The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas

[Vertigo]

I started this book with some trepidation; I don’t always get on so well with some of the older classics and I suppose I had always assumed the humour in the various Musketeer films was added by Hollywood. Well, how wrong could I be? Though some of the English is a little archaic in my edition (from Gutenberg) the humour is very definitely there if a little less slapstick than some of the film interpretations. But there is also a lot more darkness than in the film interpretations. Milady has definitely been treated rather more sympathetically in the films; in the book she is pure evil whereas Richelieu, whilst not exactly on the side of good, is definitely not portrayed as evil to anything like the same degree. Also the writing is eminently accessible, possibly because of that humour. All this combined with the very essence of swashbuckling adventure made this a great read and it was sufficiently different to the films that I rarely felt that I already knew the story.

One thing that did surprise me and that is definitely toned down in the film interpretations is the immorality or maybe it is amorality or maybe, somehow, both. This is something we might expect from the villains but not so much from the heroes, especially in these older works where the heroes tend to be pretty unambiguous, less of the more modern flawed hero or even anti-hero. Here much of the behaviour of the four heroes is in my view utterly immoral, though it could be argued as being amoral since they seem to have no sense of their behaviour being in any way wrong. In fact Dumas goes to great pains to explain, repeatedly, that these were different times with different attitudes. I’m not quite so sure, and I found the ease with which they are prepared to commit adultery, theft and even what is essentially murder, with no qualms whatsoever a little disturbing and was, for me, the only major criticism I have of this book.

Outside of that this book has it all; swashbuckling adventure that stands up with the best in literature, great fast paced story, tortuously intricate plot, suspense and great characterisation – the reader really gets to know all the main characters intimately. I thoroughly enjoyed it! If you've ummed and ahhed about tackling a book written over 170 years ago then don't; give it a try, you might be surprised by how easy it is to enjoy this work.

 

[Brian G Turner]

much of the behaviour of the four heroes is in my view utterly immoral

I noticed that, too, though I accepted a suggestion that this was due to their higher social status. From my later reading, gambling and dicing were normal everyday past times - along with the consequences.

Did you read the full or abridged version? Simply that I recently read the full, but there were times I really wished an editor had struck out some of the dialogue - not least when people met up and went through all of the individual greetings!

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

One of my favourite books.

You are right, Vertigo, in that none of the films do the book full justice, although I enjoy the film versions too, even the steam-punk style one.

 

[Vertigo]

I noticed that, too, though I accepted a suggestion that this was due to their higher social status. From my later reading, gambling and dicing were normal everyday past times - along with the consequences.

Did you read the full or abridged version? Simply that I recently read the full, but there were times I really wished an editor had struck out some of the dialogue - not least when people met up and went through all of the individual greetings!

I don't think it was abridged - it was the Gutenberg version and came in at over 600 pages. I admit I did sometimes find the narrative (though not the action) a little pedestrian but I would also say I have found that with pretty much anything I've read from that sort of era.

One of my favourite books.

You are right, Vertigo, in that none of the films do the book full justice, although I enjoy the film versions too, even the steam-punk style one.

Yes that steampunk version was a little... different! But I also enjoyed it.

It's funny how the films seem to stay moderately faithful to the earlier parts of the story but much less so the later parts which seem to be largely ignored. I suppose it was just too much material for a film.

 

[The Judge]

I read this for the first time last year, in an unabridged, modern (2006) translation by Richard Pevear. It took me a while to get used to Dumas' florid, excessively wordy style, and I was forever muttering "Cut to the flaming chase" but I certainly enjoyed the beginning and found it entertaining. But as it continued I became more irritated at its long-windedness and far less happy at the social and sexual chauvinism. Autre temps, autre moeurs, of course -- and that goes for Dumas' era as well as the ostensible setting -- but I still found it deeply unpleasant in places, most particularly with regard to the Milady story. They can threaten and kill and steal and trick women and commit adultery, no problem, but she is stigmatised because she was dishonest towards her husband, and therefore demeaned his nobility. I'd really like to see a revisionist take on it, making Milady the protagonist with whom one can sympathise, as Wide Sargasso Sea did for Bertha in Jane Eyre.

