New Leaf June 2018 Discussion • The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas

[issybird]

The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas is the June selection for the New Leaf Book Club.

This swashbuckling epic of chivalry, honor, and derring-do, set in France during the 1620s, is richly populated with romantic heroes, unattainable heroines, kings, queens, cavaliers, and criminals in a whirl of adventure, espionage, conspiracy, murder, vengeance, love, scandal, and suspense. Dumas transforms minor historical figures into larger- than-life characters: the Comte d’Artagnan, an impetuous young man in pursuit of glory; the beguilingly evil seductress “Milady”; the powerful and devious Cardinal Richelieu; the weak King Louis XIII and his unhappy queen—and, of course, the three musketeers themselves, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, whose motto “all for one, one for all” has come to epitomize devoted friendship. With a plot that delivers stolen diamonds, masked balls, purloined letters, and, of course, great bouts of swordplay, The Three Musketeers is eternally entertaining.

Public domain | Feedbooks epub/Kindle FREE | Amazon US/Pevear translation | Amazon UK/Pevear

[issybird]

One for all and all for one!

What did we think of this rollicking romantic romp through 17th century France?

[Luffy]

I read it in French, and I had to look up both difficult words plus archaic ones. The story was as choppy as I remember it from my first reading. I think Dartagnan was the most interesting good guy in this book. The drama near the end smacked me of being theatre.

[Catlady]

Thought I would finish last night, but I didn't quite make it. I have a couple of hours left in the audiobook.

I never connected with the book; I kept becoming distracted, and consequently confused about how the story got from point to point. Sad but true.

[Bookpossum]

I originally read The Three Musketeers way back in my teens and the one really clear memory I had retained was that hugely dramatic scene near the end of the book.

This time around I read the excellent translation by Will Hobson, after trying and failing to get the Pevear from my library. (It was listed as the Pevear, but was in fact an older translation, which was a tad irritating.)

As a first overall comment, I found the characters to be very two-dimensional, galloping from one action sequence to the next. It was only to be expected I suppose, given that it was written as a serial. But I think that it's an interesting book to look at from several angles: the hero as vigilante, the weaving of historical events and people into the story, and the way in which women are depicted, are three which spring to mind.

[issybird]

Dumas tried to cover a lot of territory in this book. I enjoyed it overall, but what I liked least what the antic behavior of the purported heroes. The writing style was witty and amusing, but I wasn't laughing at the over-the-top, less-than-heroic, hurtful-to-others hijinks of the four. I haven't quite made up my mind whether Dumas intended that for comic relief (certainly at least in part) or whether there was a subversive aspect to it.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Thought I would finish last night, but I didn't quite make it. I have a couple of hours left in the audiobook.

I never connected with the book; I kept becoming distracted, and consequently confused about how the story got from point to point. Sad but true.

I too had some problems like that.

[gmw]

I haven't finished yet. I think I'm about two thirds of the way through (heading off to the siege at La Rochelle).

With d’Artagnan described as "picture to yourself Don Quixote at eighteen" right there in the opening scene, I began to wonder just how far out my expectations were for this story. And I'm still not sure.

So far the ride has been very patchy: parts where I found I was smiling in wry amusement; parts where I winced at what seemed farce; parts where I was struggling to keep my eyes open. At this point my main reaction would be: it's long! It seems impossible that it should have taken 420 pages to get where I am?

I am reading the Richard Pevear translation. Pevear's introduction is also long, and (I thought) similarly patchy. I wish I was reading this in paper rather than ebook form, it would make the notes easier to access. In his introduction Pevear makes this observation:

We think of The Three Musketeers as a novel of action and adventure, of duels, skirmishes, galloping horses, and yet it is nine-tenths dialogue.

But I've read enough now to see that that is misleading: a large amount of the action appears in the form of the characters telling us what they are planning to do or have already done. The result is that parts of the story come over as rather clumsily told - at least by more modern standards.

And I find it strange that the story has this reputation for action - as I noted above, it seems to have taken far too many pages to get to where I am.

I expect it is a modern standards thing again, but I have a lot of trouble finding anything very attractive or appealing about the three musketeers (characters). And d’Artagnan ... well, it seemed to me that his main saving grace (excuse) is being young and over enthusiastic.

One of the more interesting aspects to the story, for me, was the strange contrast between how poorly the women were treated and how strong some of the female characters were portrayed. Of course many of the women were shown as farcically weak, but so were many of the men.


I like that Dumas wove the story into real historical events, but I fear that a lot of this book passes me by because I do not know enough about the context, despite the many informative notes in this edition. I can't help but wonder what readers of the time made of the central characters, it must have been very different to what I see. If I could more readily identify those parts intended to be taken seriously from those that are intended as jokes, it might make it all hang together better.

[WillAdams]

One of my favourite reads, and I need to find the time to read the new translation again (was rather rushed the last time since it was on loan from the library from a waiting list, so couldn't be renewed).

For folks who like fantasy/science fiction, Steven Brust's _The Phoenix Guards_ is an incredible amount of fun (and I'm still kicking myself for not getting it when it was on sale), as is _Five Hundred Years After_ --- the follow-on trilogy is also quite good, but I find it heart-wrenching enough (like to his _Teckla_) that I've never re-read them, though I re-read all his other books when I need some comfort reading.

