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

[issybird]

I was struck by the treatment of the valets, especially Planchet. On hiring Planchet, d'Artagnan wondered how to engender respect and loyalty in him and came up with this solution:

D'Artagnan duly thought it over and decided to beat Planchet provisionally, a task he performed with the conscientiousness he applied to everything, and then, having given him a good going over, he forbade him to leave his service without his permission.

This approach filled the musketeers with respect for d'Artagnan's policies; Planchet was equally admiring and made no further mention of leaving his employ.

Which seems particularly insensitive to a modern reader, even if reasonably accurate to the 17th century (and not the part about Planchet's attitude toward being beaten).

I'll add that while Dumas' grandfather brought his father to France and freed him, he sold his mother and sisters when he left what is now Haiti.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by issybird

This makes sense. The constant dueling which the Crown and Cardinal was trying to contain has a modern echo in sports hooliganism. But I still think the portrayal of the Cardinal was inconsistent; the wrap-up had him a good guy but his attempts to undermine the Queen, for example, were antithetical to the good of the Crown and were part of Richelieu's own power grab.

Yes, I agree about the inconsistency. He was definitely shown as being malevolent in the first part of the book. There was at one stage (to do with the diamonds) a suggestion that the Cardinal had been in love with the Queen, who wouldn't have anything to do with him, and presumably hell hath no fury like a Cardinal scorned.

You have to wonder about Dumas senior's feelings about his father, given that he sold the boy's mother and sisters when he left. That is unspeakable.

[bfisher]

Originally Posted by issybird

I'll add that while Dumas' grandfather brought his father to France and freed him, he sold his mother and sisters when he left what is now Haiti.

Yes, the novel drips with misogyny. No women in this novel get any respect. Dumas basically equates women with servants, and says they must be beaten to be trained properly:

"This is serious," answered the three friends; "it is a family affair. It is with valets as with wives, they must be placed at once upon the footing in which you wish them to remain. Reflect upon it."

D'Artagnan did reflect, and resolved to thrash Planchet provisionally; which he did with the conscientiousness that D'Artagnan carried into everything.

So, like grandfather, like father, like son ...

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by bfisher

Yes, the novel drips with misogyny. No women in this novel get any respect. Dumas basically equates women with servants, and says they must be beaten to be trained properly:

That seems a penny for a pound to how Dumas treated most of his women. They were commodities - marriageable or otherwise. I realize that this is partially a product of the system that divested women of all their property and vested it into a husband at marriage, but it does not make it any less palatable.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

That seems a penny for a pound to how Dumas treated most of his women. They were commodities - marriageable or otherwise. I realize that this is partially a product of the system that divested women of all their property and vested it into a husband at marriage, but it does not make it any less palatable.

I've never, after four tries, been able to finish TTM. And I have, absolutely, tried. I simply can't.

It's not particularly the treatment of the women, although it's despicable by the standards of any point in time, after the cave. Sure, men of the time treat women like property, yadda, but that's not quite the same thing as what occurs in TTM. The callous disregard for the effect that their behavior has, upon their various lovers, the results after they've been tricked or cajoled into stealing money/jewels from their husbands, etc., isn't given a moment's thought.

I simply don't see, time period or otherwise, what "Chivalry" or "honor" exists in the book. Nor humor, unless you're partial to the sort of crude, mean-spirited humor that infects 12-y.o. boys. (And out of which they grow, hopefully.)

"Romantic heroes?" In whose book, no pun intended? I see absolutely nothing romantic about any of them, in any sense of the word. I find them pretty loathsome, all in, on all fronts. The beating of the valet--and the valet seems to approve of this, mind you (rather than being driven to no longer consider leaving, through sheer fear and intimidation, which seems much more the thing)--the contemplated beating of the women...I just can't get through this book. It's at best repugnant, as are the characters, pretty much ALL of them. (It's like these modern-day "dramas" on Netflix, HBO, etc., where every single character is some unlikeable creation, flawed in some fundamental way, so that you can't empathize with, relate to or even "root for" anyone. That the stories have to go so far out of the norm, to be considered "interesting" that we're all being desensitized to just how perversely disgusting they are...and no, before anyone thinks it, I'm not talking about people's sexuality, not within any of the norms, or modern-norms, I should say.)

If the so-called heroes were actually heroic, in any sense of the word, I could probably slog through it. Just fighting in a war, or having a swordfight, isn't in and of itself, heroic. That's action, yes--not heroism. If they showed any loyalty, whatsoever, to anyone else, male, female, HORSE, (yes, Catlady, I had the exact same reaction. I'm surprised he didn't sell the poor pony to the meat man...)...to call them a band of thugs is praise.

I've tried various translations; I've tried reading it in smaller bits, to make it less repulsive to me in smaller bites, but...I just can't get there from here. And their big "score," managing to chase down and execute a woman (for the 2nd time, mind you)...my, what big grand heroes you are!! A woman that has been, arguably, driven certainly in large part to her behavior by the priggish prideful behavior of her former husband, who thinks that a brand means he should HANG HER TO DEATH.

