Discovering Les Miserables Through Artwork and Places

As seen through the various artwork in Paris, the art based in the 18th century is heavily influenced by The French Revolution and the growing radicalism and change being established by the French people. Two of the places I noticed this trend in particular were at Petit Palais and The Louvre. While I was gazing at the artwork, I noticed many distinct connections between the characterization of the French Revolution in the art and in Les Miserables.

Throughout this time of revolution, the French citizens radically altered their political landscape, uprooting centuries-old institutions such as the monarchy and the feudal system. This is what Hugo was describing in his vivid depiction of the French people’s lifestyle including their clothing, physical features, as well as emotions in Les Miserables. One example of this is a painting in Petit Palais by Marie Bracquemond in 1880 which resembles an adult Cosette to me. She is dressed prim and proper with the iconic frills as depicted by French impressionist artist Bracquemond. Coming from the name itself of impressionism, Bracquemond produced such fine work to clearly show what a woman of a higher class might look like. The representation of such people was more likely during the revolutionary time because there was such polarization between the rich and poor.

Historically speaking, the French Revolution started as a way to change the relationship between rulers (rich) and citizens (poor) in an effort to redistribute who was given power and how power was distributed amongst the people. Slowly this developed into the French people against the higher ups which is shown undoubtedly in what is known as the main revolutionary painting in The Louvre, or more officially “Liberty Leading the People”. It is clearly shown in the painting that people of all social classes were fighting for their right to power and to live a life in France. This stuck out when viewing both “Liberty Leading the People” as well as Victor Schnetz’s painting in 1787 at Petit Palais. Both have evidence of strokes of red paint on the men that represent the blood of both the angry men and the fight against the rulers. Additionally, many of the ceilings in the Napolean suites of the Louvre are built similarly to Versailles which gave me a clear image of what it would be like to live lavishly like the rich French people during the revolutionary times. This helped me understand how unfair it was for the poor people who were given little to nothing for their livelihood. Another parallel between these two paintings are that there is a person who appears to be of a lower societal status that is holding the French flag in both paintings; the difference, however, is that in Victor Schnetz’s painting a French man of a higher social class is holding a man of lower status that is bleeding. The blood represents the poor people who have to fight for their lives to be able to survive against the harsh treatment from the rich.

The child standing next to the man holding the flag reminds me of Gavroche. Directly translated from French, Gavroche means “street urchin” which in fact is what the character Gavroche is. He fights along for his freedom as none other than a poor person, a street urchin. Furthermore, the fact that there is a child in the painting could also represent not only Gavroche, but also a hope for the future generations of French children. There is a child in "Liberty Leading the People" as well that is brandishing two guns. Showing two different instances of a child fighting for the revolution in the artwork represents how the revolution is fighting for the next generation. I also found that the symbolism of a young boy fighting alongside the people could be to show the righteous nature of the cause. If a child is influenced enough to take action, the reason must be true and just. There is no clear explanation as to why a young boy seems to be present in these revolutionary painting and Les Miserables, but the representation of Gavroche shows us how children may have tied into the revolution.

Another example of this hope that was so unmistakably shown in the paintings is in Les Miserables itself with Valjean. Myriel rescues Valjean from the prison and essentially gives him a clean slate which he would have never expected. He is given hope for a new future full of love and free from the suffering and injustice he was subject to at the hands of the French upper class. Through these various examples, Hugo and the other artists are able to give us a clear view of what it was like for the people during this chaotic time of revolution, change, and growth. We can see the horror and pride on the faces of the people in the painting. Along with this, in the book, we are able to see the character development in Les Miserables with their stories of hope for the future. This was a fight for the people, for their independence.

One of the other places I found quite fascinating that reminded me of Les Miserables was The Garden of Luxembourg. These Gardens are known for their architecture including beautiful fountains, promenades, sculptures, etc. In Les Miserables, this was where Marius and Cosette met which was really amazing to be able to experience. It felt as thought I was a part of the story and was able to put myself in their shoes.

Another place was the Place de la Bastille prison. Being able to see the prison in its present state was surreal because that was a real prison used during the revolution. Revolutionary prisons and their turmoil were prevalent in both Les Miserables and A Tale of Two Cities. I could imagine how Charles Darnay and Jean Valjean may have felt being locked up in their respective times.

