Dangerous Liaisons by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

[chesilbeach]

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?

I think you're right that she doesn't say why, but I think the writers implication is that girls aren't told about what to expect from marriage and, in particular, sex. They are brought up away from society, then brought out and expected to marry without any life experience. When someone like Merteuil, who is obviously very bright and intelligent, is left to her own devices with nothing to occupy her, and her only purpose is to marry, this is why she used her time in observation and her own "education". She will have seen what happens to wives and widows, and has obviously decided that she won't conform to what her mother expects and to enter a convent after the death of her own husband, but to ensure she is able to live as an independent woman. In order to do that, she has to maintain the outward appearance of a respectable widow, but she is still only a young woman and wants to find some pleasure in life, and with no close family or friends, she becomes more and more isolated from any influences towards love and companionship, and veers towards the physical pleasures of sex, as well as the pleasure of feeling superior to the rest of society by projecting the outward appearance of elite respectability.

[chesilbeach]

One thing that interests me, is that the majority of letters are written by the female characters, with the only male voice in the majority of the book coming from Valmont (although there are a few other male letters, these are in the minority). How do you feel this affected the novel?

 

The more I think of it, the more I feel that Valmont is just a catalyst for Laclos to delve into the role of women in the society of the time. I think he's written, with the exception of Merteuil, a host of women who are generally expressing one aspect of the female role at the time, the young innocent girl, the mother seeking security for her daughter, the religious conformist, all to show how their lives were predestined to be wrapped up in the role of wife and mother without any occupation, and that when a woman had the intelligence and potential of Merteuil, it can end up contorting and twisting the individual within the confinements of the strictures of the society she lived in. I think this ends up with essentially one dimensional female characters who describe the condition of women at the time, while Valmont is allowed to be the full character and is allowed to change and almost have redemption by his "sacrifice" in the duel at the end. On the whole, I think Laclos writes the female voice well, but that Valmont is still perhaps the more successful character.

[pontalba]

One thing that interests me, is that the majority of letters are written by the female characters, with the only male voice in the majority of the book coming from Valmont (although there are a few other male letters, these are in the minority). How do you feel this affected the novel?

 

The more I think of it, the more I feel that Valmont is just a catalyst for Laclos to delve into the role of women in the society of the time. I think he's written, with the exception of Merteuil, a host of women who are generally expressing one aspect of the female role at the time, the young innocent girl, the mother seeking security for her daughter, the religious conformist, all to show how their lives were predestined to be wrapped up in the role of wife and mother without any occupation, and that when a woman had the intelligence and potential of Merteuil, it can end up contorting and twisting the individual within the confinements of the strictures of the society she lived in. I think this ends up with essentially one dimensional female characters who describe the condition of women at the time, while Valmont is allowed to be the full character and is allowed to change and almost have redemption by his "sacrifice" in the duel at the end. On the whole, I think Laclos writes the female voice well, but that Valmont is still perhaps the more successful character.

I like both your posts and as far as I can tell, I agree fully.  I especially like your second post though.  The idea of Laclos examining women's roles (of the time) is very interesting.  There is one of about everything.  From silly girl, to wise grandmotherly) type.  I think you are right on target. 

 

I do think there was more to Merteuil's role in that she was a truly vindictive person.  I don't think it was only intelligence perverted, she truly hated people.  Herself included I'd wager. I feel there had to be more than only frustration with women's role in life that got to her.Thousands of women were in her shoes, so to speak, and didn't feel the vindictiveness she portrayed. 

[chesilbeach]

Thanks pontalba.  

 

If you could roll up all the female voices into one person, you would have a view of all the aspects that a woman was supposed to bring to the society of the time - innocence and virginal before marriage, passionate and excitement as a wife behind closed doors, religious faith outwardly but in private the entertaining gossip - was it possible to be all those things?  Do you think you could see all those conflicting elements as a single person?

