As I intimated in my last blog, I was lucky enough to hitch a lift with a certain famous Doctor and time travel back to Guernsey in the year 1863. Once there I was able to track down and interview Victor Hugo. This week I present the second and final part of this interview.

 

Mr Hugo, may we now turn to one of your other major characters, Inspector Javert. What do you see as his role in your novel?

 Javert represents the system. He epitomises the rule of law. He not only works for the law, he is the law. He enforces it exactly as it is written, rigidly and without fear or favour.

 Thinking of him as a person, not just as a representative of the system, what do you see as his strengths?

 He is very dedicated; nothing will stop him from doing his duty as he sees it. He is also incorruptible. He would never take a bribe or anything of that kind. He is completely just.

 And his weaknesses?

 On the whole, his strengths are also his weaknesses because he takes them to excess. He will carry out his  duty without pity, regardless of the effect on other people or even on himself. He understands the legal concept of justice, but doesn’t understand the concept of mercy. For example, with Fantine. She has broken the law, so she will go to prison. He doesn’t allow himself to be effected by the fact that he may be condemning her child to death. He has no emotion, no kindness in him.

 His other big weakness is his lack of flexibility. For example, he does not believe it possible for a criminal to change for the better; to turn over a new leaf.

 You mean, in the way Jean Valjean was able to do?

 Yes indeed.

Mr Hugo, staying with Valjean for a moment. We have already established that he was not an innocent man who had been wrongly convicted. He was both a poacher and a thief. Neither was he a model prisoner; his sentence was increased several times because he kept attempting to escape.

 All true, but he underwent a total transformation after meeting the Bishop of Digne.

 But let’s look at this from the point of view of Javert. He knew Valjean’s history. He then discovered that upon his release Valjean immediately returned to his previous path by stealing first from the Bishop, then from a young child. Isn’t it understandable that Javert should think Valjean irredeemable?

 Yes. Yes, to a point I think you are correct. But Javert closed his mind to the very possibility of a habitual criminal being able to reform.

 And yet in the end, Javert did let Valjean go free. At what cost to himself?

 It destroyed him. The fact that Valjean, who he had hunted for many years, could spare his life was something he couldn’t come to terms with. But even worse was the fact that he, Javert, had been unable to bring himself to arrest Valjean.

 So you might say he was destroyed by his own humanity? By the fact he showed mercy?

 Yes. He couldn’t see past the fact that he had failed in his duty. For Javert, that was the worst possible thing he could do. He judged himself as harshly as he judged others.

 In many ways, I see Valjean and Javert as two sides of the same coin. Both born as outcasts from society – as ‘Les Misérables.’

 You’re correct. Valjean chose a life of crime, Javert chose to operate within the law. The big difference is that Valjean was able to change, to adapt to a new life. Javert was unable to do that because he was too inflexible.

 But Valjean was helped by the Bishop. Without that help, he would almost certainly have been doomed. I know Valjean helped Javert by sparing his life, but what Javert needed was spiritual help. That he didn’t get. Had he encountered a Bishop of Digne, could that have helped him to come to terms with his confusion?

 It wouldn’t have been easy for him to overcome a lifetime of unquestioning obedience to duty. But possibly. You appear very sympathetic to the character of Javert.

 Yes. You give very little about his background, but enough for us to know that from his birth – and because of his birth - he was doomed to be an outcast. More so than Valjean. He made the choice he had to make and he was never given any real help or guidance. You used him to represent the system, but I see him as the most tragic victim of that very system.

 You’re quite correct. People who operate within a system are often victims of that same system, but in a different way. I’m sure that is still true in the future from which you come.

 It is indeed. Mr Hugo, I can’t thank you enough for giving me so much of your time. In parting, I should like you to accept this gift. It’s a book called ‘Barricades’ and it is Javert’s journey, based upon the background you give and with quite a bit of what we call ‘poetic licence.’

 Oh. Well – thank you, my dear. ‘Poetic licence’ sounds a little worrying. Still, I’m sure I will enjoy reading it. Perhaps you will return in a few days time, and then I can tell you what I think.

