“All for one and one for all” was never actually stated in the translation by Jacques Le Clercq in the 1999 Modern Library edition that I read. I wonder where that comes from and if it is maybe even apocryphal?
I find my reaction to finally experiencing a classic fiction source that has sparked so many adaptations, spin-offs, etc. to be quite varied. Which is normal, of course. But I still have this idea that I am obligated to appreciate anything deemed “classic”. Silly, yet true. Frankly, I was less than enamored when I finally read Frankenstein and also I thought The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde would have been a thousand times better if had been less familiar with the story prior to reading it. However, I have been delighted by pretty much everything I have read by Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.
Which brings me to Les Trois Mousquetaires by Alexandre Dumas. I liked it, but with reservations which are mostly based on reading a book written 200 years ago and which is set in a time period 200 years before it was written. I don’t know why sometimes my 21st century mores get in the way of reading older books and sometimes they don’t. But in this case, I was annoyed by the moral ambiguity of 17th century Europe as portrayed by a 19th century author…in particular since the one female villain is so severely punished (her greatest evil seeming to be having the intellect of a man but born in to a female body) whereas the male bad guys are actually respected as worthy adversaries. Milady deserved better. Frankly, I much prefer her depiction in the 1993 movie version starring Rebecca De Mornay. Whatever faults that movie may have (Charlie Sheen as Aramis?), it gives Milady (and Athos) a more nuanced personality than in the book. I guess one could argue that the book does allow for a more generous reading of Milady in the negative spaces, but you have to be a better reader that I am to get that.
My other reservation is that it isn’t particularly well written. There is literal mustache twirling going on. One of the chapter title’s is literally “The Plot Thickens”. This book’s success rests I think on its characters, who are very memorable, despite their questionable behavior. I mean, these guys are constantly walking around, looking for a fight. And they very often actively work AGAINST the best interests of France in their support of Queen Anne. Who knows, maybe Dumas was deliberately writing them as anti-heroes? That is for someone’s term paper to work out!
So, in summary, I am happy to have finally experienced Dumas’ original but I don’t think I will read on in his oeuvre. I read this for the 2017 Back to the Classics Challenge: Read a book with a number in the title.
I know what you mean about feeling obligated to appreciate a great classic. As much as I love Austen I realize there are many who will read Pride and Prejudice and wonder what all the fuss is about (Charlotte Bronte in fact said as much). As for me I wish I could get into Dickens more. I read Great Expecations but I wasn't wowed as I thought I would be. That said Dickens is too great a writer for me to leave it at one book. My Dickens novel is out there I just have to find it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Kathy. Yes, it pains me a little when I hear that other readers don’t love those classic novels that I venerate! I think the problem is we readers tend to think of Classics as a genre and/or writing style, when really it is only a time period which encapsulated all sorts of genres and styles.
DeleteI love Dickens, so I hope you find your novel. On the plus side, there have been so many fantastic adaptations of his books that you could use as your gateway to his novels. That wasn’t the case for me with Dickens, but it was with Austen. I saw televised or movie adaptations of all but two of her books before I came to actually read them.
I love the story of the Three Musketeers, but have never read the book. It does sound very dated, and I'm not sure I'll actually read it. I loved the movie from my childhood--Faye Dunaway as Milady and Michael York as D'Artagnon! And I like the current TV series, but am at least a season behind. I would probably react as you did to the double-standard with regards to Milady in the book. Great review--goes to show that not all classics are really worthy of the term!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Jane. I used to have such a crush on Michael York! I didn’t know that there was a T.V. series.
DeleteI think the multiple reworking and re-telling of Dumas’ core characters over the two centuries since the novel’s publication do go to show they are deserving of their classic status. Like James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, it is interesting to see how they change (or don’t change) with the times.
I grew up watching movie versions of The Three Musketeers and loving the characters, but I have never read the books. My sister devoured all of Dumas' novels, and I've often thought about trying one, but.... you know how it goes. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Comment Lark. The characters really are fantastic. I can understand your trepidation about reading Dumas' books however; they can be chuncksters! On the plus side, however, since The Three Musketeers was mostly plot, it didn't take all too long to read it.
DeleteI read the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation and really enjoyed it. I always have a hard time judging older writing when it comes to cliches, as they have to start somewhere, and I'm never sure if they were cliches at the time. And then it's even more tricky when you factor in the translator's interpretation of the original source material.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, I agree that it's the characters that really carry the novel. And Milady did deserve better. She felt a bit like a weird early representation of men's fear of women.
Thanks for the comment Rob. Yes, I wondered if some of the "cliches" in the book actually originated with Dumas!
DeleteI think that Dumas, the crowd pleaser that he was, would have changed his portrayal of Milady had he known his books, but particularly this one, would continue to be avidly read two centuries later!
I completely agree, there's always baggage when you finally read a well-known classic. When I was quite young there were several TV movies about the musketeers which were quite good, I think Michael York was D'Artagnan so that's always how I picture them -- sorry, Charlie Sheen just doesn't cut it for me. And your literal mustache twirling comment made me LOL.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Karen! It is always a toss up whether or not a well-known classic will live up to its legend.
DeleteI never saw the Three Musketeer movie with Michael York but I lurrved him in Logan's Run when I was a kid!