Hey Friends, I'm at work so this post will be a short. I just wanted to post that I saw Rogue One yesterday and I thought it was outstanding.
My sister said something to the effect of "It makes The Force Awakens look like crap" and I'll have to say there is some truth to that.
Over the years, the Star Wars franchise and fandom have kind of trivialized tragedy and loss, and Rogue One kind of smacked us in the face with the gravity of it.
Watching it was a fantastic experience, and I was shocked at how integral it all felt to the Star Wars Saga: illuminating themes and plotholes and delivering them in a whole new light. (I highly recommend watching it in a double feature along with my favorite episode: A New Hope.)
But it's also the type of thing I don't want to share with the fandom right now. I'm not ready to contend with their negativity about how the CGI looked dumb, or how they changed too much from the trailer. Or how the content is not canonical anyway; or that it's basically Episode III's opening crawl....or just exists to explain away a plot hole in Episode III.
I just don't care for that discussion at this point.
I'm sorry you (that's a proverbial you, not a personal you) can't appreciate something for what it is. Embrace it's flaws and imperfections, and find beauty and meaning and motivation in it.
So I'm keeping Rogue One all to myself. Nope, I'm not sharing. Not fair? Okay, you can borrow it when you learn how to treat it nicely.
The last few weeks some of my coworkers who know I'm a Mormon asked me about the whole 'mormon's don't drink coffee' rule and I don't think I did a very good job at explaining it, so I'm going to try again here.
The coffee restriction is part of a health code called
"The Word of Wisdom"
(If that title sounds intimidating, it's not...it's basically just 'common sense diet and health guidelines')
But a lot of people really misunderstand what its all about, and many of us (People of the mormon faith) get so caught up in the rules themselves, we forget what the rules are actually for.
So I'm gonna do a little overview and commentary of the Word of Wisdom here:
The Word of Wisdom is found in a document of Mormon Scripture called "Doctrine and Covenants", (Section 89 if you ever wanna look it up). A lot of the language is archaic 1800-ish words because that's who it was originally written for. In fact, it was originally aimed towards the leaders of the church at that time, but has since been received as a guideline by the general church.
The Words of wisdom were to be received:
"not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days— (These rules are not meant to be something that holds you back, or keep you from experiencing all that life has to offer, they're meant to help you live the best life you can.) 3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints. (Many people can drink alcohol socially without becoming addicted to it, but some people can't. These guides are meant to protect both groups of people.) 4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom" (There are people in the world who will use food, drink or drugs to take advantage of you. This problem will get worse in the future.)
The rest of the 21 (short) verses go over some particulars for healthy nutrition, like:
'Strong drinks' are bad for you.
Tobacco is bad for you, but it's good for sick animals.
'Hot drinks' (Modernly interpreted as "Coffee and Caffeinated Teas") are not good for you.
Don't over-indulge in meat, even during times of thanksgiving (ie. holidays)
Eat plenty of healthy grain
The Word of Wisdom itself refers to these rules as "principles" as opposed to "commandments". and we are promised that when we observe these principles we will receive health, knowledge, energy, and we will be protected from destructive influences.
So coffee isn't some evil "Broth of Satan" substance, and in fact the Word of Wisdom makes it pretty clear that God created it (and a host of other plants and herbs) for medicinal use. The problem is when people use it (or any other substance) in ways that are destructive.
One thing I'd like to stress here is that while many Mormons shun coffee, very few of us actually observe the whole health code of the Word of Wisdom. I think that, to a large degree, the reason why we (Mormons) have made such a big deal about coffee is because it's the one part of the Word of Wisdom that we can honestly say we follow with impunity.
The Word of Wisdom is about a lot more than coffee. Like Sabbath Day Observance, it's meant for our temporal (earthly) salvation, and to protect us from unhealthy (physical and spiritual) influences.
In the Bible, when people caught Jesus breaking the Sabbath he reminded them that, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"
The commandment was a means to an end, not the end itself, and the 'rules' should never be used as an excuse to do what's right. When Jesus "broke" the Sabbath, he was healing people. He expressed that it would be absurd to hold the "Sabbath day observance" rule against someone who was helping a trapped animal getting out of a well (or helping other people who are sick to get better)
The Sabbath is for remembering what's really important in life: giving thanks for what we have, helping others, spending time with our families, and being mindful of our walk with God. The Word of Wisdom is for giving us the strength to achieve the righteous desires that God planted in our hearts: take care of our families, help others, avoid materialism etc.
So, drinking the occasional coffee when you need to stay awake on your 3rd twelve hour shift after you've taken the kids to school and picked up your husband from his doctor's appointment is not going to be detrimental to your spiritual salvation.
1) Because the Word of Wisdom is about so much more than just coffee consumption
and
2) Because the Word of Wisdom is aimed to assist you in your temporal salvation...To help you be all that you can be in this world.
But I know that when I eat right, I'm motivated when I get out of bed in the morning (or evening...as the case may be...), my body craves things that are actually good for it
(Like...Steamed Kale...mmmmm!)
And exercise actually feelsgood...
I want to be there again. I want my body and my mind to be on the same page, I want to be motivated to get stuff done...and not just "OK, When can I go get Del Taco?"
But I'm so not there yet!
And I can't honestly say that I'm observing the word of wisdom when I'm really just living out of habit by not drinking coffee. So no, the reason I don't drink coffee isn't because I'm keeping the Word of Wisdom, I rather think it's because I'm too lazy to keep it.
(Sorry for the long confessional...hope this made sense!)
I've been putting this post off for a while. Partly because I've been focusing on work, but also because I want to work on the "Doesn't Suck" series in reverse-chronology and I realized how much I kinda don't like The Return of the Jedi. I mean, I've always known it was my least favorite of the original sequel trilogy, but now I'm thinking it might be my least favorite installment of the franchise to date.
What it does well: An incredibly heart-wrenching conclusion to Darth Vader's story-arc, particularly in relation to Luke.
What it does bad: Literally everything else.
Really though, the whole plot is rehashed content to serve as placeholder until Luke can finally get to Vader again and offer him redemption. Every other character, relationship, and conflict in the story gets sidelined.
(Even the actual "Star War" between the Rebellion and the Empire.)
Luke shows up as our resident "Badass Jedi" ™ because the plot requires him to be one, with no explanation as to how he got that way.
Lando Calrissian? (You know, that guy who was the head of this whole colony/organization and had this awesome cyborg sidekick and henchmen galore?)
....He becomes just another face to do stuff the main characters can't do because they're off playing with teddy bears.
"This deal's getting worse all the time!"
Even the resolution to Han Solo's cliffhanger feels off...like it even belong in the same story: like it's just a plot point the story has to get over with so it can get on to more pertinent things.
(Which I suppose from a storytelling perspective it actually is.)
And let's not even get started on this guy....
Most disappointingly, the suggestion that there is 'Another New Hope' that is moot NEVER becomes a significant part of the story.
(Even though, it totally could have.)
I'm sorry to be so negative, but it's all I can think of when I contemplate the end of the original trilogy.
Leia was kinda cheated out of her own heroic arc.
I've also realized that in some ways, the newest movie makes it worse. Because even if they don't show the resolution to all of these stories, you can kind of imagine how it went in your own mind. Leia might have gone on to become a powerful Jedi. She might have had her own journey/spiritual awakening and ended up helping her brother restart the Jedi order. Luke could have been a teacher to new Jedi initiates, and she an administrator and organizer: head of the new Jedi Council. And together they would have brought in a new golden age of enlightenment and spirituality for the galaxy.
