#sorry victor hugo

[autumnalmess]

Hey man sorry I've not posted in a while, it's a funny story actually. I actually got arrested for stealing bread for my sister and her seven starving children. yeah, it was pretty bad. I tried to escape 3 times so yeah I got 19 years, yeah and then I broke my parole and now there's this slutty little man after me, yeah I think he has a crush on me or smt idk

[grantwilson]

the thing they don't tell you about getting into les mis as a teenager is that there is no point at which you gain the capability of being normal about enjolras and grantaire. bc here's the thing folks. grantaire asked for enjolras's permission, to give him the honor of dying next to him. enjolras smiled and took his hand. and then they died. holding hands. and then there's "you believe in nothing" / "i believe in you", the sun/moon imagery, the comparisons to achilles/patroclus and orestes/pylades etc, and dont get me started on george blagden. it's insane

[pureanonofficial]

What you come to understand about Les Miserables as you learn more about Victor Hugo is that it is all about Léopoldine, it is nothing but Léopoldine, Léopoldine is the heart and soul of it, every word and chapter is full of Léopoldine, Léopoldine, Léopoldine.

It is a book immutably shaped by the pain of losing a child.

[hyperfixationstation1]

90% of Les Amis have never worked a customer service job like no wonder they’re “for the people” send post

[jeena-says-hi]

Victor Hugo be like “I know a place”

And then take you to the Parisian sewer system

[sneez]

gwyn and dea through the years :D [full id under cut]

ID: The first drawing (1690) shows Gwynplaine as a child, carrying the baby Dea wrapped in a coat in his arms. He has long yellow hair, and is wearing only a ragged pair of breeches. His feet are bare and bloody. The labels read:

[Skin] tans easily

Adult man's coat

Adult man's breeches

[Joints] hypermobile; frequent joint pain (especially in bad weather)

[Feet] severely scarred

The second (1695) shows Gwynplaine as a youth and Dea as a small child; Gwynplaine is holding Dea's hand. Gwynplaine is wearing an oversized shirt, sleeveless doublet, and breeches. Dea has curly auburn hair and is wearing a simple greyish dress. The labels pointing to Gwynplaine read:

Ursus's shirt

Ursus's breeches

[Shoes] much too big

Still refusing to let Ursus cut his hair (bad sensory experience and dislikes anyone coming near his face)

Ursus's doublet with the sleeves cut off The labels pointing to Dea read:

Reddish hair until she got older

[Dress] made by Ursus out of an old blanket

Cloth wraps rather than shoes

The third (1700) shows Gwynplaine as a teenager and Dea as a girl; they are standing side by side. Gwynplaine is wearing the same outfit as before but with the inclusion of a red necktie and light hose, and his hair is shorter. Dea is wearing a blue dress. The labels pointing to Gwynplaine read:

Ursus's doublet with the sleeves cut off

Finally submitted to a haircut (very reluctantly)

Same shoes (slightly better-fitting now) The labels pointing to Dea read:

Skin burns easily

Bitten fingernails

[Dress] most expensive single thing Ursus had ever bought

The fourth (1705) shows Gwynplaine as a young man and Dea as a young woman. Gwynplaine is wearing a green waistcoat, red breeches, and a leather esclavine, and his hair is longer. Dea is wearing a white shirt, a blue dress, and the same necktie Gwynplaine was wearing in the previous drawing; her hair is also longer and darker. The labels pointing to Gwynplaine read:

[Hair] gets very light in summer

[Hair] greying

[Hands] very calloused

New shoes! The labels pointing to Dea read:

[Necktie] used to be Gwynplaine's [smiley face emoji]

Very visible veins

New shoes!

End ID.

[dum-spiro-spero99]

Italians do it better aka brick accurate Permets-tu

[cherriiramen]

Shoujo Cosette Enjolras supremacy.. 🧎‍♀️🌼

[saintmachina]

One million dollar question: is it true that the Bible condems homosexuality? I had a discussion with two conservatives who sent me some verses that seem to confirm that but i don't know much about the context although i know this is important too

Let’s start here: why is this the million dollar question? Why does it matter what the Bible has to say about sex, or love, or human relationships? At the end of the day, it’s just a book, right?

