And now we're up to Book III: Halmalo! Chapter 1.3.1, "La parole, c'est le Verbe," aka "Speech is the 'Word'," or... "The Persuasive Power of Human Speech," apparently. Well, that's a translation choice, A.L. Brut Publishers.
(Okay, I've only read this once and I don't have my copy to hand, so no close reading of sentences at the moment.)
My translation has a footnote from the title saying something like "Readers familiar with the New Testament will of course understand the meaning of this." It's so helpful and yet completely non-explanatory that it makes me crack up. I assume this is referring to "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was God, and the word was God," from John 1:1. But, uh, I'm not entirely sure how that relates to this chapter.
As for this chapter: WELL. People were talking about the paucity of inspiring speeches! This is a rhetorical and persuasive tour de force here. I salute the fake peasant's cool.
I'm curious, though, whether he actually believes what he's saying. I'm not saying he can't, but it is so very targetedly persuasive that I wonder. Presumably he believes some of it, since he's fighting on this side, but -- is he just speaking the truth as he sees it, and trusting that Halmalo will be persuaded (or that it's in God's hands)? Or is he assessing Halmalo and calculating that this is the most effective tack to take, in a more cynical way? It's hard to tell.
A lot of what he says is, of course, fairly reasonable -- yes, though I'm fond of the gunner, a lot of what happened here is solely due to his initial negligence. (Personally I feel it would've been more useful on a number of fronts to tell the gunner he's got a stay of execution since they're about to all die in hopeless battle anyway, and then they'd've had one extra gunner and a bit of goodwill, but oh well.) And this is sort of a crowning moment of cool charisma in the face of danger for the fake peasant. At the same time, of course it rubs me the wrong way that the "YOU KILLED MY BROTHER, HERE IS A CONSEQUENCE FOR THAT" moment has been transmuted into the gunner begging the lord's pardon and promising to atone with faithful service. I'll be interested to see where it goes from here, and I hope it's not all faithful service all the way down the line.
(Side note: when Halmalo named his lord, I really expected the fake peasant to reveal that he was in fact that guy. I'm not convinced he won't yet turn out to be him.)
I think it's both sincere and manipulative, because the way he asked questions of Halmalo--do you believe in God? Do you have a lord?--seemed a lot like deliberately looking for a chink in the armor. Same with the reference to how his brother had a priest. It comes off as very calculated to me.
It came off as calculated to me, too, but I can see room for both. Like, obviously there's some element of calculation, but my question is, how cynically Machiavellian is it? Versus a tactical application of something he sees as true. I don't know the guy well enough yet to say how I'm supposed to perceive him -- does Hugo want us to see him as calculated and manipulative, or does Hugo want us to see him as virtue carried to vice or virtue in service of evil ends?
Some of the rhetorical beats reminded me of various Les Mis characters and barricade speeches, but of course everyone at the barricade would find this guy repugnant, and in many ways so do I. It's an interesting tension for me as a reader who appreciates this kind of scene of cool-headed charismatic competence but is also rather rooting for Halmalo. (Including in ways Halmalo isn't necessarily rooting for himself -- you're absolutely right that his ideology requires his own self-abnegation, both as a sailor in a strict chain of command and more fundamentally as a feudalist peasant in a royalist military.)
I might not agree with Hugo either way about how he wants us to view the fake peasant, of course, but I'm kind of sitting back to steeple my fingers and see how things unfold.
Oh, I definitely think it's a tactical application of something he sees as true, and virtue in service of evil ends. All of that cool-headed charismatic competence, including giving righteous speeches in the face of death, is something Hugo tends to give to either his heroes or his Noble Villains. This guy is not a hero, I think that's obvious, so I'm betting on Noble Villain. I would be very surprised if he was cynically Machiavellian. But I guess we'll see!
There's a Chekov's gun that I'll be shocked if it remains unfired.
Also, we discover that white-haired probably-not-a-peasant dude's primary self-defense method is WALL OF TEXT speeches. If he's not actually Valjean I bet he's a relative.
I dunno though, I feel like so far this book has a lot more in common with other late 19th century adventure novels than I was expecting after Les Mis, and not in a good way. I really don't buy that the gunner's brother is going to change his mind about revenge just like that - except that the narrative needs him to, in order to prove not-a-peasant's awesomeness. I was really expecting something more interesting than Blatant Authorial Manipulation after that cliffhanger.
