I’ve loved the Musketeers ever since I first saw the 1973 movie but haven’t gotten around to reading the actual novel until now. I even managed to read The Man in the Iron Mask first, which should have tipped me off more about what to expect. But seeing how that book is described as a darker turn, I was still surprised about how the main characters act in the book.
Namely, they’re a bunch of douchebags.
They get into duels (which is illegal) and then have to fight the guards (who are trying to arrest them for doing something illegal) and maim and kill people without any sort of consequences. At one point Athos gets goaded into telling a dude his true name before a duel, only to tell him that now he has to die and go about killing him. Porthos is leeching off a married woman, Athos became a Musketeer after doing the French equivalent of an honor-killing and they all mistreat their servants. Athos beats his if he speaks to him and they all recommend that Dartagan does the same. They financially take advantage of anyone they can, cause havoc everywhere they go and kill a lot of people super casually.
That being said, I do love them for it.
My friend and I used to describe them in the movie as “Varsity Stars who can get away with everything” but I had chalked a lot of that up to being characters in a Richard Lester movie, not the original novel. It was fun to read about them holding wine cellars hostage, putting in no effort to avoid violence and not realizing that rent was something they had to pay until their landlord informed them. They’re not great people, but they’re great to read.
You must log in or register to comment.
This happens to everyone.
I am finding flaws in most of the books that I used to love back then. I watched movies when I was in school and now after reading them, I hate the patrogonist.
Perhaps the book was written for the expected reader at the time, using contemporary stereotypical attitudes and morals.
This kind of behaviour was definitely not normal or even legal in 1844 France when it was written, or, as OP notes, in the actual time period it’s set, either - it’d be like taking a modern action movie to be a guide to behaviour.
That’s something that struck me as well when I read it. “Wow, D’artagnan’s…pretty sure he’d be prosecuted for rape nowadays. Don’t see that in the Mickey Mouse version.”
Like, Dumas’ prose is still wonderful, but I definitely have to put a lot of product of its time filter on when reading.
No spoilers, but…the second and third books in the series (what gets published as “The Man in the Iron Mask” is something like the last quarter of the third book) play on this a lot.
The second book is called “Twenty Years After” and we see our middle-aged heroes figure out what each of them have grown into in the intervening years, what’s changed and what hasn’t. It’s an enormously underrated book.
Some other pieces of context:
- Socially, France was in the process of being transformed from an Honor-based culture to one based upon Rules. This was very much played out in the clash between what nobility can get away with vs. what the rules declare.
- Richelieu was very much the point man on the centralization of government and the creation of the modern nation-state. This would play out in full under Louis XIV, but the process of destroying the economic and military power of the nobility in France began under his father (or more accurately under his red right hand, Richelieu). A big part of this was bringing the nobility to heel under the Rule of Law rather than their traditional privileges. Another, unspoken policy was to impoverish the nobility and financially tie them to the Throne by making them spend lots of money and become dependent upon lucrative work either in government or the royal court.
- The King’s Musketeers was composed mostly of “gentlemen,” but by and large, they were either “spare” sons, or from the less financially wealthy families and those from the provinces. Along with providing these young men a chance to sow their wild oats, it was also supposed to be an opportunity for them to show their worth and gain a chance at better and more lucrative government and court postings…and politically indoctrinate them into loyalty to the Crown.
I disliked their immoral attitudes I quit halfway through the book.
The Richard Lester movies are remarkably true to the book. I love them both.
Alexandre Dumas was well aware of his heroes’ flaws, just as Ian Fleming was well aware of James Bond’s flaws, or Sergio Leone was well aware of The Man with No Name’s flaws. The swashbuckling genre generated by The Three Musketeers was often far less cynical than the original. Lester restored the hilarious cynicism of the original book.
D’Artagnan has several love affairs and tricks Milady into sleeping with him while she thinks she’s sleeping with her lover – and despite the fact that Constance is supposed to be his girl. Richelieu is actually much smarter than the King and has France’s welfare in mind. Ultimately, D’Artagnan ends up working for Richelieu and becomes good friends with Rochefort, who appeared to be the big baddie at the beginning of the tale.
It’s all a big game, life is cheap, and what redeems our “heroes” is that they are brave, daring, clever, and just plain awesome and the people they kill are either non-entities or truly villainous – even more villainous than our heroes.
Wasn’t Constance literally married woman in the books when she first met D’Artagnan?
Yes.
She is the young wife of his landlord.
Movies usually make her into the landlord’s daughter or niece.
What are James Bond’s flaws?
He’s a rapist
Richelieu is actually much smarter than the King and has France’s welfare in mind.
The historical Richelieu was a Catholic cardinal who intervened in the Thirty Years war to extend it because the Catholic side was winning. He intentionally continued a civil war that “his side” was winning to bleed the Habsburgs more. The war only ended after his death. Clever? Yes. Focused on France’s welfare? Debatable, but OK. A nice person? Very much no. The 17th century is full of absolutely awful people in positions of power, but Richelieu may in fact be the worst.
The 17th century is full of absolutely awful people in positions of power
Like all centuries before or after
What surprised me most when reading the books, is how much d’Artagnan is after money. But yes, the musketeers were an unit of privileged and flamboyant men. In a way they remind me of how the hussars were said to be (same thing, womanizing assholes getting into fights, but glamorous).
I think its just the stereotype of any soldier on leave, regardless of their unit. My cousin is in the Marines and he always tells me how wild they get when they’re finally let out on leave.
Indeed! I think the main difference is that the musketeers are all nobility. I forgot if they are also nobility of sword? Meaning that their ancestors earned their privileges through feats in battle (I am not certain at all). I remember another story where a character is not high in the hierarchy, but he is said to have earned the right to ride a horse in a church.
Yes.
They are awesome.
The candy is also awful
You made me laugh out loud.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but I love three musketeers bars. The flavor is simple and uniform, and the texture is incredible. There’s none of the bullshit you get in other candy bars where there’s several competing flavors/textures, or the distribution(ie of caramel or nuts) isn’t uniform. Barring air pockets(nobody’s perfect) every bite is the same. Feels bad to see them at current price point, though. I understand that candy bars are now standard priced $1.50-$2, but a three musketeers clearly has less going on than a snickers or a milky way.
Have you tried them frozen? Used to get the mini-mini versions and freeze them. The full size bars are too big to manage frozen. Been ages since I’ve had one. I went off sugar some time ago.
I’ve never had them frozen. I don’t think I would like that, because I like the contrast of sensations they way they are. I did used to freeze milky way minis when I was a kid(they were the only thing my mom would buy), because then I would be able to eat the bottom half first and then the top, to enjoy it without mixing the textures.
I read this after The Count of Monte Cristo. I was, shall we say, underwhelmed.
Yeah I always thought it was kinda weird people recommended it as a follow up just because it was also Dumas. monte cristo is a complicated, long term revenge plot that unfolds over the entire book. Three musketeers is just these bros doing random shit and getting in fights
D’artagnon being the biggest douche of all! Raping countess DeWinter through lying, whining that his daddy only got him a dork ass yellow horse instead of a Bentley. He has immature frat kid written all over him.
Yeah. That’s the point. Having said that I always wanted to be Porthos when I grew up. It doesn’t seem to have worked.
A product of their time. Modern sensibilities impose a distortion
Dumas was writing in 1844, a long time after the setting and post-Revolution, and intending to criticise (as well as to write some swashbuckling adventure).
There was a Brit TV series, 5-10 years ago, very swashbuckling, you might like that too. Good casting and lots of action