Alexandre Dumas: The Three Musketeers

[Beatrycze]

Well, but it's a crucial change to her character. Maybe Dumas wanted to convey a message by creating such characters?

 

[Litany]

Well, but it's a crucial change to her character.

I agree. In fact, it's a lot harder to be sympathetic towards any of the characters in the book than in the films. Even in the funnier films, the Musketeers were portrayed as having an honour that was lacking in the books.

I think I would have to read the rest of the books in the series before I could tell if Dumas had a message and what that message might be. And that could take a fair bit of time.

 

[Ashlea]

Truthfully, I may have to give up on this one at just over the halfway mark. I have a hard time getting through books where I want to slap all the characters. I have the same problem with Flaubert, maybe it's a thing with French authors.

 

[Beatrycze]

And if you were to vote for your favourite (or the less annoying ) Musketeer, whom would you choose? I'd definitively Athos.

 

[Litany]

Maybe Porthos. He was really only interested in filling his stomach and wearing pretty clothes. I can relate to that.

 

[Ashlea]

Athos is the least annoying as far as frequency of annoying decisions, but when he does make a bad one, it's a doozy. I want to slap him the least often, but the hardest.

 

[RaVeN]

Maybe Porthos. He was really only interested in filling his stomach and wearing pretty clothes. I can relate to that.

I agree. Porthos is like the drunk Uncle at a wedding and would be the most tolerable. Pathetic, but tolerable.


RaVeN

 

[Bernard]

I enjoyed this book. It wasn't my all time favorite but I liked. I felt that Athos for me was probably the least annoying. I thought I would never get past the part where Milady was in her brother in laws prison...but in the end wasn't that bad.

 

[member 737]

I wonder whether Dumas was aware that his characters tend to be obnoxious or thought that there were "cool"? Or maybe that is the way he peceived people living at that times?

I suppose that Dumas was aware that his "positive" characters were in fact a band of usually drunken, irresponsible playboys, who even didn't know what a word "patriot" means. While you're reading a book, it is becoming quite obvious, that the "bad" guys are in fact on the right side. It's a kind of a Dumas's joke - and a source of black humour and ironic description of French society.

 

[member 737]

And if you were to vote for your favourite (or the less annoying ) Musketeer, whom would you choose? I'd definitively Athos.

As a child, I always liked Athos. Don't remember why, though. Maybe because he had suffered some bad luck and dissapointments in life, I felt sympathy towards him. The rest of the guys were pathetic without a decent reason.

 

[member 737]

A catch in the title

As Umberto Eco noticed, a reader is fooled by the title. It clearly says that he is going to read a story about adventures of three guys, while there is spotlight on only one - the fourth. I wonder why.

 

[RaVeN]

A poll that I saw recently, voted Richelieu as one of the nastiest literary villains of all time. I didn't really think about it much while reading it but I suppose he was a unique character for the time period that it was written in.

Or was he?


RaVeN

 

[Litany]

I don't think he was nearly evil enough. Especially as he kept not killing D'artagnan.

 

[member 737]

I've always thought that Richelieu was a "good" guy (also as a historical figure; very intelligent and admirable politician). It was the musketeers who were evil, weren't they?

 

[Ashlea]

I've always thought that Richelieu was a "good" guy (also as a historical figure; very intelligent and admirable politician). It was the musketeers who were evil, weren't they?

it's hard to say that any of them were "good" or "evil." They're all definitely human.

 

[Litany]

Were they evil or were they just idiots? Their whole adventure was based on D'Artagnan being led by his penis. Not much to be admired, but not especially malicious either.

I don't know anything about Richelieu outside of what I read in this book. I would have liked him better if he'd given D'Artagnan a good kicking at the end. I wouldn't say that his religious zealotry made him a particularly good guy to me.

I don't think any of them were especially good. They were all quite petty. The King was more interested in catching the Queen in the act than in running his own country. The Queen was plotting against her adopted country with her family. Richelieu was plotting against everyone. D'Artagnan didn't care what he did as long as it gained him access to the servant's knickers. The musketeers were happy to follow him around as long as there was a chance of a fight and some wine and someone they could con into buying the dinner.

It was a bit like a soap opera really. Lots of people you wouldn't want to live next door to, having affairs, getting trapped in preposterous situations, no one important ever really getting hurt and then no real resolution by the end. All ready to start again next week.

If it was to be rewritten for a modern audience they could call it The Big Book of Chavs.

 

[member 737]

it's hard to say that any of them were "good" or "evil." They're all definitely human.

It is easy to say in an adventure book, like "Three Musketeers". Two groups of guys fight and it is always clearly said who should (and will) win in the end and will get the girl. (Though Dumas apparently had a lot of fun laughing at this cliche).

 

[mehastings]

This book is probably one of my favorites of all time. I've also read the second book Twenty Years After and have a couple of others to read at some point.

I've always thought that Richelieu was a "good" guy (also as a historical figure; very intelligent and admirable politician). It was the musketeers who were evil, weren't they?

I don't know that Richelieu could ever be considered a "good guy". Not in this book, and frankly, not in reality either. He may have moved the French toward political unity, but he was still just another scheming cardinal in my mind.

 

[Mon.De'Treville]

Hey everyone. This is my first post. I finished this novel about a week ago and fell in love with the characters, thus becoming part of my screenname. D'Artagnan is the best character I have yet to read about. It is a classic tale of love and betrayal. Right now this book stands in the category of the best book and plot I have ever read. I love Dumas's work and will continue to read all his novels and plays.

 

[Fantasy Moon]

I had read this book in high school. Around that time I also had to do a portfolio project in Language Arts on an emotion. Most students chose love or hate, but I did something that had not been done before: lust. I used the example between the cardinal and the queen from this wonderful work to satisfy one of the examples from literature.

Anyway I found myself to enjoy this book quite well when I read it then. I haven't read the novel that follows it up though. Perhaps it can be considered a good thing that the characters are not so noble that you want to puke from the perfection! Hehe!

Hey everyone. This is my first post. I finished this novel about a week ago and fell in love with the characters, thus becoming part of my screenname. D'Artagnan is the best character I have yet to read about. It is a classic tale of love and betrayal. Right now this book stands in the category of the best book and plot I have ever read. I love Dumas's work and will continue to read all his novels and plays.

Welcome to our book-lovin' community!