Overall I would say that there are little tokens of Les Miserables sprinkled throughout Paris that I was able to see. It is clear that this was a fight for the people which was accurately depicted in Les Miserables, although it is a fictional story. The examples and descriptions are authentic and being able to see that connection to real life gave me a new perspective that I will cherish as I reflect on this experience.

The Sewers and Their Waste

Going through the sewers, my senses were bombarded with repugnant smells one would expect from society’s wastes. As we walked around, all I could think about was how Jean Valjean could go through this. In Les Mis, the sewers were a safe haven for crime and all the vices of humanity, and to go through them as Jean Valjean is to see what we as society don’t want to show. For Valjean, it was where criminals would thrive; an area where they could commit all the crimes they desired away from humanity’s gaze, free from judgment or repercussion. To go through the sewers as he did, is to see an aspect of humans that we try to hide. Just like we try to hide our sewage due to its unappealing smell and sight, Parisiens would hide their true nature in the sewers.

Just as Hugo describes it as the physical representation of humankind's vices in Les Mis, the meaning behind his experience stuck with me with every step I took. I could truly never have gone through what he did, because the smell alone was more than enough to keep me away, and that wasn’t even close to what Valjean had to experience while trekking through the sewers. Despite my dislike of the sewers, I thought of Victor Hugo’s beliefs on how we as a society waste the use of sewers. Even in our time, the sewage we throw away has no more of a use than Hugo’s time. Even though it may no longer be a breeding ground for crime, it’s still just another physical representation of how society hides away the less appealing aspects of humanity instead of finding a better use for it.

In the face of climate change and a growing population with food shortages becoming more widespread, we still just toss away our sewage as a useless resource instead of being more productive with it, like using it as a form of fertilizer. It shows that even today, that we as a civilization have not grown enough to develop societal object permanence, instead adopting an out of sight out of mind policy regarding all the unappealing problems we have, leaving it for another day.

The sewers alone aren’t the only way we do this too. We create massive landfills to hold all of our trash until it eventually washes up on our shores and inside our wildlife, and yet we still ignore it. People don’t show concern until the problem is up in their face; until the food we eat is more plastic than anything else. Going through the sewers, I didn’t have a choice to ignore it. There wasn’t a way to get rid of the smell. It was surrounding me, and it was all I could think about. It showed me that we as a society need to learn how to be more useful about our resources, and that we need to develop better strategies of handling our problems than simply putting them out of sight. Just as the French did in Les Mis with their crime and their sewage, we today still choose to ignore our problems until it’s right in front of us. Even though I may not have been directly in the sewage like Jean Valjean, I felt as if I understood him and Victor Hugo better. To have to go to humanity’s underworld is to see an aspect of us that we choose to hide away from, yet to stare at it directly is to understand where we need to grow and develop.

Versailles: The Opulence of Inequality

Even though I didn’t have the opportunity to visit Versailles, I still made sure to learn as much about it as I could through documentaries and photos. The opulence of the palace was astounding, and all I could think about was the beauty it held. The luxury of the gardens and golden rooms speak to the amount of wealth the French royalty held. After seeing Versailles, I was left with one main thought sitting at the forefront of my mind. My first impressions of the palace were luxury, wealth, and beauty, yet at its core was a darker representation of inequality. Today, we see the palace as a museum, a monument to what humanity can create, and a symbol of French influence.

To the French during the time of Les Miserables and a Tale of Two Cities, the luxury of Versailles was a slap in the face to the poor in France. The first look at Versailles left me in complete awe. Even the mender of roads in a Tale of Two Cities who was angered by the aristocracy gazed upon the palace and saw the palace's undeniable magnificence. He even cried out to praise the king, even though all of his misfortune was a result of the king. I can definitely empathize with feeling a godly presence upon viewing the chateau, but for him, the palace wasn’t just a museum, it was a symbol of all the wealth the French monarchy held while people were starving on the streets. In Les Miserables, Versailles stood as a message to the commoners everywhere. It spelled out in bright gold letters: ‘We are better than you.’ It stood as a monument to all that was wrong in France at the time. You had people struggling to find food, dying on the streets, while French nobles dined luxuriously in Versailles with the problems of their country far out of sight. This is what eventually led to the revolution as the people revolted against this unfair treatment and inequality.

