Dangerous Liaisons by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

[chesilbeach]

Welcome to the March 2013 Reading Circle. The theme for this month was EPISTOLARY NOVELS and the chosen book was DANGEROUS LIAISONS by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

It is assumed that you have read the book before reading posts in this thread, as the discussion might give away crucial points, and the continuous use of spoiler tags might hinder fluent reading of posts.

DANGEROUS LIAISONS by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

Synopsis (from the back cover):

For the Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont seduction is a game - the former lovers relish manipulating others to bring amusement to their jaded existences. While Valmont is determined to succeed in his conquest of a virtuous married woman, Merteuil challenges him to seduce an innocent convent girl who is to be married to her former lover. As their intrigues becomes increasingly duplicitous and they find their human pawns responding in ways they could not have predicted, the consequences prove to be more serious, and deadly, than the two conspirators could have guessed. Depicting decadence and moral corruption in pre-revolutionary France, Dangerous Liaisons (1782) is one of the most scandalous and controversial novels in European literature.

Questions for discussion (please answer as many or as few as you wish):

1. Did you enjoy reading this style of novel in the form of letters?

2. Were you engaged immediately with the story, or did it take you a while to get into it?

3. There are a lot of characters referenced mostly by their title instead of their name, did you find it difficult to remember who all the characters were?

4. Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?

5. Was there a particular part you enjoyed more than the rest?

6. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

7. Do you think the Marquise and the Vicomte deserved the fates they were given at the end of the story?

8. We've already had some discussion on the differences a good translation can make, which edition and translation of the book did you read, and what did you think of the translation?

9. Have you watched any film/television/theatre adaptations of this story? How successfully do you think they were?

10. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

11. Would you recommend the book to others?

Edited March 7, 2013 by chesilbeach

[bobblybear]

I won't answer the questions yet, because I'm only about 25% through it, but can someone please clear up for me whether the Chevalier that Marquis de Merteuil is having a fling with, is the same Chevalier le Danceny that is in love with Cecile? They seem totally different in behavior so far, but I'm still not sure.

[Ooshie]

I won't answer the questions yet, because I'm only about 25% through it, but can someone please clear up for me whether the Chevalier that Marquis de Merteuil is having a fling with, is the same Chevalier le Danceny that is in love with Cecile? They seem totally different in behavior so far, but I'm still not sure.

 

No, when she says "my Chevalier" she is referring to someone else (I don't know that I ever quite got his name, but Sparknotes says he is the Chevalier de Belleroche).

[bobblybear]

Thanks Ooshie. I thought they were different, but I wouldn't put it past the devious so-and-so as a further manipulative ploy on her part.

[pontalba]

At page 100 I thought I'd quit, but I pushed on and am now at page 249...def finishing. 

 

I was concerned I'd confuse the writers, but, hah, no chance of that once started!

 

This is a book I'd wanted to read for years, but didn't manage for whatever reason.  I'm glad it was chosen for the reading circle.

[Ooshie]

Thanks Ooshie. I thought they were different, but I wouldn't put it past the devious so-and-so as a further manipulative ploy on her part.

 

Yes, I hadn't thought of that! 

[bobblybear]

At page 100 I thought I'd quit, but I pushed on and am now at page 249...def finishing. 

 

It's a bit of a slog, isn't it? I find my interest peaks and wanes throughout the book; never read a book quite like it!

[Alexi]

I finished today! : D

 

Some background to my experience with it (for those who didn't read me going on and on about it in the book activity thread!) I started the translation by Ernest Dowson (cheapest available for kindle). Oh how naive. I got about halfway through and was ready to sack the whole thing off. Luckily, talking to Chesil and bobblybear convinced me to download the penguin classics version. I tried to begin at the beginning but it felt too repetitive so I abandoned that and commenced at the point I left off.

 

I really enjoyed the second half of the book, but my rating and possibly some answers is tainted by the awful first half. Why use a full stop when 60 commas will do?

 

Anyway..

