(if anyone else thinks of a better term than that let me know but these wacky Threaded Discussions seem to benefit from titles? )
WELL FINE IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE ME AN INVITATION Probably just one that will result in me getting my lovely theory proven wrong but HERE GOES:
Structure, structure-- they both follow the same basic structure to pretty remarkable degree! : The Outsider (I can't think of a better summation title for Valjean and Grantaire in their respective situations) comes into the domestic gatherings (not the official-business side) of the representatives of their respective faiths (which, said faiths they've both somewhat renounced, but it's that faith they're renouncing); there's the confession of weakness; the failure to recognize the station of the guides ( and on THAT point I am pretty certain, Hugo's setting it up; he goes out of his WAY to make the monk comparison and have it under discussion apparently just so Grantaire can say Sod a Bunch of Monks but hey let me hang with you guys, just like he has Valjean going on about Bishops for A WHILE while trying to tell the Bishop how much more comfortable he feels there (Do Not Ask Me about Bossuet and Bishop parallels, I might talk about it and this post is long enough), the odd distress over the host's poverty, and of course the bit with candles and light, and is light EVER not Symbolic in this book?
(Of course there are ginormous differences in the two settings, too, but that's why the structural similarities really stand out to me!)
Like you say, the meals themselves aren't the plottiest-- but I think they're important in a couple ways at least. One, there's the sheer bucketing symbolism; two, they are both making the point, to certain degrees, that the Outsider *isn't locked outside*; that there's at least one door open back into the community. So when, following the mutual sharing of good spirits, the Outsider turns back away from all that, it's THEIR choice; they're not just victims being locked out from the community they say they want, they're actively turning against it. And maybe they have to be in that position before they can actively choose to try and rejoin as equal participants instead of on (perceived?) sufferance? IDK IDK I'm reading the last few chapters right now and I'm a sobbing singing mess in general, I'm probably not being very clear, but that's what I've got so far!
(...I happen to also think both meals are setting up the Bishop figures as very trickily making a play to get the outsiders to rejoin the community more fully, but that's probably another post.)
communion meals
WELL FINE IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE ME AN INVITATION
Probably just one that will result in me getting my lovely theory proven wrong but HERE GOES:
Structure, structure-- they both follow the same basic structure to pretty remarkable degree! : The Outsider (I can't think of a better summation title for Valjean and Grantaire in their respective situations) comes into the domestic gatherings (not the official-business side) of the representatives of their respective faiths (which, said faiths they've both somewhat renounced, but it's that faith they're renouncing); there's the confession of weakness; the failure to recognize the station of the guides ( and on THAT point I am pretty certain, Hugo's setting it up; he goes out of his WAY to make the monk comparison and have it under discussion apparently just so Grantaire can say Sod a Bunch of Monks but hey let me hang with you guys, just like he has Valjean going on about Bishops for A WHILE while trying to tell the Bishop how much more comfortable he feels there (Do Not Ask Me about Bossuet and Bishop parallels, I might talk about it and this post is long enough), the odd distress over the host's poverty, and of course the bit with candles and light, and is light EVER not Symbolic in this book?
(Of course there are ginormous differences in the two settings, too, but that's why the structural similarities really stand out to me!)
Like you say, the meals themselves aren't the plottiest-- but I think they're important in a couple ways at least. One, there's the sheer bucketing symbolism; two, they are both making the point, to certain degrees, that the Outsider *isn't locked outside*; that there's at least one door open back into the community. So when, following the mutual sharing of good spirits, the Outsider turns back away from all that, it's THEIR choice; they're not just victims being locked out from the community they say they want, they're actively turning against it. And maybe they have to be in that position before they can actively choose to try and rejoin as equal participants instead of on (perceived?) sufferance? IDK IDK I'm reading the last few chapters right now and I'm a sobbing singing mess in general, I'm probably not being very clear, but that's what I've got so far!
(...I happen to also think both meals are setting up the Bishop figures as very trickily making a play to get the outsiders to rejoin the community more fully, but that's probably another post.)