Also I am playing with the "La parole, c'est la Verbe" thingy 'cause I suspect that, as usual, it has Layers.
So far I've got a Google books result about the way the choice of Verbe or Parole to mean the Word of God was a Catholic vs. Protestant thing during the reformation and counter-reformation, but idk if that would've still been relevant in Hugo's day.
("Parole" does not apparently have the meaning about a released prisoner - Valjean is "un forçat libéré", a released prisoner, not a convict on parole - so there's no pun about dude getting a repreive, alas.)
(The word is the verb? Or the word is the Word, i.e. Word of God? I *think* the second one is the right meaning, because WordReference informs me that 'verbe' can sometimes mean the capital-W Word but doesn't say the same of 'parole.' Also because Halmalo says that the horrible jackass of a faux-peasant speaks like God.)
Anyway, I'm digressing here about nitpicky translation stuff because this chapter is deeply upsetting on every possible level. Halmalo is a committed religious feudalist whose ideology requires his own self-abnegation. And so no matter how sympathetic his desire to avenge his brother is, rooting for him is a recipe for disappointment because he's too susceptible to the manipulations of the Faux-Peasant. He's too susceptible to the hierarchical view of duty that always stacks the deck against the servant rather than the master, too susceptible to the idea that obeying your overlord is obeying God. The Faux-Peasant pretends like he's enforcing a 'fair,' if rigid, notion of duty, but it's nothing of the sort. He blames Halmalo's brother for not only the failure of the mission, but the failure of the counterrevolution! And says that Halmalo himself will be responsible for the failure of the counterrevolution and making the Baby Jesus cry (no, really, literally making the Baby Jesus cry) if he kills the Faux-Peasant. It's ALL HALMALO'S FAULT, you guys. It has nothing to do with the military strategy of the people who actually had power, let alone their pre-revolutionary conduct. Everything is Halmalo's fault!
Halmalo ends by begging the guy's pardon, and I want to throw up.
Haha about those title translations! So the original is “La parole c’est le verbe,” parole being speech and verbe being “the Word” (Wikisource translation gives the scare quotes). I like the evocation of the Gospel, and also the connotations of power. (I was going to link to Schoolhouse Rock’s “Verb” movie, but apparently I confused “Verb: That’s What’s Happening” with the PSA campaign for fitness “Verb: It’s What You Do.” Oh well, you know where to find Schoolhouse Rock if you need to.)
"Persuasive" seems kind of a letdown in translation, but oh well. This chapter’s Word has less to do with creation or incarnation, but indeed, more of one character trying to persuade another. Also, I guess the French "parole" isn’t that closely related to ours anymore, but the chapter does end with a declaration of forgiveness, so there’s that. "Prepare."
"For what?"
"To die."
—“My name is Halmalo, you killed my brother, but hey at least we finally get a namedrop.”
"That is true. You saved him first and then killed him." The symbolic honor doesn’t really play into it anymore, even though the reward and the execution seem more closely linked. Does the time lag between saving his life and having them killed matter, or are they independent events?
The boat, no longer guided by the oarsman, was drifting to leeward.
The sailor drew one of the pistols out of his belt with his right hand and took his rosary in his left.
Even if he did go through with killing the guy, eventually Halmalo is going to need to start steering the boat? He sort of needs a plan beyond the short term, but he’s really obsessed with getting revenge right at this moment.
"It is true," muttered the sailor. "They have the chaplain."
Whose competence really doesn’t impress me, overall. I know I’m harping on this but, eh, maybe it’s a contrast to the republicans, who wouldn’t necessarily have an associated chaplain with them?”
"the king of France, who is a child like the child Jesus, and who is imprisoned in the fortress of the Temple;" <- For my own reference: Louis XVII, nominal king, aged 7.
"Ah! you judge the means God chooses! Are you going to take it on yourself to judge the thunderbolt which is in heaven?" Questions of ends and means. Last chapter, the republican navy was equated to thunderbolts—now the old man thinks that he’s the one doing God’s work.