 

1. Did you enjoy reading this style of novel in the form of letters?

 

Yes immensely. I love novels in the form of diaries but haven't read many as letters before. It's a neat twist on the narrator - we are treated to how much the person wants to tell the reader of the letter, not directly how much a narrator wishes to disclose to the audience. The several letters to different recipients talking about the same incidents were great for this reason.

 

2. Were you engaged immediately with the story, or did it take you a while to get into it?

 

It took me a week and a fresh download! But I'm probably not representative.

 

3. There are a lot of characters referenced mostly by their title instead of their name, did you find it difficult to remember who all the characters were?

 

Not especially but the style of not including a surname or place (President de ___ , Chateau de ____ ) was irritating more than confusing.

 

4. Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?

 

Not especially - I didn't "like" any of the characters. The virtuous Presidente de Tourvel was far too wet initially, and everyone else was excellent to loathe! Except Cecile I suppose.

 

3. Was there a particular part you enjoyed more than the rest?

 

I must confess it was the ending because I hadn't read the synopsis, so the deaths were a total surprise!

 

5. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

 

The letters between Tourvel and Valmont, which went on and bleeding on and became a bit repetitive.

 

6. Do you think the Marquise and the Vicomte deserved the fates they were given at the end of the story?

 

It's certainly very of its time isn't it? Dastardly villains will not get away with it and will get what they deserve! Certainly the Marquise's actions just to Prevan are deplorable.

 

7. We've already had some discussion on the differences a good translation can make, which edition and translation of the book did you read, and what did you think of the translation?

 

As I said above, Ernest Dowson then the Penguin one. I can't really overstate this - Dowson was pretty much unreadable. Look up the definition of a full stop then use it. The book was dull and confusing and slow to understand in his version, it became an enjoyable read under Penguin's charge. I must add that before this I hadn't considered different translations - definitely one to be wary of when using a kindle and free editions.

 

8. Have you watched any film/television/theatre adaptations of this story? How successfully do you think they were?

 

Cruel Intentions, which is obviously a modern take on the very basic premise. It's a cracking movie but a loose adaptation I would say.

 

9. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

I've rated it a 3/5. I enjoyed it but it wasn't spectacular, although that's probably influenced by my dear friend Dowson.

 

10. Would you recommend the book to others?

 

The Penguin - absolutely. Dowson? I'd rather read The Catcher in the Rye again! No really I wouldn't.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Alexi

[pontalba]

Haven't finished yet, but have voted for 4/5...oddly enough. 

 

I have the Penguin Classic, Helen Constantine translation thanks to BCR'ers on another thread.

[Ooshie]

1. Did you enjoy reading this style of novel in the form of letters?

 

Yes I did; at first I found it difficult to be sure who was writing, but soon got to know the "voices" of the characters and enjoyed the letters.

2. Were you engaged immediately with the story, or did it take you a while to get into it?

 

I was engaged with the story very quickly and didn't find it hard to get into

3.  There are a lot of characters referenced mostly by their title instead
of their name, did you find it difficult to remember who all the
characters were?

 

I quite often find it hard to remembers characters in books, and did have to remind myself quite often who was who (not often enough to spoil the story for me, though).

4. Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?

 

Not really, I liked the baddies and the goodies quite equally!

3. Was there a particular part you enjoyed more than the rest?

 

No, I enjoyed the story as a whole, I can't say that one part stood out for me more than the rest.  I enjoyed the intertwined intrigues that continued the whole way through it.

5. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

 

No, I enjoyed the whole book.  I do remember feeling it had flagged slightly at one point but can't now remember what point that was, so it obviously didn't bother me too much.

6. Do you think the Marquise and the Vicomte deserved the fates they were given at the end of the story?

 

No, I don't think I would look at it that way.  There would have been no story without them!  (Well, maybe there would, but it would have been a bit dull I think.)

7.  We've already had some discussion on the differences a good translation
can make, which edition and translation of the book did you read, and
what did you think of the translation?

 

My edition is a second-hand Folio Society hardback, with the translation by Richard Aldington; I certainly got on fine with it.  It had wood-engraving illustrations, which aren't my favourite type, but It was a nice book to handle with a pretty cover and slipcase and nice quality smooth paper which all added to the reading experience.

