The Three Musketeers
In March of 1844, the Parisian paper The Century began publishing installments of a new tale by France’s favorite author, Alexandre Dumas. Week after week readers thrilled to the adventures of the brave and clever d’Artagnan and his loyal comrades. Collected for book publication at the end of that year, and quickly translated into a dozen languages, The Three Musketeers was a worldwide sensation—nowhere more so than in the United States. Citizens of the brash new republic recognized kindred spirits in the bold musketeers, and the book and its sequels found an eager American readership.The novel's fast-moving story is set in the royal court of Louis XIII, where the swaggering King’s Musketeers square off against their rivals: the crimson-clad Guards of the dreaded Cardinal Richelieu. The Red Duke rules France with an iron hand in the name of King Louis—and of Queen Anne, who dares a secret love affair with France’s enemy, England’s Duke of Buckingham. Into this royal intrigue leaps the brash d’Artagnan, a young swordsman from the provinces determined to find fame and fortune in Paris. Bold and clever, in no time the youth finds himself up to his Gascon neck in adventure, while earning the enduring friendship of the greatest comrades in literature, the Three Musketeers: noble Athos, sly Aramis, and the giant, good-hearted Porthos.Now from Lawrence Ellsworth, acclaimed translator of The Red Sphinx, comes a new rendition of The Three Musketeers for a new century, one that captures anew the excitement, humor, and spirit of Alexandre Dumas’s greatest novel of historical adventure. Whether you’re meeting the musketeers for the first time or discovering them all over again, it’s all for one, one for all, in this timeless tale of honor and glory, the flash of dark eyes, and the clash of bright steel.

The Three Musketeers Details

TitleThe Three Musketeers
Author
ReleaseFeb 6th, 2018
PublisherPegasus Books
ISBN-139781681776149
Rating
GenreClassics, Fiction, Historical, Historical Fiction, Adventure

Write a review

The Three Musketeers Review

  • Bill Kerwin
    January 1, 1970
    This is not the most profound of novels, but it may be the most compelling. Many of its sequences--the Diamond Studs, Milady's seduction of Felton, the attempt of The Three to rescue Constance--move with remarkable rapidity. More notable than these, however, is the entire exposition, something many novelists have found to be a thankless chore, if not a stumbling block. It occupies a full sixty pages, 10% of the book, and, although it covers much ground--the introduction of our hero, the two prin This is not the most profound of novels, but it may be the most compelling. Many of its sequences--the Diamond Studs, Milady's seduction of Felton, the attempt of The Three to rescue Constance--move with remarkable rapidity. More notable than these, however, is the entire exposition, something many novelists have found to be a thankless chore, if not a stumbling block. It occupies a full sixty pages, 10% of the book, and, although it covers much ground--the introduction of our hero, the two principal villains, and all three Musketeers with their eccentricities and distinct characters, plus the fight with the Cardinal's Guards, the emergence of D'Artagnan as the "fourth musketeer," and an examination of the curious relationship between King and Cardinal--it is constructed with such seamless grace, accomplishes its purposes with such a light touch, and moves so swiftly that the result is astonishing.Sir Walter Scott showed us that the personal is political, that our most particular, most intimate decisions are governed by the political milieu in which we are raised and the allegiances that our background requires. Dumas adopts the contrary principle, namely, that the political is personal: a siege may be lifted, a war started, because an English Duke loves a French Queen. It seems at times that all the characters of "The Three Musketeers"--even the King and the Cardinal, even that most gifted and ruthless of femme fatales, Milady--are satellites circling the binary star of Buckingham and l'Autriche, whose doomed love is the center of this impossible--and delightful--romantic universe.
    more
  • Madeline
    January 1, 1970
    I thought that Queen Margot couldn't be topped. I should have known better. Honestly, I do not have enough space to fully explain all the ways I adore this book. But I'll try to condense it. -First, the four main characters. Love, love, love, and more love. Aramis and Porthos - the Merry and Pippin of the group, if you'll excuse the extremely dorkish LOTR cross-reference - made me laugh; D'Artagnan was charming even though (or maybe because) he had multiple moments where, were I in the story, I I thought that Queen Margot couldn't be topped. I should have known better. Honestly, I do not have enough space to fully explain all the ways I adore this book. But I'll try to condense it. -First, the four main characters. Love, love, love, and more love. Aramis and Porthos - the Merry and Pippin of the group, if you'll excuse the extremely dorkish LOTR cross-reference - made me laugh; D'Artagnan was charming even though (or maybe because) he had multiple moments where, were I in the story, I wouldn't know whether to kiss him or smack him upside the head; and the pure unfiltered AWESOME that is Athos cannot be put into words. -My copy of the book is 754 pages, but I was able to finish it in less than two weeks and not even notice the length because the story was so engrossing. As soon as I finished it, I wanted to flip back to page 1 and start all over again. -Duels. Lots and lots of duels. -The only complaint I had regarding the other Dumas book I'd read before this (Queen Margot, as previously mentioned) was that there was a total lack of what I will bluntly call the dirty details. In Margot, all the sex scenes were kept out of the way and, judging by the description Dumas gave us of the characters' nighttime activities, no one managed to get laid for the entire book. The Three Musketeers, on the other hand, is by no means a bodice-ripper but is still very romantic. And then there's the scene where D'Artagnan decides that nailing Milady will be a good way to get revenge on her for kidnapping his girlfriend. Which brings me to my next point...-Milady. Holy crap. I try to come up with words to describe her, but I can't do it because my brain sort of slows down until all I can hear are the words "Most. Badass. Character. Ever." repeating in my head over and over while the song "Cold Hard Bitch" by JET starts playing in the background. (if that makes any sense at all. Just go with it, okay?) But seriously, let's talk about Milady for a minute. She keeps poison in her ring, seduces a guard who has been specifically warned that she'll try to seduce him, stabs herself in the chest to make people think she killed herself, regularly tries to assassinate D'Artagnan and his friends, and was generally such a psychotic bitch that even Cardinal Richelieu was afraid of her. UPDATEDear Hollywood,What the FUCK is wrong with you? Seriously, fuck you guys. Love,Madeline
    more
  • Manny
    January 1, 1970
    This is a kick-ass novel, and I am indeed kicking my own ass for not having read it earlier. I'm ashamed to say that I thought it was a children's book. My wife indignantly refuses any responsibility for my mistake... as she points out, it's entirely my fault if I drew the wrong inferences from the fact that her mother read it aloud to her as an eight year old. It turns out, on closer examination of the facts, that Elisabeth's mom must have skipped about a quarter of the text - but I digress. No This is a kick-ass novel, and I am indeed kicking my own ass for not having read it earlier. I'm ashamed to say that I thought it was a children's book. My wife indignantly refuses any responsibility for my mistake... as she points out, it's entirely my fault if I drew the wrong inferences from the fact that her mother read it aloud to her as an eight year old. It turns out, on closer examination of the facts, that Elisabeth's mom must have skipped about a quarter of the text - but I digress. No, far from being a children's book, this is a noirish thriller, stuffed to the gills with violence, sex, nudity, dangerous blondes, corrupt politicians and random acts of mayhem and destruction. I should have known that. Anyway, better late than never.Quite apart from being a terrific read - I just couldn't put it down - Les Trois Mousquetaires is a remarkably interesting book for anyone who's fond of French literature. The merest glance at my French shelf will show you that I like both so-called serious novels and trash - as everyone knows, the French write the best trashy novels in the world. But what do these two literary traditions have to do with each other? I feel like a paleontologist who's discovered one of those missing links in the fossil record. A kind of literary coelocanth, it's exactly halfway between the two genres. Too well-written to be dismissed as trash, it still has so many of the defining characteristics of the modern French trash novel that it can't possibly be anything but a direct ancestor.I'd hate to give away any of the plot - there's a twist every other chapter - but let me explain in terms of generalities. Dumas is firmly in the great French tradition of Tragic Love. People in his world are divided into two classes: those who are motivated by Love and Honour, and those who want Money and Power. To be a superior person means belonging to the first group. Unfortunately, living only for Love and Honour isn't very practical, so these superior people generally have rather tragic lives; a theme you see over and over again in mainstream French literature. A particularly clear 20th century example is Belle du Seigneur. Ariane's husband is only interested in Money and Power, and his dreary monologues about his prospects of being promoted bore her to tears. Naturally, she's drawn to the dashing Solal, who never misses a chance to show how much he despises money (it helps that he's very rich). Equally naturally, it all ends up very tragically indeed. But let's get back to Les Trois Mousquetaires. Dumas takes real historical events, and reinterprets them through the prism of his ultra-romantic world-view. On his account, the political events of 1625-27 were all about a complicated tangle of love affairs. The beautiful Anne of Austria is Queen of France, but she has at best lukewarm feelings for her husband, the pathetic Louis XIII. Cardinal Richelieu, the true ruler of the country, has made advances towards her, but been rebuffed; he's eaten up by jealousy and spite, especially since he knows through his network of informers that Anne's heart in fact belongs to the handsome Lord Buckingham. To keep the story bubbling, Dumas invents some more people, who play key roles in this complicated game. One of Richelieu's main agents is the psychotic blonde temptress, Milady; her opposite number in the Queen's camp is the ambitious young swordsman, D'Artagnan. Needless to say, both of them are involved in their own intersecting webs of romantic intrigue.The startling thing to me is that the Dumas formula is still going strong, nearly 200 years later. The immeasurably popular SAS series, which you can buy at any French airport bookstall, is written to almost exactly the same specification. The central figure, Malko, is a modern D'Artagnan: vaguely on the side of the Good Guys, each episode sees him dispatched to a currently topical destination, where he's charged with some weighty task. For example, in Bagdad-ExpressMalko's assignment is to prevent the Iraq war by kidnapping Saddam Hussein. He and one of Saddam's sons (I think Qusay) get involved with the same woman, there's a lot of random sex and violence, and, of course, the deal falls through. A still clearer example is DjihadA Chechen rebel group gets hold of a Russian nuclear warhead, and they pass it on to an Islamicist faction led by a sexy blonde woman. (I know what you're going to say. In the SAS world, Islamicist factions can be led by sexy blondes). This time, after the usual toing and froing, Malko shoots down the blonde when she's just a few seconds away from detonating the bomb in New York. It's all remarkably similar to D'Artagnan's battle against the nefarious Milady.So what is it that makes this formula so incredibly effective? It's fun to see history rewritten so that politics and economics are less important than who's sleeping with whom. The camaraderie displayed by the Musketeers has become proverbial, and that's also inspiring. But, really, it's Milady who makes the book, and she's the character who's been copied most often in modern trash fiction. (Look at those girls on the covers of the SAS novels. Miladies, every one of them). Although D'Artagnan is a sympathetic hero, she effortlessly steals the show every time she appears, just as easily as Sharon Stone upstages Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct.What a shame Stone never got to play Milady in a serious adaptation of Les Trois Mousquetaires! Now that would have been worth watching.
