#lm 3.4.4

[secretmellowblog]

One of my favorite things reading the Les Amis chapters is stumbling across the origins of mutual’s’ usernames ….you mean that Grantaire was @pilferingapples from still lifes? That his life was given meaning @byjuxtaposition? It throws me for a loop every time

[pilferingapples]

Grantaire my guy my dude. Literally nobody asked.

[the-wraxall-illustrations]

[breath-of-fresh-grantaire]

Why do ppl say that joly has foot fedish 😓

because he's a freak

[pureanonofficial]

LES MIS LETTERS IN ADAPTATION - The Back Room of the Café Musain, LM 3.4.4 (Les Miserables 1972)

"I am wild over her.” “My dear fellow, then in order to please her, you must be elegant, and produce effects with your knees. Buy a good pair of trousers of double-milled cloth at Staub’s. That will assist.”

[dolphin1812]

We’ve reached the first Grantaire ramble! Here are some interesting and/or funny lines:

“Ecclesiastes says: ‘All is vanity.’ I agree with that good man, who never existed, perhaps.”

We’ve already read about how Grantaire is contradictory and his disrespectful attitude toward religion (his jokes about the cross in his introduction). Here, we get an example of both of those at once. He questions if Ecclesiastes (also a part of the Bible) was real, which would probably offend the religious sensibilities of more devout Christians, but he’s agreeing with him as he does so, thus affirming the words of the text. 

“Caligula made a horse a consul; Charles II. made a knight of a sirloin. Wrap yourself up now, then, between Consul Incitatus and Baronet Roastbeef.”

I don’t understand the reference with Charles II, but the wordplay is at least entertaining.

“ As for the intrinsic value of people, it is no longer respectable in the least. Listen to the panegyric which neighbor makes of neighbor.”

This suggests that he’s upset by the lack of community and callousness toward others that he observes in his daily life, but that his response has been cynicism rather than action. He even makes a reference to cynicism as a philosophy later on, joking about Diogenes’ cloak.

“Virtue, granted, but madness also. There are queer spots on those great men. The Brutus who killed Cæsar was in love with the statue of a little boy. This statue was from the hand of the Greek sculptor Strongylion, who also carved that figure of an Amazon known as the Beautiful Leg, Eucnemos, which Nero carried with him in his travels. This Strongylion left but two statues which placed Nero and Brutus in accord. Brutus was in love with the one, Nero with the other.”

Given that so much of Grantaire’s introduction was about his adoration of Enjolras and was filled with allusions to ancient Greek figures associated with homosexuality, it’s not surprising to see what appears to be another reference to queerness. It’s also not surprising that Grantaire’s attitude here is unclear, as he’s always full of contradictions. On the one hand, Brutus’ love for a statue of a boy is portrayed as a “spot” on his character, marring his image of virtue. Grantaire, though, just questioned the meaning of virtue itself, claiming that it was linked to violence (the “slayer”) and was determined by the victor, not by one’s character. Moreover, Brutus’ love of the statue of the boy is equated with Nero’s love of a statue of an Amazon (a woman), suggesting some level of equality between their loves. Consequently, this story could be less a commentary on queerness from Grantaire and more an instance of his general rejection of love, mocking Nero’s affection through the comparison with Brutus’. It could be a continued criticism of virtue, too. If “virtue” is violence and destruction, then love is a “spot” on virtue, even though love is typically thought of as a better trait.

His cynicism is a product of despair as well, as we see from his admission that he’s “sad” in between all his other statements. He’s still very petty, though, continuing to speak even after Bossuet silences him.

I admit that I don’t follow the references to theater and law in the other discussions (aside from the Charter), but it does give us an idea of the range of interests here. Les Amis may be bound by republicanism, but they not only have different opinions within that, but different hobbies and priorities. Grantaire’s in his own category (disavowing politics and also ranting in a very specific way), but Jean Prouvaire’s interest in mythology is really distinct from the focus on mistresses in Joly and Bahorel’s group, which is also different from the definitive political focus of Courfeyrac and Combeferre here. This isn’t to say they couldn’t all discuss these subjects - Grantaire is definitely knowledgeable about mythology, and Combeferre is basically interested in everything - but it still says something about how they choose to spend their time when they’re not doing activist work. It also gives us an indication of who’s closer to whom, even if they’re all friends. On top of that, the list of discussions (theater, politics, love, etc) gives us a feel for what a Parisian café was like at that time. It’s a wonderful way of giving us a sense of place while helping us get to know the characters.

