A little more from me now that I am finished*.
I really wonder why this is considered such a masterpiece and a classic. The writing got better as it went along** but it was never what I would consider great (I read the Pevear version.)
The descriptions of d'Artagnan changed so much between the first couple chapters of the book and the end that I really had a hard time with it. It seemed like Dumas knew he had goofed up in the initial characterization and since this was serially published couldn't go back to fix it so instead he kept saying things like "as we have said, he was an extremely prudent lad, and he contained himself" (loc 4765) or "his natural prudence never abandoned him for a moment" (loc 4960) but the stupid argument and initial confrontation with Rochefort speaks louder than that. He was an impulsive, arrogant, shallow boy. I say that then think of this...
Youtube.
The other characters weren't any better. I think I preferred Athos to the others but that is marginal. At least he has a reason for being bitter. Not a good one, but if you accept that he
had to have Milady executed but felt awful about it at least it holds up after that.
Maybe if I had a better understanding of the people and this period of history it would have been better but as-is I just can't consider this a good book. Right now, I'd rather watch one of the movies and leave with some respect for the main characters.
* I couldn't take it any longer and just skimmed the last 15% and then read a couple summaries.
** Or, more likely, I just got used to the choppy writing.