Even today, our wealthy may not live in golden palaces, but they still build massive estates as monuments to their wealth. The walls they built still stand today in the form of gated communities and fences with the same intent of keeping the poor and society’s problems out of their sight. People still die every day from wealth inequality and lack of access to food, problems that we could solve but still choose to ignore and keep out of our minds. Even in Los Angeles, we have communities and roads filled with tents housing the homeless that are suffering from inequality, just as the French did in Les Miserables. It shows a lot how we as a society choose to revere the palaces built by the wealthy and treat them as monuments to culture instead of seeing how they represent the issues deeply ingrained into our lives.

The French Lifestyle: living and appreciating(without AC)

Alors! We are in the city of love for this blog although I’m not quite sure if I’m feeling love in the air or if it’s just the lack of AC. In fact, Paris’s infrastructure in general seems to lack most modern conveniences like elevators and hot water. Not that I’m complaining, I did just live in USC dorms for a year. I think that this aspect of Parisian lifestyle intrigues me because its not just the apartments, but the city itself that feels like it missed the last century. Yellow limestone buildings with black rounded roofs seem to line every inch of this city. Modern buildings and those of before the 19th century are harder to find in the central areas.

In my isolation I looked out onto the view of a city that lacks much modern infrastructure, yet doesn’t feel old fashioned at all. In contrast to London, which did feel like it was paying homage to the past, Paris gives the effortless feeling of being “in fashion” regardless of what century it is. The people are dressed in pleasing aesthetics from head to toe with each accessory adding to the ensemble. They walk at casual paces, eat for hours, and go through life as if they are taking in every moment and savoring it. Part of the magic of visiting Paris is understanding this feeling and being able to “flâneur” through the streets. More than anything, it seems hat French people do not work or at least do not work in public. Every person seems focused on their leisure activity of choice, be it reading or biking. Cafe’s are places to sit back and have a cup of coffee with some nice conversation rather than a place to use your phone or focus on work.

I have found this to be a more relaxed way of living. Often in the US and other parts of the anglo-saxon world, we are immersed in a society that values work and productivity over enjoyment. Spending time not being productive is instead sometimes seen as a waste and the value of it is truly lost on many Americans. Things don’t need to be the most efficient or convenient. AC is not a comfort that Parisians need because they find happiness with the current state of things.

The enlightenment and its idea that every person has value was propagated during the French Revolution. It is interesting to compare what the French were fighting for in comparison to what Americans fought for. While the “no taxation without representation” model was heavily based on property and money in America, France wanted rights to allow every person to enjoy life. Yes, the constitution does grant rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it feels like these rights are saved for those who work or have money/property. The lack of strong capitalistic influence in Paris furthers the representation of its values. Most restaurants and bakeries remain owned by citizens mastering their craft. They do not have the abundance of fast food and chains on every corner that eventually put family-owned spots out of business.

Moreover, the French find British and American societies to lack culture because we do not focus as much on the finer things in life or the simple pleasures. Unlike New York, where it feels like most things to do are centered around spending money, Paris’s beautiful streets are a joy to walk on their own. Sitting in a park, picnicking, and just strolling represent the true Parisian lifestyle. Edmund White explored this idea in his excerpt “The Flâneur”. In London, I was planning out things to do for every second I had of free time. I was finding myself maintaining a schedule and trying to fit as many things as possible into my day. In Paris, I started out wanting to achieve this, but it just became exhausting. My Anglo-Saxon tendencies didn’t fit the casual vibe within the city. As I spend more time here, I am adjusting to really enjoying the moments and soaking in all of the wonderment around me as my main method of tourism.

France operates on a more socialistic system today where people use their liberties to progress their society. It feels like the people in France are all part of one identity, whereas Americans seem more focused on individual economic liberty. Fighting for liberty was the center of Les Miserables, and the giving nature of Jean Valjean is something that shows the ideals that were respected or made to be respected in French society. It is apparent that the French have worked together to create a political system in which living is valued over working and many people are able to enjoy life. The right to live and flâneur about is something that is very valued by French society though it may be seen as a “waste of time” by someone of a more Anglo-Saxon mindset.

