...so characters who are both avatars of abstractions and simultaneously people, and then placed in situations that pull at their contradictions, are basically all of my story kryptonite distilled down into a single deadly bomb. I've never run into an author that actually manages to pull off symbolic characters who are still people. And you're totally right that a huge part of why it works is that the abstractions come in opposition, and though he loves the absolutes, his fundamental message about society is moderation.
I've thought for a while that the trick to making characterization click is "both, and" -- characters can be X and Y, even if X and Y are at times contradictory; it's the tension and the contradiction that makes the character three-dimensional and drives plots. Hugo is doing "both, and" to everything -- to all of his arguments, to history, to his philosophy of government, to his characters, and it's spectacular. Not to mention very different from the setup I'm trained to expect, which is thesis, antithesis, synthesis -- he deliberately skips the synthesis step, and says, look, here's reality, it contradicts itself sometimes, it is vast, it contains multitudes, what are you going to do about it? At the end of the day we're all human.
I was totally unprepared for Hugo to hit me in my id with such exquisite aim. I forgive him everything, even the rampant chauvinism, and the folk etymologies about his ancestors. (Did you know, Wikipedia firmly raspberries all over his etymology of Hougomont? Though I wouldn't necessarily trust Wikipedia on this point, either.)
(It baffles me utterly that the published Les Mis profic is sequels about Marius and Cosette. Who in their right mind would want sequels about Marius and Cosette when they could have 1830??? Though, given the execrations that have been visited upon Austen, perhaps it's better this way. If it were 1830, I would have to read it, and then odds are I would be extremely displeased.)
Re beers and meta, YES LET US DO THIS. I fear I am proceeding very slowly, but: YES.
no subject
I've thought for a while that the trick to making characterization click is "both, and" -- characters can be X and Y, even if X and Y are at times contradictory; it's the tension and the contradiction that makes the character three-dimensional and drives plots. Hugo is doing "both, and" to everything -- to all of his arguments, to history, to his philosophy of government, to his characters, and it's spectacular. Not to mention very different from the setup I'm trained to expect, which is thesis, antithesis, synthesis -- he deliberately skips the synthesis step, and says, look, here's reality, it contradicts itself sometimes, it is vast, it contains multitudes, what are you going to do about it? At the end of the day we're all human.
I was totally unprepared for Hugo to hit me in my id with such exquisite aim. I forgive him everything, even the rampant chauvinism, and the folk etymologies about his ancestors. (Did you know, Wikipedia firmly raspberries all over his etymology of Hougomont? Though I wouldn't necessarily trust Wikipedia on this point, either.)
(It baffles me utterly that the published Les Mis profic is sequels about Marius and Cosette. Who in their right mind would want sequels about Marius and Cosette when they could have 1830??? Though, given the execrations that have been visited upon Austen, perhaps it's better this way. If it were 1830, I would have to read it, and then odds are I would be extremely displeased.)
Re beers and meta, YES LET US DO THIS. I fear I am proceeding very slowly, but: YES.