laura/antoine, 18, intj, from italy (but half french). bigender (she/her/hers - he/him/his) and hellenic polytheist. history, art, social justice. also les misérables and star wars trash. ( )

edwarddespard:

alpharapter:

I like to think that Grantaire is a practical sort. Yeah he drinks and generally seems to live to piss Enjolras off but… it seems to me that he does have the ambition to join the Amis and protest his little heart out. It just depends on the subject.

In Les Mis they’re protesting against the class structure and the elitism that permeates every aspect of French life and culture. Grantaire recognises that what they’re trying to do, to destroy the burgeois, instead gonna happen. There isn’t enough anger and hatred and rage in the common people for it to work. There’s nothing beyond the usual. They need absolute chaos in the lower classes and for the working and middle classes to feel set upon as well. Which they don’t have.

So Grantaire casually doesn’t do much protesting because he recognises that their ‘cause’ isn’t really going to get very far. I mean, come on, the vast majority of the Amis are college boys. They’re idealists who want to make their mark on the world.

But, I think a modern day Grantaire would be different. Because there’s a lot more to protest about. Gay rights, racism, sexism, arms dealing, supporting totalitarian regimes….

Grantaire himself admits that he has a little bit of ambition (FYI read the book) but it’s not for a lost cause like the one the Amis are hell-bent on. The one Enjolras is hell-bent on.

I personally think Grantaire would be a bit of a nightmare with our modern day protests and fights for rights and equality. Because they ARE obtainable. You can get the right to work and equal pay if you’re gay, you can fight for equal pay and consideration in the workplace if you’re a wOman, you can challenge and change the judicial system if you’re a minority.

Grantaire would be fine with these. Would support them because, unlike trying to OVERTHROW AN ENTIRE GOVERNMENT AND CLASS SYSTEM these are possible changes to make.

TL:DR; GRANTAIRE WOULD TOTALLY BE FOR GAY RIGHTS AND PROTESTING LIKE AN A-CLASS SON OF A BITCH IN 21ST CENTURY INSTEAD OF BEING A DRUNKEN NILHIST LIKE EVERYONE SEEMS TO ALWAYS WRITE HIM AS

Hi there – this is an interesting interpretation, but it really doesn’t reflect what the socio-political milieu was in France in 1832, and it makes quite a few unfounded assumptions about the objectives and likelihood of success in what the Republican movement was fighting for. While Enjolras has larger overarching ideals about the way in which humanity is heading, as expressed in his “View from a Barricade” speech, the Republicans also had more immediate, practical objectives. While Hugo doesn’t expound on these at great length as his novel relates more to universal themes than the specific circumstances of 1832, and he concentrates on those broader themes as the political discourse had long since moved on when he came to write the novel, it would be wrong to suggest that the Republicans didn’t have immediate ambitions beyond a vague “shake everything up”, or that they were more unattainable than the rights that we still strive for today, or that they weren’t “practical”. One of the frustrating things about the musical is that, in trying to make it universal, it employs vague language about “cutting the fat ones down to size” that neither reflects Enjolras’ specific vision nor the movement of the 1820s -30s. 

“In Les Mis they’re protesting against the class structure and the elitism that permeates every aspect of French life and culture. Grantaire recognises that what they’re trying to do, to destroy the burgeois, instead gonna happen.

“There isn’t enough anger and hatred and rage in the common people for it to work. There’s nothing beyond the usual. They need absolute chaos in the lower classes and for the working and middle classes to feel set upon as well. Which they don’t have.”

That’s a tremendous oversimplification of the causes of 1832 and the reasons they have for rebelling. Historically, they were fighting against very specific issues – the restriction of freedom of speech, assembly, lack of universal suffrage, access to education, the attempt to restore all the privileges of the clergy that had been destroyed during the Revolution etc. What’s more, they DID very nearly succeed in 1830, and had in fact overturned the Restoration monarchy when Charles X had attempted to tighten up draconian legislation and restore the idea of Absolute Monarchy. Louis-Philippe, in fact, ascended the throne through political manipulation and promises of surrounding the throne with Republican institutions. By 1832 he was already reneging on that, and there was widespread popular discontent that was not restricted to the working class – the events of June 1832 were merely one incident in a long history of resistance to the Restoration and Louis-Philippe. The July Monarchy spent most of its time suppressing resistance, was never really all that stable, and was finally overthrown in 1848.