Courfeyrac burning the Charter in the middle of all this is so funny. Combeferre, with his belief in gradual progress through education and small social changes, really tried to defend it (albeit “weakly”), but Courfeyrac was feeling chaotic, and the fire was right there.

[cliozaur]

“No woman was admitted to this back room, except Louison, the dish-washer of the café, who passed through it from time to time, to go to her washing in the “lavatory.” When Enjolras defended Rousseau as an exemplary republican a couple of chapters ago, it sounded alarming. And now, this – no woman can be near these educated men while they do what they do in the back room (unless she is serving them). Rousseau’s republicanism excluded women and treated them as irrational and emotional creatures whose sole function was to be wives and mothers. And it appears that Les Amis did not move far beyond this position.

Bahorel speaks about his mistress in a highly misogynistic manner: “One’s mistress does wrong to laugh. That encourages one to deceive her. To see her gay removes your remorse; if you see her sad, your conscience pricks you.” I can imagine Marius’ grandfather saying jokes like this one.

I won’t write much about Grantaire’s drunken ranting – I think that plenty has been said about it. It’s a peculiar mix of drunken nonsense and profound classical (of course) allusions with homoerotic subtexts. Instead, I will say a few words about the part where Grantaire goes on about various cities and countries (Paris as Athens, London as Carthage). When it comes to Russia, Grantaire presents himself as an expert in Russian despotism and says this funny thing that despots’ “health is delicate,” and then lists Russian tsars (though not very accurately) whose lives ended in violent death (I wish the current one would soon join them). I was curious about how Russians handled this passage in their translation (and it’s not an abridged one). It came out that they censored and cut out this entire fragment! It ends with “Shall we go into ecstasies over Russia? Voltaire admired it. He also admired China” and then jumps to “All civilized peoples offer this detail to the admiration of the thinker”. Mind you: the translation was made during the Soviet times, and one might think it was a good idea to keep this fragment as evidence that the tsarist regime was despotic, and the tsars deserved their grim end, but no. Because even in the Soviet times, Russians were fucking imperialists!

[hyperfixationstation1]

Good god can this man talk

[koheletgirl]

lm 3.4.4 is literally crazy. do you ever think about that

[espaceplugins]

Wordpress Lms Theme For Online Courses

Wordpress Lms Theme For Online Courses 3.4.4

The WordPress LMS Theme for Online Courses is an exceptional choice for educators and institutions looking to create a professional and engaging online learning platform. With its seamless integration with WooCommerce and its extensive range of features, this theme provides a powerful and user-friendly solution for delivering online courses.Designed specifically for educational purposes, this theme offers a visually appealing and intuitive interface that enhances the learning experience for both instructors and students. It comes packed with robust features such as course management tools, lesson creation options, progress tracking, and assessment modules, allowing instructors to deliver interactive and comprehensive courses.With its compatibility with WooCommerce, this theme enables seamless monetization of your online courses, giving you the ability to sell courses, memberships, and other educational products directly from your website. The WooCommerce integration also ensures easy payment processing and secure transactions, providing a hassle-free experience for both educators and learners.Furthermore, this WordPress LMS theme is highly customizable, allowing you to personalize your website according to your brand and unique requirements. It offers a wide range of pre-designed templates, color schemes, and typography options, empowering you to create a visually stunning and cohesive online learning environment.The theme is fully responsive and mobile-friendly, ensuring that your courses are accessible and optimized for learners across various devices. It is also optimized for search engines, helping you increase your online visibility and reach a wider audience.Whether you're an individual instructor, a school, or an organization, the WordPress LMS Theme for Online Courses provides a comprehensive solution to launch, manage, and monetize your e-learning platform. With its extensive features, customization options, and seamless integration with WooCommerce, this theme is a reliable and powerful choice for anyone in the education industry. Start transforming your online courses today and create an immersive learning experience for your students. Read the full article

[everyonewasabird]

Brickclub 3.4.4 ‘The back room of the Cafe Musain’ part 2

Finishing up this chapter: the Charter Argument.

We only hear Courfeyrac speak for a while, and he’s Not Wrong. The national debt caused by the excesses of kings was one of the major precipitating factors in the Revolution. He also cites article 14 of the charter as a dangerous loophole. This article “gives the King the right to legislate by ordinance ‘for the execution of laws and the security of the State’” (wikipedia).