    more
  • Agir(آگِر)
    January 1, 1970
    سه تفنگدار جزو رمان هاي اسطوره اي و جاویدان است.داستان پهلوانانی كه براي هر ماجراجويي سرشان حسابي درد مي كند.در هر جايي باشند و در هر جبهه اي، اولين چيزي كه به فكرشان مي رسد دوستی و نجات جان یکدیگر استوقايع كتاب در فرانسه و در زماني اتفاق مي افتد كه هنوز با شمشير مي توان گليم خود را از آب كشيد لويي سيزدهم پادشاه جواني است كه هنوز قدرت زيادي ندارد و برعكس وي صدراعظم او يعني كاردينال ريشيلو پادشاه بدون تاج كشور است .دو دسته نظامي در كشور وجود دارد يك دسته تفنگداران پادشاه و دسته ديگري سربازان صدرا سه تفنگدار جزو رمان هاي اسطوره اي و جاویدان است.داستان پهلوانانی كه براي هر ماجراجويي سرشان حسابي درد مي كند.در هر جايي باشند و در هر جبهه اي، اولين چيزي كه به فكرشان مي رسد دوستی و نجات جان یکدیگر استوقايع كتاب در فرانسه و در زماني اتفاق مي افتد كه هنوز با شمشير مي توان گليم خود را از آب كشيد لويي سيزدهم پادشاه جواني است كه هنوز قدرت زيادي ندارد و برعكس وي صدراعظم او يعني كاردينال ريشيلو پادشاه بدون تاج كشور است .دو دسته نظامي در كشور وجود دارد يك دسته تفنگداران پادشاه و دسته ديگري سربازان صدراعظم.این دو دسته طاقت دیدن روی همدیگر را ندارند و نزاع هاي زیادی بین آنها صورت مي گيرد جواني دارتانيان نام كه اهل ايالت گاسكون فرانسه است و شمشيربازي و روش نبرد كردن را از پدرش آموخته، براي كسب افتخار و ثروت عازم پاريس مي شود او می رود که به تفنگداران پادشاه ملحق شود.هنگام خداحافظي ،پدرش به او مي گويد: از مخاطره و درگيري نترس و هرجا آنرا ديدي، به سوي آن برواين بهترين نصيحت براي يك سرباز ناشناخته و تازه وارد در پاريس است تا زودتر پیشرفت کند ولی برای یک فرد اهل گاسکونی- که معروف به غرور و لاف زنی هستند و خود ماجرا می سازند و زیاد نیاز به گشتن دنبال ماجرا ندارند- اضافی استخواندن 20 صفحه از این کتاب طوری مرا به خودش جذب کرد که تا 10 جلد را تمام نکردم نتوانستم آرام بگیرمآتوس و آرامیس و پورتوس و دارتانیان قهرمان اواخر نوجوانی ام بودندبیشتر از همه عاشق شخصیت آتوس بودم
    more
  • Brad
    January 1, 1970
    This is going to take some explaining, but my guiltiest pleasure when it comes to books is Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers.I hear you saying, "How on Earth can that be a guilty pleasure?" I know. It's a recognized classic. It has far reaching pop culture impact.It's considered one of the greatest adventures ever written. It has two of the most memorable "villains" in literature; it has four kick ass action heroes. It has sword fights, romance, intrigue, and most people think it has big lau This is going to take some explaining, but my guiltiest pleasure when it comes to books is Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers.I hear you saying, "How on Earth can that be a guilty pleasure?" I know. It's a recognized classic. It has far reaching pop culture impact.It's considered one of the greatest adventures ever written. It has two of the most memorable "villains" in literature; it has four kick ass action heroes. It has sword fights, romance, intrigue, and most people think it has big laughs (it doesn't, which is the thing that pisses me off most about its pop culture adaptations). Even if people haven't read the book they know the Three Musketeers. Hell, most people even know that D'Artagnan, the main "hero" of the book, is not one of the eponymous "Three". So how could this book be a guilty pleasure? The answer is simple at first, then its complex.Simple answer: Milady de Winter.Complex answer: Milady de Winter.From the accepted perspective, Milady is an unrepentant, nasty, evil, femme fatale. She is an agent for the "villainous" Cardinal Richelieu, spying on, plotting against and battling our Musketeers at every turn. She foments marital unrest between the King and Queen. She plots the assassination of the Englishman, the Duke of Buckingham, to stop him from aiding the Huguenots at La Rochelle. She tries to kill D'Artagnan and later poisons his mistress, Constance Bonacieux. She corrupts a fine, upstanding Puritan man. And once upon a time, she made a fool of the Comte de La Fère.She is the accepted villain, even worse than her master the Cardinal, for whom and under whose auspices she commits her evil acts. She is the villain, and D'Artagnan, Athos, Porthos and Aramis are the heroes. Here's the problem, though, from another perspective she isn't and they aren't.You see, Milady de Winter was a poor young woman who did what she must to survive. Forced into a convent for want of food, a priest fell in love with her and the pair stole some church property to start a life together. They were caught, and both were "branded" with the fleur-de-lys -- the mark of criminals. Alone again, she fell in love with the Comte de La Fère. They were married, and she hid her crimes from him. Then one afternoon the Comte discovered her brand. He felt betrayed and strung her up by her neck, leaving her to die.She lived and entered the service of the Cardinal. Under his direction, she became a powerful agent, doing exactly what it is that agents do. The Cardinal -- the right hand of the King, connected to the Pope, a man waging a war in the King's name, the most powerful man in France -- has Milady undermine the King's Queen, Anne of Austria, a woman having an affair with the man (Duke of Buckingham) who is helping the rebels within her husband's kingdom. She is also asked to keep tabs on a troublesome young guard, D'Artagnan, who seems to be thwarting the Cardinal's plans through sheer luck and Gascon audacity. She complies. Then the man she is spying on kills her lover, the Comte de Wardes. And if that isn't bad enough, the man she's spying on turns up in her bedchamber posing as the Comte and proceeds to "make love" to Milady. The "lovemaking" is so "wonderful" that D'Artagnan decides to come clean and reveal his true identity. Milady loses her temper -- with some cause, I think -- and tries to stab D'Artagnan (which he doesn't seem to understand). From then on, Milady wants vengeance against the murderer of her lover, who also happens to be her rapist (for that is what he is, surely?).Next, she is charged with assassinating the Duke of Buckingham, for which she is issued a carte blanche by the Cardinal, but her enemy, D'Artagnan -- committing treason against his own King and country -- warns the Duke, and she is banished to a tower while the Duke sails off to aid the Huguenots. Well, she isn't about to languish in prison, so she seduces a Puritan and makes her escape, winding up in a convent in France where she can hide out. Lucky for her, D'Artagnan's mistress, a married woman whom he was bedding while he was raping Milady, is also hiding out in the convent, so Milady de Winter takes the portion of vengeance at her disposal and kills D'Artagnan's lover as he killed hers.And for all of this, the Four Musketeers, now in possession of her carte blanche, hold their own little court, pass judgement on Milady and have her head separated from her shoulders. And they get away with it because they have the Cardinal's signature -- on Milady's carte blanche which allows the bearer to do whatever they do for the good of the kingdom.It seems to me that Alexandre Dumas knew that perspective would dictate how we saw his heroes and villains, and that he was okay with his muddied good and evil waters. He was writing from the Musketeers' perspective, and he knew that his readers would side with them against the Cardinal and Milady. But he also wrote in a way that complicated his Musketeers. So much so that we accept when D'Artagnan receives and accepts a commission to the Musketeers from the Cardinal himself. He wanted his characters to be grey, and they were. So why is this a guilty pleasure (especially if the guilt doesn't come from Dumas' writing)? I am finally getting there.The weight of popular culture has changed the way we see this story so thoroughly, has morphed the Musketeers so completely into righteous heroes, turned D'Artagnan into such a loveable heartthrob and his companions into the most likeable of heroes, that it is nearly impossible for people to see the things that make them grey.But I see them for who they are. I see the grey. So here comes the guilt: I see the Four Musketeers crimes -- treason, rape, murder, theft -- and all their flaws -- cruelty, greed, hypocrisy, entitlement, adulterousness (to name but a few) -- and I still love them. I love them, and I enjoy reading their adventures, and I cheer for them from beginning to end. I shouldn't, but I do, and that's why The Three Musketeers is my guiltiest of pleasures. So there. p.s. I love Milady de Winter too. For all the things she is.