There were several gardens and open spaces in which I found French people to be relaxing and enjoying their time. They were enjoying each other’s company, snacking, or reading a book. It was impossible to find anyone on their phone or trying to complete work. This was especially true in the Luxembourg gardens, where Cosette and Marius met for the first time. As I walked there, I caught glances with other strangers flaneuring about, but unlike Marius and Cosette, I did not find any true love. The location shown for their connection felt rather magical though, and I could picture how one would find the love of their life in those gardens.

Overall, I have learned from my strolls in Paris to take in the beauty of the world and particularly the French architecture. Rather than be disappointed by the absence of certain modern luxuries, I am delighted to adapt into the French mindset and just appreciate that which exists.

Relating Dickens World to Ours

Dickens is well-known for his lengthy descriptions and ability to evoke a “vibe” within all of his scenes. Also, as a reader, I feel that there is always the input of one’s personal imagination when it comes to world building. The combination of Dickens description and my own image culminated into something that was somewhat .. different from the London we saw. I feel like since so much of London has been changed, modernized, and diversified, it was hard to picture exactly what Dickens was describing by just seeing the places.

For example, I imagined Tellson’s Bank would be a small space in the second story of a building rather than in the arch that we found. This was not a bad thing as I felt I was further understanding Dicken's description after seeing it in person. I loved seeing Soho Square but I felt the Manettes were a little distant without seeing the inside of their house which was what felt more accessible to me as a setting when I was reading the book.

BUT

There were exceptions. The places that stuck out to me most in correlation to the novel were those that felt the most unchanged or unaffected.

Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese was one of these places. As I sat there I felt exactly what it would have been like when Charles Darnay was sitting there with Carton discussing the meaning of their lives. I also in turn felt the presence of Dickens and how he would have frequented the place. The older wooden structures and the gold printed manuscript with the name of the pub written all transported me to the time of the novel or of Dickens. I could imagine sitting there at night talking with friends about personal turmoils with just the candlelight to see. I understood why that was where Dickens had chosen to take Darnay after he was acquitted and how it represented that 18th century feeling.

Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese

Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese was one of these places. As I sat there I felt exactly what it would have been like when Charles Darnay was sitting there with Carton discussing the meaning of their lives. I also in turn felt the presence of Dickens and how he would have frequented the place. The older wooden structures and the gold printed manuscript with the name of the pub written all transported me to the time of the novel or of Dickens. I could imagine sitting there at night talking with friends about personal turmoils with just the candlelight to see. I understood why that was where Dickens had chosen to take Darnay after he was acquitted and how it represented that 18th century feeling.

The other places that I felt most connected to the characters in the novel was the house that showed rooms from the 18th and 19th century as if the family had just left. This experience was wildly gratifying and solidified the homespaces that I was imagining. Also, the type of imagination that we were required to use in this place felt very similar to the kind we should be using for bookpacking in general. Seeing things as they are and imagining that the characters or Dickens were just there. I really appreciated how each room was littered with smells and dishes and paintings that would have found their way into these people’s homes. One of the rooms even felt like Lucie could have decorated it. (Disclaimer: these pictures were found on the internet for the interior, I did not take pictures inside)

The images in the iPad that were shown to us in each specific place gave me a better way to relate my reading. In nearly every spot, we were shown an image or drawing of what the place had looked like before. I found the drawings to pull out the scenery from the novel better than the live scenery around us.

Dickens himself was someone that we were trying to pin down the presence of while in London. Visiting his house gave us this feeling since we saw his writing and where he used to live and work. I enjoyed seeing that he actually owned Hogarth’s drawings and looking through his various items. Another place that I felt a connection to dickens was the bookstore with the first edition Dickens novels. Seeing A Tale of Two Cities in the first edition displayed the time that the book was written with its leather binding and yellowed pages. I found that these excursions gave me a good sense of who Dickens was.

The challenge of Bookpacking is finding how to take the imaginary world that you have created with the writer and connecting it to the actual city around you. It was definitely more of a challenge at the beginning, but I have found my way into not solidifying the fictional world until I’ve seen the real life representation. Seeing these places in person has definitely supplemented my imagination and given me a more accurate portrayal of everything Dickens was describing.

