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

[issybird]

I read The Black Count in 2015 and gave it four stars at GR. I wished I'd remembered it better by the time I got to Musketeers! I know I found it fascinating.

[fantasyfan]

I’m reading the Hobson translation. It seems remarkably fresh to me as I’ve previously only read the William Barrow version. Anyhow the book is filled with wonderful swashbuckling and devious plots.

[fantasyfan]

“The Three Musketeers” by Dumas is a glorious swashbuckler fillled with devious plots and an unforgettable villain in Milady de Winter. For me it was a fairly nostalgic trip through this wonderful adventure story.

I first read it in the version of Classic Comics [blush]. The very first edition included the The Three Musketeers. The Classic Comics series ran from 1940 to 1971. It was in the forties that I fell in love with these adaptations which certainly had many limitations. For instance, a great deal was left out of that approach to “The Three Musketeers” but it eventually drove me to read the actual book in the old translation by William Barrow. As others have mentioned, far better literary versions have been done since then—notably by Richard Pevear and Will Hobson. I went for the latter as Hobson has many very helpful annotations about the times, the places, and the actual political situations in France that obtained at the time of the novel. Further, the translation has lucidity and ambience which makes the reading experience so very enjoyable.

I noticed that many others have serious objections to the fact that much in this old book is objectionable on Political Correctness grounds. I respect their views but those values were simply not part of the mind-set then. (Though Dumas himself apologises for the loose moralities of the times) Further, the emphasis is on action and broad character types rather than on subtle character development. So if these limitations—which certainly exist—bother you then look elsewhere.

Otherwise, bearing this in mind, I highly recommend this particular translation to anyone who wishes to revisit one of the great adventure novels of the Western Canon.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by fantasyfan

“The Three Musketeers” by Dumas is a glorious swashbuckler fillled with devious plots and an unforgettable villain in Milady de Winter. For me it was a fairly nostalgic trip through this wonderful adventure story.

I first read it in the version of Classic Comics [blush]. The very first edition included the The Three Musketeers. The Classic Comics series ran from 1940 to 1971. It was in the forties that I fell in love with these adaptations which certainly had many limitations. For instance, a great deal was left out of that approach to “The Three Musketeers” but it eventually drove me to read the actual book in the old translation by William Barrow. As others have mentioned, far better literary versions have been done since then—notably by Richard Pevear and Will Hobson. I went for the latter as Hobson has many very helpful annotations about the times, the places, and the actual political situations in France that obtained at the time of the novel. Further, the translation has lucidity and ambience which makes the reading experience so very enjoyable.

I noticed that many others have serious objections to the fact that much in this old book is objectionable on Political Correctness grounds. I respect their views but those values were simply not part of the mind-set then. (Though Dumas himself apologises for the loose moralities of the times) Further, the emphasis is on action and broad character types rather than on subtle character development. So if these limitations—which certainly exist—bother you then look elsewhere.

Otherwise, bearing this in mind, I highly recommend this particular translation to anyone who wishes to revisit one of the great adventure novels of the Western Canon.

I most certainly did not object to the book on grounds of Political Correctness. I objected on the grounds that these alleged heroes had absolutely no heroic behavior, instead being lazy, slothful bums who existed by being gigolos, who had callous disregard for the fates of those women and others stupid enough to trust them. Thinking it's a rollicking good joke, to trick a woman into hocking her jewels for you, and then leaving her to her fate, with a husband most likely to turn her out to prostitution, at best, isn't an action that should be condemned as being "politically incorrect." It's repulsive, repugnant behavior at ANY point in time.

The alleged heroes have zero concern for any human aside from themselves, and most certainly the "all for one, one for all" is utter bollox. They don't stand all for one, or one for all; D'Artagnan barely can be bothered to think about them, whilst he's in England, and only reluctantly goes to look for them when he gets back.

Pretty much everyone here commented on the fact that we are all able to read and enjoy books that display morals and beliefs of other times--that's a far thing from finding callous disregard for the lives of others as disgusting behavior. I elucidated my repugnance at their behavior in detail, in my posts, and not a single item that I listed has anything--anything at ALL--to do with so-called "political correctness."