    more
  • Luffy
    January 1, 1970
    I'm not going to waste more time than necessary for this classic. The problem seems to come from me, since I couldn't follow a lot of the dialog. I couldn't make any sense of what transpired here, especially in the last third of the book.I liked the intrigue with the royal couple of LouisXIII and Anne d'Autruche. And as soon as these historical characters disappeared from the book did my enjoyment evaporate as well. Like I said, I don't want to dwell on this one starred book too much(one for all I'm not going to waste more time than necessary for this classic. The problem seems to come from me, since I couldn't follow a lot of the dialog. I couldn't make any sense of what transpired here, especially in the last third of the book.I liked the intrigue with the royal couple of LouisXIII and Anne d'Autruche. And as soon as these historical characters disappeared from the book did my enjoyment evaporate as well. Like I said, I don't want to dwell on this one starred book too much(one for all, and all for one).Having said that, I read the book in French and I think if I hadn't, if I'd read it in English I wouldn't have been able to finish the book. The French language was a novelty which kept me going. I simply cannot enjoy most classics. Now, to move onwards as soon as I'm able to.
    more
  • Sara
    January 1, 1970
    I am a drama addict. I admit it. I don’t generally go for comedy. I will pick a movie that makes me cry over one that makes me laugh every time, and it is pretty much the same with my books. But when I do read something humorous, I love satire, wit, subtle humor. Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde or Will Rogers are my style. Imagine my surprise that Alexander Dumas has made me laugh aloud in The Three Musketeers. They are so over-the-top, while written as if he is endeavoring to take them seriously. I hav I am a drama addict. I admit it. I don’t generally go for comedy. I will pick a movie that makes me cry over one that makes me laugh every time, and it is pretty much the same with my books. But when I do read something humorous, I love satire, wit, subtle humor. Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde or Will Rogers are my style. Imagine my surprise that Alexander Dumas has made me laugh aloud in The Three Musketeers. They are so over-the-top, while written as if he is endeavoring to take them seriously. I have long adored The Count of Monte Cristo, and so I have never thought of Monsieur Dumas as a humorist, but I have been sadly mistaken.Every time you think D’Artagnan and company have landed themselves in an impossible situation, they miraculously find their way out. It is Don Quixote without any of the moral overtones. These men are heroic figures only in a comedic manner. Taken literally they would be abject cads. They are self-absorbed, misogynistic, and amoral, but it little matters since the world they inhabit is villainous and petty and corrupt. The King who is the head of the state is a buffoon, the Queen a philanderer, and the Cardinal, leader of the church, a man without ethics or morals. Any wonder that their men are less than stellar examples of knighthood? So, without any reason to admire anyone in this fictional world, we are able to enjoy the escapades of these men and even cheer them on toward their conquests of women, rivals, and the world of French politics. In fact, they are more often fighting other Frenchmen than the English, whom they profess to hate but for whom they seem to have great respect and admiration. I can imagine reading this in serialized form and waiting impatiently to find out what happens to Milady and the Musketeers. There are cliffhangers at almost every chapter ending and the pace is fast and furious. I felt somewhat like a kid again while reading this. I remember that joy in reading just for the thrill of the story...a sensation I don’t always get with my reading these days.
    more
  • Lisa
    January 1, 1970
    If I was a Physicist, I would explain it like this: Athos, Porthos and Aramis are like the protons in an atom. D'Artagnan the neutrons that stabilize it. Actually, this would mean they are Lithium. So, keep them away from water. Or else...unfortunately the King sends them on an expedition to the isles. Now, they would have to cross the channel to get there, would they not? On their way, however, it shows that rivers and winecellars are no good either.action - reaction. Everybody under their desk If I was a Physicist, I would explain it like this: Athos, Porthos and Aramis are like the protons in an atom. D'Artagnan the neutrons that stabilize it. Actually, this would mean they are Lithium. So, keep them away from water. Or else...unfortunately the King sends them on an expedition to the isles. Now, they would have to cross the channel to get there, would they not? On their way, however, it shows that rivers and winecellars are no good either.action - reaction. Everybody under their desks!If I was a Musician, I would explain it like this: Athos, Porthos and Aramis are like the voices in a fugue. D'Artagnan is the rule that binds them. Actually, in their luckier Moments they are the Fugue No. 19, A major from the first book of das Wohltemperierte Klavier (the first note to be played fortissimo, their Subjects are condensed into that first note and unfurl accordingly in the course of the book). In the more tragic moments, however, they are the Fugue No. 18, G-Sharp minor. Watch out for the Tritone, Mylady strikes again!If I was me, I would say, it is hard to describe how I love this. I have read it many times and I will re-read it forever probably. I will obsess about this one phrase about Myladys Lips forever probably. I will pity Fenton forever probably. I will pity Buckingham much less forever, probably. After all, he did not really retrieve the queen's honour, did he?
    more
  • Peter
    January 1, 1970
    Did you know there were 4 musketeers? Did you also know they were not very nice guys? One guy won't let his servant ever speak. One is having an affair with a married woman, and ridicules her for gifts she buys him. Another can't decide whether to have an affair or be a priest, but constantly pinches his ears to make them a more attractive color. Since they don't seem to be paid much to be musketeers they are constantly grifting off of other people. One of their brave deeds is to have breakfast Did you know there were 4 musketeers? Did you also know they were not very nice guys? One guy won't let his servant ever speak. One is having an affair with a married woman, and ridicules her for gifts she buys him. Another can't decide whether to have an affair or be a priest, but constantly pinches his ears to make them a more attractive color. Since they don't seem to be paid much to be musketeers they are constantly grifting off of other people. One of their brave deeds is to have breakfast in the middle of a battle field just to prove that they aren't scared of the English.I really detested the musketeers, which means I didn't find much to enjoy in the book.