Oceans of ink (and blood) have been spilled over not only what the Bible says, but what it does, how it functions. The course of empires, nations, and families have been shaped by the contents of this book, and from a historical and cultural perspective, it holds a lot of weight. But you didn’t ask about the sociological, you asked about the theological, so let’s explore. 

Different Christian traditions vary in their approach to scripture. For example: some Protestant denominations believe that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. In this paradigm, God is the ultimate author of scripture working through human hands, and the resulting text is both without error and in no way deceptive or mistaken. Similarly, The Second Vatican Council decreed that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” When a member of the clergy is ordained into the Episcopal Church they swear that they “do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation.”

Can you see how many of these points of doctrine overlap yet seek to distinguish themselves from one another? Theologians have spent lifetimes arguing over definitions, and even when they manage to settle on solid teachings, the way that the teaching is interpreted by the clergy and incorporated into the lives of the laity varies WIDELY. As much as systematic theology may try, humans aren’t systematic beings. We’re highly contextual: we only exist in relation to others, to history, to circumstance, and to the divine. We simply cannot call up God to confirm church teaching, and I think a lot of people cling excessively to the Bible as a result of the ache (dare I even say trauma) of being separated from God via space and time in the way we currently are.

God is here, but God is not here. God is within us, God is within the beloved, God is within the sea and sky and land, and yet we cannot grasp God to our bodies in the way we long to. In this earthly lifetime, we are forever enmeshed in God, yet forever distinct, and that is our great joy and our great tragedy.

So barring a direct spiritual experience or the actual second coming, we're left to sort through these things ourselves. And because humans are flawed, our interpretations will always be flawed. Even with the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives guiding us.

When engaging with any sort of Biblical debate, it is essential that you have a strong understanding of what the Bible means to you, an an embodied individual living a brief little awful and wonderful life on Earth. Otherwise it's easy to get pushed around by other people’s convincing-sounding arguments and sound bites.

Here’s where I show my hand. As a confirmed Episcopalian I believe that reason, tradition, and scripture form the “three-legged stool” upon which the church stands, interdependent and interrelational to each other, but I’ve also like, lived a life outside of books. I’ve met God in grimy alleyways and frigid ocean waters and in bed with my lovers. So my stool is actually four-legged, because I think it’s essential to incorporate one’s personal experience of God into the mix as well. (I did not invent this: it’s called the Wesleyan quadrilateral, but the official Wesleyan quadrilateral insists that scripture must trump all other legs of the table in the case of a conflict which...*cynical noises*)

Please do not interpret this answer as me doing a hand-wavey "it's all vibes, man, we're all equally right and equally wrong", but I do absolutely think we have a responsibility as creatures to weigh the suffering and/or flourishing of our fellow creatures against teachings handed down through oral tradition, schisms, imperial takeover of faith, and translation and mistranslation. Do I believe the Bible is sacred, supernatural even, and that it contains all things necessary to find one's way to God, if that is the way God chooses to manifest to an individual in a given lifetime? Absolutely. Do I believe it is a priceless work of art and human achievement that captures ancient truths and the hopes of a people (as well as a record of their atrocities) through symbols, stories, and signs? Unto my death, I do.

However, I am wary of making an object of human creation, God-breathed though it may be, into an idol, and trapping God in its pages like God is some sort of exotic bug we can pin down with a sewing needle.

Finally, we have reached the homosexuality debate. One of my favorite sayings of Jesus is Matthew 5: 15-17: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit." In other words: look at what religious teachings have wrought in the world. When I look at homophobic interpretations of the Bible, I see destruction, abuse, suffering, neglect, alienation, spiritual decay, and death. When I look at theology that affirms the holiness of LGBTQ+ relationships, I see joy, laughter, community building, thoughtful care, blooming families, creativity, resilience, and compassion. I see the love of Christ at work in the world. I see the hands of a God who chose under no duress to take up residence in a human body, to drink wine with tax collectors and break bread with sex workers and carry urchin children around on his shoulders. That's my limited little pet interpretation, but hey, that's all any of us really have, at the end of the day.

