The Three Musketeers

[donnaimmaculata]

I'm currently reading The Three Musketeers. It's a re-read - I read it at some point as a child in my adventure-novel phase, and then re-read it every five-six years or so. I initially had a massive crush on Aramis, but then Athos became my favourite. He's so delightfully cynical, level-headed and drunk.

But. I'm reading it now through a completely different filter. I can't stand the four leads, they are awful human beings. Well, Aramis seems kinda okay, I think he's actually the only one who treats other people with respect, even his mistresses. Especially his mistresses.

And there's the upcoming BBC adaptation, which I am tentatively looking forward to. Tom Burke plays Athos, and I like Tom Burke, and there's Peter Capaldi, who is always excellent value. But at the same time, I can't help worrying that it's just another, slightly darker (they wear leather!) spin on the fannish interpretation of the source - i.e. three cheeky chappies who spout one-liners whilst beating up mooks, the bumbling village idiot d'Artagnan, the uber-evil Cardinal Richelieu, the star-crossed lovers King & Queen of France, and of course the evilest of all evil demons, Milady de Winter.

Whereas, in the novel, the musketeers are very much reprehensible human beings:

Athos has trained his valet not to talk, and if he does talk, he thrashes him mercilessly, albeit dispassionately. And, at the age of 25, he'd hanged his 16-year old (!) wife after discovering the fleur-de-lys brand on her shoulder, because obviously she must have been EVIL.

Porthos expects his mistress to finance his musketeering equipment and he feels absolutely justified to steal the money from her bed-ridden husband. When she's reluctant to do so, he goes off in a sulk.

d'Artagnan tricks a woman into sleeping with him by pretending to be someone else, and is justified in doing so, because the woman in question is Milady, and she's evil. Really, she is. Oh, and he "seduces" her maid (who is very reluctant, but unable to fight him) to get into Milady's knickers.

Aramis is kinda okay, I've got to admit. He seems to treat the various women he's involved with like human beings, he doesn't beat his valet and he's only moderately violent.

All four of them think nothing of taking human life, of course, and cheerfully kill people in duels as well as in battle.

The author stresses all throughout the novel that we mustn't judge men of that period by modern standards, which would be absolutely fine with me if Milady got the same treatment. But she is treated by the protagonists and the authorial voice as the hellish demon from hell who must be destroyed at all cost. I am actually totally rooting for Milady. She has done nothing on the pages of the book that is in any way worse than what the heroes have done. She lies, tricks and is ambitious and avaricious, but so are they. Plus, the men feel entitled to lie; in several instances, they cheat lower-class people such as inn hosts by claiming self-righteously that they are "gentlemen" and nobody must ever doubt the word of a gentleman.

I would be much less annoyed if the various adaptations did the source justice and presented the musketeers as morally ambivalent, as the liars, cheats and killers that they are, and did not make the Cardinal the big bad. His relationship with the musketeers is much more complex than that.

I would absolutely love it if there were an adaptation that treats Milady fairly in a way that the source did not. But seeing as there doesn't even seem to be any Milady-centric fanfic that does that, I will hope in vain.

There actually is a Russian adaptation that I watched as a child and that left a huge impression: the scene where Milady strangles Constance (who is married in the book and commits adultery) was pretty nightmarish.

Any thoughts, anyone? It's one of the stories that everyone in the Western world is familiar with, but I think the way we perceive the characters is very much influenced by the (Hollywood) adaptations, not so much by the novel itself.

Comments

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

I really like the classical Russian version, but in it there is no strangling, ony poisoning. Have you seen this version?
http://mary-and-the-bear.blogspot.ru/2013/09/dartagnan-and-three-musketeers-with.html
If not, highly recommended. It has been one of the most popular icons of the Soviet cinema. Richelieu isn't evil here, btw, and d'Artagnan isn't an idiot, just the youngest and the least experienced, so he makes some blunders in the beginning, but quickly proves himself (as happens in the novel).