    more
  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    January 1, 1970
    908. Les Trois Mousquetaires = The Three Musketeers, Alexandre Dumasسه تفنگدار - الکساندر دوما (هرمس / زرین، گوتنبرگ) ادبیات فرانسهعنوان: سه تفنگدار در ده جلد؛ اثر: الکساندر دوما؛ مترجم: ذبیح الله منصوری؛ تهران، زرین، گوتنبرگ، 1378؛ در 10 جلد؛ شابک دوره: 9644072227؛ چاپ دوم 1382؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان فرانسه - قرن 19 مسه تفنگدار اثر نویسنده ی فرانسوی الکساندر دومای پدر است. این رمان قهرمانیها و دلاوریهای سه تن از تفنگداران لویی سیزدهم به نامهای: آتوس، پورتوس، آرامیس و همچنین جوانی دلیر و با 908. Les Trois Mousquetaires = The Three Musketeers, Alexandre Dumasسه تفنگدار - الکساندر دوما (هرمس / زرین، گوتنبرگ) ادبیات فرانسهعنوان: سه تفنگدار در ده جلد؛ اثر: الکساندر دوما؛ مترجم: ذبیح الله منصوری؛ تهران، زرین، گوتنبرگ، 1378؛ در 10 جلد؛ شابک دوره: 9644072227؛ چاپ دوم 1382؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان فرانسه - قرن 19 مسه تفنگدار اثر نویسنده ی فرانسوی الکساندر دومای پدر است. این رمان قهرمانی‌ها و دلاوری‌های سه تن از تفنگداران لویی سیزدهم به نامهای: آتوس، پورتوس، آرامیس و همچنین جوانی دلیر و باهوش به نام دارتن‌یان را که در طول داستان عضو تفنگداران سلطنتی می‌شود، روایت می‌کند. این چهار تن با هم پیمان دوستی میبندند، تا در همه ی رخدادها و مخاطرات کنار یکدیگر باشند. الکساندر دوما در این رمان اشخاص، زندگی و بخش کوچکی از تاریخ فرانسه را با مهارتی ویژه به خوانشگران می‌نمایاند. نخست خلاصه داستان را خوانده بودم، با تلخیص روماشل و ترجمه ی جناب محمدتقی دانیا، در سال 1352 هجری؛ سپس یک مجموعه سه جلدی را خواندم، از انتشارات میر، و از همین مترجم پرکار که روانش هماره شادمان بادا. شربیانی
    more
  • مصطفى عرابى
    January 1, 1970
    هي ليست قصة مغامرات عادية، هي قصة عن أخلاق الفرسان ذات خلفية تاريخية هامةألكسندر ديماس أفضل من يمزج في أعماله بين الواقع و الخيال بشكل يصعب التفريق بينهما، في عمله الحالي يستعرض ديماس جزء هام من تاريخ فرنسا و يتناول شخصيات حقيقية، و إن كانت كثير من الأحداث بالطبع من وحي خياله لكنها لا تغير التاريخ و لا تشوههكتاب رائع يستحق التواجد في قائمة أشهر الأعمال اكلاسيكية عبر العصور
    more
  • J.G. Keely
    January 1, 1970
    Remarkable book. I have been, on occasion, accused of some sort of self-set elitism which suffuses my opinions and critiques on literature. It seems people are often more likely to think one has an ulterior motive for liking or not liking a book rather than looking at the presented arguments. In any case, I would posit this book as the countermand to that sentencing. It is not a literary book, as such, as it does not place itself in a deep referential or metaphorical state. Though it is certainl Remarkable book. I have been, on occasion, accused of some sort of self-set elitism which suffuses my opinions and critiques on literature. It seems people are often more likely to think one has an ulterior motive for liking or not liking a book rather than looking at the presented arguments. In any case, I would posit this book as the countermand to that sentencing. It is not a literary book, as such, as it does not place itself in a deep referential or metaphorical state. Though it is certainly influenced by many great works, it is, in its whole, no more nor less than the reigning king of the pulp adventures.Built on the ridiculous, the humorous, the exciting, and deeply in the characters, this work creates a world of romance (in that oh-so-classic sense) and adventure which conscripts the reader and delivers him to the front lines. I am alway amazed by this book's ability to invoke lust, pity, wonder, respect, scorn, and hatred, all while driving along a plot filled with new events and characters. Should there be any future for Fantasy, it lies not in the hands of Tolkien-copying machines, nor even in Moorecock's 'un-fantasy', but in whatever writer can capture Beowulf, The Aeneid, The Three Musketeers, or The White Company and make a world which is exciting not because everything is magical and strange, but because everything is entirely recognizable, but much stranger. Of course, one may want to avoid going Mervyn Peake's route with this, and take a lesson from the driving plot and carefree frivolity that Dumas Pere and his innumerable ghostwriters adhered to.It is amusing here to note that Dumas has accredited to his name far more books than he is likely to have ever written. As he was paid for each book with his name on it, he made a sort of 'writing shop' where he would dictate plots, characters, or sometimes just titles to a series of hired writers and let them fill in the details.So, praises be to Dumas or whichever of his unrecognized hirees wrote such a work.
    more
  • Daniel
    January 1, 1970
    I've had more fun reading "The Three Musketeers" than I've had with any book in a long time, and my only regret is that I didn't find my way to Dumas sooner. It's bursting with swordplay, political intrigue, romance, fortunes won and lost, mistresses kept and stolen, poisoned wine, devious nobility, and vengeance sought and attained. What more could a reader ask for? While "The Three Musketeers" isn't the most intellectually challenging book ever written -- though it does offer, in passing, the I've had more fun reading "The Three Musketeers" than I've had with any book in a long time, and my only regret is that I didn't find my way to Dumas sooner. It's bursting with swordplay, political intrigue, romance, fortunes won and lost, mistresses kept and stolen, poisoned wine, devious nobility, and vengeance sought and attained. What more could a reader ask for? While "The Three Musketeers" isn't the most intellectually challenging book ever written -- though it does offer, in passing, the occasional insight into the human race -- it might be the best guilty-pleasure book of all time. And while it's long for such a book at 650-plus pages, not a word is wasted.Is there a more intriguing villainess in literature than Milady? A more fascinating hate-him-one-moment, forgive-him-the-next character than Cardinal Richelieu? And that's not to ignore d'Artagnan, who, with a youthful foolhardiness and energy that eventually gives way to gravitas, only the hardest hearted of readers could not love. And while Porthos, Aramis and Athos may spend most of the book as flat characters -- and I'm using that term the same way E.M. Forster does, not as an insult but to distinguish them from multifaceted, "round" characters -- they each have their more complex moments, Athos especially.I do have one minor complaint about "The Three Musketeers." While the long section detailing Milady's imprisonment by her brother-in-law is a fine story on its own, it does tend to drag on too long in the context of the "The Three Musketeers," mostly because it causes readers to spend too much time away from the Musketeers themselves. And while Milady's corruption of Felton does have its interests, we as readers don't spend enough time with him ahead of it to really feel as bad as we should.But this is a minor quibble. As should be obvious by my five stars, which I give unreservedly, I really did love the book on the whole. And, on a side note, I like that "The Three Musketeers" concludes with a brief what-happened-to-each-character section, something Dumas did long before the film "Animal House" or Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher" video. (And this, by the way, may mark a rare time Van Halen and Dumas are mentioned in the same sentence. Someone please Google that to make sure.)
    more
  • Manny
    January 1, 1970
    For the Celebrity Death Match Review Tournament, The Lord of the Rings (2) versus Les Trois Mousquetaires (31) Three musketeers for the elven kings under the skySeven for the dwarf-lords in their halls of stoneNine for mortal man, doomed to dieOne for Cardinal Richelieu It's a beautiful afternoon here at the Coliseum, and they're cleaning up after the Lions v Christians fixture... Christians lost as usual, ha ha... everyone's looking forward to the main event, we hear they've got a surprise plan For the Celebrity Death Match Review Tournament, The Lord of the Rings (2) versus Les Trois Mousquetaires (31) Three musketeers for the elven kings under the skySeven for the dwarf-lords in their halls of stoneNine for mortal man, doomed to dieOne for Cardinal Richelieu It's a beautiful afternoon here at the Coliseum, and they're cleaning up after the Lions v Christians fixture... Christians lost as usual, ha ha... everyone's looking forward to the main event, we hear they've got a surprise planned, and by Apollo! they've just announced it, well, this is a good one and no mistake! The Lord of the Rings against The Three Musketeers, I wish I knew how they'd organized that...The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)>
    more
  • Jessica
    January 1, 1970
    Well, it was no Count of Monte Cristo, but it was still exciting and dramatic. I was much more into the second half, when it starts focusing on the diabolical Lady de Winter. One disappointment was that I had always envisioned the Three Musketeers to be noble, just, Robin Hood-type characters. It turns out that, though brave, they are quite selfish and immoral, and tend to murder people with little provocation. None of the musketeers was very likable to me. Women also don't fare very well here a Well, it was no Count of Monte Cristo, but it was still exciting and dramatic. I was much more into the second half, when it starts focusing on the diabolical Lady de Winter. One disappointment was that I had always envisioned the Three Musketeers to be noble, just, Robin Hood-type characters. It turns out that, though brave, they are quite selfish and immoral, and tend to murder people with little provocation. None of the musketeers was very likable to me. Women also don't fare very well here and are talked about in quite unsettling terms. Dumas definitely has a gift for dialogue, though, and it's hard not to be sucked into his world of intrigue and passion.
    more
  • Lizzy
    January 1, 1970
    What an adventure! Highly recommended.
  • Antonio
    January 1, 1970
    —Y ahora, señores —dijo D’Artagnan sin tomarse el trabajo de explicar su conducta a Porthos—, todos para uno y uno para todos, esa es nuestra divisa, ¿no es así? —Pero… —dijo Porthos. —¡Extiende la mano y jura! —gritaron a la vez Athos y Aramis. Vencido por el ejemplo, rezongando por lo bajo, Porthos extendió la mano y los cuatro amigos repitieron a un solo grito la fórmula dictada por D’Artagnan: «Todos para uno, uno para todos». No hay película, serie o filme que le haga honor, o que se le pa —Y ahora, señores —dijo D’Artagnan sin tomarse el trabajo de explicar su conducta a Porthos—, todos para uno y uno para todos, esa es nuestra divisa, ¿no es así? —Pero… —dijo Porthos. —¡Extiende la mano y jura! —gritaron a la vez Athos y Aramis. Vencido por el ejemplo, rezongando por lo bajo, Porthos extendió la mano y los cuatro amigos repitieron a un solo grito la fórmula dictada por D’Artagnan: «Todos para uno, uno para todos». No hay película, serie o filme que le haga honor, o que se le parezca, mantenga a las imitaciones alejadas porque solo hay un original. Los tres mosqueteros es un clásico que mezcla romance, duelos, intrigas, conspiraciones, guerras, amoríos, comedia, y amistad, hay tanta camaradería que como lector con cierta experiencia, me sorprendió que hasta ahora no había leído algo que semejara tanto la amistad entre varones, ese juego que es difícil poner en palabras, que por un lado haces burlas, por otro elogios, hay admiración, hablas de política, de religión, de la bebida, de lo que se “supone” debes o no debes hacer, del dinero, del amor, y lo más importante, sabes que puedes contar con tus amigos y tus amigos pueden contar contigo porque los une algo especial. Athos, Porthos y Aramis , y no olvidemos a D’Artagnan son esa tanda de locos, que cuando están juntos de seguro hay aventura y no te la querrás perder. Debo hacer una mención especial también a Milady. ¡Qué mujer! Ella es la Pandora de la historia, si aparece en escena cosas terribles se avecinan, la que impuso el término “Femme Fatale”, irresistible ante hombres y mujeres, hacía tiempo que no odiaba tanto a un personaje, pero sus artimañas son tan poderosas que incluso, a pesar de todo, sentí compasión por ella. Ame este libro, y creo que si alguna vez viste alguna de las versiones hollywoodenses y te gusto, debes leer el libro, porque como todo lector sabe, el libro es mejor, y en este caso es mucho, mucho mejor.