So, I am absolutely happy to do a play-by-play breakdown of why those passages you were given (we queer Christians often call them "clobber passages" or "texts of terror") don't hold water in a theological, historical, and cultural context. We can talk about Jesus blessing the eunuch and the institution of Greek pederasty and Levitical purity laws and Paul because I've done that reading. I've spent my nights crying in self-hatred and leafing through doctrine books and arguing with my pastors and writing long grad school essays on the subjects. Send me the verses, if you can remember them, and I'll take a look. But it's worth noting that out of the entire Bible, I believe there are only six that explicitly condemn homosexuality AND I'm being generous and including Sodom and Gommorah here, which is a willful and ignorant misreading if I've ever seen one.

In the meantime, I recommend books by people smarter than me! Try Outside The Lines: How Embracing Queerness Will Transform Your Faith by Mihee Kim-Kort, or Does Jesus Really Love Me by Jeff Chu, or Transforming: The Bible and the Lives of Transgender Christians by Austen Hartke!

And take a breath, dear one. Breathe in God, in the droplets of water in the air and in the wind from the south. Breathe in the gift of life, and know that you are loved, now and unto the end of the age and even beyond then.

[can-of-w0rmz]

Scholars/Academics when someone suggests a fictional character who never once shows any interest in women and constantly rambles about how much they adore their male best friends and describes what they love about their appearance in intricate details (or vice versa if they’re a woman) and then fall into a deep depression when that best friend dies might be gay (it’s from the 1800s and gays only in modern Disney cartoon and Heartstopper) (you’re only allowed to speculate an old character is gay if they’re abusive and terrible):

[dis-astre]

since it's almost barricades days and i've seen new people joining our fandom, i would like to list u all some very nice adaptations i really like that u can watch (and that are better alternatives than the bbc adaptation) (and i included links!!!!!):

what to watch ?

- i feel like this is a classic, but the 2012 movie adaptation by tom hopper, obviously. while it's not the best adaptation, it is still really good (also i feel like it made a lot of us join the fandom in the first place)

- also pretty obvious but the west end musical by claude-michel schönberg and alain boublil (i'm pretty sure u can find decent bootleg on yt) + honorable mention for the 25th anniversary concert but i feel like u need to know a bit about the musical before seeing the concert

- a personal favourite, the 1982 french movie by robert hossein, it is three hours long tho, but it's worth it; the adaptation is really good, especially the portrayal of Les Amis (here's the yt link to the whole movie)

- shojo Cosette is also pretty decent, tho i've only watched the episodes with Les Amis (the barricades are heartbreaking just like we love)

- it's really obscure but the silent short film l'enfant sur la barricade (the child on the barricade) by Alice Guy. the sources diverge from whether it's an adaptation of les mis or an adaptation of a poem hugo wrote called "sur une barricade" and taking place during the commune of paris but the character could be inspired by gavroche

- Les Amis webserie, that u can find on yt, or here :

it's a web serie made by fans for fans and it's amazing

- All That's Left Of Us, another web serie made by and for fans. it's beautiful and absolutely heartbreaking. u can find it on youtube or here:

and on the overall anything that eli southern does about les mis is pretty amazing so i encourage u all to go check @thecandlesticksfromlesmis

(although i feel like u need to know a bit about the fandom before jumping right into the webseries)

- and obviously, The Brick, the original masterpiece that is Les Miserables by victor hugo; if u have the courage i promise that it's worth it

annnnd that's all ! at least for my favourite one, but there are a looooot of different adaptations for every taste i guess ! anyway have fun and take care of y'all during barricades days !

[autumnalmess]

Something SO cunty about the stage productions of lm where the barricade is on the revolve and turn it 180⁰ to reveal Enjolras hanging upside down. 10/10 would recommend to a friend

Like I know it's devastating but it serves SO HARD

[lustandrot]

"I --------- ugh..."

Credit: to the original artist, I believe I found it on DA.

[quoth-the-goblin-nevermore]

I have more. I’m sorry for being permanently stuck in 2014, but it’s just how it is.

[algumaideia]

How would Javert react if the constitution changed. Because in one hand if the constitution was a person he would be pleading to suck its dick but on the other hand he believes all laws are perfect and correct and right so I imagine he would not like to see a change

[paloma-ascends-into-hellfire]

in the instrument storage room after band: IT'S A STRUGGLE, ITS A WAR, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT ANYONE'S GIVING-