 

[Vertigo]

Yes I think you have beautifully expressed what I found discomfiting about the morality of the book. I still thoroughly enjoyed it, but that definitely took a little off the edge. Strangely I wasn't that bothered by the wordiness; usually that is something that does bother me particularly with older books like this but other times I hardly notice it; two examples of 'wordy' authors that I love would be Mieville or Mervyn Peake.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

I'd really like to see a revisionist take on it, making Milady the protagonist with whom one can sympathise, as Wide Sargasso Sea did for Bertha in Jane Eyre

That would make a great story - maybe you should write it. I always thought there was an awful lot more to Milady than Dumas' chauvinistic prose made of her. It would be great to give her side of the tale. Constance Bonacieux irritated me in the book and in most of the film and TV versions.

 

[Vertigo]

Yes, but I think you'd have to tone many of her actions down a little to make her sympathetic.

Spoiler

Whilst many of the things she does could get some justification viewed from her perspective, her spiteful murder of Constance (no matter how irritating you may have found that character ) was just plain evil: ""This is not the way that I wished to avenge myself," said Milady, replacing the glass upon the table, with an infernal smile, "but, my faith! we do what we can!" And she rushed out of the room." Now that one action could never be made sympathetic; that was a murder performed for no good reason other than spite.

To be fair there are quite a few passages written from Milady's POV that do present her in a much more sympathetic light; there are just too many other passages that do the opposite.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

Ah, but perhaps the scene you mentioned could be given another twist, if the victim had in fact done something to deserve the fate allotted to them (carefully avoiding spoilers, because I haven't learned how to tag them yet!), or even been the real evil-doer behind the scenes. I could enjoy writing that.

 

[Vertigo]

Fair enough: as I say a few tweaks might be needed.

PS for spoiler tags there is an insert button that includes the spoiler tag at the top of the editing box. However you can just wrap the text in the following (without the spaces): [ S P O I L E R ] [ / S P O I L E R ]

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I first read the book as a child, an abridged edition (naturally) since it was meant for young readers, in which the amorality of the main characters was not nearly so apparent. I read it another time or two as a teenager and an adult, and still they must have been abridged editions, because I didn't notice anything different about the characters. I think with those later editions certain scenes were cut out because they didn't advance the plot and they were removed for purposes of pacing to appeal to modern readers. Because some of the times the characters were acting at their worst, it was petty self-interest and nothing to do with the rest of the story. Though Dumas probably put those scenes in as characterization and because he thought readers would find them amusing, they looked a lot like padding.

Then ten years or so ago I read a translation that was unabridged, and I was amazed that the heroes of my youth turned out to be such blackhearted scoundrels. It was still a great adventure novel and fun to read, but I did want to bash in their skulls from time to time.

As for Milady

Spoiler

She was, of course, completely immoral and callous in the way she used and disposed of people. But I did feel sympathy for her when Athos was telling his story about stringing her up when he found out the truth about her. I suppose you couldn't call it murder (had it been successful, as he thought), because he did have the right of high, low, and middle justice, but killing his young wife whom he had loved just moments before because her past brings shame to his family name -- which was one scene that was not glossed over in the children's version -- even allowing for the fact that it was probably what his background demanded that he do, was pretty horrifying. And even D'Artagnan was shocked.

 

[Vertigo]

...I was amazed that the heroes of my youth turned out to be such blackhearted scoundrels.

Hehe precisely! I think some of the behaviour that shocked me the most was the casual way they happily gambled (and lost) D'Artagnan's money and possessions, as though it was a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do.

I agree that Milady was definitely treated harshly by Athos and that, without doubt, made me more sympathetic to her, though I still don't think it anywhere near justifies her more extreme behaviour.

 

[The Judge]

I didn't mind their gambling so much, not even losing someone else's money (though it would be reprehensible in real life, of course). The thing which stuck with me, apart from Milady (whose callous cruelty is, indeed, hard to overlook, let alone the deliberate murder) is the physical violence meted out to the servants, and anyone they happened to dislike.

 

[Vertigo]

Yes, Judge, (not to mention husbands and women) and that is why I suggested amoral might be the correct adjective as they, apparently, had absolutely no sense of it being wrong in any way.