    more
  • Anna Kļaviņa
    January 1, 1970
    I'm surprised that d'Artagnan and his three friends in so many people eyes are heroes and "good" guys. Because they are not. Author has made cruelty, crime and sinful deeds OK if its done by "inseparable" friends and cloaked it in heroism and gallantry. I had a lot what-the-heck moments. Almost every chapter. The book is full of "Duma's occasional lapses of memory" However the story is interesting and the book is a true page turner.
    more
  • Jo ( Bookish Geek)
    January 1, 1970
    It has took me longer than usual to get through this book, but hell, there are so many amazing books to be devoured! The Three Musketeers is an exquisite adventure story, with the "Fun" element on overdrive! I mean, this is classic literature with a twist. I just loved the sword fights and the utter sarcasm. The writing style Dumas uses flows with such ease, and is very humorous. I found myself howling a lot more than I thought I would! I loved the relationship between the Musketeers and how ver It has took me longer than usual to get through this book, but hell, there are so many amazing books to be devoured! The Three Musketeers is an exquisite adventure story, with the "Fun" element on overdrive! I mean, this is classic literature with a twist. I just loved the sword fights and the utter sarcasm. The writing style Dumas uses flows with such ease, and is very humorous. I found myself howling a lot more than I thought I would! I loved the relationship between the Musketeers and how very different each one is. We definitely have a bromance here! I see enjoyed the fact that the Musketeers just kicked ass, and in a highly debonair fashion. My favourite excerpt;"D'Artagnan, in a state of fury, crossed the antechamber at three bounds, and was darting towards the stairs, which he reckoned upon descending four at a time, when, in his heedless course, he ran head foremost against a Musketeer who was coming out of one of M. De Treville's private rooms, and striking his shoulder violently, made him utter a cry, or rather a howl."
    more
  • J
    January 1, 1970
    There exist in the world authors from previous eras whose characters have become so ubiquitous in the popular culture that they undergo a strange kind of infantalizing. The rather serious philosophical questions Robert Louis Stevenson posed about mind-body duality and evolution are passed over in favor of the monster story of wicked Mr. Hyde. Jonathan Swift’s venomous satires of English life are reduced to the tale of an island of little people and an island of giants.And even as I knew this, I There exist in the world authors from previous eras whose characters have become so ubiquitous in the popular culture that they undergo a strange kind of infantalizing. The rather serious philosophical questions Robert Louis Stevenson posed about mind-body duality and evolution are passed over in favor of the monster story of wicked Mr. Hyde. Jonathan Swift’s venomous satires of English life are reduced to the tale of an island of little people and an island of giants.And even as I knew this, I steadfastly avoided reading the works of Alexandre Dumas pere, considering his most well known work, The Three Musketeers, as nothing more than an early proto-swashbuckling Saturday matinee serial. Plus, there was the length consideration. Dumas wrote by the line and it shows, at least in the heft of any one particular volume of his work. A typical Dumas can make Dostoyevsky look like a Reader’s Digest Condensed Novel. And who wants to sit through a long, long, loooonnnng children’s adventure tale?Well, as it turns out, I do. Or rather, I don’t.Because Dumas, while he’s fun, breathtaking, ludicrous, exciting — in short, all the things too often lacking in “serious fiction” — is anything but a kid’s writer. True, even though there exist children’s versions of his novels with all the alluded to naughty bits excised (or even unexpurgated texts marketed at children); true, even if he is widely considered by many scholars as no more than a hack penny a line scribbler who worked with collaborators like an assembly line, incapable of serious literary quality fiction.The basics of the plot are relatively well known: young hot-headed D’Artagnan meets with and challenges each of the Three Musketeers, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis; the three, impressed by his bravery and quick-thinking, take him under their wing; meanwhile, the Queen of France, engaged in a never-consummated affair with the Duke of Buckingham, is under the watchful eye of Cardinal Richelieu and his spies; most formidable of his spies are a team made up of a shadowy figure referred to only as the Mysterious One and Milady; and through various means and machinations, our four heroes are drawn into a contest against Richelieu on the side of the Queen.Now, over time, the term “Musketeer” has obtained some gloss of nobility, chivalry, and honor, having become stripped of its mere military title aspect. It is as if a book written over a hundred years ago entitled The Three Corporals had elevated that rank to nobility. We clearly discover throughout the book that most of the musketeers are bullies and ruffians, even our heroes are not without their bad points. Still more curious about this name is that most of these men are swordsmen, who don’t seem to ever partake of any “muskets” or the like. It is a rare moment when our heroes come into contact with gunpowder.None of which matters, because we are quickly drawn under Dumas’ spell. His characters are all distinctly drawn, Aramis with his holy orders and quiet philosophy, Athos with his distinguished paternalism and deep sorrow, and Porthos with his loud and brash manner and his vanity. Likewise the enemies they are up against, the smoothly evil and calculating Richelieu; the seductive, brilliant hellcat that is Milady, a stronger female in literature nowhere to be found; and the dangerous Comte de Rochefort, a shadowy presence of malevolence.It becomes clear rather quickly too that Dumas had an extraordinary gift for the cliffhanger style and the miraculous escape, double-crosses and triple-crosses filling out the bill all the way. Mistaken identities and figures hidden in cloaks and masks populate the novel in every shadow, every corner, and every darkened hallway. Intrigues always just out of arm’s length draw both the characters and the readers along deeper and deeper into court secrets and competing factionalism.Probably no greater advertising for the Machiavellian schemes of Cardinal Richelieu ever existed or was more broadly bruited about than this novel. At every turn, at the moment when the Musketeers or their allies think that they may have gotten the best of the Cardinal, like an octopus, his tentacles are everywhere at once, grasping at every likelihood. His agents are in every corner of the country, his name whispered fearfully by every innkeeper and tavern wench, the King in his pocket. He is almost evenly matched by his agent Milady, more cunning than a snake. The scenes in which she seduces her jailer Felton are some of the most exciting and suspenseful in the novel, and next to nothing happens in every one.Thus it is that the author must manage pretty fast footwork for his heroes if they are to have any hope of outwitting the Cardinal. Dumas’ plots hinge on that accepted notion of coincidence writ large across the story where evil designs are overheard in casual conversations, where a figure sighted in the distance just happens to be who D’Artagnan wants it to be, where every twist of the story fits neatly into every other. Novels are no longer written with this tailored manner and it’s easy to see how too many of them could eventually become stylistically clichéd. Taken every so often, Dumas’ novels, though, are a cure for what ails you when the reading doldrums strike and every book selected seems tedious and vague.Yet all of this sounds distinctly like good fun for younger readers. And it is. That’s the strange magic of it. At no point while reading The Three Musketeers does anything happen that isn’t entirely kid acceptable while there is much here for adults. Even the scene in which D’Artagnan seduces Milady is done in such delicate style that it achieves its goal of sophistication and sultriness without dropping overt hints, the kind prevalent in any PG rated film these days. And at no point while reading The Three Musketeers do you, as an adult, feel like the book is talking down to you or cheating you in any way, all the while you’re having a grand time.Which is the strange magic of Dumas. A six hundred page novel passes in barely the time it takes shorter books to lose your attention near the middle. The cliffhanger style chapter endings pull you along ever deeper into the book. Even though I was listening to an audiobook most of the time, I had to pull down a copy off my shelf, never before cracked open, and read ahead after hours. It even lit a fire under me to read and listen to more Dumas, propelling me to the next book, the nearly twice as long Count of Monte Cristo. Happy adventuring awaits should you follow this path.
    more
  • Victoria
    January 1, 1970
    4,5/5Une très bonne lecture ! L'intrigue met bien 200 pages à décoller, mais ensuite, sa complexité et sa construction la rendent assez addictive malgré quelques longueurs. Les personnages sont attachants et drôles parce que très stéréotypés - sauf Milady, qui est si détestable qu'on se délecte de chacune de ses apparitions et de ses manipulations. La plume de Dumas, cachée derrière un narrateur assez interventionniste, était savoureuse, et j'ai souri presque à chaque page durant la majorité du 4,5/5Une très bonne lecture ! L'intrigue met bien 200 pages à décoller, mais ensuite, sa complexité et sa construction la rendent assez addictive malgré quelques longueurs. Les personnages sont attachants et drôles parce que très stéréotypés - sauf Milady, qui est si détestable qu'on se délecte de chacune de ses apparitions et de ses manipulations. La plume de Dumas, cachée derrière un narrateur assez interventionniste, était savoureuse, et j'ai souri presque à chaque page durant la majorité du roman, tant les commentaires et descriptions sont piquants ! Je suis contente d'avoir pris le temps de profiter de cette oeuvre que j'avais envie de lire depuis un bon moment, et je crois même que je me laisserai tenter par la suite !