“So Grantaire casually doesn’t do much protesting because he recognises that their ‘cause’ isn’t really going to get very far. I mean, come on, the vast majority of the Amis are college boys. They’re idealists who want to make their mark on the world.”

Well no, he really doesn’t recognise that they’re “not going to get far” (and given the movement had overthrown a monarchy in 1830 and would again 1848, he’d be a bit rash to write them off). He does discuss what he sees as God’s messy inefficiency in achieving progress through revolution, but he does not offer any articulate criticism of the movement. His response to their movement is steeped in what Hugo describes as the scepticism that has rotted his intellect and had “not left him with a single whole idea” rather than in a perceptive criticism of their cause.

As for the majority of the Amis being college students, it is important to understand the role that university students had in French politics, and had for some time. They had traditionally been important political activists and, indeed, combatants – their role in early 19th century politics should not be seen through the lens of contemporary student activism (which, frankly, shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand either). To say they’re “idealists who want to make their mark on the world” suggests that is their primary motivation, but it really says no more about who they are or the validity of their cause and methods than saying the same thing of modern day activists who want to combat racism, fight for LGBT causes, tear down social inequality etc – of course they want to change the world for the better. Why does that diminish their cause?

“I personally think Grantaire would be a bit of a nightmare with our modern day protests and fights for rights and equality. Because they ARE obtainable. You can get the right to work and equal pay if you’re gay, you can fight for equal pay and consideration in the workplace if you’re a wOman, you can challenge and change the judicial system if you’re a minority.

“Grantaire would be fine with these. Would support them because, unlike trying to OVERTHROW AN ENTIRE GOVERNMENT AND CLASS SYSTEM these are possible changes to make.”

But so too were the ambitions the Amis had – indeed, it is because of activists like them that the political discourse has moved on and we are now focusing on other issues. Freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to vote, universal education, freedom of speech…there may be flaws in how these are implemented, but these specific causes the republicans were fighting for did become mainstream ideas that we now take for granted. First absolute monarchy, and then “constitutional” monarchy, and then the Second Empire, were all toppled.

A modern-day Grantaire, unless he had a substantially different character, would most likely be spouting the same sort of pessimistic “nothing ever changes” rhetoric that he did in the 1820s – 30s. He’d probably agree generally – as he did in the novel – that these things sucked, and he’d be personally generous. But unless he was a very different character, there’s no reason to believe he’d invest in the possibility of deep-seated societal change and the possibility of eradicating specific forms of social injustice any more than he did in the 19th century.

  1. mo-moomin a reblogué ce billet depuis needsmoreresearch
  2. write-is-right a reblogué ce billet depuis le-loup-et-lion
  3. le-loup-et-lion a reblogué ce billet depuis cometomecosette
  4. autumnrevolutionary a reblogué ce billet depuis edwarddespard
  5. thedoctorofpompeii a reblogué ce billet depuis jezabelwrote
  6. zmajski a reblogué ce billet depuis pilferingapples
  7. pontmercyfriend a reblogué ce billet depuis norwegianalien
  8. ravensrising a reblogué ce billet depuis pilferingapples
  9. poniatowskaja a reblogué ce billet depuis stalinistqueens
  10. bookish-huntress a reblogué ce billet depuis grantaered
  11. grantaered a reblogué ce billet depuis alasse-mm
  12. celendiar a reblogué ce billet depuis permets-tu-not-permettez-vous
  13. hayleythepeanut a reblogué ce billet depuis enjoltaire-24601
  14. enjoltaire-24601 a reblogué ce billet depuis itistimeforusalltodecidewhoweare
  15. itistimeforusalltodecidewhoweare a reblogué ce billet depuis permets-tu-not-permettez-vous
  16. hatlantis a reblogué ce billet depuis blindedbybooks
  17. blindedbybooks a reblogué ce billet depuis aniruok
  18. aniruok a reblogué ce billet depuis letthesunshinein
  19. captain-colossal-d a reblogué ce billet depuis permets-tu-not-permettez-vous
  20. obaewankenope a publié ce billet
codes by
pohroro