Now I checked and this site has 2 other interesting movies:

1) If you like sci-fi (in a way, not hardcore), look at this. Read the novel and watched the movie in childhood:

"Amphibian Man is a 1962 Soviet science fiction romance film starring Vladimir Korenev and Directed by Vladimir Chebotaryov and Gennadi Kazansky. It is an almost fable-like story based upon the eponymous novel by Alexander Beliaev. It focuses on a boy named Ichtyandr who was surgically altered to survive under the sea. Unlike traditional science fiction movies of the time the film focuses much more on the concept of love won and lost."
http://mary-and-the-bear.blogspot.ru/2013/08/watch-amphibian-man-1962-movie-free.html

Now I remember, the author's "Professor Dowell's Head" was actually very frightening, and, in our world, all the events will become possible in the future, I am sure. Like "Amphibian Man", the heart of the novel doesn't lie in horror or (what I understand to be) traditional sci-fi. Recommended too.

2) The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Russia film)
http://mary-and-the-bear.blogspot.ru/2013/09/the-adventures-of-sherlock-holmes-and.html

Another most beloved film. I LOVE this Sherlock. The actors are great, more attention is paid to characters of people and to process of solving a case than to shooting and other kinds of violence (it's Soviet movie :) ), even though those moments exist too. Watched only Russian Sherlock and fairy recent Hollywood remake, and Russian wins hands down. For somebody, who has never been in an English speaking country, this movie creates the feeling of "good old England." :) At least, closer to the atmosphere of the novels, than the new remake.


// Porthos expects his mistress to finance his musketeering equipment and he feels absolutely justified to steal the money from her bed-ridden husband. When she's reluctant to do so, he goes off in a sulk.

Well, then mistresses were socially expected to help their lovers financially. Especially here, when she is both richer than him and of much lower social class. And she isn't reluctant to steal from her husband, but is simply a miser too. :)

// The author stresses all throughout the novel that we mustn't judge men of that period by modern standards, which would be absolutely fine with me if Milady got the same treatment.

Either the author judges them by his period's standards, which are very old for us, or the biased narrator views the characters as they would be seen and judged in their own time.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

It might have been poisoning, not strangling - what I remember is a painfully violent death. Most Western adaptations gloss it over.

Thank you so much for the links! I was telling a friend not long ago that I used to watch Russian adaptations of various literary sources a lot as a child and that so many of them are simply fabulous. Certainly much better than the American ones. They get the underlying darkness and corruption and the drama of human existence. I recently watched the classic (1967) Russian Anna Karenina adaptation on youtube, it is so much better than anything any Western filmmaker has ever created.

I don't mind the fact of Porthos' mistress keeping him; only, his sense of entitlement is never questioned and occasionally justified by the authorial voice. This is in stark contrast of the authorial voice condemning Milady for, essentially, being her. Her actions are never justified within the story, even though they objectively are. If the author never told me as the reader that I mustn't judge the men by modern standards, I might let it go. But he explicitely tells me that the musketeers are okay and Milady isn't, which is not what I see!

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

PS. I came up across this on youtube the other day, and it made me very happy:

[pauraque]

Huh, I've never read the book, so this was all news to me! Thanks for the interesting post. :)

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I've read the book a couple of times in the course of the years, but I keep forgetting what the original characterisation was like. The image created by the adaptations is too overwhelming.

I'm also craving Milady-centric fanfic in which she is not painted as the ruthless demon the novel claims she is. The original source leaves a lot of room for an alternative character interpretation.

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

What is the original source, if not the novel?

I see Milady as extremely ruthless and truly quite a demon. For example, it was her decision to poison Constance, while Richelieu spared Constance's life by deciding to imprison, not kill, the woman. In the novel he even remarks on Milady's cruelty in this, iirc. Milady also planned to use d'Artagnan to get rid of her late husband's brother. The musketeers don't poison and stab people to rob them, even if they're ready to kill anybody who hurt their honor (but expect the same standard being applied to themselves.)

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

What is the original source, if not the novel?

I meant the novel. But I do think that, if you ignore the authorial voice telling you that Milady is a demon, you could read the character as much more complex, rather than the embodiment of evil. For example, the crime for which she was branded as a 15 or 16 years old girl was seducing a priest. The way the story is told she alone was the guilty party, whilst the priest was a complete innocent - which I think is a ridiculous notion.