    more
  • Abigail Amor
    January 1, 1970
    The book did not disappoint.All for one and one for all! Yes Two is better than one. Yet three is much better than two. There is something happening every chapter.Fast paced and adventurous it is. It's also a little amusing how extremely formal the book is, even the insults are too formal. Overall, The Three Musketeers is a book that one must read even once in his life for it is certainly worth the read.
    more
  • Ben Babcock
    January 1, 1970
    Thrilled by the excellent recent adaptation by the BBC, I decided it was time to finally read The Three Musketeers. I have vague memories of borrowing a book with a yellow hardback cover from the library when I was much, much younger. But at that precocious age I found the nineteenth century language and over-the-top tropes of romance and revenge difficult to enjoy, and I don’t recall if I ever finished it. This time, I did a little research and discovered that Richard Pevear has a relatively ne Thrilled by the excellent recent adaptation by the BBC, I decided it was time to finally read The Three Musketeers. I have vague memories of borrowing a book with a yellow hardback cover from the library when I was much, much younger. But at that precocious age I found the nineteenth century language and over-the-top tropes of romance and revenge difficult to enjoy, and I don’t recall if I ever finished it. This time, I did a little research and discovered that Richard Pevear has a relatively new translation out, and that my UK library had a copy! Strangely, the title page promises that this edition is “Translated with an Introduction by Richard Pevear,” but there is no introduction to be found. Huh.It seems almost silly to give much of a plot summary of The Three Musketeers. Everyone knows the story, right? Athos, Porthos, and Aramis are the eponymous black sheep within the musketeers: the ones who don’t play by the rules but nevertheless still hold to the ancient rites of honour. D’Artagnan is a young Gascon man eager to make his name by joining the musketeers, and he quickly befriends the Three and joins them on many adventures. Together they fight the machinations of Cardinal Richelieu and his minion, the irredeemable Milady de Winter.Except, it’s a lot more complicated than that.Alexandre Dumas’ story is one that has become so popular, been adapted so many times, that its original narrative has become snarled and twisted and confused in public consciousness. Having now read the book, I can see why: this is a massive novel that plods on and on in a series of interrelated episodic adventures that can be repetitive at times. It’s not difficult to understand why the various writers of adaptations have streamlined and simplified the story for television and movies. In so doing, they have associated the three (or four) musketeers with the ideas of heroism, courage, and bravery. Also, they have a chocolate bar named after them. How many literary characters can say that?Most of the adaptations manage to portray the heroes with flaws as well as virtues: they capture the carousing, the drinking, the gambling—oh, and the irrepressible urge to duel. But they elide over some of the most memorable moments. For instance, the musketeers’ four respective manservants play crucial roles in the books, almost as important as the musketeers themselves—and, for the most part, the musketeers treat them like shit. Athos doesn’t let his speak, and Dumas goes out of his way to describe how d’Artagnan forbidding his servant to quit his service actually endears his servant to him more…. Meanwhile, a lot of the problems in the book are the result of the musketeers drinking and/or gambling too much. They tend to pick fights where none are necessary. Then they go running to hide behind Captain de Tréville’s skirts, using their special friendship with him to get out of trouble. When they need more money, they chat up bored wives for loans.So the musketeers aren’t the shining heroes we have made them out to be in popular culture. They are, to Dumas’ credit, much greyer and more morally complex than that. The same can be said for Cardinal Richelieu and Milady. Although it’s easy to mistake this book for a florid romance set two centuries before it was written, it is a far richer story of how personal whims and ambitions and relationships affect the political tapestry of a continent like Europe. For his love of Queen Anne, Buckingham betrays his nation. D’Artagnan finds himself set against Richelieu not necessarily because they are so different but because Richelieu’s methods conflict with d’Artagnan’s sensibilities.One thing that surprises me in the novel is the very fair treatment that Dumas gives Richelieu. He is not a one-dimensional, transparent villain. It’s clear that Richelieu is acting for what he believes is the good of France. This is a perilous time for the kingdom, which has remained staunchly Catholic in the face of rising Protestantism, and has managed to alienate even the other Catholic countries in Europe—namely, Spain. Richelieu is legitimately worried about alliances between these countries and invasion or rebellion, and his scheming is, ultimately, an attempt to make sure that France is prepared. Peter Capaldi captures a sliver of this side of the character in the BBC adaptation, but his Richelieu is also a more personally self-absorbed character.I wonder if Dumas was secretly fascinated by seventeenth-century France, so much so that he ached to write a political thriller about the events therein, only he knew that it would sell better if he couched it in the contemporary ideas of the romance. By our standards he is incredibly sexist—women are, to Dumas, the fairer and weaker sex, and indeed, part of Milady’s villainy is her presumption to “rise above” the proper stations of motherhood and companionship as a woman and seek a man’s destiny in life. (He also has this weird obsession with women’s hands.) But for his time, Dumas might have been perceived as fairly liberal, for a male writer, in his depictions of women characters.That’s not saying much, of course. It’s sufficient that Dumas’ women have more agency than fenceposts. There are basically three important female characters (I’m not counting Kitty): Anne, Constance Bonacieux, and Milady. Although Dumas’ portrayals of them are far from faultless, he nevertheless manages to capture the dangerous and difficult nature of being a woman in seventeenth century France. He shows the empty court life that Queen Anne must lead, the emotional gulf that separates her from her husband and leads her to seek love in an English ambassador. And, oh, did this book make me love Constance even more than I did in the BBC version. In the latter, she is merely d’Artagnan’s landlady rather than the queen’s seamstress. But this additional dimension in the original text makes her character much more interesting. She and Anne are both victims of the oppressive, patriarchal nature of the time. They lack the power to do much about their situations, and they ceaselessly exercise the little power they do have to make their lives better, only for men to swat them down again if it’s inconvenient.But it’s in the portrayal of Milady de Winter that Dumas truly excels at a nuanced portrait of women’s struggles. As I note above, there are very problematic aspects to Milady’s use of her sexuality to get what she wants, and the ending of the book seems to say that Dumas is punishing her for having the gall to act, essentially, the same as the musketeers do. She is the Cardinal’s agent in the same way that the musketeers are the king’s/queen’s/whatever. In fact, it’s arguable that Milady has a more legitimate claim to being a loyal French agent than the musketeers. Richelieu sends her to assassinate Buckingham—who, let us not forget, is English—because it would prevent the launch of an invasion fleet. That kind of seems like a good thing to do if one is concerned for French sovereignty, no? But the musketeers rush to stop her, and then condemn her for engineering Buckingham’s death, despite the fact that he is clearly an enemy of state and she totally had the Cardinal’s permission. Who is the wrong now, hmm?Indeed, there is a delightfully subversive edge to this, the major plot of The Three Musketeers. For a long time prior to achieving her goals, Milady is imprisoned in a castle in the English countryside. She laments the fact that, as a woman, she is unable to merely fight her way free and escape through physical feats. Instead she must resort, as always, to her beauty and wiles. And my interpretation of this is not that Dumas is painting Milady as a sociopathic viper but as an unfortunate, psychologically scarred woman who has to do a lot of unsavoury things in order to survive. She is aware of how her gender has affected her life, has made things harder, and she has been forced to hone whatever few weapons she could forge from her disadvantages. So even though there is something fairly unfortunate in how Dumas portrays Milady’s vituperative scheming against d’Artagnan and her consequent fate, I also think that she is a far more complex character than she might seem at first glance.These layers, then, are what result in the wonderful and transcendent quality of The Three Musketeers. On one level it is a straightforward romance, a tale of swashbuckling heroes against scheming villains. It has swordfights and chase scenes and all the melodrama that anyone could want—and I love it for that reason, far more than I suspected I would. On another level, it depicts the difficult life of musketeers in seventeenth-century France. The four musketeers are complicated and flawed characters who make mistakes and essentially function as vigilantes. Dumas captures the tense political situation in Europe at the time. And onto that additional level, he overlays the ambitions and relationships of individuals—both men and women—depicting how these alter and affect the fates of nations. The Three Musketers is an adventure novel, yes, but it should never be dismissed merely as that. It is nothing short of an amazing and impressive work of literature that deserves its status as a classic.