I simply do not see that the abhorrent behavior in question is related to the period of time. We're not talking about slavery here, or the practice of dowries, or anything that we tell ourselves is something that's occurred in the past, that we've grown out of, etc.

I fail to see that we'd give a pass to some man, some trickster or con artist, convincing a woman to steal from her husband, today, or that we'd think it was morally admirable. Why is it different for TTM? The boy, D'Artagnan, promises his father to take great care of this loyal pony--and promply doesn't. A promise given, with zero intent to honor it. Sure, it's "just" a horse, but that's not the point, is it? An allegedly loving husband, finds out today that his wife spent a year in prison, let's say, for being a thief, and shoots her. Is that remarkably different than what Athos did?

The behavior that is so odious isn't related to the time period. We're not talking about that, in any way, manner, shape or form. I think most of us can look past behavior that's related to a point in time; we can read Mark Twain, etc.

I simply can't tell myself that the decidedly non-heroic antics of this gang is based in that. It seems, rather, to be based in an utterly narcissistic, nearly-sociopathic disregard for the lives, the quality of live, the feelings or existence of anyone beyond themselves. The only reason, IMHO, that this book has survived as it has is because the "high points" of the book--the alleged honorable swordfights, working for the "good guys" etc., are what get remembered and what are portrayed in the myriad movies, all of which ignore completely the more-disgusting, and more-telling, behavior of our "heroes."

I have thousands of books in my home, more on my Kindles, and I can count on one hand the number that I've never finished. This counts as one of them.

FWIW.

[Catlady]

So, Hitch, tell us how you really feel.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So, Hitch, tell us how you really feel.

LOL! That's almost exactly what I said!

I completely agree with Hitch and it was nice to see someone who isn't normally involved in the book club come in with similar thoughts as many of us from a completely independent look at it.

I said in another thread that when I finishedquit reading this my wife said to me "Now you feel my pain." It really is a terrible book and I really am curious why such a lousy tale would become the go-to book for "friends" and even "heroes". I'm sure there was some friendship between them but looking at d'Artagnan's actions after returning from England checking on his friends was mostly an afterthought and a way to keep himself from getting caught.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

LOL! That's almost exactly what I said!

I completely agree with Hitch and it was nice to see someone who isn't normally involved in the book club come in with similar thoughts as many of us from a completely independent look at it.

I said in another thread that when I finishedquit reading this my wife said to me "Now you feel my pain." It really is a terrible book and I really am curious why such a lousy tale would become the go-to book for "friends" and even "heroes". I'm sure there was some friendship between them but looking at d'Artagnan's actions after returning from England checking on his friends was mostly an afterthought and a way to keep himself from getting caught.

And the thing is, I didn't hate The Count of Monte Cristo. Granted, the audio reading was FABULOUS, but I still didn't want to murder any of the characters. I thought Dante was a little megalomaniac at times, but still understandable. This, however, I hated.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So, Hitch, tell us how you really feel.

Yes, I am sorry, I got a bit hot under the collar on that one. I've just..for years, you know, when I was still a young somewhat impressionable kid, (Yes, yes, you wiseguys, that person existed, once upon a time and far far away...) I wondered what was wrong with me, that I didn't love TTM. How could that be? I did try, repeatedly, to figure out why, what was "wrong' with my perception of things, and all that. I mean, granted, thank God that I grew up, realized that the problem wasn't me, it was Dumas, and all that, but still, it bugs me to think of boys, particularly, reading this as a "great" classic, and emblematic of the HONOR and CHIVALRY that men are supposed to have. I mean..think about that!

Originally Posted by Dazrin

LOL! That's almost exactly what I said!

I completely agree with Hitch and it was nice to see someone who isn't normally involved in the book club come in with similar thoughts as many of us from a completely independent look at it.

I said in another thread that when I finishedquit reading this my wife said to me "Now you feel my pain." It really is a terrible book and I really am curious why such a lousy tale would become the go-to book for "friends" and even "heroes". I'm sure there was some friendship between them but looking at d'Artagnan's actions after returning from England checking on his friends was mostly an afterthought and a way to keep himself from getting caught.

Yes, that's it, right? We can lay blame at the feet of moviemakers, for perpetuating what I call the Myth of the Musketeers, into the 21st century, and through the 20th..but what accounts for it prior to that time?

I don't know. It's disturbing, if you really think about it.

Hitch

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, I am sorry, I got a bit hot under the collar on that one. I've just..for years, you know, when I was still a young somewhat impressionable kid, (Yes, yes, you wiseguys, that person existed, once upon a time and far far away...) I wondered what was wrong with me, that I didn't love TTM. How could that be? I did try, repeatedly, to figure out why, what was "wrong' with my perception of things, and all that. I mean, granted, thank God that I grew up, realized that the problem wasn't me, it was Dumas, and all that, but still, it bugs me to think of boys, particularly, reading this as a "great" classic, and emblematic of the HONOR and CHIVALRY that men are supposed to have. I mean..think about that!