If I’m remembering right, there was a lot of debate at the time about whether this meant the ultra Charles X could simply cite some emergency as a sufficient threat to the state that he could start ruling by arbitrary fiat, thereby obeying the charter technically but in practice reinstating absolute monarchy.

We don’t hear Combeferre say much, but Courfeyrac sums up his arguments to some extent:

“Secondly, no offence to Combeferre, a charter granted is a vicious expedient of civilisation. To avoid the transition, to smooth the passage, to deaden the shock, to make the nation pass insensibly from monarchy to democracy by the practice of constitutional fictions, these are all detestable arguments! No! no! never give the people a false light. Principles wither and grow pale in your constitutional cave.”

I’m imagining Combeferre’s actual argument about the charter being a lot like Hugo’s arguments about the convent: that it had its place as a step in human development, and that’s important and real--but the world needs to move past it. Hugo finds a gazillion ways--while ostensibly defending the convent--of saying, This Is A Place Of Death You Will Die If You Come Here, Seriously This Is Awful And I Hate It and You Should Also Hate It. Then he makes it psychologically destroy Valjean permanently and horribly.

I suspect Combeferre’s “defended it mildly” is a lot like that.

Because we know from last chapter what Combeferre in snark mode is like. However bitterly biting he might be about terrible bourgeois theater, you can bet he hates the charter a lot more.

Courfeyrac's whole thing is about enflaming the people towards revolution (see the “calorique” discussion), whereas Combeferre cares about the slow and steady--but real--march of progress. He’s aware that culture doesn’t change overnight. The people fell partway back on constitutional monarchy--not all the way back to the ancien regime--because they were exhausted by decades of political upheaval and war. That’s what we learned in the 1817 chapter, when we talked about cats who would transform into lions some time in the future.

When Courfeyrac burns the charter, Combeferre makes his real point, which he does... let’s call it “succinctly.”

He says:

“La charte métamorphosée en flamme.”

(”The charter metamorphosized in flame.”)

Which is a pun on La Fontaine’s fable

“La chatte métamorphosée en femme.”

(”The cat metamophosed into a woman.”)

I found an English translation of the fable, but it’s got some confusing typos, so here’s the French too.

But tl;dr: a man really loves his cat, so he begs and pleads with fate, and the cat is transformed into a woman, whom he marries. As they’re lying in bed, the woman sees a mouse and runs after it. She spends the rest of her life running after mice, which don’t run from her because she doesn’t look like a cat anymore. The moral is that nature is persistent and can’t be transformed overnight.

So Combeferre is:

1) invoking the book’s themes about the transformation of cats equaling revolution

and

2) saying that transforming France into a republic overnight will be pointless if the people aren’t ready to be a republic yet.

I have no idea who’s right or wrong in terms of how actual society works, but Combeferre is sticking closer to Hugo’s arguments about social change.

[secretmellowblog]

Modern AU Grantaire would be a great/terrible Twitch steamer. He would be excellent at rambling incoherently but very passionately for hours on end without ever getting to anything that resembled a point

[pilferingapples]

LM 3.4.4

And Yet, mixed in that rant in Back Room of the Musain, Grantaire has some important lines, especially this:

 I don't attach much importance to victory. Nothing is so stupid as to conquer; true glory lies in convincing. But try to prove something! If you are content with success, what mediocrity, and with conquering, what wretchedness! 

-which echoes the narration's own judgement on Success back during Myriel's chapters :

Be it said in passing, that success is a very hideous thing. Its false resemblance to merit deceives men. For the masses, success has almost the same profile as supremacy. Success, that Menaechmus of talent, has one dupe,--history. Juvenal and Tacitus alone grumble at it...Prosperity argues capacity. Win in the lottery, and behold! you are a clever man. He who triumphs is venerated. Be born with a silver spoon in your mouth! everything lies in that. Be lucky, and you will have all the rest; be happy, and people will think you great,,,and men call that Genius, just as they call the face of Mousqueton Beauty, and the mien of Claude Majesty. With the constellations of space they confound the stars of the abyss which are made in the soft mire of the puddle by the feet of ducks.

So a side from the obvious importance of being convinced to the guy who can't hold onto convictions, I think the protest against the glory of "success" is actually one of the book's major themes! Almost no one sympathetic in this novel "wins" ; the best die young or alone or both, the worst person in the novel winds up a millionaire. And Les Mis looks the reader right in the eye and says that doesn't matter, the kind and the caring and the brave were right and their actions are the ones that will win in the end. Grantaire is in sync with the novel's message here!