    more
  • Frogy (Ivana)
    January 1, 1970
    Stidim se što sam ovoliko razvukla čitanje :( i moram da priznam da sam se odlično zabavila čitajući je. Sjajna priča o prijateljstvu i odličan podsetnik da sam čitanje i zavolela uz ovakve istorijske romane (sve mi se više smeši ponovno iščitavanje Anđelike-samo ovaj put u novom ruhu :D )
    more
  • Ahmed
    January 1, 1970
    كان الدافع الأول لقراءة تلك الرواية هو فيلم slumdog millionaireوجدتها ف مكتبة أبي فلم أتردد في إضافتها لقائمة قراءآتيالمثير أن الفرسان الثلاثة ليسوا هم الأبطال بل هو صديقهم الفارس الرابع دارتانيانرواية ذات أبعاد تاريخية يتناول فيها الكاتب جانب من تاريخ فرنسا ف عهد لويس الثالث عشر عندما كان الكاردينال ريشيلو هو المسيطر على الملك و الملكةفهمت بعض الألقاب التى كثيرا ما كنت أقرأها أفي أى عمل يتناول فترة العصور الوسطىكالفارس ،النبيل،الدوق،الليدي ... إلخرواية ممتعة مليئة بالمغامرات و الدسائس :)
    more
  • [P]
    January 1, 1970
    Sangdieu! This was good fun. I mean, it’s mostly dumb fun, like Get Low by Lil Jon or Tropic Thunder or AC/DC, but sometimes that is precisely what you need. Throughout 700 – wrist taxing, if not brain taxing – pages Dumas leads us, his readers, a merry dance across France [and occasionally England], without ever really acknowledging the absurdity and joyful irreverence of his narrative. Indeed, The Three Musketeers is so absurd as to approach the level of evil genius. Morbleu! Parbleu! Etc.It’s Sangdieu! This was good fun. I mean, it’s mostly dumb fun, like Get Low by Lil Jon or Tropic Thunder or AC/DC, but sometimes that is precisely what you need. Throughout 700 – wrist taxing, if not brain taxing – pages Dumas leads us, his readers, a merry dance across France [and occasionally England], without ever really acknowledging the absurdity and joyful irreverence of his narrative. Indeed, The Three Musketeers is so absurd as to approach the level of evil genius. Morbleu! Parbleu! Etc.It’s interesting how one’s perception of a story can be so out of whack with the source material. Perhaps influenced by movies and popular culture references I came to the book expecting a [at least semi] serious novel, whose action revolves around politics and the pursuit of power. I also expected royal intrigues and double-dealing, vengeance and murder plots. And, in fairness, I got most of that, but The Three Musketeers isn’t a 19th century House of Cards with swords and feathered hats. It’s too ridiculous for that. The motivation of the characters isn’t greed, or even righteousness; and the musketeers themselves are not honourable administers of justice.If The Three Musketeers isn’t a serious political thriller, then what is it? In this review I have already made use of words such as irreverent and ridiculous and absurd, and yet there is probably a better one: farce. A farce is defined as ‘a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.’ That sentence pretty much sums up The Three Musketeers. Take the well-known diamond caper, when d’artagnan is dispatched to England in order to recover a diamond pendant for the Queen so that she can wear it at a ball given by her husband. Hundreds of miles travelled, people injured, lives put at risk, and all to recover some diamonds for a party. Ludicrously improbable situation? I’d say so. Indeed, a lot of what the characters do, how they behave and react, is disproportionate, is over the top when one considers what has caused their reactions or motivated their behaviour. For example, the cardinal is said to want to ruin the Queen because she would not respond to his amorous advances and Milady seemingly wants to murder anyone who doesn’t do as she says.What about crude characterisation? Well, it is certainly the case that there is absolutely no psychological depth to any of the characters. They all have some feature, some trait, that defines them and to which they stick till the end of the novel. So, Aramis is the sensitive, reluctant musketeer, Buckingham is in love, Milady is obsessed with revenge, Athos is philosophical, and so on. The thing is, I am not complaining, nor am I criticising. I think nearly every character in the book is wonderful; I didn’t at all yearn for greater depth. There is, to my mind, nothing wrong with farce, especially when it is pulled off with such panache and wit. It is not easy to create memorable characters, be they one, two or three dimensional. Nor is a great sense of humour less impressive than complex psychological portraits. On this, The Three Musketeers is, at times, very very funny. One of my favourite moments is when Milady says to Rochefort “commend me to the cardinal” and Rochefort replies with something like “I will. And you commend me to Satan.” Ha! I actually lol’ed. Milady is absolutely bad-ass.I guess if you wanted to credit the book with greater depth or intelligence, if you wanted to say it is something more than a brilliant farce, then you could argue that it is a satire. One of the most interesting features of the book is that the people who hold the highest positions, by which I mean kings etc, are, for the most part, the stupidest, most self-obsessed characters. Certainly, the King of France is ridiculed more than anyone else. He is shown as being a petty, jealous, easily bored and easily duped man. There is a scene near the beginning when he has his wife searched, because he believes that she has a love letter on her person. When he recovers the letter and finds out that it is not a love letter but a traitorous one he is happy! He is, in this instance, not at all bothered about the treachery, but simply relieved that his wife isn’t bumping uglies with some other dude. Indeed, the war between the English and the French only takes place because Buckingham wants an excuse to be in France in order to see the Queen. It seems that Dumas is saying that wars etc are not waged for the reasons that we think, for religion or ideology or power. In fact, in probably the only noteworthy moment of introspection d’artagnan reflects that the fates of nations are decided on the whims of their leaders. Sacrebleu!The thing is, I think you could make too much of all that, If Dumas was trying to be scathing, you would expect that the musketeers, being the heroes, would condemn this kind of behaviour from the king et al. And yet they don’t. In fact, they accept it. The musketeers are likeable, no doubt, but their own morals are iffy to say the least. This is why I call the novel dumb fun or a great farce, because no one is entirely good and certainly no one is treated entirely seriously. The power of the book is not in its message but in making of the reader a Don Quixote, so that upon finishing it one is eager to take up a sword and romp around the country in a fancy outfit challenging people to duels. Or is that just me? In any case…en guarde, you scoundrels!
    more
  • Αλίκη
    January 1, 1970
    Η ιστορία μας ακολουθεί τον νεαρό, πανέξυπνο και τίμιο Γασκόνο Ντ'Αρτανιάν, που φτάνει στο Παρίσι με την ελπίδα να προσχωρήσει στο σώμα των σωματοφυλάκων. Εκεί γνωρίζει τους τρεις διάσημους φίλους Άθω, Πόρθο και Άραμη και γίνεται σύντομα πολύτιμο μέλος της κλειστής παρέας τους. Οι τέσσερίς τους είναι στην κυριολεξία όλοι για έναν και ένας για όλους. Η πλοκή δεν φλυαρεί καθόλου, εξελίσσεται με ταχύτητα και αγωνία, δεν κουράζει, δένει τον αναγνώστη με τους ήρωες και έχει ιδιαίτερο χιούμορ. Όταν τε Η ιστορία μας ακολουθεί τον νεαρό, πανέξυπνο και τίμιο Γασκόνο Ντ'Αρτανιάν, που φτάνει στο Παρίσι με την ελπίδα να προσχωρήσει στο σώμα των σωματοφυλάκων. Εκεί γνωρίζει τους τρεις διάσημους φίλους Άθω, Πόρθο και Άραμη και γίνεται σύντομα πολύτιμο μέλος της κλειστής παρέας τους. Οι τέσσερίς τους είναι στην κυριολεξία όλοι για έναν και ένας για όλους. Η πλοκή δεν φλυαρεί καθόλου, εξελίσσεται με ταχύτητα και αγωνία, δεν κουράζει, δένει τον αναγνώστη με τους ήρωες και έχει ιδιαίτερο χιούμορ. Όταν τελείωσα το βιβλίο αυτό, λυπήθηκα πραγματικά, όχι μόνο γιατί αποχωρίστηκα τους φίλους μου, αλλά και γιατί δεν κυκλοφορούν στα ελληνικά εκδόσεις των υπόλοιπων περιπετειών του Ντ'Αρτανιάν, κι αν κάτι κυκλοφορεί είναι πάντα διασκευή. Θεωρώ πως η ιστορία είναι ιδανική για παιδιά, μα μπορούν να την απολαύσουν και οι μεγαλύτεροι. Διαβάστε περισσότερα εδώ
    more
  • Paula W
    January 1, 1970
    Although not as epic and awesome as The Count of Monte Cristo, I fully realize that nothing could be as epic and awesome as The Count. This, though, was super fun to read! Five big gold stars.