The only area that could, possibly, be viewed that way is when I pointed out that Milady is NEVER tried or jailed. She's branded as a criminal by her so-called victim's brother (the priest's brother). This eventually results in her death by hanging. Her crime? Doing the exact same thing to the priest, that Porthos does to his lover, basically. THAT, of course, is a big, happy, wonderful, laughable joke, that Porthos got her to steal her own jewelry from her husband and give it to him. Nobody branded him for that, or even remonstrated with him. THAT, arguably, you could say is political correctness, the sauce for the gander--but the fact that Porthos is repulsive and disgusting, for conniving at this behavior, and then abandoning this woman to her fate--if you think THAT is political correctness...well. That speaks for itself.

There is NOTHING heroic about their antics. They're gigolos, who don't even have the decency to remotely care about their victims. There are many other instances and examples given, of their reprehensible behavior--again, having precisely ZERO to do with being PC. I didn't find any of the so-called loose morals an issue, either--only how the gigolos cavalierly abused their victims/lovers. Dishonorable selfish behavior is hardly protected through the excuse of not being "Politically correct," and I doubt that anyone alive in Dumas' day thought it was lovely behavior, either.

Hitch

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fantasyfan

I noticed that many others have serious objections to the fact that much in this old book is objectionable on Political Correctness grounds. I respect their views but those values were simply not part of the mind-set then. (Though Dumas himself apologises for the loose moralities of the times) Further, the emphasis is on action and broad character types rather than on subtle character development. So if these limitations—which certainly exist—bother you then look elsewhere.

What Hitch said.

[CRussel]

What Catlady said.

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?

Originally Posted by CRussel

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.

This has nothing to do with current mores or political correctness. Their behaviour was reprehensible and repugnant by the standards of the time. They were not honourable, nor were they chivalrous. They were nasty, lazy, duplicitous, and infantile.

[issybird]

In Milady de Winter, Dumas created one of the great female characters and for that I could forgive him much. If in the end she turned out to be so powerful that he had to kill her off, that affirms her dominance. And the reality is that in the mid-19th century, men and women were held to different standards of morality. Heck, in the mid-20th century, that still obtained.

Originally Posted by CRussel

This has nothing to do with current mores or political correctness. Their behaviour was reprehensible and repugnant by the standards of the time. They were not honourable, nor were they chivalrous. They were nasty, lazy, duplicitous, and infantile.

Sure they were. But it was all tongue in cheek. Over the top, meant for fun at the same time it was meant for adventure and romance. Dumas signaled that again and again. One of the best aspects of the book was the witty prose that subverted the narrative.

[Bookpossum]

I agree with you fantasyfan - the Hobson is an excellent translation and the notes are interesting. It was the version I decided on reading after comparing it and the Pevear.

I don't think I would use the term "political correctness", which seems to be used these days in a pejorative sense, though I don't think you intended that. It is interesting to consider that the films we have probably all seen and think of as being true to the book, are so attractive and enjoyable precisely because they omit all the extreme behaviour which we now find so unacceptable.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

I agree with you fantasyfan - the Hobson is an excellent translation and the notes are interesting. It was the version I decided on reading after comparing it and the Pevear.

I don't think I would use the term "political correctness", which seems to be used these days in a pejorative sense, though I don't think you intended that. It is interesting to consider that the films we have probably all seen and think of as being true to the book, are so attractive and enjoyable precisely because they omit all the extreme behaviour which we now find so unacceptable.

But perversely, in those versions Milady de Winter is still evil, but the Musketeers have been cleaned up to be brave and honorable! I prefer the Dumas version, where although Milady might have been unmatched in sheer evil (and I'd disagree, but I'm willing to take that as the overall sense of it), the Musketeers were venal buffoons at best who left much damage and death in their wake.

[Bookpossum]

That's true - but then you have to have an arch villain (or in this case villainess). Someone for the audience to boo and hiss at, at least metaphorically!

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

That's true - but then you have to have an arch villain (or in this case villainess). Someone for the audience to boo and hiss at, at least metaphorically!

Fair enough! And she was great.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by issybird

I read The Black Count in 2015 and gave it four stars at GR. I wished I'd remembered it better by the time I got to Musketeers! I know I found it fascinating.

Thanks for sharing that information. I'll move it higher up my TBR.

[fantasyfan]

Well, I’m glad that I got people discussing things again.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by fantasyfan

Well, I’m glad that I got people discussing things again.

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.

[Catlady]

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.

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