Storytelling Through Architecture

A Diverse Arrangement

In exploring London, I found that there were a large variety of buildings and architecture styles. There are gothic churches, Victorian arcades, and hypermodern skyscrapers. The buildings date from the 17th century to today and yet each one adds to a unified expression: Britishness. The careful detailing of each doorway and rooftop is something to be marveled at. The city seems to tell a story and Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities fits right into it. “It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.” These famous words can be applied to any era yet they particularly fit the three settings we are presented with. By looking at London in three stages, the story unfolds.

A main theme of the story is Britishness and how it has developed into the modern age. Dickens describes his interpretation of Britishness through his first few chapters and characters like Ms. Pross. It is surrounded by an air of old-fashionedness, poshness, exclusivity, and arrogance. I felt that this was heavily displayed by all of the ornate and fancy architecture in London.

Georgian Age - Setting of the Novel - 1775 to 1793

We explored first the main gothic architectures that remained in London. Stained glass, pointed arches, and flying butresses were featured in buildings like Westminster Abbey. The lengthy amount of time that it took to build this church and its prestigious style that almost demand you stare at it in awe were of a very British Nature. This style of architecture came from before the time period, but was still something revered in Britain. This is apparent since the abbey had been rebuilt many times since its construction in 1267 and maintained the style. 

St. Pauls Cathedral was an example of more baroque structure that still was quite beautiful and grand. 

If we look at the history of the times in which this architecture was built, it is primarily represented by the monarchy and feudalistic society. The money for these detailed structures came from the wealthiest on the feudalistic stack and often those at the bottom were exploited for their work. The Legend of Robin Hood was of this time because it was considered very valuable to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Yet things must have been well enough, because there was no revolt during this time. The first instance of “revolution” in Britain came with Charles I who was then excecuted and the power shifted to the parliament. Continuing on the revolts were subdued as the power did not lie with the monarchy. 

Victorian Age - Dickens Setting - 1837 to 1901 (1859)

From the 18th century to the later parts of the 19th century, Gothic architecture was still high in demand. This period was known as Gothic revival since the time period had passed yet the style was maintained. This exemplifies the old-fashionedness and desire for the more expensive, intricate things that makes up the British culture. The Tower Bridge and Royal Courts of Justice were great examples of how the British wanted to mimic the old style rather than move into a modern age. 

The newer style that emerged within this era was the Victorian style. I is exemplified by the iron railings, ornate gables, and use of different shapes. This style is still rather extravagant and it was featured in several of the arcades we walked through. Several parts of London still have the Victorian age buildings which mesh well with the city. 

The beginning of this era was marked by the industrial revolution which allowed things to be developed much quicker in factories. I found the newer Victorian architecture to be not quite as intricate or time-intensive as the Gothic while still maintaining a sense of grandeur.

Modern Age - Our Current Setting - 2022

Modern architecture in London was just so unique. I’ve been to many big cities and seen my fair share of skyscrapers but each modern building in London was unlike anything I’d seen before. That is the point. It is how they continue the Britishness into the modern age. We find the buildings to be so spectacular even if it’s in an odd way that they do entrap our attention. They cannot be normal tall buildings, but rather should be artistic, different, refined, and therefore British. And even so, there are definitely those that reject the new age and prefer the old-fashioned Victorian and Gothic styles.

The developments from the Victorian age to the present have been vast. England now functions democratically and the monarchy has no real say in the government. The working class and women have the right to vote and a large variety of culture has flooded London. I feel like the shift into the glass buildings that populate the city today contrasted with how ornate things used to be shows through architecture just how much the society has progressed. Not to sound Whigish, as I know there is still work to be done and changes to be made.

Yet I do feel that all three of these eras combine together in an ensemble that fully encompasses London with all of its history and puts it on display to be seen. Walking around and seeing the little blue signs that revealed what a building or area used to be or who used to live there gave me a way to look into the past. I could see the square that Charles Dickens walked in, the crampedness of Tellson’s bank or Darnay being held on trial. And though much of it has changed and is constantly developing, I know that it will maintain its roots because of its Britishness which is something I have come to admire. The old-fashionedness gives a respect to the past of the city and keeps it alive. The arrogance and grandeur have made every building into a spectacle. London has become a city that represents its nation through the ages, with its scars, and ultimately symbolizes British culture.