  • Duffy Pratt
    January 1, 1970
    I'm surprised that no-one has done a reworking of this book with Milady and Richelieu as the heros, and the Musketeers as the villains. It wouldn't take much of a twist at all. With the exception of one event, the former are no more villainous than the latter. That is, unless, you take Dumas' word for it. In that case, Milady is pure evil, and the tale is one fit perfectly for kids. Fortunately, the story he tells is richer than the gloss the narrator sometimes tries to put on it.Let's look at t I'm surprised that no-one has done a reworking of this book with Milady and Richelieu as the heros, and the Musketeers as the villains. It wouldn't take much of a twist at all. With the exception of one event, the former are no more villainous than the latter. That is, unless, you take Dumas' word for it. In that case, Milady is pure evil, and the tale is one fit perfectly for kids. Fortunately, the story he tells is richer than the gloss the narrator sometimes tries to put on it.Let's look at the characters:Richelieu is the first minister of France, and Louis XIII most trusted advisor. There is currently a Protestant uprising in France, and Richelieu is charged with quelling it. Louis is not that interested in managing tedious things (like his country), so this responsibility falls with Richelieu. Now, Anne of Austria is queen. But she's also a member of the family of France's primary enemy, and she is in love with the Duke of Buckingham, a direct enemy of England who would gave aid to the French insurrectionists. Richelieu's actions in the book are directed at exposing Anne and Buckingham, which directly supports French interests. Thus, the affair of the diamond studs was actually a matter of state. Richelieu was simply trying to show the King what was really going on, and what could jeopardize his interests as King. Mme. Boncieaux, the Musketeers, and the Queen, are all acting in only there personal interests, and against the interest of France. What the do is probably treasonous. (Certainly Anne's affair with Buckingham was treason. The efforts to thwart the cardinal exposing her treason border on treason, but were probably enough).Despite all this, Richelieu's one wish throughout the book concerning D'Artagnan is that he would want to make him his own man. The King does nothing for D'Artagnan. The Queen gives him a ring, but never even finds out who her hero is. Even de Treville only gets him an appointment in the King's guard. But Richelieu becomes his main benefactor. First, his order makes D'Artagnan a Musketeer, granting his fondest wish. And later, showing grace and humor in defeat, Richelieu gives him a commission as Lieutenant in the Musketeers (which is apparently a big deal, since twenty years later he still holds the same rank).And yet, Richelieu is the evil mastermind of this book?Now, let's take our heros, the Musketeers.Porthos is a bit of an oaf. As for his honor, when he's wounded in a duel, he lies about it and says he twisted his knee. He lies about his mistress. His great ambition in life is to marry the wife of a lawyer so he can get her money. While wounded, he holes up in a room in an inn, refuses to pay and nearly brings the innkeeper to ruin, while threatening to kill anyone who tries to move him or interfere with his convalescence. Aramis is a bit better. He merely lies about his love interest. The main complaint I can make about him is his willingness at the beginning of the book to kill D'Artagnan over the dropped handkerchief. In this instance, it's Aramis' lies about the handkerchief that bring on the appointment for the first duel.Athos is the heart and soul of nobility. And yet, when he learned that his wife had been branded, he simply hung her by the neck and left her for dead. When he tells his true name to another man before dueling, he also tells him that its too bad, because now he will have to kill him, and then does. (I may be wrong, but I think this may be the only person who actually dies in a duel in this book, so it is kind of a big deal.) And on another occasion, Athos also takes over an inn and nearly ruins it, drinking and eating almost all of its provisions without a thought of paying for any of it, and accusing the innkeeper of having wronged him solely because the innkeeper had been mislead by agents of the government. And D'Artagnan: the main issue I have with D'Artagnan is his love life. He loves Mme. Bonciaux. She's married to his landlord (whom he never pays, and from whom he steals a fortune). He also loves, at times, Milady. And very quickly, he also professes undying love for her maid, Kitty. He uses Kitty to spy on Milady. He then rapes Milady (unless you think having sex with someone while pretending to be someone else is consensual). He does this within the hearing of Kitty, his other love. And he also takes a valuable ring from MiLady under false pretenses.These are our heros? Well yes, they are amazing hero' and extremely fun to read. But they are rough, thoughtless, terrible to women (excepting maybe Aramis), and probably treasonous on at least two occaisons.Now let's turn to Milady, who is the great villain of the book. She was a poor girl who got put into a convent. As a nun, she got involved with a priest. The two had already taken vows, so they needed to escape. The priest stole the sacristy and was caught. He got branded and served time for his crime, but escaped. His brother was the executioner of the branding. The brother tracked down Milady, and on his own, branded her as well. The priest ended up killing himself, and of course the brother blamed Milady for the whole thing. Every wrong can be traced to the wiles of a woman, right?Milady, despite her many handicaps, then raises herself to a position where she manages to allure Athos. When he finds out, however, that she had been branded (falsely, by the way), he hangs her and leaves her for dead. Somehow, she escapes. This is one resourceful woman.After that, and the timeline is not too clear, she raises herself yet again, this time even higher and becomes the wife of Lord de Winter, and an agent for Richelieu. OK, there's something shaky about marrying an Englishman and being a French spy, but its a totally cool thing, and makes for a great background for a book in which she would be the heroine. Lord de Winter dies, and this is also supposed to be one of her crimes, but its a crime for which there is no evidence at all.In the affair with the diamond studs, she merely does her duty and serves France. The abduction of Mme Bonciaux was a harsh measure by Richelieu's secret police, but not anything especially villainous or out of the ordinary, especially when you consider that Constance clearly puts her duty and devotion to Anne above her duty to France.Following that, she simply gets defeated, insulted, and abused by D'Artagnan. He pretends to be her lover under cover of dark, rapes her, takes her ring. And then he forces himself on her again, in a bargain, in his true self. When he reveals that the two lovers are one, she gets more than a little miffed and vows revenge. Being a woman, she can't challenge him to a duel and kill him honorably, so she tries other ways to exact vengeance. In one of the most remarkable parts of the book, she's given a commission to assassinate Buckingham to shorten the siege at La Rochelle. Taken prisoner by her brother-in-law, in five days time using only her brains and her voice, she turns her jailer inside out and converts him into her worshipper, and also convinces him that his greatest desire in life is to kill the Duke, which he does. So with everything stacked against her, she accomplishes her mission and manages to escape. This is an amazingly smart and resourceful woman.So, take away the vengeance that she finally does exact on D'Artagnan, by poisoning Constance, and almost everything about Lady de Winter is both admirable and badass. (She even carries around a cyanide pill before they had cyanide pills, and keeps it in her ring.) She's a woman and can't run someone through with a sword because she feels insulted, so she uses the gifts that she has brilliantly, and she's no more selfish in the use of her gifts than anyone else in the book. Yes, she's the true villain of this book. But she's also the strongest, most interesting character and the one that made it most worth reading for me. And I wonder if that's one of the great ironies of the book. Dumas keeps telling everyone to watch out for her because she's evil but totally seductive. And I've come out seduced.
    more
  • Mariel
    January 1, 1970
    Celebrity Death Match tournament versus The Divine Comedy."You're in hell. This is the purgatory part but I'm here to take you back to the beginning of the inferno. Mariel has never read The Divine Comedy and it is probably a sound idea to begin from the beginning.""So we're in hell. I take my sword from my hip and angle the blade to sight and slight my enemies from the blight of this night." Athos puts his hand on his hip as a placeholder where his holster would once have been. His other hand r Celebrity Death Match tournament versus The Divine Comedy."You're in hell. This is the purgatory part but I'm here to take you back to the beginning of the inferno. Mariel has never read The Divine Comedy and it is probably a sound idea to begin from the beginning.""So we're in hell. I take my sword from my hip and angle the blade to sight and slight my enemies from the blight of this night." Athos puts his hand on his hip as a placeholder where his holster would once have been. His other hand reaches for his favorite sword. It's good to know that it is there, in times of need.Porthos pats the sides of his mouth from the sumptuous meal they had enjoyed pretending to eat. The Three Musketeers did not let their spirits dampen in this airless dominion. Aramis was busy smooching the air-headed bimbo taking up the empty space in his encircled arms. At least someone had air. "You're welcome, my fair maiden. Feel free to continue to show me your gratitude...""Seriously, you're in hell. I know about this. You're not the first group of a-holes I've come across. I have other things to do so if you don't mind...""Well, I couldn't possibly partake of another Micky Mouse ice cream on a stick so let's get to this. You in it, fellows?" Asks Porthos. Of course he knows the answer is no shit, what do you think? They are The Three Musketeers! If one of them suggests something at least two have to naysay it. If it is naysayed it is a no shit given that the denied will go ahead and do it anyway, leaving the deniers no other choice but to save his ass."All for one!" Grins Aramis, sliding his hand down further to pat the sweet little ass. Porthos admires his friends imagination. Not to be outdone, he ups the ante. "So are there monsters in this hell?""All kinds of torment! Endless torment! All of the torment you could imagine and then some." This new person (he must be some foe thought up by Athos. He's looking sick from eating too many Mickey Mouse pops) sure is gruesome. He probably spent his childhood behind an iron mask. That would do it to a guy."I take my sword and I slay the torment!" Porthos stands up and spreads his arms out big to gesticulate the enormity of this torment and its slayage. Also, his butt was falling asleep."That's nothing!" The never to be outdone Aramis butts in, with a sly look at the airy fairy beauty at his side. "I took the dragon by the tail and put it in my pocket! I took him by the balls and then I put those in my pants pocket as an extra set of balls for the next twenty dragons I slayed!"Armis and Porthos forgot that they were standing in the silver caves and the light of the dragon flames reflected onto them tenfold the light and they were burned alive. Porthos was really starting not to like this new guy. Not to be cliquey, or anything, but it was hard to just up and let a new guy in on the dynamic. A fourth Musketeer was as rare as a fifth Beatle."Oh yeah! Well..... uh... You forgot that I was wearing my trusted amulet given to me by the King of France for saving his buxom teenage daughter that time.""YOU forgot that I am the King of Thieves and stole the amulet before you entered the caves.""No, YOU forgot that only at midnight on the seventh moon of the seventh harvest day I have all immunity from death!" Aramis gave Porthos an approving look for that one."You forgot that my sword was imbibed with the spirit of the twelve beautiful mermaids!""You forgot that my sword has extra power whenever a soul is killed while enjoying indie rock music in a car commercial filmed in the South of France!"Athos was starting to feel left out when yet another new voice entered the bloodless bloody fight."You forgot that I am the dungeon master and I locked you in those caves for all eternity with nothing but Micky Mouse pops to eat and plastic-less blow-up sex dolls to have sex with. My bff The Count of Monte Cristo sends his regards. Cliquey mothereffers."Win: The Divine Comedy
    more