The Problem of Eponine

          I meant to write about this months ago when I went to go see the movie in theatres, but I was reminded about it recently when I re-watched Les Miserables. And I’ve begun reading the actual novel, but I had to put it on the back burner lately with student teaching stuff to worry about. Since I haven’t read the novel in full, I can’t criticize the book about it because I’m not sure how Victor Hugo treats the issue. But I can raise the issue with the musical. So here we go:

There’s an unresolved problem with Eponine, and I feel like I’ve seen it other places as well. No one seems to care, and it bothers me. People should care more about her and characters like her, but no one ever seems to.

          The problem of Eponine, I’ll call it, is that here is this character who pines after someone—the typical scenario of unrequited love—and who is caught with a moral delimma of letting that person go to be with someone else. \In most books, novels, movies, etc. the character then goes one of two ways: they either selfishly try to come between the lovers, and pay the ultimate price for it, OR, they selflessly slip away do not try to come between the lovers, and STILL pay the price for it. So my issue is this: what, then, does that say about the character and their choices? If their outcome is the same, regardless of where their choices lie on the scale of morality, then what is the book/novel/movie/whatever telling the audience about whether it matters that they are selfish or selfless? Regardless of the morality of their decision, they wind up with the same consequences; neither option exonerates them.

Eponine, then, to go back to the original example, initially is caught between her desire to keep Cosette and Marius apart, but nevertheless gives up Marius to Cosette, and helps to protect them both by standing up to her own morally corrupted father/parents to allow Cosette to escape. Yes, she steals the note, but she ultimately returns it. And even though she selflessly gives up Marius to the person that he truly loves, she is still destroyed by her affections for him because she gives up her life in trying to protect him.

          What bothers me so much about all of this is that Eponine just dies, but Marius and Cosette live on to have their happily-ever-after. I think most people in watching the story unfold are so caught up in the love story between the latter two that no one seems to care that after all Eponine gives up (and she is faced with more tough situations/decisions than the other two, in my opinion) she’s the one that perishes, completely alone, completely unloved. She is, in my opinion, the epitome of the tragic hero because her tragic flaw is nothing more than unrequited love. She doesn’t die because of some moral deficiency. She dies because she cared about someone and sacrificed her life for theirs, even though they didn’t love her back. She sacrifices herself for someone else’s happy ending, and no one gives her any credit for it. No one even really cares what happens to her at all. The audience is so caught up in the love story that she is cast aside, an invisible casualty. Her end seems to throw into question the very purpose of her existence in the first place. After all, what is the point of living if you are alone and unloved? She is born unloved (spoiled, but not loved), and dies unloved. Did her life ever mean anything at all? And why, WHY is no one bothered by this? Not only is she unloved and ignored by the other characters, but she is also unloved and ignored by even the audience. I just don’t think it’s right. It seems to be preaching a lesson that selflessness exhibited by unloved people is basically irrelevant, and makes no difference. I'm not saying I want the story to teach self-absorbed people to be kind to get a "happy ending"--that's not teaching morality, that's bribery--but I am saying the story should be making a statement that loving and sacrificing for others over yourself DOES matter, even if there's nothing in it for you.