The Three Musketeers by Alexander Dumas

[Kell]

IT IS ASSUMED YOU HAVE READ THIS BOOK BEFORE READING THIS THREAD, THEREFORE SPOILER TAGS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN USED IN ORDER TO FASCILITATE EASIER AND MORE OPEN DISCUSSION

This book is available cheaply from Green Metropolis or through Amazon (please use the link at the top right of this web page), or for free from Librivox (in audio) and Project Gutenberg (e-book).

 

The Three Musketeers by Alexander Dumas:

A historical romance, The Three Musketeers tells the story of the early adventures of the young Gascon gentleman, D'Artagnan and his three friends from the regiment of the King's Musketeers - Athos, Porthos and Aramis. Under the watchful eye of their patron M. de Treville, the four defend the honour of the regiment against the guards of Cardinal Richelieu, and the honour of the queen against the machinations of the Cardinal himself as the power struggles of seventeenth century France are vividly played out in the background. But their most dangerous encounter is with the Cardinal's spy, Milady, one of literature's most memorable female villains, and Dumas employs all his fast-paced narrative skills to bring this enthralling novel to a breathtakingly gripping and dramatic conclusion.

 

SOME BASIC QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:

1. Who was your favourite character and why?

2. Was there a particular part you enjoyed/disliked more than the rest?

3. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

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

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

 

FURTHER QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER (from Random House)

1. Discuss Dumas's use of historical events in the novel. Do you think a knowledge of history is necessary or unnecessary in order to enjoy the novel? Discuss the ways in which Dumas alters or takes liberties with real events in order to suit the story. Is his view of history sanitized in any way?

2. Dumas is thought of as the chief popularizer of French Romantic drama. In considering The Three Musketeers, do you think this reputation is an accurate one? How does Dumas use dramatic effect in the novel?

3. Contemporary critics were offended by the scenes depicting vice and violence in the novel. Do you find these scenes arbitrary or not?

4. Many critics have described the musketeers as well-developed stereotypes, but are there ways in which the musketeers transcend these stereotypes? Are there other, perhaps more complex ways of interpreting the four protagonists?

5. Discuss Dumas's female characters, in particular Milady. What is her role in the novel, and what does this reveal about Dumas's views of women, if anything? Does Dumas depict a war between the sexes?

6. How do the chapter endings contribute to Dumas's masterly maintenance of pace? How does this kind of device recall a play, and how does this speak to Dumas's strengths stylistically?

7. In what ways is The Three Musketeers a bildungsroman? Would you characterize the work as a youthful novel?

[chesilbeach]

I'm about fifty pages in, and so far it's quite promising (although 675 pages does seem quite daunting!).

[Chimera]

(although 675 pages does seem quite daunting!).

 

Just wait until you've finished it... you'll be begging for more (and running to buy Twenty years later and The Vicomte de Bragelonne)!

 

I read this long ago (I happen to have a crazy Dumas fan as a father - that stuff was pretty much spoon fed to us...). But remember absolutely loving it!

[Kell]

I listened to an audio book of The Three Musketeers read by none other than Michael York about 1 1/2 years ago ad he really brought it to life. So, although I didn't read a hard copy myself, I can honestly say it's worth sticking with - there's such swashbuckling excitement throughout and the cameraderie between the characters is wonderful fun. As the characters developed, I really began to feel I was a part of their little group and I was right there with them on their escapades. I really should read some more Dumas, as I loved this one!

[Kylie]

I've read Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo and I absolutely loved it. He's a terrific author. I'm really looking forward to getting into The Three Musketeers but I'm afraid I may not be able to join in this month. I'm still slogging through Vanity Fair and I don't know that I can follow it up so closely with another long classic.

[Nollaig]

I've read Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo and I absolutely loved it.

 

I was going to say, anyone who enjoys the Muskateers should read Cristo. Brilliant novel. Huge (over 1200 pages think) but worth it.

[chesilbeach]

Just out of curiosity ... is anyone else reading it this month for the reading circle?

[Freewheeling Andy]

I intend to grab a copy as soon as I finish The White Tiger, chesilbeach; although I'll probably be contributing mostly just a little behind the sensible schedule. I was just bogged down in the quicksand of a previous book.