 Thank you, Mr Hugo.

                                                   -----------------------

 

Sadly I only had the one trip in the TARDIS and was unable to return to the Guernsey of 1863, so I didn’t encounter Mr Hugo again and never learnt what he thought of ‘Barricades.’ On the whole, this may be a good thing.

I met a bloke called ‘the Doctor’ yesterday and he offered me a ride in something called TARDIS. It looked like an old police box to me, but next thing I knew I found myself in Guernsey, 150 years ago in 1863. The first thing I saw was a newspaper headline extolling the virtues of a novel called ‘Les Misérables’ – the first part had been published the previous year, and now the whole novel was available.

 What a fantastic opportunity! I asked the good doctor to brew himself a cup of tea, while I sought an interview with Victor Hugo. Like most authors, he was more than happy to talk about his novel, and with the translating capabilities of the TARDIS, language wasn’t a problem.

First of all, Mr Hugo, may I say how much I enjoyed ‘Les Misérables’. It has been a real inspiration to me.

 Thank you, my dear.

 I understand that you are great campaigner for social justice?

 Indeed yes – that’s how I ended up living here in Guernsey. I was too outspoken for the French government in those days. Of course I could return to France now, but I still wouldn’t be permitted to speak my mind. So I remain here, and I use my pen to fight injustice.

 Is the novel ‘Les Misérables’ a part of that fight?

 Very much so. I have heard some of you English translate the title as ‘miserable’, but it means much more than that. It means the oppressed, the down-trodden, the outcasts from society. Individuals such as Fantine, forced into prostitution and eventual death because of a youthful mistake; Eponine, trapped into a life of crime and poverty. And of course Jean Valjean, condemned to prison for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread, then to a life on the run for breaking parole.

 Can you explain about the parole system in France at that time?

 With pleasure. When a criminal had served his time, he was released – but only on parole. He was given a ‘ticket of leave’ which he had to carry with him, and show to everyone with whom he had dealings. For example, if he wanted to find work. He was also restricted as to where he was allowed to go. If he failed to show the ticket, or if he strayed from his designated route, he would be deemed in breach of parole, and locked up again. It was therefore very difficult for a former convict to find honest work.

 Mr Hugo, I’d like to discuss the two main characters in your novel, Jean Valjean and Javert. First of all, Let’s stay with Valjean. I believe his initial sentence for the theft of bread was five years, not nineteen years?

 You are quite correct, and I am certainly not claiming that he was an honest and upstanding citizen at that time. He was a woodsman who wasn’t beyond doing a spot of poaching. He stole the bread because his sister and her children were hungry, but they weren’t starving. You might say that he deserved some punishment, but five years hard labour was excessive. Albeit very typical.

 Had Valjean behaved well in prison he could have been out in five years, but he was a hot-headed young man, several escape attempts meant that his sentence was increased. So yes, he was in part responsible for having to serve nineteen years.

 Upon his release, I believe he continued to steal?

 Yes, he did. You must understand that he was very bitter and desperate. He stole from the Bishop out of desperation and the little child out of habit and bitterness. But then it really hit him, what he had done.

Would you say he had a ‘Road to Damascus’ experience?

Indeed yes. The forgiveness and goodness of the Bishop of Digne really went into his heart. He was a changed man from that day, determined to live a good life. But that was impossible whilst his parole ticket branded him as a thief – as one of Les Misérables. Hence his decision to destroy the parole ticket, and start a new life, under a new identity.

Would you say he succeeded?

 Yes. It wasn’t easy for him. He still had to struggle with aspects of his personality, with anger and sometimes bitterness. But he was further helped by his experience with Fantine. You might say there were three people who helped Valjean with his reformation. The Bishop was paramount, but being able to help Fantine, and having the responsibility of raising Cosette – and her love as a daughter – were also important for him.

 

NEXT WEEK – WE DISCUSS THE CHARACTER OF JAVERT.