And when Athos tells the story of his and Milady's marriage, he says: They came nobody knew whence; but when seeing her so lovely and her brother so pious, nobody thought of asking whence they came. They were said, however, to be of good extraction. My friend, who was seigneur of the country, might have seduced her, or taken her by force, at his will--for he was master. Who would have come to the assistance of two strangers, two unknown persons? Unfortunately he was an honorable man; he married her.

So he basically says he could have raped her (taken her by force), but he didn't, and this is why he was ultimately her victim. The entire Trial chapter is quite disgusting, actually: ten men sitting trial over a woman on whom they obviously and transparently want to revenge themselves.

She is ruthless and she is manipulative, but considering her backstory, there's such a lot of room there for truly interesting character development - as opposed to the depiction of Milady as a very one-dimensional killer. The only time we see her kill on the pages of the book is the poisoning of Constance. The other killings are hearsay (Lord de Winter suddenly remembers years later that she'd killed his brother, after having lived side by side with her as her brother-in-law for many years), and the assassination of Buckingham is a) a political coup ordered by Richelieu and b) not actually carried out by her.

The musketeers, on the other hand, kill quite happily, matter-of-factly and off-handedly several men in a duel/combat, right in the first scene they have together. I realise that there is a huge value dissonance between what was acceptable once and what is acceptable to me as 21st-century person, but it still rubs me up the wrong way. I can't read Milady as evil, just as I can't read the musketeers (especially Athos) as good.

[anehan]

I've never read the novel, and after reading your post, I don't think I particularly want to, either.

Anyway, the only adaptation that I remember watching is the 1981 animation series, Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds. I don't actually remember anything about it, except that Milady was a black cat. I was half in love with her because she was so cool.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

It's one of those books you have to read young, revelling in the adventures.. Then, you can come back to them later and still like them because of nostalgia. This is the only one of Dumas' Musketeers novels that I've read, and I don't feel the need to read the others.

Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds was fabulous, I loved it so much. I had a crush on Spaniel!Aramis and everything!


And Milady was beautiful, I remember her wearing a cape and being all mysterious.

I think the whole series is up on youtube, but I'm afraid to watch it. It will never again be so good as it was back then in the 80s.

[anteros-lmc.livejournal.com]

It's so long ago since I read the book that I can't remember much of the characterisation at all, though I do remember that Milady's alleged wickedness was so far over the top to be laughable. I also vaguely remember the Musketeers themselves being rather irritating and selfish.

I haven't seen many of the more recent adaptations. Partner is a big fan of the 1973 version which just makes me giggle :}

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

The thing is, as I realised on this re-reading, that Milady does not actually commit all that many crimes on the pages of the book. We are told her previous crimes by unbearably entitled, self-righteous men who want revenge; the chapter where they sit "trial" over her is actually really disgusting. The men are unbearable.

Oddly, all adaptations tend to go the "cheeky chappies" route, leaving out all the interesting, dark stuff! These characters have the potential to be much more interesting and multi-layered than they are presented in the films and than they have imprinted themselves on the readers'/audience's hive mind.

[ysande.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I really adore the book - but only the first half, up until where they start preparing for the seige and then it's all Milady and I find both her seduction of John Felton and her capture and execution deeply disturbing.

In fact, the best part of the book BY FAR is Chapters 2-8 where it's the 4 of them meeting and having the most epic bromance ever larking around town and not being too serious and honestly the whole book should have been that.

Milday distresses me because I love Athos (I do, I do) but there is nothing ok with what he did to Milady and it distresses me that I love Athos so much when he's a judgmental classist attempted-murderer. There is so much scope for a Milady PoV novel but somehow Dumas' writing was strong enough (or I got stuck into the book early enough) that my feelings for the two of the are cemented, against all fairness.

And the start of 20 Years Later distresses me (although it picks up to be a fun book - it's just not the same as T3M) and the end of 10 Years After makes me so goddamn infuriated that I pretend the book doesn't exist.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I think the fact that the book has always been presented as that fun adventure novel has tainted our perception of it. Dumas makes fun of the heroes and of their uselessness in many situations, and he does, in theory, present morally shady characters. But their moral shadiness is never addressed; the authorial voice appears to approve of them in everything that they do. I wondered recently if what happened here was similar to what apparently happened to Huckleberry Finn, which some people think is incredibly racist, when in fact it is anything but. If Dumas perhaps wrote a scathing satire of an adventure novel and deconstructed the Hero character by presenting the designated heroes as violent and hypocritical.