[chesilbeach]

No rush! I was just curious, as it's the first reading circle I've joined, and I wondered if anyone else was joining in. I was lucky in that I finished a book at the end of June, so I was able to start at the beginning of July.

[Freewheeling Andy]

I don't feel under much obligation - I didn't vote for it - but it's one of the more engaging choices of recent months, to my mind, so I'd like to get involved.

[chesilbeach]

ALTHOUGH IT SAYS IT AT THE TOP OF THE THREAD - PLEASE BE AWARE THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THIS POST.

 

1. Who was your favourite character and why?

My favourite character is probably Athos. I think the development and how his story was gradually revealed made him the most realistic character. He had a depth to him, with the strength of nobility creating a worthy, intelligent man, who earned the well deserved respect of D'Artagnan.

 

Having said that, I thought both D'Artagnan and Constance Bonancieux were both very likeable characters, although while reading the book, I thought Constance's death was unexpected and sad, by the end of the book I could understand why it was necessary.

 

I liked the strength of both the male and female characters in the book, and I think the author dealt with a wide range of personalities very well.

 

2. Was there a particular part you enjoyed/disliked more than the rest?

I pretty much liked it all, so there was no part that stood out particularly, but what I would say is that I didn't feel there was much increase in the pace of the narrative towards the end of the book. In this style of adventure, I would have expected the author to increase the amount of action and suspense as the book progressed, so that you would be galloping towards the denouement to find out what would become of the Musketeers, but I personally didn't feel that at all.

 

There was only one minor quibble for me, and that was the epilogue, which I felt was unnecessary and an unworthy end to the characters, who we'd spent so long investing in, to have a couple of short pages summoning up their stories. I would have been just as happy to have left it at the end of the last full chapter.

 

I liked the technique the author employed to occasionally talk directly to the reader, as if he was a narrator verbally telling the story, as it made it feel very inclusive, and drew you into the story even more.

 

3. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

It was certainly the first book I've read by Dumas, and as proposed earlier in the thread, I will be on the look out for The Count of Monte Cristo. It had always been on my radar, although never quite made it onto my wishlist, but I will definitely add it now.

 

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

I did get a little bit frustrated with the fives days of the imprisonment, which although really delved into the character of Lady de Winter, felt just a little too long.

 

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

Yes, definitely enjoyable, and a surprisingly fast read for the length and language of the book.

[Kell]

It's been quite some time since I listened to the audo book so I won't answer individual questions, but I wanted to say that I LOVED the character of Milady deWinter - she's so manipulative and downright sneaky! There's just something about the "bad" characters in this novel - the Cardinal is an unholy man of God, and Rochefort is such a nasty piece of work that I could hardly wait for them to get their come-uppance (I adrored "reading" their parts - I usually do like the baddies!), but with Milady, I almost wanted her to get away with it all, even after the murder of Constance and her attempted murder of D'Artagnion. I could half understand D'Artagnion's reluctance to see her dead and also Athos' sorrow at seeing her executed after having loved her.

 

I haven't yet read any more Dumas, but I certainly inted to (I have Monte Cristo on Mount TBR) as I loved his friendly approach to writing - I felt included in the action, as if I were one of the musketeers myself (a 5th one at that - LOL!). I felt it would have been wonderful to be friends with D'Artagnion, Porthos, Athos and Aramis, and to experience their adventures with them.

 

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in seeing how much of The Three Musketeers' history is based on fact, I found an interesting source HERE, with links between the fictional characters and events and actual historical ones.

[Chimera]

It was certainly the first book I've read by Dumas, and as proposed earlier in the thread, I will be on the look out for The Count of Monte Cristo. It had always been on my radar, although never quite made it onto my wishlist, but I will definitely add it now.

 

I haven't yet read any more Dumas, but I certainly inted to (I have Monte Cristo on Mount TBR) as I loved his friendly approach to writing - I felt included in the action, as if I were one of the musketeers myself (a 5th one at that - LOL!). I felt it would have been wonderful to be friends with D'Artagnion, Porthos, Athos and Aramis, and to experience their adventures with them.

 

You do both realise that there are two sequels to The Three Musketeers? They are Twenty years later and The Vicomte de Bragelonne, and well worth the read as well. But Monte Cristo is even better I think.