One thing I'm unsure of is whether that sort of behaviour from 'gentlemen' was genuinely considered completely acceptable at that time or whether Dumas made it up to suit his story/desire. I'd imagine the maltreatment of servants back then was probably pretty much the norm, but I'm wondering about the adultery and effectively the stealing from your mistress which Dumas seems to have believed was completely acceptable in the C17.

 

[MWagner]

Yes, Judge, (not to mention husbands and women) and that is why I suggested amoral might be the correct adjective as they, apparently, had absolutely no sense of it being wrong in any way.

I doubt people of their class and station in life thought much about the feelings of anyone but their close peers, and their liege or patrons. Christian-bourgeoisie morality was late coming to these sorts of cavaliers. My impressions of that time and place is when people judged one another, it was only by the metric of status. It was admirable to higher status, contemptible to be lower-status.

One thing I'm unsure of is whether that sort of behaviour from 'gentlemen' was genuinely considered completely acceptable at that time or whether Dumas made it up to suit his story/desire. I'd imagine the maltreatment of servants back then was probably pretty much the norm, but I'm wondering about the adultery and effectively the stealing from your mistress which Dumas seems to have believed was completely acceptable in the C17.

Two things to keep in mind about Dumas' characters here:

1) They represent a very narrow social niche - the foppish, vain, dueling rakes who live for the moment and do their utmost to impress other foppish, vain, dueling rakes. A country squire of the 17th century may very well have different notions about status and honour.

2) This is meant to be lively entertainment. The French in general seem less hung up than Anglos about presenting their protagonists as moral exemplars. I'm not sure it would even have occurred to many of the readers to morally judge the actions of the musketeers. And more upright characters may very well have engaged in less entertaining antics.

I'm reminded of Jack Vance's books, in particular his stories featuring Cugel the Clever. Many readers (especially modern readers) are put off by Cugel's lack of a conscience. But the stories aren't about a moral awakening, or a struggle to determine what is the best way to live - they're about the outrageous and fantastic hi-jinks of a rogue. Some readers find it difficult to engage with a character lacking admirable traits - especially now that readers expect to crawl right into the skin of protagonists in fiction, rather than than watch their behaviour with a degree of detachment.

 

[The Ace]

Of course, if you look at the historical context, it gives a new slant on things.

Richelieu, was NOT a nice man, but he was also the closest thing to a Prime Minister that France had at the time, and there was a fair justification for some of his actions.

The Musketeers were armed thugs, useful in a fight, but disastrous on the streets of Paris - the moratorium on duels came about because the musketeers liked to goad young noblemen to the point of no return and then slaughter them. As these were the people the Cardinal needed to produce a functioning government (the King, at this point, was more interested in the privilege of rank than its responsibilities, and making the country actually work fell to a handful of competent ministers and their staff), Richelieu had to put the mockers on them to prevent chaos.

Dumas was also a staunch republican, who wanted no return to the bad old days he depicted, so none of his characters were particularly admirable to give the reader a sense that this was past - and buried - history.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Reading the abridged editions as a child, one gets the idea that the musketeers are supposed to be heroes. Most of their flaws seem more like basically endearing quirks. (Except for the whole shocking business of Athos and his young wife, which there was no way to gloss over.)

But reading an unabridged edition, it becomes plain that Dumas did not intend for them to appear heroic or admirable. Fascinating and exciting to read about, but not men to be admired.

 

[Vertigo]

Fascinating and exciting to read about, but not men to be admired.

I think that sums it up rather nicely!

 

[Ray McCarthy]

what I found discomfiting about the morality of the book

Yes, in some ways totally modern.
I like Heroes that are more moral.

 

[Vertigo]

Yes to be fair to Dumas I am applying very modern morals to something written over 150 years ago set around 400 years ago.

And, of course, if you look at all 'swashbuckling' style books, they were largely based around heroes with pretty dodgy morals; privateers and the like. Although the more modern varieties do tend towards the rather unlikely 'gentleman rogue' style of pirate, who of course is a misunderstood, falsely accused innocent forced into this rough way of life!