 

 

 

8. Have you watched any film/television/theatre adaptations of this story? How successfully do you think they were?

 

I have seen the Glenn Close/John Malkovich/Michelle Pfeiffer film from the late 1980s a couple of times, and reading the book has made me want to watch it again.  I hadn't read the book at the time and can't remember now exactly how closely the story matches, but I did think it was a good film.

9. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

Yes, it was, I did enjoy it a lot.

10. Would you recommend the book to others

 

I would probably recommend it to others on BCF if I thought it would interest them, but I don't really know many people that read much, and certainly not more classic novels like this

[lauraloves]

I have this next on my TBR, hope to start it in the next couple of days!

[pontalba]

1. Did you enjoy reading this style of novel in the form of letters?

 

Yes, even though I haven't read that many in this style.  It always amazes me the amount of truly damaging truths people will actually commit to paper and then just send it out into the world.  Of course there was no other course to take, but it still boggles the mind. 

2. Were you engaged immediately with the story, or did it take you a while to get into it?

 

At first I thought "no".  However I realize that in a way it did take me from the beginning.....not in the way a book usually does, but it sort of crept up on little cat feet.  

3. There are a lot of characters referenced mostly by their title instead of their name, did you find it difficult to remember who all the characters were?

 

For the most part, no.  Since it was in context it stayed pretty plain for me.

4. Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?

 

Actually my choice of favorite is probably most reprehensible.   The Vicomte de Valmont.....I hasten to add that is probably because I've seen the film and could not displace John Malkovich's person from the role.  lol  But really, in spite of his manipulation of Tourvel, there was a certain amount of honesty about the character.  At least with himself, if no one else. 

As for my least favorite...I have to nominate the most irritating to me personally, Présidente de Tourvel.  A whinnier woman I cannot imagine.  Good grief, just get over yourself woman!  If you don't want a man's attention, TELL him so, don't languish around simpering, groaning.  Gawd. 

3. Was there a particular part you enjoyed more than the rest?

 

The correspondence between the two manipulators.  Valmont and de Merteuil.  It was sharp and witty, and totally honest.

 

5. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

 

The rank stupidity of some of the writers.  It was difficult for me to believe that Danceny was as innocent as he appeared to be, his attempted manipulation of Cécile was just as mean spirited as that of Valmont and de Merteuil.  In a sense, moreso because he was dishonest with himself about his machinations.

6. Do you think the Marquise and the Vicomte deserved the fates they were given at the end of the story?

 

Perhaps.  Frankly I'm sorry that Valmont sacrificed himself. 

7. We've already had some discussion on the differences a good translation can make, which edition and translation of the book did you read, and what did you think of the translation?

 

Thanks to the posters here I purchased the Penguin Classics, translated by Helen Constantine.  I found it easy to read, it flowed in what I felt was a natural manner.

8. Have you watched any film/television/theatre adaptations of this story? How successfully do you think they were?

 

Yes, as mentioned above the Malkovich/Close film.  Quite successful.

9. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

Yes.  There were some low spots...and I found de Tourvel's letters so namby pamby as to be partially nauseating. 

10. Would you recommend the book to others?

 

Yes. 

 

Edited March 3, 2013 by pontalba

[Kell]

It's been a few years since I read this excellent novel, but I'll attempt to answer the questions from memory anyway...

 

1. Did you enjoy reading this style of novel in the form of letters?
Yes, I did. I thought it added to the intrigue as you only ever got a tiny bit of the story at any given time, rather than having an omnipotent narrator who was a step or two ahead of the characters.

2. Were you engaged immediately with the story, or did it take you a while to get into it?
I got into it straight away. However, Dangerous Liaisons and Valmont are two of my favourite films and they're both based on this novel, so I was predisposed to liked it.

3. There are a lot of characters referenced mostly by their title instead of their name, did you find it difficult to remember who all the characters were?

I never had a problem with that. I found it quite easy to keep track of everyone.

4. Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?
The Marquise was my absolute favourite - she's just so damned spiteful! My least favourite was Madame de Tourvel - she's just such a wimpy character that I almost felt she deserved to get her heart broken just to teach her to live in the real world and come down off her high horse a bit!

3. Was there a particular part you enjoyed more than the rest?
I can't recall anything in particular that I liked over the rest - I just loved the whole novel.

5. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?
Nope. Not at all.

6. Do you think the Marquise and the Vicomte deserved the fates they were given at the end of the story?

Oh, most definitely. They were both absolutely horrible, although Valmont redeemed himself a little at the end. However, I don't believe he would have done so if he had been the victor of the duel! Merteuil, on the other hand, was just mean and spiteful through and through - she absolutely lived for tormenting others and watching them suffer because she, as a woman, was not able to live the life she wanted - free as a man. Her own jealousies are her downfall in the end.

7. We've already had some discussion on the differences a good translation can make, which edition and translation of the book did you read, and what did you think of the translation?
I had a paperback edition and the translation seemed very good.

8. Have you watched any film/television/theatre adaptations of this story? How successfully do you think they were?

As I've already mentioned, both Dangerous Liaisons (1988) and Valmont (1989) are two of my favourite films of all time, but I've also seen two theatre productions of it. I've never seen a version I didn't enjoy, although Siobhan Redmond (in the first theatre production of it I saw) was terrible as Merteuil. I also rather enjoyed Cruel Intentions (1999)

9. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

Most definitely!

10. Would you recommend the book to others?

Most definitely!

[chesilbeach]

1. Did you enjoy reading this style of novel in the form of letters?
Yes, and since I chose the theme for the month, it might have been a bit odd if I didn't! I do enjoy epistolary novels, I find them very easy to read, and I like seeing the story from so many different points of view.

2. Were you engaged immediately with the story, or did it take you a while to get into it?
I fell in love with the book after the first letter. I had been expecting it to be a bit of a chore, and I'd almost felt disheartened when it won the poll, but as soon as I started reading it, I immediately fell into the story itself.

3. There are a lot of characters referenced mostly by their title instead of their name, did you find it difficult to remember who all the characters were?
This question is one I've specifically asked, as it was something I did struggle with. I've never seen the Glenn Close/John Malkovich adaptation, but I had seen Cruel Intentions so I was a bit familiar with the general storyline, but I ended up looking up who played each character in the Malkovich film so that I could picture them in my head as I read the story.

4. Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?
I actually liked reading the letters by both Valmont and Cecile, but I think the Valmont was my favourite. I liked that despite the fact what he was doing was despicable, he was honest in his letters to the Marquise, while she was my least favourite character as she was devious and manipulative with everyone, even playing the Valmont, that I wondered how sad you would have to be to isolate yourself from the warmth of friendship of anyone else in the world.

5. Was there a particular part you enjoyed more than the rest?
I did particularly enjoy the letters leading up to Cecile succumbing to the predatory Valmont, and the initial part of their affair.

6. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?
No, and again this was a surprise for me. I had been expecting a dry and dated novel, and had thought the whole reading experience was going to be rather dour, but there was so much life and verve in the story, and other than needing extra concentration at the beginning to remember who was who, I never felt reading it a struggle at all.

7. Do you think the Marquise and the Vicomte deserved the fates they were given at the end of the story?
Absolutely! How could their evil and manipulation be rewarded?! It seemed fitting that there was almost in a redemption for Valmont as he was able to sacrifice himself in the duel, while the Marquise was left to a long and lingering pain, in the most dreadful way for a woman in society in that period of history.

8. We've already had some discussion on the differences a good translation can make, which edition and translation of the book did you read, and what did you think of the translation?
I read the Penguin Classics version with the translation by Helen Constantine. I was quite careful about choosing the edition I read, as I do read at least a handful of translated novels every year, and I know that a poor translation can ruin a story, but I feel that, particularly with classic novels, Penguin tend to reliable with the quality of the translations. After some of the discussion on the forum about this novel, I did have a look using the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon for some of the other editions available, and being able to compare them with my edition, I feel that Constantine produced a version that was more readable than any of the others I looked at.