But now that's ruined...in two planes of un-reality!
One thing I do appreciate is that the costume department was able to finally give Leia an outfit that makes her look like a boss.
(You were thinking of the metal bikini weren't you? :P )
And now for another of Mormonhippie's Star Wars Theories:
I can't believe it took me so long to realize that Bail Organa (Leia's dad) wasn't just sending her on a random errand to recruit Obi-Wan Kenobi. He was sending her so that she could be trained as a Jedi, learn her about her heritage, and be reunited with her brother. (And, obviously, they would take down the empire together)
But Ben Kenobi had other plans:
From his perspective, Anakin should have never become a Jedi at all. Old Ben blames himself because he couldn't tame Anakin's personality.
And which of Anakin's children inherited his temperament?
There we have it! Leia was not "Chosen" to become "A New Hope" because Obi-Wan thought she was too much like her father.
Last year I read a historical non-fiction book called "Six Wives: The Queens of King Henry VII" by David Starkey and since then I've become really interested in the minor historical figures of Tudor England, particularly...
Thomas Cromwell
and...
Thomas Cranmer:
These two were some of the most influential figures in the rise of the Church of England.
Cromwell was a big figure in secular transition, although he was learned in scripture of his day and disenchanted with a lot of the corruption he saw in the Catholic Church of the time, and Cranmer was a leader of the religious reformation.
As David Starkey tells it, it seemed like these men were kind of using the situation of their King being unhappily married, seeking an annulment/divorce/prosecution (or whatever would work to get the undesired wife out of his life...) to further their own social, political, and religious ends.
It's a fascinating story! And a lot more complex than I would have imagined.
However, it wasn't until I was getting a little bored of this years Children's Reading Challenge that I decided to delve back into Tudor-era history. This time in Historical Fiction.
I watched the miniseries, "Wolf Hall" (Which is a compilation of two novels: Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies by Hilary Mantel) on amazon prime, and then listened to the book series on CD.
If you're into Tudor history, this is a pretty intense retelling. It's about the rise of Thomas Cromwell in King Henry Tudor VIII's court, and his role in the prosecution of two major historical figures:
Thomas More
And Anne Boleyn
Surprisingly, most of the brutality does not come from people getting executed in horrible ways (Although that does happen). This is not "Game of Thrones", violent and illicit content is off-screen (and for the most part off page).What's really messed up is the psychological aspect: Henry and Co rationalizing every selfish maneuver, and Cromwell's systematic, "guilty even when proven innocent" approach to investigating trumped-up charges (particularly in book 2).
I can't speak for the historical accuracy of either the novels or the miniseries, but as stories I thought both versions of the story were pretty well told. I watched the mini-series (which covers both books) first and I felt like the narrative was a little disjointed at the start; where they just barely introduced characters to us, and then do a flashback with them meeting each other for the first time, that was a little confusing. But it turns out they were just trying to follow the format of the book. The book is able to get inside Cromwell's head really well and follows the flow of his thoughts so he becomes a really engaging, personable character. That doesn't work very well in film format, but fortunately they do have an excellent actor: Mark Rylance, who does a fantastic job with his chillingly understated portrayal of the character. In both adaptions, the result is the same: you become seduced by the persona of this man so completely, you start to forget about all the evil stuff he did until it's staring you in the face.
As much as I love the Harry Potter series, I was a bit skeptical about the feasibility of continuing the story at all. I consider the Harry Potter Series to be a monumental achievement in children's literature and I wasn't convinced anything should be added to the story.
So when I went to the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child midnight release, it was mostly on a whim...because I realized I didn't work that night and I had nothing else to do...
I didn't place expectations on it. (Unlike when I went to the Deathly Hallows midnight release...where I'd planned for days, dressed up, and made butterbeer and licorice wands for the occasion, stalked the Barnes and Nobel forums for weeks to read people's theories for what the last installment of Harry Potter had in store, and agonized about what would happen when/if my favorite characters would die.)
At this point, there are thousands and thousands of fanfictions on what people who've read Harry Potter think should happen to the next generation of Hogwarts students. There is no way this story could've fulfilled all of those expectations. But the cool thing is, JK Rowling and her script-team don't try to. They're too busy giving nods to various fan-theories, explaining various purported "plot holes" in the series, and expounding on some of the themes that went over people's heads six years ago.
As such, this story feels less like an "Eighth Harry Potter" book than a review of the series.
-The Pros:
The strongest parts of the story are when JK Rowling and Co revisit the relationships between familiar characters:
It's enjoyable to see your favorite characters interact in ways they ever got to in the original books. Harry and Draco could never be friends as kids, but in adulthood they can put differences aside and find common ground.
In play format, we get to view the story outside of the confines of Harry Potter's POV, characters like Ron and Severus take on a new light outside of his limited perspective.
At the end of Deathly Hallows, Harry has opinions about parenthood and the type of father he'd like to be, in many ways this story continues his development so it's rewarding to see him struggle to be the best dad that he can be.
-The not-so-bad:
The Epilogue of Harry Potter and the Dealthly Hallows introduced us to a whole new generation of Hogwarts attendees and a big, sprawling extended family for Harry. Unfortunately, except for Albus and Scorpius, they're largely absent for much of this story.
Although she seemed to annoy a lot of fans, I really liked Delphi Diggory, not in the least because I wrote a fanfiction character somewhat like her. She's an interesting character, and its unfortunate they only used her as a plot device.
Even the whole time-travel plot wasn't completely horrible (even though some parts of it felt like a bad Doctor Who episode).
-The slightly sucky:
The fact that all of the younger characters have this minutely detailed knowledge of things that happened years and yearsbefore they were born, knowledge that the can recall and exploit at leisure. (Did they have Tri-Wizard Tournament Trivia night at Malfoy Manor?) Everybody in this story is a freaking 'Harry Potter' Nerd! Gah!
...But the worst part of the story? The part that really made this story suck?
Is this little jerk right here:
Yes, the most promising character of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Epilogue and the ONLY Character I could have envisioned as a future protagonist of a second generation "Potter" series is the most annoying and unsympathetic character in the Cursed Child.
And now, I will explain why:
....Remember [CAPS LOCK HARRY] from The Order of the Phoenix?
This was Harry Potter at his most annoying. He's all insecure and super hormonal, angry, and confused. And he takes out his anger at all the people closet to him: at Ron and Hermione, Mrs Weasley, Sirius Black and Albus Dumbledore.
Well, that's pretty much ALL Albus Potter does in this story.
The problem is, Harry Potter had four books of character development to get him to that point. We knew about his relationships with all of those people: Ron and Hermione had stopped writing to him, Mrs Weasley and Sirius weren't being honest with him, and Dumbledore was avoiding him...
Even if you didn't particularly like Harry Potter during his hormonal-teenage years, you could understand how he felt when the people he loved shut him out.
(...Like his son does in this scene:
(Harry was angry because he felt isolated from the people he cared about,
Albus is angry because he's not as popular as his dad is.))
Albus Potter never gets the chance to become a sympathetic hero because he gets one transitional scene to convey all of that complicated family dynamic and it just. doesn't. work.
(It just appears as if Harry is making effort after effort, and Albus is being a little shit.)
