In the third part of Les Misérables, Victor Hugo describes the street-urchin of 19th century Paris in a sweeping, comic-philosophical style that Henry Miller must have admired, leaping from one pithy aphorism to the next to give us a portrait of the type:
“[The street-urchin of Paris] has bad teeth because he is underfed, and fine eyes because he has sharp wits.”
“He fights with both hands and feet.”
“He has two consuming ambitions, never achieved: to overthrow the government and to get his trousers mended.”
And so on. And it might seem for a moment that Hugo is romanticising poverty here, turning child poverty into something that makes its victims heroic and adds colour to the tapestry of life. But then Hugo strikes home with the line:
“In a word, [the street-urchin] amuses himself because he is unhappy.”
And from this point the tone shifts. Hugo writes about “light” and the importance of shedding it upon poverty. The implication seems to be: if only enough light can be shed upon the situation then the mass of people will see how bad their situation really is and some kind of revolution will be inevitable. Without this light, people will continue to suffer in the dark, perhaps believing their problems to be uniquely theirs and unaware that their troubles belong not just to themselves but to humanity as a whole.
But if light leads to social change, and Hugo shed his light so well, why are there still people unhoused and underfed? I think the answer is that poverty looks different now. Many of the problems of the past have been solved, the street-urchin of this particular historical type can no longer be found in Paris, and so it’s easy to get the impression that poverty is behind us. And the irony is that we are now able to romanticise the poverty of the 19th century in our adaptations and re-readings of Hugo and Dickens, since the particular character of poverty in those books now belongs to another world.
But what Hugo is reminding us in these pages is the importance of shedding light on the problems of every generation; in other words, that the work is never done. Poverty still exists, and so art is still necessary. This is why those who want to dominate the poor by keeping them poor will so often do their utmost to crush the arts: they fear the light that art can shed and the new visions for humanity that arise from the dreams of philosophers.
(I’ve been reading Norman Denny’s translation of Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables.)
Lee Watkins 
Have you watched the film of Les Miserables or the musical, Lee? Do you think such versions can bring the issues you write about to a greater audience or do they themselves romanticise the themes and people just sing along?
I’ve noticed all this anniversary stuff of Live Aid – did it really change anything? African poverty is still very much with us. Are there just to many ‘poor’ to ever help them all?
LikeLike
I haven’t seen the film no, nor the musical! My first experience of Les Misérables is with the book. What do you think of the film and the musical?
I think the solution to the problem of global poverty is a political one and it involves stopping billionaires plundering the world’s resources. Higher taxes on the rich would be a great start I think.
What do you think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I preferred the film, even though you could argue can a book of length be properly fitted into one. The musical was dramatic but like so many these days is too much about the songs and the story can get lost or become indistinct. I haven’t read the book, to my shame, but I would imagine it is the best option. Maybe some people will attempt the book after seeing one or both of the others, some may not even have realised there was a book of the story – true of many who go to see musicals and films based on Greek myths for example -so it may bring that into their vision.
Taxing the rich tends to make them leave the country as we are seeing here after Labour’s win. Every country would have to do it, and one is bound to not so they can attract the rich guys! I fear most/all countries are run by the powerful, you see that with how slow govts are to pressure social media businesses, water companies, etc. Google and others can just say, ‘Okay, we’re pulling out our investments, etc and bang go your legitimate taxes from us’.
Human nature, sadly. Maybe if every country was governed by a benevolent dictatorship you might improve things, but would you want that kind of control?
LikeLike
Personally I believe in democracy and socialism! I’m not sure I understand why you think dictatorship would help… As for higher taxes leading to the rich fleeing the country: there are lots of countries that tax the rich more than the UK does and still manage to encourage investment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’d need a dictatorship to ensure all followed the fairer distribution of wealth. A democracy might allow a party financed by the wealthy to win an election and so undermine your ‘Golden Age’. Only my thoughts here, of course. Thanks for replying.
LikeLike
Yeah I’m not convinced that a dictatorship is less corruptible than a democratic system! Surely the opposite is true? And I’m not really talking about a “Golden Age.” I’m just saying the UK, and probably quite a few other countries, should be a bit more like Denmark
LikeLiked by 1 person