Talk:Enjolras

Pronunciation

I changed the pronunciation guide, as the final S in the name Enjolras is in fact pronounced; all names in French do not follow the usual rule of the end S being silent. The correct pronunciation of Enjolras can be heard in e.g. French film adaptations of the novel or French versions of the musical. I also changed the note about the mispronunciation of the name on the Complete Symphonic Recording: the pronunciation of the S is not a mistake, however, the J is mispronounced. Ais67 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet it seems someone removed the s from the phonetic pronunciation again. Would someone who is better at phonetics than I be willing to put it back? People are actually using this for reference, it seems, and using it incorrectly. 98.245.20.67 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. 189.197.217.186 (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Year of birth

I would question including the likely date of birth at all, as Hugo's dates in the book are rather confused around these years and it's hard to say to which year the age mentioned in the book actually refers. His year of birth is never directly mentioned. Ais67 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken, he is said to be 22 in the chapter where the whole of Les Amis are described. Although this chapter can probably be said to take place in 1827 (around the time when Marius leaves his grandfather) I'm not sure if that is sufficient information to include 1805 as a likely birth year. 84.167.16.135 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's actually 1828 when Marius goes to Paris, so Enjolras was likely born in 1806. 2600:1700:74B2:E810:2DD7:DDC4:8493:57D3 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Actors and signers

Please, everybody, we know have sections for musical actors and singers, so please keep the two separate. The only musical singers that have a right to be in the "film"-section are the two who performed in the 10th and 25th Anniversary Concert as only these two were officially filmed. Thank you. 84.167.16.135 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality

Obviously the "generally accepted" needs to go (generally accepted by whom?) and I question whether it's appropriate for this section to remain at all. The character's sexuality is never referenced in the book-- the only reference to sex concerns his celibacy-- and everything here is thus speculation. If someone wants to summarize scholarly explorations of the topic (with sources), or make a convincing argument as to why it should remain, knock yourself out-- but otherwise I'm going to remove this.Zhuravlei (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. I couldn't find any sources that back up the claims, so I went ahead and removed the section. 65.30.1.135 (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• This seems to be a problem area for some people, whom I would suspect are fangirls. Just to be clear: while it's perfectly acceptable to discuss different readings of the character's sexuality, if you wish to do so, you need to provide evidence other than your personal opinion or reading of the text-- particularly if you want to discuss readings that involve constructs (such as homoromanticism, asexuality, and so on) that are not contemporary to the novel. Zhuravlei (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that certainly, the character's sexuality is never stated or referenced, the current interest and current readings ought to be acknowledged, at least to an extent. I put a few lines in earlier stating that the character as 'homoromantic' was a popular current view (although I'll admit that I failed to address existence of this term against the novel's background) and included references from Dowling and Wiley-Blackwell in particular as to why this view seems to have come about, while acknowledging that it is by no means 'official' and does not have any written academic evidence which directly concerns the novel. I'd say, as long as it's made clear that this view is populist and by no means universal, it makes sense to acknowledge a reading which has been taken on by and is apparently important to current readers? Charlotteriversdale (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem is really with the idea that this is a "popular current view." Popular among whom? It's popular amongst Internet fandom, but this is a tiny portion of the readership. Given that there's little textual evidence in any direction, there's no academic scholarship on the topic, and that the Classical references you note can be read in many ways, not only (and perhaps not even principally) as indicators as sexuality, I feel that any comment on this subject would only be speculation, and as such isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. If there's a credible source that talks about movie or musical fandom's attitude to this, it might merit a note under In Adaptations... Zhuravlei (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're completely right. While I'd argue that the "view" is perhaps more widely held than the "internet fandom" (one of the queer rights groups I'm a part of do discuss some of the connotations of the character), of course, nothing concrete ever has been produced either way. I'm also sorry if I expressed myself badly at any point (English = not first language!). I think I'm taking the availability of information that Wikipedia offers too literally! Charlotteriversdale (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, no problem-- I'm aware and supportive of the queer potential of the character, and I'm actually surprised not to find academic scholarship on the topic. And I know there are fundamental problems with having to rely on an "official" body of evidence that can be very hostile to queer scholarship, but that's a larger issue, and it's probably best to remain neutral and factual. At least, that's what I do. Zhuravlei (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I found a source from the page on Antonious! Copy-pasted, it looks like the following: "In Les Misérables, the character Enjolras is likened to Antinous. "A charming young man who was capable of being a terror. He was angelically good-looking, an untamed Antinous." Hugo also remarks that Enjolras was "seeming not to be aware of the existence on earth of a creature called woman.""" 2600:8802:5200:3830:E1F2:2D32:17D7:9A51 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It also says in the novel Grantaire "admired, loved, and venerated Enjolras", believed only in him, and in the original French text, it says during their death scene that he was struck by 'un coup de foudre', which does literally mean 'thunder', but a quick Google search will tell you it's an expression for love at first sight. All this, combined with the comparisons to multiple male couples from Greek history/mythology (including Orestes/Pylades, Achilles/Patroclus, and Alexander/Hephaestion), there is a good basis for the theory. I personally support them being, but I understand it never directly says in the novel that they were in love, since it seems Enjolras loves helping his country and it's citizens, and is said to not be interested in women (we have no way of knowing if he prefers men). I did edit a section on Grantaire's page, talking about these passages more and saying that a large portion of younger readers in the fandom think of them as a couple, but tried to stay neutral. I summarized sentences from the book, to explain why people ship them (instead of saying they are married like someone else did). 2600:1700:74B2:E810:FB8F:A625:D80D:827 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Infobox section regarding portrayal

Is it appropiate to have it? Maybe the musical itself can be linked? Because we run the potential danger where people just continue to list actors. Knowing the high rotation with Broadway actors it runs the risk of it being miles long. Chefs-kiss (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)