What bothers me even more is that throughout the story, different characters keep insisting that Albus' personality is sooo different from Harry's and that's why the two don't get along...
I could understand that, if they'd made Albus' neurotic or introverted, or even remotely Slytherin in aspect AT ALL.
(But then he wouldn't be pushing his father away, but rather looking for ways to exploit his relationship with a famous person)
But they don't. Harry knows what his son is going through, OK? Harry knows what it's like to be lonely, and he's had to deal with people gossiping about him as a kid. What he's forgotten is what it feels like to be insecure. For Albus all those emotions are present. For Harry, they're all a part of his past.
It's like when you're really worried about something: A date, or not getting a date...a big test at school, or not getting invited to someone who you thought was your friend's birthday party or some such first world problem. Your parent's are dismissive of your concerns because they went through the same thing when they were your age (only they'll insist it was a million times worse) and they got through just fine.
^^That would have been true to character. It would have made Albus a little more sympathetic, and it would have been HILARIOUS to watch.
Unfortunately, the Cursed Child version of that argument just doesn't sting as it should. Partly because they failed to build up Albus and Harry's relationship to where we lament their falling out. Their reunion is less sweet because the relationship that should have been the cornerstone of this entire story was never big enough a deal for us to care about anyway.
Fortunately, there's more to this story than Harry Potter's Garbage Son.
Like this sweet roll:
(Why didn't they make a scene where he comes over to Grandma Weasley's house for Christmas dinner, and everyone there loves him more than Albus? Now THAT would be realistic!)
Hemorrhage is the most common complication
mothers face in the postpartum period. It usually occurs within the
first 24 hours after giving birth, but it can occur later on during
the postpartum period.
In pregnancy, the uterus had to grow to
accommodate the fetus: the uterus' muscle fibers stretch and, in
between the fibers, blood vessels enlarge to supply and accommodate
the growth. The placenta, which is basically network of blood vessels
and capillaries (albeit with a little barrier between the mom and the
baby) that supplies nutrients to the growing fetus, it is attached to
and fed from the uterus' blood supply.
After childbirth the uterus is
basically a big bleeding wound, and it's up
to hormones and mechanical changes to
cut of circulation to the wound so it can stop bleeding.
Postpartum Mom's bodies do have
advantages that normal women don't, though. Even though their blood
is expanded to almost double it's original volume, most of the extra
blood volume exists as plasma. That the part of the blood that
contains the clotting factors that are activated in
injury, protect against excess bleeding, and promote healing.
However, it also means Mom's blood is
hemodiluted: there are fewer red blood cells circulating, mom is
already anemic before birth even happens. So a large amount of blood
loss at birth, or shortly thereafter can have a big impact on
cardiovascular stability.
That's why its important for the
postpartum nurse to get a time of birth estimated blood loss (EBL),
so total blood loss can continue to be monitored.
There are several reasons
Postpartum Hemorrhage can occur:
Sometimes the uterus muscle
becomes atonic doesn't clamp up like it's supposed
to, and blood continues to flow as if it's still supplying a baby
there.
Other times there's a mechanical
obstruction, such as a full urinary bladder,
or clots that prevents the uterus from contracting
and getting smaller like it's supposed to.
There can be a retained
placental fragment still in the uterus after the rest of the
products of conception have been delivered.
A multiparous mom (a
mom who's had a lot of kids), or a multigestational mom (a
mom who has been carrying more than one fetus), is also at increased
risk for postpartum hemorrhage just because her uterus has had to
stretch more.
A mom who experienced a traumatic
birth; laceration or epistotomy along the birth
canal is also a source of bleeding.
There are also medications that can
increase the mom's risk for developing hemorrhage, such as magnesium
sulfate (given to moms who have preeclampsia or eclampsia,
and are at risk for having seizures).
Sometimes clotting factors can activate
when they're not supposed to and deplete: forming tiny little clots
in some areas of mom's capillary bed and extremely thin blood that
bleeds very easily everywhere else. This is a very ominous condition
called dissiminated intravascular coagulation (DIC)
It's important to monitor the
patient's uterus and lochia flow. Palpate the patient's abdomen,
while supporting the neck of the uterus at the pubic bone, and locate
the fundus (the thick, top part of the uterus) of the
uterus in relation to the patient's umbilicus (belly
button). Note if the fundus feels firm or boggy. If
the fundus is boggy, perform a fundal massage until it is firm.
If the fundus is deviated to the left
or right of the umbilicus, it may mean the patient's bladder is full,
and the uterus is being displaced. Assist the patient to the restroom
to void and then re-assess.
If clots or excess lochia are expelled
on fundal massage, weigh the soiled linens. It is also
important to assess the patient's pad and peritoneal area. If patient
is on bedrest, have the patient lift or turn to assess bed pad, if
patient is ambulatory make sure the patient is not saturating
1 peri-pad per hour or more, if this occurs it is important
to weigh the pad
(To weigh soiled linens: First place
clean linens of the same type on scale and zero the scale, then
remove and place the soiled linens. (If you weigh in grams, you can
convert easily to ml because 1gram=1ml))
and calculate the patient's total blood
loss.
IF
The cumulative (added together) blood
loss is greater than 500 ml (for a vaginal birth)
The cumulative blood loss is greater
than 1000 ml (for Cesarean birth)
OR
Vital signs are unstable:
a 15 percent change in vital
signs is noted
HR 110 tachycardia
BP less than 85/45 Hypotension
O2 saturations less than 95 percent Hypoxia
OR
There is even more bleeding in the
recovery or postpartum period, which when weighed increases the
patient's total blood loss above 500/1000ml respectively.
The patient is in Stage 1 of Postpartum Hemorrhage.
It's important that a nurse (usually
the primary nurse) stay with the patient and call for the assistance
of the charge nurse, or another nurse. Continue fundal massage, and
(if patient's IV has been removed) start another one, preferably 18
gauge or larger because those are the ones suitable for fluid
resuscitation.
Call the doctor and notify of EBL at
birth, current loss in MLs, presence of clots, lochia color (bright,
dark, pale red) vital signs, and most recent hemoglobin and
hematocrit level.
Receive orders, which may include:
Oxytocin 10-40 units IV (Oxytocin is a hormone is
released in a pregnant woman's body when the placenta disconnects
from the uterus, and when the infant starts to breastfeed. It can
also be given as an IV infusion.)
Hemabate 250mg IM (NOT IV) Q15-90 minutes. Not to exceed 8
doses/24 hours. May cause nausea, vomiting, hypertension.
Methergine 0.2 mg IM (NOT IV) Q 2-4 hours. Do
not give to patients who have high blood pressure, primary
hypertenstion or pre-ecclampsia/ecclampsia because it can
make their blood pressure go even higher and they can have a stroke
or seizure.
Misoprostol 800-1000 mcg PR once. Causes diarrhea (sorry mom
D: ) Nausea, vomiting, transient fever and headache.
Type and screen for 2 units of blood
Oxygen administration, frequent V/S, LOC checks, keep patient
warm, insert foley catheter for strict I/O and to depress bladder,
continue vigorus fundal massage.
These medications are available on the
hemorrhage crash cart located in L&D.
It's also important to review the
patient's history and consider the potential cause of the bleeding
(For instance: atony, trauma/laceration, retained placenta amniotic
fluid emboli, uterine inversion, coagulopathy etc.)
