, clearly m hugo thinks he's being a great christian by writing this" do you know anything at all about victor hugo. would you care to learn anything about him before writing a self righteous review of his book before condemning them and saying they would "corrupt the minds of vulnerable readers" and shit like that? okay, clearly not because i think there is no fucking world where victor hugo would call himself a good christian.

i mean... i just think it's a bold choice to put out a review that basically states outright that you missed the entire point of a book and can't read. and also. fuck that guy.