"While the old man, standing all the while, uttered these words in a voice above the noise of the sea," Maybe this actually is a creation allusion to? God’s spirit moves over the voice of the deep? Eh, I find it hard to see anything being created here—just the old man talking himself out of being killed. Which, to be fair, he succeeds.
Also, I think he’s the “old man” every time he’s mentioned here.
Edit: two things. 1. there’s already talk about the divided loyalties of Halmalo, between avenging his family and being merciful. Here, it’s framed not only in spiritual terms (“do this to spare your soul, and mine while you’re at it”) but also political ones. (“Sure, your blood family is important to you, but you know what’s really important? The legitimate government of France. D:<” When the old man’s life is in a stranger’s hands, this is the rhetoric it comes down to. Maybe for Halmalo, the religious aspects trump them all? Maybe there’s some other criterion.)
2. While looking up Louis XVII on Wikipedia, I learned that some people recognize a “Louis XIX” also. In particular, we have this excellent table.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-05-02 02:05 pm (UTC)My translation has a footnote from the title saying something like "Readers familiar with the New Testament will of course understand the meaning of this." It's so helpful and yet completely non-explanatory that it makes me crack up. I assume this is referring to "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was God, and the word was God," from John 1:1. But, uh, I'm not entirely sure how that relates to this chapter.
As for this chapter: WELL. People were talking about the paucity of inspiring speeches! This is a rhetorical and persuasive tour de force here. I salute the fake peasant's cool.
I'm curious, though, whether he actually believes what he's saying. I'm not saying he can't, but it is so very targetedly persuasive that I wonder. Presumably he believes some of it, since he's fighting on this side, but -- is he just speaking the truth as he sees it, and trusting that Halmalo will be persuaded (or that it's in God's hands)? Or is he assessing Halmalo and calculating that this is the most effective tack to take, in a more cynical way? It's hard to tell.
A lot of what he says is, of course, fairly reasonable -- yes, though I'm fond of the gunner, a lot of what happened here is solely due to his initial negligence. (Personally I feel it would've been more useful on a number of fronts to tell the gunner he's got a stay of execution since they're about to all die in hopeless battle anyway, and then they'd've had one extra gunner and a bit of goodwill, but oh well.) And this is sort of a crowning moment of cool charisma in the face of danger for the fake peasant. At the same time, of course it rubs me the wrong way that the "YOU KILLED MY BROTHER, HERE IS A CONSEQUENCE FOR THAT" moment has been transmuted into the gunner begging the lord's pardon and promising to atone with faithful service. I'll be interested to see where it goes from here, and I hope it's not all faithful service all the way down the line.
(Side note: when Halmalo named his lord, I really expected the fake peasant to reveal that he was in fact that guy. I'm not convinced he won't yet turn out to be him.)
no subject
Date: 2014-05-02 02:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-05-02 03:25 pm (UTC)Some of the rhetorical beats reminded me of various Les Mis characters and barricade speeches, but of course everyone at the barricade would find this guy repugnant, and in many ways so do I. It's an interesting tension for me as a reader who appreciates this kind of scene of cool-headed charismatic competence but is also rather rooting for Halmalo. (Including in ways Halmalo isn't necessarily rooting for himself -- you're absolutely right that his ideology requires his own self-abnegation, both as a sailor in a strict chain of command and more fundamentally as a feudalist peasant in a royalist military.)
I might not agree with Hugo either way about how he wants us to view the fake peasant, of course, but I'm kind of sitting back to steeple my fingers and see how things unfold.
no subject
Date: 2014-05-02 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-05-02 02:25 pm (UTC)There's a Chekov's gun that I'll be shocked if it remains unfired.
Also, we discover that white-haired probably-not-a-peasant dude's primary self-defense method is WALL OF TEXT speeches. If he's not actually Valjean I bet he's a relative.
I dunno though, I feel like so far this book has a lot more in common with other late 19th century adventure novels than I was expecting after Les Mis, and not in a good way. I really don't buy that the gunner's brother is going to change his mind about revenge just like that - except that the narrative needs him to, in order to prove not-a-peasant's awesomeness. I was really expecting something more interesting than Blatant Authorial Manipulation after that cliffhanger.
no subject
Date: 2014-05-02 02:57 pm (UTC)So far I've got a Google books result about the way the choice of Verbe or Parole to mean the Word of God was a Catholic vs. Protestant thing during the reformation and counter-reformation, but idk if that would've still been relevant in Hugo's day.