If Vital sign instability continues, or
bleeding continues to greater than 1500ml
The patient is now in Stage 2 of
Postpartum Hemorrhage.
This is where a team effort really
comes into play, as everyone prepares to take the patient to Labor
and Delivery, OR, or recovery room.
You'll need another nurse to help
perform a bimanual uterine massage (which is basically a uterine
massage with two sets of hands).
The charge nurse will call a code OB
Labs are drawn for STAT CBC with
platelets, CMP, Coagulation panel, ABGs.
Additional doses of medications listed
above will be given,
Blood products are administered
A second large bore IV site will need
to be inserted, the primary nurse will need to communicate the total
blood loss and vital signs to team members.
Prepare for massive transfusion
protocol.
Some of the procedures the doctor may
perform include:
Repair of laceration or episiotomy
D&C to remove retained
placenta fragments
Intrauterine balloon
selective embolization
B-Lynch suture
Bilateral uterine relaxation drugs
Hysterectomy
Aggressive respiratory, vasopressor, and blood products
support (if DIC)
If blood loss continues beyond 1500ml,
2 PRBCs have been given but V/S are still unstable or disseminated
intravascular coagulation (DIC) is suspected:
Initiate massive transfusion
protocol
Move patient to OR (prepare for
artery ligation or hysterectomy)
Call ICU for bed
Other considerations:
The patient will probably be really
cold through all of this, do your best to keep patient warm and if
possible warm blood products before infusion using designated device.
I recently transferred to the Maternal Child Care (Postpartum) Unit at my work and as kind of a homework assignment I'm exploring the pathology of a common complication for newborns: Jaundice.
Mostly in the past when I've taken care of people with jaundice it's because they have really bad liver disease. So bad that their livers can't get rid of bilirubin, a waste product of erythrocytes (red blood cells). In babies, it usually works a little different. Their livers are immature, but aren't usually damaged as much as they are overloaded with more bilirubin than they can handle.
But first I'll explain the normal physiology of bilirubin production and elimination: Like a lot of the waste products in your body, bilirubin is transformed multiple times, and different molecules are added or subtracted so the waste product is 1) less toxic 2) easier for your body to identify and get rid of, because they can recognize that it's trash.
Most bilirubin comes from heme: a component of erythrocytes (or Red Blood Cells), where it exists as hemoglobin.
"Hemoglobin" is the part of the red blood cell that makes it red: it has the iron that holds on to the oxygen in your blood, and it's the thing that makes your blood red when it touches air; blue when it is oxygen deprived. It's a very important component of your blood, however erythrocytes, only live a short amount of time (120 days in adults, 70 days in fetuses) and they don't reproduce.
When they die, the body needs a way to get rid of the parts it doesn't need anymore. A lot of the bodies waste products are excreted by the kidneys, but heme is usually excreted from the liver into your intestines as a component of bile.
I'm gonna show you a picture just to give you an idea of how heme is transformed on it's way to leave your body:
^ When red blood cells die, they release the "heme" from the "globin" and the heme exists in a form called bilirubin.
It would be just sitting around in the blood, but luckily there's a really big, powerful protein (called Albuimin) already circulating in the blood that binds the bilirubin to itself and carries it where it needs to go. In this form, (attached to the Albumin) the bilirubin is called "Unconjugated". The unconjugated bilirubin travels to the liver where it is processed and sugars are attached to the Albumin-Bilirubin molecule. In this form, we call it "Conjugated" bilirubin, because of the way all those smaller molecules (sugar, protien, bili) are bonded together.
This form it should not be circulating in the blood, it should be excreted into the intestines, get broken apart by all the bacteria living there, and go out with all of your poop. But sometimes, if it sits in your intestines for too long (this happens when babies don't feed well) or you don't have enough intestinal flora growing in your gut (newborn babies have very little), it can be re-absorbed into the blood.
Your body, of course, tries to find other places to put it (it is a waste product after all, it's TOXIC!) and, a very small amount (1 percent) is converted to urobilinogen and excreted from the kidneys, but it's really not very much. So the conjugated bilirubin just kinda gets stuck in your body
E.V.E.R.Y.W.H.E.R.E.
It can get so bad, you can see it in your skin. It was red in your blood, but now it's YELLOW:
and your eyes!
(This condition is called "Jaundice" or icterus)
But the WORST is when bilirubin gets to your brain, because it ends up causing encephalopathy and brain damage. (this is called Kernicterus)
Although Jaundice is relatively common in infants it's usually not a really big problem, most babies do have some degree of physiologic jaundice because their livers are immature. In a healthy infant who is feeding well usually won't need any treatment. Therefore, its important for parents to be able to distinguish when jaundice is progressing into a problem.
Jaundice can be particularly pathologic if it exhibits within the first 24 hours of an infants life. This is usually caused by an underlying condition that's contributed to the baby's red blood cells dying:
Blood incompatability between the mother and the infant: Where the mother has produced coombs antibodies to the infant's blood.
Infants with cephalohematoma, or bruising underneath their scalp (from a prolonged or traumatic birth)
Infants who born earlier, who are small for gestational age, or twins, may have blood that's concentrated, and dies quicker
Infection, or treatment with certain antibiotics.
Respiratory distress/hypoxia
Certain enzyme/metabolism disorders (Such as Gilbert's syndrome)
Infants of asian parents (?? for some reason...their RBC's die quicker...idk...)
If a baby has these risk factors, it's important to monitor for symptoms of jaundice and inform the baby's doctor. There are screening tools like the transcutanous bilirubinometer (TcB) that you can use to determine if the baby is at risk for developing jaundice:
The doctor may order labs for the baby: Total Serum Bilirubin (TBIL, or TSB), Conjugated Bilirubin (Direct bilirubin, or DBIL) or Unconjugated Bilirubin (Indirect, or IBIL...which they basically get just by subtracting: TBIL-DBIL=IBIL)
The doctor might also place the infant's discharge on hold to monitor make sure jaundice isn't progressing and that he or she is eating enough to expel all of that bilirubin from their gut.
Aside from yellowing of the skin, and mucous membranes and eyes, babies with jaundice are usually poor feeders (either they aren't interested in eating, they have a poor suck, or they aren't pooping and peeing appropriately/enough for their day of life). They're usually really tired and won't startle as easily, they'll wanna sleep though feedings.
At the later stages, the baby's body will tense up, they'll be irritable, and they'll have a high-pitched or shrillcry.
Fortunately, there are a lot of things we can do to treat jaundice.
If labs come back with high bilirubin levels, the doctor will probably order supplemental formula feedings and photo-therapy (blue or white light is preferred: 460-490)
via a lighted blanket that sticks to their back,
a bili-bed,
or a bili-lamp...which kinda looks like a little tanning bed for babies, they even wear these little eye protectors:
If the baby's condition is critical, the doctor might order an exchange transfusion (I'd imagine this only gets done in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit), where they take out blood, and put in new blood until the baby's circulating blood supply is completely replenished. Apparently this is particularly effective if there are a lot of antibodies in the babies system from mom, against the babies blood (if anyone knows more about this, I'd love to hear your experiences. It sounds like a pretty interesting treatment...I imagine they use whole blood, not Packed RBCs)
If a baby is going home with jaundice, or even if the baby is at risk, it's important that the baby's parents know that they're infant is at risk and know what signs and symptoms to look for that their infant might be developing this condition. Some yellowing is to be expected, but yellowing of skin and eyes accompanied by poor feeding is a concern. It's important that they know who to contact if the problem worsens (the pediatrician, NOT the obstetrician). It's also important that they keep well-baby follow up appointments with the pediatrician to make sure their baby is adjusting well to extra-uterine life.
