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.

[pauraque]

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

[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.

[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 :}

[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.

[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.