("Parole" does not apparently have the meaning about a released prisoner - Valjean is "un forçat libéré", a released prisoner, not a convict on parole - so there's no pun about dude getting a repreive, alas.)
1.3.1
Date: 2014-05-02 02:27 pm (UTC)Anyway, I'm digressing here about nitpicky translation stuff because this chapter is deeply upsetting on every possible level. Halmalo is a committed religious feudalist whose ideology requires his own self-abnegation. And so no matter how sympathetic his desire to avenge his brother is, rooting for him is a recipe for disappointment because he's too susceptible to the manipulations of the Faux-Peasant. He's too susceptible to the hierarchical view of duty that always stacks the deck against the servant rather than the master, too susceptible to the idea that obeying your overlord is obeying God. The Faux-Peasant pretends like he's enforcing a 'fair,' if rigid, notion of duty, but it's nothing of the sort. He blames Halmalo's brother for not only the failure of the mission, but the failure of the counterrevolution! And says that Halmalo himself will be responsible for the failure of the counterrevolution and making the Baby Jesus cry (no, really, literally making the Baby Jesus cry) if he kills the Faux-Peasant. It's ALL HALMALO'S FAULT, you guys. It has nothing to do with the military strategy of the people who actually had power, let alone their pre-revolutionary conduct. Everything is Halmalo's fault!
Halmalo ends by begging the guy's pardon, and I want to throw up.
no subject
Date: 2014-05-02 03:26 pm (UTC)"Persuasive" seems kind of a letdown in translation, but oh well. This chapter’s Word has less to do with creation or incarnation, but indeed, more of one character trying to persuade another. Also, I guess the French "parole" isn’t that closely related to ours anymore, but the chapter does end with a declaration of forgiveness, so there’s that.
"Prepare."
"For what?"
"To die."
—“My name is Halmalo, you killed my brother, but hey at least we finally get a namedrop.”
"That is true. You saved him first and then killed him." The symbolic honor doesn’t really play into it anymore, even though the reward and the execution seem more closely linked. Does the time lag between saving his life and having them killed matter, or are they independent events?
The boat, no longer guided by the oarsman, was drifting to leeward.
The sailor drew one of the pistols out of his belt with his right hand and took his rosary in his left.
Even if he did go through with killing the guy, eventually Halmalo is going to need to start steering the boat? He sort of needs a plan beyond the short term, but he’s really obsessed with getting revenge right at this moment.
"It is true," muttered the sailor. "They have the chaplain."
Whose competence really doesn’t impress me, overall. I know I’m harping on this but, eh, maybe it’s a contrast to the republicans, who wouldn’t necessarily have an associated chaplain with them?”
"the king of France, who is a child like the child Jesus, and who is imprisoned in the fortress of the Temple;" <- For my own reference: Louis XVII, nominal king, aged 7.
"Ah! you judge the means God chooses! Are you going to take it on yourself to judge the thunderbolt which is in heaven?" Questions of ends and means. Last chapter, the republican navy was equated to thunderbolts—now the old man thinks that he’s the one doing God’s work.
"While the old man, standing all the while, uttered these words in a voice above the noise of the sea," Maybe this actually is a creation allusion to? God’s spirit moves over the voice of the deep? Eh, I find it hard to see anything being created here—just the old man talking himself out of being killed. Which, to be fair, he succeeds.
Also, I think he’s the “old man” every time he’s mentioned here.
Edit: two things. 1. there’s already talk about the divided loyalties of Halmalo, between avenging his family and being merciful. Here, it’s framed not only in spiritual terms (“do this to spare your soul, and mine while you’re at it”) but also political ones. (“Sure, your blood family is important to you, but you know what’s really important? The legitimate government of France. D:<” When the old man’s life is in a stranger’s hands, this is the rhetoric it comes down to. Maybe for Halmalo, the religious aspects trump them all? Maybe there’s some other criterion.)
2. While looking up Louis XVII on Wikipedia, I learned that some people recognize a “Louis XIX” also. In particular, we have this excellent table.