 

Both your posts have made me realise I remember far too little about the Musketeers... I'll need to have a re-read sometime soon.

[chesilbeach]

Kell, I totally understand why you loved Milady - I thought Dumas wrote an incredibly vivid portrayal of her with a very in depth look at the workings of her mind, and it was great to see such strength in the female characters in general in the book.

 

Chimera, I didn't realise there were sequels to this story, but I think I'll stick with The Count of Monte Cristo first, and if I'm still thirsty for more after that, then I'll maybe look up some more Musketeer action!

[Kell]

I know there are sequels and I fully intend to read them at some point too, it's just that I already have Monte Cristo.

[Freewheeling Andy]

So I've really only just opened the book - you know, 20 pages in, that sort of thing - but here's the first couple of observations.

 

First of which is that my edition is just awash with footnotes (well, they're at the end of the book), which is distracting to start with. Frankly, I'm not so stupid that I can't work out context from a book like this.

 

Second is that it's a really easy start to the book. Light and bouncy and fairly driving along.

 

Third, and related - I didn't realise that Dumas was basically just writing reams and reams of pulpy fiction for the magazines, and that's what this comes from. It's not dissimilar to Dickens' writing mould, or perhaps a better comparison, Conan Doyle. Have to keep it exciting so that people will buy the next edition of the magazine.

 

It'll be interesting to see how much politics/moralising Dumas puts in, once I get further in - the kind of stuff that would have easily slipped from any of the films, but given that Dumas was a political activist himself, in amongst the revolutionary period of mid-19th century Europe, and given the Dickens example that writers did tend to drive their own agenda through their fictions, there could well be stuff going in in the book.

 

Although, on the other hand, he was largely a romantic writer, and could literally be working on writing the romance, the fun novel, with not much thought to trying to smash anything into peoples' skulls.

 

More once I've read some more, but there's my first swathe of thoughts.

[Kell]

Third, and related - I didn't realise that Dumas was basically just writing reams and reams of pulpy fiction for the magazines, and that's what this comes from. It's not dissimilar to Dickens' writing mould, or perhaps a better comparison, Conan Doyle. Have to keep it exciting so that people will buy the next edition of the magazine.

I only realised very recently that it was originally serialised - in this case it makes for exciting reading as there's always something to keep the reader hooked and turning the pages.

[Kylie]

Although, on the other hand, he was largely a romantic writer, and could literally be working on writing the romance, the fun novel, with not much thought to trying to smash anything into peoples' skulls.

 

I can't imagine Dumas just writing a fun, romantic novel. He seems much deeper than that.

 

Darn, I hadn't planned on reading this book this month, but I'm getting really tempted now.

[Freewheeling Andy]

My guess is that it's deeper, but as I said, I'm only 20 pages in. I'm intrigued as to whether he follows his political instincts, or whether he follows his story-telling instincts alone. As I said, my guess is the former.

 

Although it's already interesting that, despite writing in the post-revolutionary period, he still seems fairly staunchly monarchist. I suppose we're still waiting for the second Republic to come on, so this would be the period of the French restoration when this was written. All the same, I'd have thought there'd be less love for how wonderful various monarchs were. Again, hard to know if this is just superfice considering how early in the book I am.

[Freewheeling Andy]

I'm not exactly making quick progress - there are a lot of words, 600 odd densely packed pages with not too many paragraphs - but it's a really fun book. A rare day today, I was commuting on the tube thanks to the rain, and I almost missed my stop being a tad too engrossed.

[Freewheeling Andy]

Not much more to say on the book yet, but I've been reading a few small things about Richelieu, and it's interesting stuff. He's presented in clearly a very bad light in the book, yet apparently even in France when Dumas was writing he was held in fairly high regard.

 

He was never exactly popular, because he was thoroughly cynical and brutal and oppressive, and he was properly machiavellian when dealing in international affairs. But he was astonishingly effective. There are people who consider his centralising of power away from feudal lords, and his imposition of rule throughout the land, and his building of national secret services, and taking tax collection out of the hands of local authorities and into centrally appointed collectors to be the effective birth of the modern nation state.

 

Even more so, his focus on the state above all else, and the way it boosted France, could be seen to be very, very instrumental in shaping French attitudes to their nation for centuries to come - arguably, even the present day.