...for about five seconds, and then he's off talking about how Everywhere Sucks -although, perhaps a point for him in an era of nationalism, he does insist that EVERY country sucks, not sparing France in the least, and he's not holding with the idea that Europe is a unique bastion of enlightenment! -- but also he's kind of trash talking and trolling with all of it. This is not a Reasoned Argument against Ethnocentrism, here. Diagetically, I feel like this is Grantaire attempting to troll Feuilly in particular, except Feuilly is not in the room in this scene! Which is pretty much spot on for Grantaire's level of focus in this rant.

Still, "fucked up my art homework for Snacks" is such a mood.

[the-wraxall-illustrations]

[fremedon]

Brickclub 3.4.4, “The Back Room of the Cafe Musain”

Okay! Catching up so we can finally move on. I am sure I will be returning to this chapter many times as we finish the book, so for now, have some haphazard observations: 

Grantaire’s aside about the statue, beloved by Brutus, of a beautiful boy lies interestingly next to “What fine marble!”--especially that he goes for this story, about a statue that really is an object and genuinely can’t love you back, when Galatea is right there.

I like what Donougher does with the pun “rapin [painter’s apprentice] is the masculine of rapine [theft]” that follows Grantaire’s reminiscence about pilfering apples from still lifes (and which FMA just omits). She renders it “Painting is an art of abstraction.”

(Also, stolen apples again. For a boy a prank, for a man a misdemeanor, for an art student...professional self-sabotage.)

I liked @everyonewasabird’s observation that Grantaire sets out Enjolras’s win condition in this speech: “Nothing is so dull-witted as winning the battle. True glory lies in winning the argument.” By that metric he does win, and Grantaire delivers him the victory. 

The other statue Grantaire goes on about, the one of Silanion, inventor of a wrestling throw, of which Grantaire dismissively says “That sums up Greece and glory,” was erected in the great square in Corinth. I am positive that any mention of Corinth in this story is not an accident, but I am absolutely stumped on how to interpret this one. Any ideas?

"I am, I declare, a voluptuary, I eat at Richard’s at forty sous a head, I must have Persian carpets in which to roll naked Cleopatra!” Richard’s, in the Palais-Royale, was a real restaurant and according to the Wibler guide for foreign medical students its two-franc table d’hôte was the best in Paris, and more than twice the cost of Marius’s meals at Rousseau’s. An actual voluptuary, however, would be dining a la carte, not by the head. This is like saying you dine at the best all-you-can-eat lunch buffet in town.

I love that we get snatches of conversation from unnamed people, the  playwrights and the duelists, who aren’t any of the named Amis.

Donougher actually does a nice job with the various jokes and puns in this chapter--she footnotes “Echo, plaintive nymph” [Grantaire is echoing Bossuet’s legalese, which ends in hypothécaux, which sounds like “echo”] and Combeferre’s pun on Fontaine [more in a moment] but doesn’t try to render them in English. Bahorel’s advice to Joly, she gives as “Well then, my dear fellow, you must please her, be elegant, and get down on your knees. Buy yourself a good strong pair of twill trousers at Staub’s. That helps.” Which conveys at least two of Bahorel’s meanings. 

Also indebted to Bird for realizing Combeferre definitely gets the last word in the Charter conversation.

[canosadigital]

Pack LearnDash versión 3.1.7

Learndash.Un pack formado por uno de los mejores y más populares LMS para WordPress, LearnDash, y sus mejores add-ons. Comprando este pack podrás descargar: El plugin LearnDash LMS (versión 3.1.7) El add-on LearnDash Visual Customizer (versión 2.2.8) El add-on LearnDash Notifications (versión 1.3.0) El add-on LearnDash Toolkit Pro (versión 3.4.4) El add-on LearnDash Gradebook (versión 1.6.6) El add-on LearnDash WooCommerce Integration (versión 1.7.0) El add-on LearnDash Notes (versión 1.6.2) El add-on LearnDash Paid Memberships Pro Integration (versión 1.1.1) El add-on LearnDash Mailchimp (versión 1.1.1) El add-on LearnDash Zapier Integration (versión 2.0.1) El add-on LearnDash Private Sessions (versión 1.2.2) Read the full article