Sometimes an infant with Jaundice will go home with a bili-blanket or bili-lights, sometimes the pediatrician will tell the parents to put the child in sunlight for a specific amount of time each day and to stimulate the baby to stay awake during feedings.
The risk for developing jaundice, and it's associated complications, is something we should assess in every baby. But it should not be something that causes a kid problems in the long run. Treatments for neonatal jaundice are very effective, as long as the symptoms are recognized and treated before it progresses to kernicterus. Doctors, nurses, and (most importantly) parents need to know what to look for in their infant, and when and how to seek help. Sources: http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/liver/neojaundice.html http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bilirubin https://labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/bilirubin/tab/test/ http://www.newkidscenter.com/How-to-Get-Rid-of-Jaundice-in-Newborns-at-Home.html https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007309.htm
http://www.lifewithkarma.com/2011/06/bili-baby.html
I
started reading this book on the airport to New York (OMW to watch
Les Mis!)
Before
I read this book or watched the movie, the most I knew about this
story was the basic premise:
Based
on a true story...A free man sold into slavery, won best picture in
2012...Benedict Cumberbatch plays one of the southern slaveowners
etc...
So
when I was in the airport reading the book, I was expecting a pretty
straightforward account of Mr Solomon Northup's horrendous
experiences in the south of the United States; possibly sprinkled
about with anti-slavery propaganda appropriate for the time in which
it was written and the indended audience would obviously be the
people of the north. Basically I was expecting a heavy-handed expose
on the atrocities of the south.
These
expectations were seemingly reinforced when I read on the back cover
that the narrative had been completed with the assistance of a ghost
writer. So, I didn't go into this book expecting anything
extraordinary as far as literary quality (although his experiences
would certainly be worth reading about).
Well,
I won't say that parts of this book aren't heavy reading: it deals
with some very heavy topics. The story is told in a a first person
account, and it reads like something of a psychological
thriller/horror story. But as far as literary quality I was
completely mistaken; I don't think Solomon needed a ghostwriter to
tell his story. The account was absolutely riveting and it was
accompanied by an extremely thoughtful and on-point analysis of human
nature in general.
My
favorite part is when Solomon talks about his "Master"
Edwin Epps' eldest son:
"Young
Master Epps possessed some noble qualities, yet no process of
reasoning could lead him to comprehend, that in the eye of the
Almighty there is no distinction of color. [...] Brought up with such
ideas--in the notion that we stand without the pale of humanity--no
wonder the oppressors of my people are a pitiless and unrelenting
race."
This
is an idea that's revisited several times in the story:
William Ford is a really decent
guy, he cares about people, even slaves...even people who he
considers to be inferior.
Mrs Epps is pretty decent too,
when she's not supper jealous of Patsy.
Mr Epps...well he's actually a law-abiding man (ie...he's
only as "bad" as the law will allow him to be.)
Solomon
is not trying to paint the white people of the south as these
atrocious monsters, these 'other' beings who need to be uprooted. He
recognizes that these people see the world...not in the way it
is...but the way they were taught that it is.
He's
trying to understand them! And he's granting them a complexity of
thought...a humanity...that he himself is denied.
#ugh!
#FEELS!
Another
really interesting thing about this book is how he overcomes the
whole slavery system they had set up in the south. I kept expecting
him to run away and get rescued, which probably says something about
the way I think about problems in general (the system as something
that needs to be defied...) but we see numerous reasons in this book
why that approach wouldn't work. Solomon repeatedly chooses to keep his head
down, to work in this system rather than fight because he knows that
people who run away don't get away. He knows he's not running from
the masters but from a whole line of thought that's existed for a
really long time and that permeates every aspect of their society.
It's
heartbreaking, gut-wrenching, thought provoking, riveting. And
the ending?!
Definitely
not a light read, but I highly recommend it if you want something
that's exciting and thought provoking at once.
And
now for the movie:
This
is more going to be a "what the movie missed" section. For
the most part, the movie is pretty loyal to the book. Solomon's home
life being told in flashbacks and, of course, the book can give us an
internal monologue that lest us get inside Solomon's mind in a way a
movie can't but I was actually very surprised at how much they were
able to fit into the film.
Here
are the differences I noticed though:
Solomon and Anne had three kids, not two. Their names were
Elizabeth, Margaret, and Alonzo. (I think they took Elizabeth out
because they already had another character with the name Eliza).
Uncle Abram has significance in the story other than just
dying. (In fact they kind of nerfed anyone who wasn't Patsy now that
I think about it...)
In the book, we don't really know if William Ford was turning
a blind eye to the possiblity of Solomon being a free man. In the
movie, Solomon actually tells him and he just goes: "La-la-la
I can't hear you!" in the book, one of Solomon's
regrets seems to be that he didn't tell him because he didn't know
if he could trust Master Ford or not. (Remember, it's not these
people who are his enemies: it's a whole system)
They never show the Epps' children; the eldest son would have
been around 12 or 13 at the end. So Solomon would have watched him
grow from infancy.
The guy who "rescued" Solomon wasn't just Parker
the Random Store Clerk, his name was Henry Northup. (I think this
was done to avoid explaining why there is a black and white family
named Northup, although the explanation is actually quite simple.)
In the book, Solomon never tells
us anything explicitly sexual, however, it doesn't require a stretch
of the imagination to realize the types of things depicted in the
movie must have happened. It's there to show us how brutal this
world is, there's nothing particularly seductive or explicit in it.
Solomon's reunion with his family is even more of a
tear-jerker: Not only did his daughter name the first grandchild
after him, Solomon's son Alonzo was away with the aim of making
money to make a trip down to the south to find his father.
Overall I'd say that the movie is a loyal adaption to the book,
the changes made were minimal and understandable. However, I should
mention the movie is Rated R, there are strong thematic elements, intense situations as well as depictions of torture and rape. I would not recommend this for children, particularly if they haven't read the book.
The acting of the three main leads is fantastic, the story is powerful, but I don't see this movie as one for casual viewing. I watched it by myself, and it's not one I wouldn't feel comfortable watching in a group unless we were gonna talk about it afterwards.
About the same time I bought "The Tennant of Wildfell Hall" I also got the musical version of Les Miserables. Even though the story itself is not entirely new to me, it's the first time I'd seen the story as a musical.
It was life changing...
After watching that, I read The Brick
re-watched the mini-series with Liam Neeson,
and last week I completed my goal for this year to go to New
York, and watch the musical on Broadway before it closes in September.
I want to commemorate this journey by doing a comparative
analysis of the versions I've seen so far here.
If
you're not familiar with Les Miserables, the following analysis may not make a lot of sense to you.
I'm not gonna attempt a synopsis of the whole plot, but the backbone of the saga is the story of a guy named Jean Valjean.
Much of the story deals with how he breaks out of a cycle of destructive behavior in a society that sets people like him up for failure.
If that sounds a bit Charles Dickens to you, you're not alone. I thought the exact same thing, especially after my first exposure to the story:
1998
Les Miserables Miniseries (2 hours, 39 minutes)-
(Very Oliver Twist)
The first time I saw this miniseries was about five years ago when I was visiting my Grandparents house. For all it's about callousness and darkness, it still somehow feels cozy.