Oh no, don't apologize! I loved your post!

I got through the book by being largely oblivious to what I was reading. So I didn't get as worked up as I should have about the horrible behavior; I only noticed it in spots.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

And the thing is, I didn't hate The Count of Monte Cristo. Granted, the audio reading was FABULOUS, but I still didn't want to murder any of the characters. I thought Dante was a little megalomaniac at times, but still understandable. This, however, I hated.

So ... Three Musketeers shouldn't turn me off listening to Count of Monte Cristo? Whose narration did you listen to? I was planning on John Lee again.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Oh no, don't apologize! I loved your post!

I got through the book by being largely oblivious to what I was reading. So I didn't get as worked up as I should have about the horrible behavior; I only noticed it in spots.

MWHAHAHA, ignorance is bliss, then! That's great. I was a child, really, my first time through--and a horse owner, mind you (okay, so, my parents were the actual owners, but, my horses...) and that initial scene, with him cavalierly selling that pony, it really got up my nose, and things went downhill from there, I guess. :-)

Hitch

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Hitch

[...] The callous disregard for the effect that their behavior has, upon their various lovers, the results after they've been tricked or cajoled into stealing money/jewels from their husbands, etc., isn't given a moment's thought.[...]

If it had been only callous or unthinking that would be one thing, but in (at least) the case of Porthos, I believe the reader is actually supposed to find it funny. Of course I've met people that still would laugh at it, so I can't entirely blame the 17th century, but for the most part such people are unlikely to read this book.

Originally Posted by Dazrin

[...] It really is a terrible book and I really am curious why such a lousy tale would become the go-to book for "friends" and even "heroes". I'm sure there was some friendship between them but looking at d'Artagnan's actions after returning from England checking on his friends was mostly an afterthought and a way to keep himself from getting caught.

I think it's a case of the motto being mistaken for the story. I found that d'Artagnan's trip to England stripped away any illusions I may have had about “All for one, and one for all.” Each of the companions drops out through sheer stupidity until d'Artagnan is left to go on alone, and on his return, as you say, collecting the companions is almost an after-thought and an escape from his own troubles. And in each case the companion is still being ridiculous while also neglecting their supposed friendship and their duty to their king.

Thanks to cartoons and movie adaptations I will always associate the book title with big floppy hats, impractical boots, swords (but never muskets, which is rather odd), but most of all it is that catch-phrase: “All for one, and one for all.”. And yet it occurs only twice in the book - both times in quick succession near the end of chapter 9:

“And now, gentlemen,” said d’Artagnan, without bothering to explain his conduct to Porthos, “all for one and one for all—that’s our motto, isn’t it?”
“But still …” said Porthos.
“Hold out your hand and swear!” Athos and Aramis cried at once.
Defeated by example, grumbling quietly, Porthos held out his hand, and the four friends repeated with one voice the formula dictated by d’Artagnan:
“All for one and one for all.”

I can understand why Dumas didn't keep repeating it, but I do wonder how it later came to be pulled out and to stand in place of the story. Maybe it was a matter of: "This is from the famous Dumas, but it's completely horrible ... oh, look, there's a phrase that isn't offensive, let's pretend that's what the story is about." Maybe it became the catch phrase because the book really did need something to distract people from the actual story.

[issybird]

And yet, perversely, I liked the book for the portrayal of Lady de Winter, with her cunning and her refusal to accept the limitations of her position, both in particular and as a woman. She extricated herself from that convent, even from the hangman, and lived a large and powerful life. She was awesome. Events caught up with her, but so they did with Buckingham, as a real-life example. She still did very well by her time, when lives were short and brutish.

Yeah, I know we're supposed to find her evil, but I doubt the modern reader does. I'm reminded of how, in freshman English, I expressed sympathy for Clytemnestra only to be told by the professor that I had "an aberrant response." I suspect the canon allows a more nuanced understanding of those women who were sacrificed to the great male "I am" now.

I also found the prose witty and enjoyable in itself. I suspect a modern translation helped with that. Frequently I had the sense that Dumas was subverting his own story, as when d'Artagnan sold his horse and the beating of Planchet, for two examples already cited. I found that far funnier than the over-the-top antics, which were quite tedious and frequently offensive.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So ... Three Musketeers shouldn't turn me off listening to Count of Monte Cristo? Whose narration did you listen to? I was planning on John Lee again.

I actually listened to David Clarke's excellent Librivox version. Don't be fooled by his first few sentences. His French accent and voices are great.

Originally Posted by issybird

And yet, perversely, I liked the book for the portrayal of Lady de Winter, with her cunning and her refusal to accept the limitations of her position, both in particular and as a woman. She extricated herself from that convent, even from the hangman, and lived a large and powerful life. She was awesome. Events caught up with her, but so they did with Buckingham, as a real-life example. She still did very well by her time, when lives were short and brutish.

Yeah, I know we're supposed to find her evil, but I doubt the modern reader does.
<SNIP>

And yet, still she is dead in the end.