I like Milady's seduction of John Felton, actually ;-) I commented on the unfair treatment of Milady here. I would love to tackle the challenge some time to reconcile Athos PoV and Milady's PoV without turning one of them into a villain, but I don't even know how to do that with book Athos ;-)

Still. I love Athos, I really do. He was one of my literary crushes for many years. I would love him more, however, if his dark abusive side and his feudal mindset were widely acknowledged.

[ysande.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Dumas was just telling a story with no thought as to morals - that to him it was enough that he was writing about entertaining men, and that he had no need to make them 'good' as well? (I mean, maybe we think of 'good' as the highest accolade for a hero, and maybe Dumas thought 'entertaining' was.) I agree with you that the popular perception of the book (especially as a children's story) couldn't be further from the truth - it's really dark and depraved a lot of the time!

My problem with Milady's seduction of Felton was that it was TOO well done - I was thoroughly drawn in by it and felt it all and it distresses me even while I'm acknowledging Dumas' and Milady's brilliance!

Like you, Athos was my first real literary love :) I really wish his character had been better explored too. All I can say is that the sequels disappoint on that front :(
Link | Reply | Thread | Edit | Delete | Track This

[cat-i-th-adage.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I read The Three Musketeers for the first time as an adult just recently and - holy shit, those guys are horrible, horrible people. (Except Aramis, he seemed like a cool dude. I loved his relationship with de Chevreuse.)

And then I got to Twenty Years After, where Athos and Porthos had both mellowed considerably, and it really didn't read the same. It had some interesting discussion from the surviving characters about the ethics of killing Milady, though. (The Executioner of Bethune and Athos seemed to feel the most guilty, incidentally.) And whether her son should be struck down like a snake in the grass before he harmed anyone, because he was born bad, see, or given the chance to make good choices.

I think... I think Dumas kept saying, oh but Milady is truly evil, possessed of a devilish spirit and infernal luck, because he needed an antagonist for the end of the book and Richilieu was far too inclined to deal. And I think he wanted her to be scary. But yeah - viewed objectively, her behaviour is little worse than d'Artagnan's, and she frequently had the 'doing it for my country' defense, which he frequently didn't. Murdering Constance was pointlessly nasty, though.

And with all that, one of the things I like about the BBC show, blender that it is, is that the main characters are all of them deeply flawed. I had to get used to the idea that characters I liked a great deal had done, and would continue to do, reprehensible things and I still liked them. It keeps me on my toes, I guess.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Sorry for the belated reply! I'm never on LJ anymore (as you can see this post is from last year), and the comment notifications go to an old email account.

I don't mind them being horrible as much as I lament that it wasn't in any way addressed. And I don't think that the BBC show improved the characters as such at all. Dumas actually did a really good job creating fully-fleshed characters, who are interesting precisely because of their many negative qualities. I dislike book d'Artagnan deeply, but he is an interesting, multi-dimensional character, whose many flaws are positively flaunted by the narrative.

My problem with all this is that they are always presented in adaptations as the great big heroes, and they have embedded themselves in the audience's awareness as the great big heroes. Which is fascinating in itself, because Dumas doesn't gloss over their nastier sides.

Nothing has changed in the BBC show: the characters are still the great big heroes, whose actions are justified simply because they are the heroes. They are always morally right and their opponents are always morally wrong. If the musketeers kill someone, that person deserved to die. At the same time, the show makes a point to emphasise that Milady committed crimes when she "killed people". Yeah, she did kill people. So did the musketeers. They killed far more people than she did, yet their killings are never questioned. BBC Aramis even says explicitly at least twice how much he enjoys the act of killing, whereas Milady says at least twice how much she hates what she has to do. This is exactly like in the book: the men's killing are "good", the woman's killings are "bad".

This is a book resp. show where the four leads are in the killing profession, they essentially kill for money. Which is fine, it's within the rules of the genre. But it is deeply wrong to accuse another character of "killing people". Either killing people is fine, in which case Milady does nothing wrong. Or killing people is wrong, in which case the musketeers' actions must be questioned likewise.