This story made me really attached to Jean as a character. All the time he's getting chased by the Inspector I'm like:
I think this story is excellent at (possibly more than any other performance adaption) telling Valjean's story, and making him accessible to modern audiences. What it's less good at is portraying the brutality and complexity of world that Jean inhabits (which is probably why they omit a lot of it), until the very lastscene, and then [THING] happens...
One of the things I think is really cool about it is we don't find out what Jean actually did to become an "Unfortunate" until close to the end. We're invited to judge him, or withhold judgement, the same way Valjean's associates in the story are.
We see him based on his actions, not on his past. So by the time you get to the end and Valjean finally confesses to his daughter this past misdeed he's been running from his whole life...
Verdict:
Les Miserables 2012 (2 hours, 40 minutes)-
The covers look very similar, but it feels like watching a completely different story.
(And NOT just becuz of the music)
The whole story is on a grander scale: characters whose roles were minimized or omitted from the Liam Neeson miniseries get the spotlight here:
(The June Rebellion sub-plot has a lot more gravitas,
and that opens a whole new level of #feels)
But especially...
("There...Out in the darkneessss...")
Because they use song to communicate dialogue and internal monologue, your get a lot more emotional range. The cinematography is also symbolic and stunningly beautiful.
The scope of the story is so vast, I think that most people can watch it and find at least one character who, or situation that, emotionally resonates with them. When I got to the end of the mini-series, I felt as if I'd missed something. This one felt complete.
Personal Story Time With Mormonhippie!
Even if you've not watched the musical, many people (eg. me) will know at least a few of the songs. Susan Boyle sings "I Dreamed A Dream" Peter and Evynne Hollens do a montage, The Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings "Bring Him Home"...
So it's very easy to start comparing the performance of these songs in the movie with the versions you've heard before. Which is exactly what I did, right up until Eddie Redmayne started singing Empty Chairs at Empty Tables.
His performance was so powerful, and in the context the song was so meaningful, that it felt cheap and ridiculous to compare him to Peter Hollins.
It's not just about how they sing, it's about the whole performance:
(And they nail it! One reviewer said: All the notes they don't hit with their voices, they hit with their faces. And I absolutely agree.)
As with any story that deals with these types of subject matter, sometimes it can be too dark heavy for some viewers. They tried to deal with that by adding comic relief in some weird places. The lovely-ladies sequence is almost painful to watch.
My sister Ginger said: "It's kind of like they're trying to make this woman selling herself funny, and it's not."
Overall:
Les Miserables AKA "The Brick" 1862 (TBD)-
This book reads like a two season television show, or a five season mini-series.
Its scope is pretty epic, and the characters are emotionally charged.
There's a lot of action and drama, and the story uses enough historical data to keep it all from seeming far fetched. However, this series also has its "filler episodes" and sometimes the plot seems a little convoluted.
(Even though I actually really enjoyed that chapter)
I felt like it was a similar experience to watching Game of Thrones (without the gratuitous sex). The plot is interesting, there are engaging characters and its easy to become invested in their journeys, but you have to be willing to indulge the writer occasionally.
Thematically the story deals with change, and how individuals and societies (particularly France, where the story takes place) transform over time. Social and personal processes that appears to be painful, violent, or destructive are often the instruments of the creation of a better future.
The four major characters are Valjean (Prisoner), Javert (Policeman), Thenardier (Criminal), and Marius (dorkface). A lot of the story focuses on the interactions these four people have over their life spans.
The rest of the story deals with the true "main character": France. The affect this gives while reading is that the primary characters, while pretty well rounded of themselves, are facets of her personality.
My favorite part of the story is towards the end of Volume 1; where Valjean's walk with God takes an abrupt twist, and turns into a freaking marathon. I think it's the type of episode everyone has a different opinion on, but for me it turns the entire message of the series on its head.
Kudos to Victor Hugo for taking a relatively simple concept and showing how complex it really is.
I recommend this if you like history, long books, or Game of Thrones
Also featuring:
Jean Valjean's Glooorrius mane of white hair...
Javert is almost 15 years younger than him...so Valjean just thinks he's a punk.
A Charming Young Man Capable of Shooting You Point Blank in the FACE!
Verdict:
I recommend this if you like history and don't mind long books. You have to look at it as a series. It's not a book for you to conquer, you have to enjoy the journey.
Les Miserables Musical 1987 (2 hours, 55 minutes)-
OK, so now that I've read the book. I see that they've simplified the Jean as a character to highlight the change of heart that he goes through. I feel like this Musical!Jean is almost a composite of the best qualities of Book!Valjean and Book!Javert.
They do that to set up a dynamic that is present in the book and to represent the duality of these two characters.
Honestly, I think the Broadway version is the most streamlined version I've seen.
None of the characters seemed irritating. (Not even Marius, and I CAN'T STAND Brick Marius!)
Also Featuring:
A heartbreaking, completely in-character, line from Grantaire the emo-manchild
Will the world remember you when you fall? Could it be your death means nothing at all?
Also true to character, Enjorlas not hugging anyone during the song "Drink With Me" and just standing there awkwardly...(Even though he's the leader of this group, he's actually not close to anyone...seriously they fit in SO many details from the book!)
Thenardier also gets the type of complexity he had in the book:
It's a world where the dog eats dog/and they kill for the bones on the street/and God in heaven?/He don't interfere/Cause He's dead as the stiffs at my feet.
Valjean gets interaction with Eponine (Whoot, Whoot!)
Eponine and Fantine are BFFs in the afterlife
Verdict:
(Sing with me now...):
"I did not live until today!!!!"
More comparative notes:
(You can stop reading now, unless you're a total nerd like me and want to hear my thoughts...)
Interestingly, I don't think that the book is the definitive version of this story, particularly where characterization is concerned.
In 'The Brick" Victor Hugo is more concerned with making his point about human nature than drawing realistic portrayals of people. Case in point: Jean Valjean is arguably the most important character in the story, and yet within the narrative he's treated as an enigma. He's the focus of a lot of narrative, but we don't have his point of view (courtesy of Victor Hugo's heavy-handed narrative voice), and often times we're not even sure if the character the narrative is following is Jean or not, because he's using an assumed name.
Similarly, in the first half of the book Inspector Javert is characterized as a closed-minded, secular Monk...A characterization that directly contradicts his behavior in the second half of the book where he thinks and writes about the way the system treats criminals. He is personally a lot more compassionate towards them...even the Patron Minette. Especially when you compare his behavior towards them with...say...Fantine...
There is ample evidence of a gradual character transformation but because of the narrative form M. Hugo has chosen, we aren't privy to it. Victor Hugo is less concerned with acknowledging the complexity these characters than sharing his vision of human nature and the meaning of life.
One good side to this broad characterization is that it gives adaptations a lot of free reign over how they choose to portray the characters. I almost feel like this is the type of classic story that, like A Christmas Carol, I could watch in twenty different versions again and again and it'll never get old, because each filmmaker/editor will bring a bit of their own vision into it. Appropriately, the film-adapted versions of this story expand upon these characters to make their viewpoints more personal and relateable. Unfortunately, they haven't yet been able to capture the subtle nuances, or gradual changes in the character's arc.
In film adaptions, Javert is portrayed more simplistically character, and the narrative focus on Vajean almost deifies him as god-like in his capacity for compassion, rather than as a man who continually struggles with psychological issues.