9. Have you watched any film/television/theatre adaptations of this story? How successfully do you think they were?
As I mentioned before, I have seen Cruel Intentions and although it's been a while since I've seen it, I think as a modern interpretation it did actually capture a lot of the flavour of the book in a contemporary setting. I definitely want to watch the Close/Malkovich version at some point, as I'm curious to see it as a period piece.

10. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?
Well, in case you can't get that from my other answers, YES! I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and I'm really pleased it was chosen, as I don't think I would ever have read it otherwise.

11. Would you recommend the book to others?
I always struggle with this question, as everyone is different in their reading tastes, but I think if I knew someone who was starting to read classics, I would definitely recommend it, and also to anyone else who loved classics who this one had passed them by.

Edited March 10, 2013 by chesilbeach

[chesilbeach]

Sorry I've been a bit late in answering the questions myself, but thank you everyone for your response so far.  

 

I know there are a few others still reading and it's really interesting to read everyone else's thoughts about the book, so I'll be back for some discussion once I've read them all properly.

[Ooshie]

Like chesilbeach, I had expected it to be a much more dry and difficult read than it actually was.  It was a very pleasant surprise!  After the positive comments on the Constantine translation, I might try that at a later date, too; I would be interested to see how they compare.

[pontalba]

Y'all have made me a bit curious about the older translation.  I actually have it around here somewhere.  When I run across it, I'll compare. 

But whatever, this later one is fantastic and flows. 

 

Even with all Valmont did that was awful, you could see him falling for her. His better nature which was so buried in all the falseness of the time and place struggled to come out I felt.  I guess that is at least partially why I hated to have him sacrifice himself like that.  It wasn't necessary.  Life it too precious to just throw it away. 

[chesilbeach]

I did have a look at Google books to compare a few different translations, and most seem to tend towards the Constantine style of writing and phrasing, with the Dowson one being the exception.  His version reads much more like a word for word transcription rather than trying to translate the text into the English language that a writer would use.  The other few translations I looked at (I read the first letter from them), all have the same style and similar words and phrasing.

[frankie]

Did you enjoy reading this style of novel in the form of letters?

I would have to say yes and no. I haven't read an epistolary novel in quite a while, so in that respect I'd been looking forward to it and it was a welcome change. I also generally do like reading letters, so I enjoyed reading this novel. However, at some point I started to feel the letters were a bit long-winded, which must've been the result of my own frustration of sometimes feeling the story wasn't going anywhere (or wasn't going somewhere fast enough), because the letters were long right from the get-go and they didn't become any lengthier towards the end.

 

 

Were you engaged immediately with the story, or did it take you a while to get into it?

I had no problems getting into the story from the start and I enjoyed it from the start, but I think this is largely due to the fact that I've seen one of the movie adaptations, Valmont, two or three times. A decade must have passed since I last watched it but I still remember the basic plotline and most of the characters.

 

 

There are a lot of characters referenced mostly by their title instead of their name, did you find it difficult to remember who all the characters were?

Because I'd seen the movie Valmont before reading the book, I remembered most of the characters beforehand and could work out who the rest were pretty easily and therefore I didn't have any problems with the titles and names initially. Quite oddly, though, towards the end, I started confusing Mrs de Tourvel (the name) with Mrs de Volanges, but as they were usually addressing very different people and in different ways, I could soon catch up on my mistake.

 

I think it's quite likely that I would've had difficulties with the names and titles if I'd gone and read the book without any previous knowledge of the work

 

 

Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?

I didn't have any favourites, but I think I had the most fun with Valmont. He was a pretty entertaining villain. I think what set him apart from de Merteuil is that everyone knew he was a 'bad boy' (whether they trusted with this information is another matter), or at least that information could've been very easily sought and obtained, whereas de Merteuil had pretty much everyone fooled and kept up the appearances of a 'good respectable woman'.