 

I've read the suggestion that this is a morality tale against the way the aristocrats of pre-Revolutionary France.  Do you think this is about the lack of occupation of the filthy rich with nothing better to do with their time, or do you think it's more about the role of women in the society of the period?

 

Personally, I had been thinking it's much more about women's role but as I consider the morality tale, it does seem to work on both levels.  These people have nothing to do, and use their servants abominably to better play their games with others affections, when the servants are even mentioned or considered that is.

[pontalba]

 

If you could roll up all the female voices into one person, you would have a view of all the aspects that a woman was supposed to bring to the society of the time - innocence and virginal before marriage, passionate and excitement as a wife behind closed doors, religious faith outwardly but in private the entertaining gossip - was it possible to be all those things? Do you think you could see all those conflicting elements as a single person?

I believe they could possibly be age related phases or passages of a woman's life.  If the woman, in that particular time of history had been given the gifts of a protective and effective mother, a tender and understanding husband those phases could have happened.  But if her religious faith was a true one, and not just "for show", no she could not be a true gossip.  A gossip must first of all be a vindictive person, willing and wanting to hurt the object of the gossip.  But if what you (anyone) means by gossip is a little harmless wondering out loud, yes.

 

Oh, I definitely believe it's a morality tale.  I also have read that it is one of the many, many sparks of the French Revolution.  Can you imagine the reaction of someone scratching for a living reading about these people?!?  Yikes.  It would be enough to inflame anyone I think.

[chesilbeach]

Well, it's the end of the month today, and I think we've had a pretty good discussion on the book, with varying levels of enjoyment of reading it, and the whole discussion of the different translations.  Thanks everyone for your contributions, although the discussion thread does stay open, so if anyone who hasn't finished the book yet, or comes to it at a later date and wants to share their thoughts, feel free!

 

Thanks again everyone, I've enjoyed reading and discussing the book with you all. 

Edited March 31, 2013 by chesilbeach

[Stocko]

I read it when I was in high school, and i hated it because with my teacher we only studied a few letters and didn't get the whole story. after seeing the film i understood it quite better and enjoyed it more.

 

1. Did you enjoy reading this style of novel in the form of letters?
I enjoyed it because it"s original and create an impression of reality, it's a style that i discovered when as a teenager i read Meg Cabot's books.

 

2. Were you engaged immediately with the story, or did it take you a while to get into it?
It took me a while because we studied it very slowly.

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?
Yes at first i had to keep a paper with every name and character in the book to check whom letter i was reading.

4. Did you have a favourite character? And a least favourite?
my favorite character was Valmont. i loved john Malkovich's interpretation of him.

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?
I think the author had to give them these fates because they had to pay, at least in a book, because i doubt that in that time, people playing that kind of games weren't punished by "fate" as well.

 

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'm french, read it without translation.

 

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

I saw the 1988 version and loved it. I also watched the modern adaptation , cruel intention, and it was not bad, they stayed as close as possible to the book, but with an other situation. the two main actors of the movie played with much arrogance and pretention, just the way i imagined Merteuil and Valmont

10. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?
yes it was but it might be different for someone who's not accustomed to read "des romans épistolaires"

11. Would you recommend the book to others?

          I would but not to teenagers, because the style and the way of writting might bore them to death^^, most of them , like my sister, wouldn't have the tenacity to              

keep until they understand the quality of the story.

[Hal76]

I really enjoyed it. Having seen the film (as well as the less famous film Valmont with Colin Firth), it was an easy read.

Valmont is a great character. Someone should write a prequel about his early years!

[pontalba]

Malkovich has directed a play in New York of Dangerous Liaisons....the reviewer is very lukewarm in his remarks.  However from reading the review, I think the reviewer is not fair to the production.  The first and only comment after the article disagrees with the review...says the play was good.  Knowing Malkovich and the story, I'd have to agree.  Anyhow, here is the link to the New York Times article.....

http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/theater/reviews/les-liaisons-dangereuses-opens-at-lincoln-center.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20130712&_r=0