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.
no subject
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.