 

Very interesting stuff.

[Freewheeling Andy]

As I read on through it - it's really quite long, but not in a turgid way - I've got some more thoughts. For all that it's presented as high-culture in a lot of ways, it really is a schlock-historical novel. It's a good one, but it's definitely got some of those blockbustery elements of romp and more romp and more romp. Brave D'Artagnan kills person, rides on somewhere else, swordfights and kills. And our hero always wins just by being physically superior.

 

And there's a quite stupendous use of coincidence to get away with creating plot. It's stuff that no modern author who wasn't sold in airport-stands would get away with. Our hero happens to be lodging at the house of a key player with the monarchy; our hero happens to be walking and spots the Duke of Buckingham being snuck in to the louvre; etc, etc. To an extent that I think that perhaps Dumas isn't the greatest at plot-building.

 

There are other elements of the book's age (and perhaps it's targeting at a young audience) that bug me - the obsession with where people are from, and what the special character is of people from a particular region. D'Artagnan is a Gascon, therefore he has great night-vision (another point of creating a skill suddenly where it's needed for our character to succeed). His servant is a Picard, and they are brave. Someone is from Burgundy and they have other character traits. And so on. I'm sure this is a form of that 19th century nationalism and a belief in a form of exceptionalism which was commonplace. But it really grates on me, trying to read this is a modern novel. If you were to read a book written now talking of someone being Scottish and therefore being brave but tight with cash; or an Irishman being a biut stupid - not because of any other reason, but just because of their Irishness - you would baulk. I suppose it's a bit like Shylock's jewishness, too.

 

Fortunately the plot bounces along and is fun enough, so I don't get too caught up with these kinds of irritations of the modern reader in an old novel.

 

Although I am reminded again of some of the reasons I tend to have a dislike of Victorian era fiction. There's the "straightness" of it - it really rarely tends to be layered and so on, the stuff I like with modernist/early post-modern fiction. There's the fairly substantial and long winded explicatory paragraphs. There's the general obsession with the lives of the rich and famous (Dickens being a great exception - no country houses and sons of nobility for him). And there's the character who sees a woman and suddenly is in love with her and must do everything for her; who changes his entire world-view on a whim. And who makes decisions of trust based on someone's facial expression, which means he absolutely must trust this person.

 

Actually, if it wasn't for the fact there's a fun adventure story going on here, I might have thrown the book out of the window by now, if I think about it. Thank god it's not some low-key romantic comedy (I think it'll be a while before I pick up your books, Ms Austen).

[Freewheeling Andy]

So, now I feel like I'm trundling along talking to myself - probably because I'm reading slower than everyone else.

 

Anyway, so far - with the exception of Countess De Winter - Dumas treats women incredibly badly. His regional stereotyping is bad; but his stereotyping of women is horrible. Lots of "Because women are simple, and turned easily by a handsome man, she did what he said" nonsense.

 

I am, though, liking the way the three main musketeers have more and more flaws revealed as we go along; how their vanity and lies come along, and how they seem slightly less competent and brilliant the more we see of them.

[chesilbeach]

I'm not sure I agree with you about Dumas treatment of women. I think the flaw with his characterisation for me, is that all the characters (not just the woman) tend to be one- or two-dimensional, in that I felt he describes their main positive and main negative aspect of their personality and then leaves it at that. I'm not sure I've exactly described what I mean here, so I hope it makes sense. But from that, with regards to the female characters, I feel as though he did try to cover a wide range of personalities, but is limited by the society at the time.

 

My reading experience is a lot different from yours, Andy, because I have very little knowledge of this period of history, and most of it would come from watching entertainment films set in this era, which can't be a true reflection, no matter how well researched. However, my approach to the book was that it was primarily for entertainment, so I was happy to overlook any factual inaccuracies (if I even know about them).

 

It was only after finishing the book that I found out it was originally written as a serialisation, which in retrospect, makes the format of the work more successful, in that it achieves enough action in each chapter, and if not always ending with a cliff hanger, at least leaving the reader wanting more.

[Freewheeling Andy]

I certainly agree that the characters, in general, are relatively simplistic - they have their traits and they stick to those traits, and that's it. In that way I definitely feel like it's a book that's, in large part, a childrens' adventure.