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

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by orlok

For what it's worth, I'm with you. I think it's being over analysed, and people are forgetting when it was written. Viewed through the lens of the 21st century, it's easy to say much of the attitudes and behaviours are unacceptable, but we should remember the context. And I agree with Issybird that much of it was written in jest, with a sense of humour foremost.

Whatever. I don't think any of the elements to which I objected had jacks**t to do with the time period or modern views versus not. I read lots of content that offends the holy hell out of my feminist viewpoints--but somehow, I manage to enjoy those and even love some of them, recognizing that at date X in time, women were chattel, or this or that.

Just as people of intelligence can read books that have slavery, without burning them or pretending that it never existed, or worse, painting historical time periods as happy-happy-joy-joy worlds. (I'll leave that to "Historical Romances" which take extraordinary pains to be "historically accurate," other than pesky things like personal hygiene...)

Ask yourself one simple question--ignoring any/all behavior that can remotely possibly be categorized as "historic" or a "more of the day that's updated today," look at the behavior of TTM, and ask if you'd find it charming or funny or rollicking today.

So, Musketeer Paul, today, dates some married woman. He needs money, so he convinces her to steal her own jewelry, that her husband gave her, and give it to him. He takes it and pretty much then promptly dumps her, and parties with his buddies, yucking it up about how he conned her into doing so.

Yeah, right--that's me, disliking that behavior for being Politically Incorrect. That's what is being said? That this was perfectly acceptable behavior, then? And we're only offended now?

Sorry--I don't see PC entering into this at all, and nor do I see any of that behavior as being honorable or noble or anything like that, pretty much at any time in history amongst remotely civilized people. Even if you take out all the sexual bits, or that Porthos was sleeping with a married woman, etc., he got her to steal, then dumped her, leaving her alone to face the music.

That's honorable? THEN, or now?

Musketeer Art (Athos) loves a woman. He finds out that she didn't tell him everyhtng about her past--let's say, (as is Milady, mind you), she's been ACCUSED of a crime. In fact, some friend tells him she's a convict. He doesn't give her a chance to defend herself, or even say that she never WAS a convict--taht someone tarred her rep on the Net, and said she's a convict, and now she can't get rid of that false accusation. Art's pride is damaged, so rather than admit to his buddies or family that, gasp!, he married someone beneath him, he conspires to murder her--unsucessfully, which he learns later.

Yeah, right--political correctness makes me think he's a dishonorable, selfish schmuck. 'Cuz, really, he's a rollicking, funny, lovable hero! Of COURSE he'd murder her! Who wouldn't? Damn that political correctness, yo! Yeah, man, of course, EVERYBODY behaved that way, "way back then."

I think that people had a preconceived notion, due to the movies, and that created a confirmation bias that the books were going to be WONDERFUL. I hope, truly, that's what I'm seeing here. After all, even the infamous "One for All and All for One" doesn't bloody exist, by any evidence of their behavior throughout. They can hardly be bothered to think about each other, nevermind go to extraordinary lengths to watch each other's backs, rush to the rescue, etc.

if that's worthless; if that doesn't exist in the books...well.


Hitch

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Is there anything funny about the trial and execution of Milady?

I think that's the trouble I have with humour as an explanation. Yes, at the beginning, with "Don Quixote at eighteen" as the description for d'Artagnan, I can see that Dumas opened the story with humour in mind, but - at least through modern eyes - he failed to keep it up.

I'd also add that the recent-historical consensus would seem to be that the characters were supposed to be heroic and chivalrous (and fun, yes I concede that even modern consensus is seems to include an aspect of humour). If there's one line that identifies this story in modern times it's "All for one and one for all!" That seems to be the story people wanted to see in this book, so that's what they've pulled out, however hard they have to work at ignoring what's really there.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Is there anything funny about the trial and execution of Milady?

I didn't say everything was humorous, just that there was humour in his writing.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Whatever.

Thank you for your valued opinion.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Hitch

So, Musketeer Paul, today, dates some married woman. He needs money, so he convinces her to steal her own jewelry, that her husband gave her, and give it to him. He takes it and pretty much then promptly dumps her, and parties with his buddies, yucking it up about how he conned her into doing so.

That's awful, but it's intended to be awful. I'll cite Seinfeld as a modern equivalent in the same vein. Dumas is mocking the Musketeers pretty explicitly. We're supposed to enjoy the ride at the same time as we realize that they're not all they're cracked up to be, or consider themselves to be.

[Greg Anos]

Just a sidebar.

Until recent times, rich men had wives and often kept mistresses. And paid for their support. That's how you got the term "kept woman".

Why does it seem strange that a rich woman might want to have a "kept man"? A drinking, swashbuckling, very masculine, "kept man"? And how would such a man perceive himself?

Food for thought. . .

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

That's awful, but it's intended to be awful. I'll cite Seinfeld as a modern equivalent in the same vein. Dumas is mocking the Musketeers pretty explicitly. We're supposed to enjoy the ride at the same time as we realize that they're not all they're cracked up to be, or consider themselves to be.

Dumas may have been mocking them, but at some point they became heroic icons, and there's a major disconnect between what they are on the page and what they are in popular imagination.

[BenG]

Harry Flashman would have fit right in with the Musketeers.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by BenG

Harry Flashman would have fit right in with the Musketeers.

Except that Flashy was on to himself. He made no prevarications about being a cowardly womanizer. However, his behavior was certainly of a part with theirs!

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by BenG

Harry Flashman would have fit right in with the Musketeers.

Originally Posted by issybird

Except that Flashy was on to himself. He made no prevarications about being a cowardly womanizer. However, his behavior was certainly of a part with theirs!

You're right, he was at least self-aware. However, his general behaviour was why I ultimately couldn't enjoy Flashman. And I did try.

[BenG]

George MacDonald Fraser wrote the screenplay for the 70s Musketeer movies, though in the movie they were more roguish than despicable.

I think the various abridgments, comics, and adaptations have improved the image of the musketeers in the public's mind.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

That's awful, but it's intended to be awful. I'll cite Seinfeld as a modern equivalent in the same vein. Dumas is mocking the Musketeers pretty explicitly. We're supposed to enjoy the ride at the same time as we realize that they're not all they're cracked up to be, or consider themselves to be.

Well, Issy, you just must be so much more discerning and intellectual than so many of us here, because queerly enough, a very large number of us neither found it funny, nor read into it any intimation that Dumas was making fun of his creations. I certainly found no such indication. As I said before, those who love it, fine, love it. That's certainly your prerogative.

Hitch

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Well, Issy, you just must be so much more discerning and intellectual than so many of us here, because queerly enough, a very large number of us neither found it funny, nor read into it any intimation that Dumas was making fun of his creations. I certainly found no such indication. As I said before, those who love it, fine, love it. That's certainly your prerogative.

Hitch

Both MR and NLBC guidelines prohibit personal attacks. If you can't tolerate polite disagreement without sneering at fellow posters, please refrain from posting.

[Bookpossum]

I second that. Club members are united in wanting this to be a place for courteous discussion.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Just a sidebar.

Until recent times, rich men had wives and often kept mistresses. And paid for their support. That's how you got the term "kept woman".

Why does it seem strange that a rich woman might want to have a "kept man"? A drinking, swashbuckling, very masculine, "kept man"? And how would such a man perceive himself?

Food for thought. . .

It's the sort of food that gives one indigestion. There is a significant difference between a kept woman and a kept man as described in this book: who has the power. In both cases the men retain the power. The women, if discovered, are in real trouble, the men will receive congratulations.

And I don't think you need the "until recent times" qualifier. The double standard still holds in many (most?) parts of the world.