 

Just as oddly, I really disliked Danceny and Mrs de Tourvel. And I'm now going to just give it to you straight, no sugar coating: I thought Danceny was a whiney kid who would've driven me crazy if I'd been Ms de Volanges. What a needy, clingy kid! And he had no real backbone, he gave into de Merteuil just like that and didn't see how he was played for a fool.

 

Mrs de Tourvel was in my opinion rather holier than thou. I wish I'd written down some quotes... But at some point she slighted the women who'd fallen for Valmont and the sort of women he went for, putting herself on some holy pedestal. She really thought she was better than others. And she swears she'll never cave in, and what does she do. It's so predictable, and I'm awful but I had no sympathy towards her. She was so naive to think that if she kept on writing to Valmont to stop him writing to her, she would manage to sever all ties with him. Either that or she was secretly asking for it. I bet when she fell for him she even thought she was falling for him in a different way than all the rest: her love was purer, as was his.

 

 

Was there a particular part you enjoyed more than the rest?

Unfortunately nothing comes to mind at the moment. I'll see if I'll think of something later.

 

 

Do you think the Marquise and the Vicomte deserved the fates they were given at the end of the story?

This is really embarrassing but I can't for the life of me remember what happened to them! I should not have started watching the movie again, it's confusing me!

 

 

We've already had some discussion on the differences a good translation can make, which edition and translation of the book did you read, and what did you think of the translation?

I read the Finnish translation and I didn't have any problems with it. After having heard of the struggles some of you had with your English editions, I'm happy I 'settled' for the Finnish version and didn't go and borrow an English copy at the library.

 

 

 Have you watched any film/television/theatre adaptations of this story? How successfully do you think they were?

I've seen Valmont and I've always enjoyed it very much, I think it's very apt. I'd love to see other versions, though.

 

 

Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

Yes it was. I liked the plot and the range of characters was sufficient to keep me interested, and I think I would've given the book 4/5 hadn't I started thinking towards the end of the novel that the letters were too wordy.

 

 

Would you recommend the book to others?

I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys classics and epistolary novels

[lauraloves]

I'm about halfway through now so i'll soon be able to take part in the discussions

[frankie]

It has been really interesting reading through other people's comments and ideas on the book.
 
First, before I forget, if it's not too much trouble, could someone who started with the 'difficult translation' but then went for the 'easier' one do a bit of comparing and contrasting of the two? Is there something in particular that really stuck out?
 

Cruel Intentions, which is obviously a modern take on the very basic premise. It's a cracking movie but a loose adaptation I would say.

 

The title rang a bell so I googled and realised I've seen the movie, but I don't think I never made the connection between that and the movie Valmont which I was very familiar with at the time.

 

Actually my choice of favorite is probably most reprehensible.   The Vicomte de Valmont.....I hasten to add that is probably because I've seen the film and could not displace John Malkovich's person from the role.  lol  But really, in spite of his manipulation of Tourvel, there was a certain amount of honesty about the character.  At least with himself, if no one else.

 

I agree! As villainous as he was, at least he was more truthful about himself than de Merteuil. And while I didn't think of John Malkovich, I had the priviledge of being able to think about Colin Firth as Valmont

 

As for my least favorite...I have to nominate the most irritating to me personally, Présidente de Tourvel.  A whinnier woman I cannot imagine.  Good grief, just get over yourself woman!  If you don't want a man's attention, TELL him so, don't languish around simpering, groaning.  Gawd.

 

Again, agreed No one amongst us so far has felt too sympathetic towards her. Eventhough she was the 'victim'. But there's a difference between being a real victim and someone who's, in my opinion, asking for it. Like you said, she could've simply stopped responding to Valmont's letters.

 

 

The rank stupidity of some of the writers.  It was difficult for me to believe that Danceny was as innocent as he appeared to be, his attempted manipulation of Cécile was just as mean spirited as that of Valmont and de Merteuil.  In a sense, moreso because he was dishonest with himself about his machinations.

 

Personally I thought he was at first innocent and I put his stupid letters and his being a pain in the ass down to being young and inexperienced. But certainly, after he got schooled by Valmont and de Merteuil, he had no real excuses for his actions.