As to book Milady - the murder of Constance is the only truly reprehensible thing Milady does. D'Artagnan has a much, much worse track record than Milady (e.g. attacking de Wardes to steal from him and leaving him to die from his wounds in the woods). Milady works for the Cardinal, who is not some sort of gangster boss, as people seem to assume, but the First Minister of France. Milady is, to all intents and purposes, on the governmental payroll (same goes for BBC Milady). She acts on behalf of France in the same way as the musketeers act on behalf of France.

And whether her son should be struck down like a snake in the grass before he harmed anyone, because he was born bad, see, or given the chance to make good choices.

Oh god, yes, the treatment of Mordaunt is the worst. He is evil "because he is" to an even greater extent than Milady. That boy was kicked out of his house at the age of five by his uncle Lord de Winter, because his mother was "a demon". And I fail to see how killing the executioner is in any way worse than the musketeers murdering a man with their bare hands (well, Porthos' bare hands) for mocking Charles I. Which is what they do. They follow a man who laughed and spat at Charles I into a dark alley and kill him, but not with a sword, because "steel is for gentlemen". This kind of twisted standards is a fantastic starting point for an exploration of morality, heroism and virtue. But it never goes anywhere, because their actions are never questioned.

They really are reprehensible human beings. But they are interesting characters. And I would so love an adaptation to show these characters the way Dumas created them, because they really are fleshed out and deeply flawed, and to challenge the viewers' perception of them. The BBC adaptation does not challenge the viewers' perception (unless the only version the viewers know is the Disney film). They are still the good and basically very decent guys whose fundamental morality is never questioned. The ambition, the avarice, the massive snobbery, the vengefulness, the lust for violence, the self-righteousness, all of which are all there in the book, have been removed.

[cat-i-th-adage.livejournal.com]

Sorry for the belated reply! I'm never on LJ anymore (as you can see this post is from last year), and the comment notifications go to an old email account.

No worries. I figure if I comment on a year-old post, I'm lucky if it even gets seen. So, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

My problem with all this is that they are always presented in adaptations as the great big heroes, and they have embedded themselves in the audience's awareness as the great big heroes.

It's interesting how some stories, when remade, almost inevitably get the plot messed with. Versions of Hamlet get less bodies on the floor, say, or remakes of The Count of Monte Cristo get Dantes back with Mercedes. For all we try and gritty things up, some stories are just so dark. And I guess, what a lot of people like about the original characters is the way the temperaments balance out and they have wacky adventures.

At the same time, the show makes a point to emphasise that Milady committed crimes when she "killed people". Yeah, she did kill people. So did the musketeers. They killed far more people than she did, yet their killings are never questioned.

To be fair, several of show!Milady's killings are flat murder, not fighting an armed and aware opponent. (Though, she's smaller than every man she fights, and prohibited from carrying a sword: no fight she gets into is ever going to be on equal ground. What else is she supposed to do? Not leverage the odds, and die?) Also to be fair (to the show) - she does describe herself as a soldier to Athos, only this was just after she wangled Ninon into a trumped-up trial, so that line was never going to be convincing.

They are still the good and basically very decent guys whose fundamental morality is never questioned.

I dunno. There was that whole business with Treville and Porthos' Mum. When he explained why he abandoned a woman and child in a rookery of thieves, he didn't just say that Belgarde lied to him, or messed with his head. He described himself, de Foix, and Belgarde as blood brothers, the inseparables of their day. I think that was a deliberate choice by the script-writer, either to show a dark version of the main characters... or to make us wonder - what if one of them asked the others for something truly immoral? Would they do it? For their brother?

And, while I think the show often over-simplifies history or plot in the name of keeping the action going, it does also put in these little... blips. Like the Evil Count(TM) from that episode at Athos' home, where he got a half minute mourning scene over his awful son, complete with sad music, because even horrible people care about their offspring. Or Emile Bonnaire vehemently declaring, I am not a prejudiced man. (And I think he was telling the truth there, and was only in human trafficking for the money. And the lack of malice simply didn't matter.) Or that bit in "The Good Soldier" where Our Heroes realise that a political prisoner has been held without trial for five sodding years and immediately race to... foil the rescue party. The show doesn't wave flags over its moments of moral ambiguity, but it still has them - it's something I like about it.