This book
is the third book in the Three Musketeers
series. See also my review of the original Three Musketeers and Twenty Years After.
The Title
According to the Internet, the 3rd
book in the Three Musketeers series
is so huge, some 2,000 pages or something, that in English publication it’s
usually published as a series of smaller books (W).
(It’s
unclear to me why the length of the book is only a problem in the English
translation. Do the French not have the
same problems with the book binding?)
Each
publisher divides the book up differently—sometimes it’s published in 3
volumes, sometimes 4 volumes, and sometimes 5 volumes. This leads occasionally to confusion about
which book is which.
Since I am
downloading these books from Project Gutenberg [LINK HERE], I am
following their divisions:
Book 1: The Vicomte De Bragelonne
Book 2: Ten Years After
Book 3: Louise de la Valliere
and Book 4: The Man in the Iron Mask.
In the
original French translation, The Vicomte
De Bragelonne refers to the whole of the last book, but the book I am
reviewing today is the English translation, which is just the first 75 chapters of the
French The Vicomte de Bragelonne.
(Did I
manage to explain that without confusing everyone?)
In the
original French, this is just the beginning of a larger work, so it may be
unfair for me to review the work in divisions not intended by the original
author. But I’ve decided to just review
these books as I go along rather than try and hold them all in my memory until
the end—be it fair or not. But you may
still want to keep that caveat in mind as you read my review.
The Review
Since this is the same series by
the same author, much of what I said about The
Three Musketeers, and Twenty Years
After, also holds true for this book as well.
With some
exceptions:
I praised
the original Three Musketeers for
having a fast sense of pacing similar to a modern day novel. But at this point in the series, that fast
pace has been completely disregarded. In
fact, the opposite is now true: every plot point is now being drawn out for as
long as possible.
I’m beginning
to get the sense that at this point Dumas is just trying to milk the rest of
the story for as much money as he can get.
(Like Dickens, Dumas was originally serialized in newspapers
and paid by the installment.)
Whereas the
first Musketeers book had a real
sense of urgency about pacing and plot, this book is in no hurry to get
anywhere. For example we pause for a
whole chapter to get the history of an inn where one of the characters is
staying at. We have another chapter
devoted just to describing the political background in England.
It’s
actually not a bad pacing—it allows you to get more drawn into the story. And the prose is still highly readable. But it is different.
In addition
to a shift in pacing, another difference is that the Musketeers are
increasingly becoming minor characters in their own series as the focus is now
more on real life historical figures.
History was
always a big part of this series, but it seems to be growing in prominence with
each book. At times, the young king
Louix XIV almost seems to be the main character in this book, as several
chapters are taken up describing his actions, and the Musketeers are completely
forgotten for several chapters at a time.
Not only
Louis XIV, but also his clerk Colbert (W), the superintendent of
finances Fouquet (W) and his inner circle, and across the English
channel, General Monk (W) and King Charles II.
Dumas
continues to mix fiction and history, so these are all heavily fictionalized
versions of their real-life counterparts.
And yet, as someone who loves history, I thought the way Dumas blended
history and fiction together was fascinating.
(Conversely, people who don’t like history might want to consider
themselves forewarned before starting this book.)
[Alexandre
Dumas was an expert on 17th Century history in his own right. (He published
historical books such as Louis XIV and his Century)
And so, although he does fictionalize a lot of the history for dramatic
purposes, he’s also not afraid to get into the details, and certainly gives the
impression of knowing a lot about the nobles and poets of 17th Century France.]
As with Twenty Years After, there’s a complexity
allowed for French politics which is not allowed in English politics.
In France,
the young Louis XIV is struggling to get out from under the shadow of his
regent Mazarin (W), and, added by Colbert, is trying to assert his
authority and strength at the expense of the superintendent of finances
Fouquet.
Much of the
book is sympathetic to the ambitions of Louis XIV, but Dumas, however, shows
equally sympathy towards Fouquet. The
reader is shown everything from Fouquet’s perspective as well as Louis XIV’s. And, as with Twenty Years After, the Musketeers themselves are divided
again. (D’artagnan supports Louis XIV,
but Porthos and Aramis are working for Fouquet.)
When it
comes to English politics, however, these books are unashamedly pro-royalist.
The restoration of Charles II is presented as a great moment for
civilization. (As someone who takes an
anti-monarchist point of view, I would view the Restoration as a step backwards
for England. But, as with the previous
books, I try and just swallow my politics and try and enjoy these books for
their storytelling.)
Other Notes
* I continue to enjoy the cloak-and-dagger intrigue of these
books, such as all the plotting Fouquet and his circle did to try and save
their friends from the hangman
* In the first half of this book, General Monk is one of the
main characters, which I thought was interesting. (In the history books I’ve read, General Monk
is usually just glossed over as a transition figure between Oliver Cromwell and
the restoration of the monarchy, but Alexandre Dumas I think does a fair job of
rescuing Monk from obscurity and showing what a fascinating a figure he really
was.)
* In my review of The
Three Musketeers, I said part of what makes the book interesting is how
flawed all of the heroes were.
But this
apparently does not extend to the sons of the Musketeers. The character of Raoul, Athos’s son, is
presented as much too perfect a picture of filial devotion, which makes him a
very boring character. (This was true in
Twenty Years After as well,
actually). But I’ll have to reserve
final judgment until I see how the whole story develops.
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky (July, 2013) "The Corporatization of the University"
No comments:
Post a Comment