 

The thing I despised about Danceny is that at first he's okay and nice in general (but not in his whiny letters!), but then he comes across with the manipulators and it's like he doesn't even have any qualms about starting to behave in a completely different way. Does he have no morals?

 

4. Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?
I actually liked reading the letters by both Valmont and Cecile, but I think the Valmont was my favourite. I liked that despite the fact what he was doing was despicable, he was honest in his letters to the Marquise, while she was my least favourite character as she was devious and manipulative with everyone, even playing the Valmont, that I wondered how sad you would have to be to isolate yourself from the warmth of friendship of anyone else in the world.
 

 

This actually reminds me of something I've been wondering about and I wanted to ask you guys. And I suppose I could use it as my answer to

 

6. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

Why was de Merteuil the way she was? I remember her accounting her story to Valmont, but I think she only talked about how she started to behave in a different way, how she practised her expressions etc. But I don't believe she told Valmont why this happened in her childhood. What was the trigger? 

 

Or maybe I missed something. What do you think?

 

Edit: Also it was said somewhere that there was something that had happened to Valmont but I don't think it was never discussed. Or if it was, I completely missed it, too. Does anyone have any ideas on it?

[bobblybear]

Keep in mind I only got to 43% of the book before admitting defeat, so I'm obviously missing a huge chunk of it but I will still try to answer the questions.

 

1. Did you enjoy reading this style of novel in the form of letters?

 

At first I thought I would have a problem with it, but I found it pretty easy to get into and all the main plot points were conveyed clearly. I had forgotten that I have also read Ella Minnow Pea which was also written through letters, so it wasn't entirely new to me (aside from the fact I had forgotten about it )

2. Were you engaged immediately with the story, or did it take you a while to get into it?

 

I was initially very engaged with the story (even with the hideous Dowson translation), but that was also because I had seen the movie years ago. My interest began to wane, and I thought it was due to the difficulty of the translation, but even after switching to the new translation, I really struggled. I just found it very slow, and frustratingly dull. The letters seemed to get longer and longer, and nothing seemed to happen. I actually found myself getting irritated with the book, and I began to dread picking it up.

3. There are a lot of characters referenced mostly by their title instead of their name, did you find it difficult to remember who all the characters were?

 

When I first started it, I went on to the Internet Movie Database and looked up the characters from the movie (Glenn Close, John Malkovitch, Michelle Pfeiffer), and once I visualised them as the characters I found it easier to remember their names. Otherwise I think I would have struggled big time.

4. Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?

 

Least favourite was probably de Merteuil, because she was just a vile human being. Danceny irritated me - he just needed a slap.  Aside from that I didn't have any opinions on them, except that they all seemed a bit too in love with their own voices/words. I think that's what annoyed me - they loved to waffle on and on about the same thing, just drawing it out into some 5 page letter when half a page would have done.

5. Was there a particular part you enjoyed more than the rest?

 

Unfortunately only the beginning when they were laying their plans. After than, it just seemed to drag on and on.

6. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

 

All of it, after the first quarter which is why I gave up. It moved far too slowly for me, coupled with the writing style which was not the easiest (even despite the better translation). I didn't care about any of the characters; I wasn't moved by their plight, and there was just no intrigue to them which is usually what can keep you hooked. I just didn't care either way.

7. Do you think the Marquise and the Vicomte deserved the fates they were given at the end of the story?

 

I can't even remember what happened in the movie (though I'm sure there was a fencing match with Danceny), so can't really comment. However someone mentioned earlier that they die. My thoughts are: 'No great loss.'

8. We've already had some discussion on the differences a good translation can make, which edition and translation of the book did you read, and what did you think of the translation?

 

I started off with the Dowson translation which was appallingly bad, to the point of being indecipherable. I can't tell you how many times I would finish a sentence and then have to back-track to the beginning to figure out what he was trying to say.