Liam Neeson Version:
Canon Adherence-
-I
think its cool that almost everyone looks the way they are described
in the book. Cosette has brown hair and isn't a supermodel, Fantine
and Jean have lighter colored hair, Marius is slender and has black
hair. Jean is huge and buff.
The
exception is Inspector Javert. However, I think Captain Barbossa did a wonderful job acting wise, so I don't mind.
-In the trial room, addressing his old gang-mates. Kind of not sure if he'll speak up or not. That was pretty cool!
-Valjean basically memorizes
the town charter so he can win an argument with The
Inspector.
-Cosette is knitting and Jean pays for her to play, does mirror one of the book.
-Cosette as a slightly neurotic convent schoolgirl destined to become a nun.
-The Inspector has a boss.
-Toussant
has a lisp.
-The relationship between Fachelevant and Valjean is explained a bit more (even though they CHANGED Fachelevant's name!)
-Gavroche has his "babies" /cry
-We see the inspector writing the letter, but we don't get to see what it says.
Canon Divergence-
-In the book, Valjean became literate while he was in prison and afterwards he has no learning deficits of any kind.
This is one of those areas I felt I had to suspend disbelief, not because I think it's impossible for someone to learn that quickly but because it was clearly a device used by the author to bypass some rather important character development. I loved having Vajean learn how to read slowly, and having him dealing with insecurities of being a poor reader as a businessman. I feel like I could relate to his journey a lot better when he's not a genius, when he has some difficulties to work though, it makes him more human.
-In the book, Valjean leaving M-sur-M was on a sour note. Everybody just assumed the worst of him, and his business was inherited by greedy people and the whole town went kerplunk.
In this movie, Valjean transferred ownership of his company to the employees, which I think was a smart move. I like business-savy!Valjean.
-The
Inspector is unjust and is motivated by prejudiced against
Fantine. This was done to make him a villain.
-Fantine/Valjean is an actual thing so YAY!!
/happydance!
There's something
oddly gratifying about Valjean banging the Inspector's head against the wall.
-Aside from the villainous Inspector, there
actually is a good police officer. I don't know his name, but I
really liked him.
-Cosette
and Valjean actually work through conflict and COMMUNICATE. There's an actual reason Valjean ends up becoming the champion of Cosette and Marius' ship. WHoot Whoot!
-Marius
is a leader in the revolution and Enjorlas is his second in command. Marius isn't as annoying, but also Enjorlas is basically Enjorlas in name only.
-No teenage Eponine
-The Villainous Inspector provokes attacks, and also is an incompetent liar...
-No
mention of Valjean being in the National Guard.
-Valjean likes to pretend he's all Zen:
"I don't hate you, I don't feel anything"
Um..I've read you, and Um...YES YOU DO!
-There
is no key to the sewer exit. He just lifts a little bar.
-The
Inspector's final act of mercy comes across as a lot more poignant
than in other versions. Like, in a really pathologic type way...
Wolverine/Gladiator Version-
Canon Adherence-
This one actually has a lot of really cool things that reference the book:
-Cosette meets Jean in the woods, and fall in parent/child love.
(Side note: I found out Hugh Jackman's children are adopted. Can we say "awww!")
-The whole scene where Cosette and Jean Valjean are being chased by Javert and Co. is from the book, down to the part where Valjean rips off his cravat to help little Cosette navigate a wall. Because apparently Jean-le-Cric, human corkscrew, whose arms and torso are the far-REEKING JAWS OF LIFE cannot carry an emaciated 8 year old girl on his back.
(Yeah, Right Jean...)
-Gavroche lives in an elephant statue (in the book, the elephant statue has a whole backstory).
-The whole scene with Inspector Javert turning himself in to Le Maire.
(In the book, it's really funny. I imagine Javert getting all Whiny and hitting Le Maire's desk with his fist: "Wwhat? You won't fire me?! WHY NOT?!! Comon, If I can dish it out I can take it, too!!" This 40 year old man, transformed into a pubecent kid for like, 15 minutes.)
-The butterflies in the Fachelevant's garden
-Enjorlas and Grantaire's final scene is very similar to the book
-The "Barricade Boys" (In the book, called "The Friends of the ABC") are in character.
-Enjorlas, Eponine, and Grantaire actually look the way they are described.
Canon Divergence
-Nobody looks the way they are described in the book except for Eponine, Enjorlas, and Grantaire. Javert has facial hair, so I guess that counts, too.
-Movie!Valjean is a lot more bold than Book!Valjean. I almost feel like he's a composite of Book!Valjean and Book!Javert.
-The Thenardiers are used as comic relief, their antics come across as humorous at times. In the book, they're more tragic. They do some pretty atrocious things and we're forced to recognize that to some degree they still deserve our sympathy.
-Javert has a bigger role at the Barricade in the movie. In the book he was almost reluctant to be there at all because he knows the kids aren't bad.
-The Start of Javert's turning point is Gavroche, in the book it's Eponine (They're both Thenardiers so I suppose it's not a big difference).
-Javert and Valjean are both earnest Christians. In the book, only Valjean is. The Thenardiers also claim to be Christian. This allows the story to become an powerful analysis of Christianity and theology.
Broadway Version-
I already mentioned some of the more significant similarities to the book in the main article. So I'll add some book trivia/speculation here:
Brick Canon -
-On Valjean/Javert:
The dichotomy of these two characters is something I don't think I understood at first. Then I learned that Valjean and Javert are partially based off of the same real life individual. A man named Eugene Vidocq who was (you guessed it: a criminal turned detective) who founded the study of criminology and the french national police and his own private detecive agency: the study of criminals and why people commit crimes.
Whose life is probably more facinating than anything found in this book.
His life is every bit as facinating as this book and even more dynamic.
What changed Vidocq's life? What motivated him to stop being a criminal and start fighting criminals? Didn't have such a powerful change of heart as Valjean did (although he did open a factory, and employeed primarily criminals one up from Jean...)
He was a trouble-maker as a kid, and for a while that was just the way he chose to make his way in the world. He lived that way until he decided to become a police informant, after he saw the end his friends were comming to.
Founded a paper factory, hired criminals.
Vidocq believed himself to be of the same character as a law defender as he was a criminal. "Wait a minute, I'm the same guy I used to be. I'm just doing different stuff."
You know that really awesome line that reveals Javert's backstory:
"I was born with scum like you/I am from the gutter too"
Well, you can hardly hear it in the Broadway version, they cut out some of Valjean's lines in the Wolverine/Gladiator version because the filmmakers were smart and realized if you miss this you're missing a very important part of the story! The whole freaking reason we set these two characters up as symbolic opposites in the first place only to realize that THEY'RE NOT OPPOSITES AT ALL...
In the book, they do some really weird things to explain Javert and Valjean's characters.
(Yes, I know it's actually a coyote)
The narrator describes people with a pathologic mindset as wolves. He repeatedly refers to Valjean as a wolf, and he introduces Javert as 'a dog who was born into a wolf-family and then grew up to kill his wolf-parents and wolf-brothers and sisters'.
(I'm sorry, WHUT?!)
I don't know what kind of animal documentaries Victor Hugo's been watching, but apparently I've been missing out
To make matters more complicated, Javert is the one who displays predatory behavior throughout the story. While, most of the time, all we see Valjean do is struggle to suppress it.