[CRussel]

I'm a bit over 2/3rds of the way throuigh, and I am finally starting to enjoy it. I made the mistake of starting with the audio book, but because it's based on a very old (Victorian) translation, it is stilted and very difficult to get into. This isn't helped by the nature of the writing which is seriously hampered by the need to provide cliff-hangers at every opportunity to encourage readers to buy the next episode in the serial.

Once I switched to reading the ebook of the Hobson translation, my ability to get caught up in the story improved immensely.

[Dazrin]

Still plodding along. I'm a little further along than gmw but not much.

This will not end up as a favorite for me. Too choppy and inconsistent. Is d’Artagnan hot-headed and impulsive or level-headed and thoughtful? Do any of them have even the self-restraint of a misbehaving toddler? Do any of them understand what "honor" and "chivalry" mean?

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

Do any of them have even the self-restraint of a misbehaving toddler? Do any of them understand what "honor" and "chivalry" mean?

No, apparently not, they're definitely worse than most misbehaving toddlers. And in ways that actually hurt people. (For example, the way d'Artagnan uses Kitty to steal Milady's letters and return false replies with total disregard for what impact this has on Kitty. Or what risk this has for her.)

As for "honor"? Certainly not by my definition. Nor, I would argue, the definition of the time, either.

[Catlady]

Finished!

And then I read the comic book, which hit all the high points in only 68 pages, and made more sense.

Needless to say, I did not like The Three Musketeers. I do feel a little bit of satisfaction in being able to say I've read this classic, so that's something, at least.

At the end, I was extremely annoyed by the way the cold, calculating, always-in-control Milady was portrayed as being such a terrified, sniveling coward when facing death. It seemed a complete violation of her character that she'd show such fear.

I didn't like any of the musketeers; was there anything to admire in them except their apparent loyalty to one another? They were a bunch of insensitive louts.

Milady's ability to seduce men seemed ridiculously unrealistic, and the men she enticed seemed pathetically weak-minded.

A greater familiarity with the historical facts woven into the story probably would've helped me get more out of the book.

[latepaul]

I finished it last night. In the end I found it a slog but not as much as I'd feared.

I think my biggest impression was how the tone varied throughout. I'd never read it before but had, of course, seen at least bits of various film adaptations. So I began the book expecting straight ahead swashbuckling adventure, slightly tongue-in-cheek perhaps but certainly not a parody or anything. And for about the first third or so I got what I expected.

Then about half way through it occurred to me - as I was getting a little annoyed at how casual the violence was and how cheap human life was held - that actually what this was was a farce (a french one no less!). That the violence and death was cartoonish on purpose. It was Tom-and-Jerry not to be taken seriously.

But then toward the final third it takes a shift again and becomes a dark revenge thriller.

Actually there were probably a few more styles than that but those were the main ones I noticed. I guess part of it was explained by the serial nature of the original.

Another thing I want to mention is the pace. I found it very slow. This is contrast to more than one person who has described it as 'rollicking'. I actually think there's a sense in which both are true. In many ways a lot happens fairly quickly, giving a sense of pace, of rollicking action. But a lot of that action feels like pointless business that doesn't advance the plot. For example there's a mission to England that the four friends set off on. It's important and urgent and has a deadline. Off they go and one by one the Musketeers get waylaid in different ways, leaving only D'Artagnan to make it across the channel to carry out the mission. Then he returns and one by one we pick up the Musketeers again and find out what had happened to them and resolve the issues holding them up.

So the mission succeeds and it's done in the timescale that was needed. So there's a sense in which this was 'fast paced' or 'action packed' but it feels slow because we pause to describe these incidents along the way. And back.

And that's before we get to all the talk about food, about wine, about possible duels and actual duels, and - a very big theme - who pays for what and how they get the money.

I think a lot of this comes down to different expectations of a different age, and serialisation. In fact if Dumas was getting paid per chapter I guess it made sense to pad out the book with extra scenes. As long as they had some element - humour, a favourite character, lifestyles of the rich and stupid - that the reader would enjoy, for that chapter, it wouldn't too much matter because no one was sitting down to read the thing as a whole. At least not until later.

I have other issues with the text but they are subservient to this question of tone really. Before debating the problematic nature of the main characters' supposed 'heroism' for example, it would be first useful to decide how seriously the book takes itself. If the whole thing is a farce or a parody then maybe we shouldn't worry over the fact that ordinary people went to war and died because these people played their little games of intrigue and jealousy.

Overally it comes out on the positive side - I gave it 6/10 - but it's too long, and too muddled in tone for me.

[Bookpossum]

I agree latepaul: there were times when there was a definite feeling of cartoon violence about what was happening, because of the light-hearted way it was treated. And then other times when the book was very dark indeed.

These four supposed heroes were really a gang of thugs out looking for trouble, and usually finding it. Their attitude towards women and the rights of others was utterly appalling. I found Porthos the most offensive of all, yet it would seem we were to find him a loveable rogue.

As for Milady, I quite agree with Catlady - she wouldn't have flinched. She was of course painted as the supreme villain, but it's interesting to consider what made her that way.

- Why was she in a nunnery in her youth? Clearly not by choice.
- She was branded by the executioner for leading his brother astray. How about a bit of personal responsibility for his actions by the brother instead of blaming the girl, which is all she was.
- She was hanged by her husband and left for dead, not because of anything she did, but because of the brand.
- She was double-crossed and treated disgustingly by D'Artagnan, our supposed chivalric young hero.

Who can blame her for wanting her revenge upon all men?