9. Have you watched any film/television/theatre adaptations of this story? How successfully do you think they were?

 

I've seen the film Dangerous Liaisons many years ago, and enjoyed it but unfortunately don't remember much of it. And Alexi mentioned Cruel Intentions which I forgot was a modernised story of this. I remember enjoying both films, but I don't know how well they stick to the story. Might be time for a re-watch I think.

10. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

Not for me. I suppose a great deal was to do with it being a classic. I just don't get along with them.

11. Would you recommend the book to others?

 

If you like classics, then I would say yes, even though I didn't like it.
 

 

First, before I forget, if it's not too much trouble, could someone who started with the 'difficult translation' but then went for the 'easier' one do a bit of comparing and contrasting of the two? Is there something in particular that really stuck out?

 

Because the Dowson (difficult) translation was so wordy, I missed out on some subtleties.

 

One was when de Merteuil was describing Cecile as 'gauche' in a letter to Valmont.  Then in the next letter from Cecile to Sophie (?), she describes meeting a lot of people at a supper and overhearing one woman describe her as 'gauche' and that this woman was a friend of her mother and had taken an immediate liking to her. I never picked up that the woman at the supper was de Merteuil. Mind you just re-reading that same section in both books, I probably should have picked up on it, but it just wasn't stated clearly enough in Dowson's version. I think the Penguin translation had a way of subtly emphasising certain phrases or words which made them a bit more memorable. For example, in the Penguin translation, the phrase 'dangerous liaisons' and 'the danger of liaisons' are used, but Dowson never used these turns of phrase. Of course, as soon as I saw them, I thought of the title, and I think it shows that the Penguin translator was looking at the book as a whole and translating the story, rather than translating each word on the page (if that makes any sense).  Also, I recall the Penguin translation using the word 'rape' which shocked me a bit, as it just seemed out of place. I've just done a search of Dowson's version, and he never used that word.

 

A few little questions of my own:

 

With the way the letters ended, such as 'I have the honour to be, etc.' What is that about? Did they really use 'etc.' in signing off their letter or was that the translators addition?

 

Did anyone read the Preface? That thing looked like it was the size of a book!

 

[Janet]

With the way the letters ended, such as 'I have the honour to be, etc.' What is that about? Did they really use 'etc.' in signing off their letter or was that the translators addition?

Yes, that was common in the 18th and 19th centuries (maybe before?).     I'm not sure what the reason for it is though. 

[pontalba]

Frankie said: The thing I despised about Danceny is that at first he's okay and nice in general (but not in his whiny letters!), but then he comes across with the manipulators and it's like he doesn't even have any qualms about starting to behave in a completely different way. Does he have no morals?

 

I know, he certainly fell into bed with the Witch fast enough, thinking with his "other brain".  

At no time did I believe he was genuine with Cecile.  The whole thing was about deflowering her.  IMO

 

Frankie said:

6. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

Why was de Merteuil the way she was? I remember her accounting her story to Valmont, but I think she only talked about how she started to behave in a different way, how she practised her expressions etc. But I don't believe she told Valmont why this happened in her childhood. What was the trigger?

 

I wish I remembered more, but all I recall is something about her mother being either distant or disapproving of her in general.  Plus they were poor?

 

Bobblybear said:   Aside from that I didn't have any opinions on them, except that they all seemed a bit too in love with their own voices/words. I think that's what annoyed me - they loved to waffle on and on about the same thing, just drawing it out into some 5 page letter when half a page would have done.

 

They rather were, I agree.   There were def times I felt like strangling most of them, or throwing the book across the room!  But I was always compelled to come back and see how they would arrive at the inevitable conclusion.  But, remember, the letters were the only manner of communication, and the times were such that all the flowery phrases and hypocritical mouthings were very much in vogue, and required by society. 

[pontalba]

We just finished watching the film with John Malkovich and Glenn Close.  I'd only seen pieces of it before.  Both of us enjoyed it, I thought they brought the pertinent bits of the book out for the most part.  Natch lots was left out, including de Merteuil's pox, although she did get somewhat of a comeuppance.  Not as bad as the book though.  Plus, interestingly enough de Tourvel didn't come off as so pitifully nauseating.