So who's the real wolf here?
So I went online, and read some reviews and I finally found an explanation that makes sense:
Javert is a wolf and always has been (just like Valjean) he just looks enough like a dog when he's wearing a collar to pass for one. He's channeling all of his killer instincts into capturing criminals instead of committing crimes.
(^^That's the exact choice he faced as a teenager!)
While Valjean fights against this instinct, Javert found a way to use it. They're both exhibiting a different type of restraint and attempting to channel their pathological mindset into productive avenues. The difference is Javert thinks he can do it alone, and Valjean knows he can't.
-On Just book!Javert:
In every performance adaption I've seen, they really make it seem like Javert is obsessed with finding Valjean for a really long time. So I was surprised to find out that in The Brick, he's obsessed with bringing down a criminal organization in Paris (Becuz he's awesome like that). Towards Valjean, most of the time he's just like "Hmm...I wonder what happened with that guy?"
Victor Hugo purposefully writes his characters as characatures of themselves: they're stylized with bold strokes so that Victor as a writer can be on his little soap box and make his point about humanity. But it is cool to see that he has thought about them in relation to actual physical people. Javert represents and idea, but he also represents a type of person.
Basically he's all stuffy at the beginning and by the end it's all
-Bishop Charles Myriel:
He's got a whole backstory and everything, it's awesome.
-On Just Valjean:
When we first meet Valjean, he's not immediately a sympathetic figure; he's actually quite sinister. Even after he is "Saved", he's steals this little kid's lunch money.
He doesn't quite fathom the profound change taking place within him, or the journey that he's embarking on; ultimately all he's capable of is one step of faith at a time. And that's enough,
The most powerful aspect of his story, for me, is whenever he has a period of self-reflection: he always comes out realizing he's sill the same man he was when he left Toulon. In the terminology of my religion, we'd probably say he feels the influence of the "natural man" working within him. And he's not comfortable with himself, he doesn't like himself. Honestly towards the end, it made me really sad. I felt like he should be "fixed" by now, after all the good he's done.
You would not believe the intense logic discussions that have taken place in my brain because of these characters:
Me: "Why isn't he fixed? Isn't that supposed to be how it works?"
Me: "Well, yeah. But only with God. He's trying to be Javert, he's trying to let his works save him."
Me: "But it's his IDENTITY he can't stand! He hates being Jean Valjean, he'd rather be Fachelevant, or Le Maire or one of his other aliases so he can pretend his past doesn't exist."
Me: "And he didn't loose his family...and become a gangmember...and do and witness horrible things. Post Traumatic Stress will do that to you."
Me: "So basically God doesn't cure your infirmities."
Me: "No, he redeems you of them. It's like 'Yeah, you've fallen short. You're not good enough, but that's OK."
Me: "But wouldn't that bring him peace?"
Me: "PTSD, remember? Peace is relative. For him knowing that not being OK is OK."
Me: "OoooooOOOOooohhhh...."
This book can get really cerebral...
Seriously though, I really do love that Jean can have those moments and still be the absolutely flawless, awesome guy I believe he is.
-On Marius:
Marius in the book is actually a pretty horrible person. Like, he actually doesn't care about social welfare, he just cares about what befits him personally. Where Movie!Marius will be sad he lost all his friends, book Marius doesn't care. I don't want to make it sound like he's a villain, but he is a "nice guy" in the worst sense of the word.
(Even Valjean hates him)
He's really selfish, he never merits any of his good fortune. I try to pass this off as Victor Hugo using him as another example of how grace works; all these people died so he can be an unmerited recipient of their labors. But I actually just think Victor just had a weird sense of romanticism...kind of like a Male Bella Swan.
-On Cosette:
I really feel like Victor Hugo Nerfed her character development. Like, she's got all these questions, trying to discover her past, dealing with issues. And then Marius comes along and she becomes a non-entity. Boo!
-Enjorlas:
Just Ugh! He's so boss! I so hope Javert got to see him [spoiler omitted].
-Thenardier:
I almost feel like the Thenardier family can be read as also one entity, even though in the story they hardly interact as a family at all.
The head of the family is No-first-name Thenardier. I don't know if Victor Hugo was just being lazy in not giving him a first name, if he wanted his name to be synonymous with the whole family, or if he wanted all of the family members to be synonymous with him.
Most of the other poor characters are treated as "Unfortunates" M. Thenardier is "Infamous"This means that most of his misfortune is self-inflicted, he are not so much a victim of society as he is a victim of himself:
"Thenardier possessed all that is required to make [himself]... a [successful] honest trader...a good bourgeois* [but he still grew up to be a crook]."
(*Conventional middle class dude)
It's an interesting counterpoint to almost every other character in the book; even the members of the Patron-Minette are treated with more sympathy. In some ways, this feels really cheap...I mean, you excuse away serial killers and assassins as victims of society, but this guy...he's just a bad egg.
After giving this some thought, I think this is another one of the many times Mister Hugo is trying to be unnecessarily poetic. (See Also: Javert the Cannibal Puppy)
When you consider that this book isn't just discussing Thenardier as an individual, but rather as a caricature, or a type of person, a focus starts to take shape. Particularly when you compare his personality description to that of his children:
Thenardier has a lot of children, and he has basically nil nurturative influence on them at all, so basically whatever they got from him, is a reflection of biological inheritance;
Eponine actually claims this when she does something super gutzy and punk:
"I'm not the daughter of a dog, [...] I'm the daughter of a wolf."
Basically, she's inherited his temperament and because of that she's brave, tenacious, willful and determined to get what she wants even if it hurts other people, or herself.
Gavroche is basically her foil: the hero to Eponine's villain: He's got the same (Thenardier) tenacity and cunning, but, while she uses it to exploit others for her own warped benefit; he demonstrates compassion, selflessness, and generosity.
So this is who the Thenardiers are: Cunning people who can make what they want out of their lives, become whatever they choose, regardless of their circumstances. Considering how dogmatic all of M. Hugo's other characters are represented, this breakmakes them a breath of fresh air.
Another interesting point about the Thenardiers is that all the Thenardier POV characters get "happy endings" (if not conventional ones).
Think about it: Gavroche has arguably the most gut-wrenching death in the story, cuz he's so young, But Victor Hugo points out that his death is not a tragedy because his life had no potential for betterment any way. At least he was able to die with purity and dignity, and a relative degree of happiness...and not become his father's son as he was destined to be if he did grow up. Dying is the best thing that ever happened to him... In addition to having no potential for future happiness, Eponine was also aware of that fact (unlike her brother). From her own point of view, her death was fulfilling because she was able to plan her exit the way she wanted (like a romance, in the arms of her "one true love"). And Dad-Thenardier? Well, he actually gets away with all of his schemes, moves to america to sell slaves to plantation owners. Nice...
I wanna see a version where he's the main character! His role in the war, adventures with Marius' dad, 15 minutes of fame stuff...That would be fascinating!
Other Versions I want to see:
-The Modern AU
^^^ which was an actual thing, btw
-The Anime One (with subs in english, of course)
-The 1950-ish one where Valjean gets held hostage by the Thenardiers
-The one where all the characters are represented by their animal avatars:
Jean is a wolf
Cosette is a lark
etc.
(There isn't one, but I would so watch it).
-A version where Javert is Half-Romani (As he is implied to be in the book), and Marius' Dad is an actual character.
