The Three Musketeers
As I finished reading Alexander Dumas’ “The Three Musketeers”
on my way to my summer vacation three weeks ago, I have had plenty on time to
think about what to say about it, now that I am back home again. I think time
has mellowed my opinion a bit from a somewhat more critical position.
“The Three Musketeers” is one of the more famous works in
the canon of nineteenth century literature. There are countless film and TV
versions of the story, and I seem to recall an illustrated children’s version
that I read as a child. It was therefore a bit of a surprise to me that the
only elements I actually recognized, now that I read the book, are names of the
four (not three!) musketeers, Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D’Artagnan, and that it
took place in seventeenth century France.
The original story was written as a serial and at great
speed. This can be clearly felt in the organic development of the story that
sort of forms itself as the story moves on. Dumas may have had some idea where
the story should go, but clearly only in rough outline. There are threads
started that are not or unsatisfactorily followed through and there are
tangents that develops into major plot elements. Haphazard story development
may be a bit harsh. Organic is a nicer term.
Our main character is a young man called D’Artagnan, who
arrives in Paris from the province with the ambition to become a royal
musketeer, an elite force committed to the protection of the royal person
(Louis XIV). D’Artagnan is on friendly terms with the leader of the unit,
Treville, and gets a position as a guard, but not quite musketeer (yet). D’Artagnan
also quickly becomes friends with three (The Three) musketeers, Athos Porthos
and Aramis. This happens when he challenges each of the three to a duel on
swords on the same day...
Early on it becomes clear that there is a rivalry between
the musketeers and the Cardinal Richelieu and his minions. Richelieu is
described as an evil and cunning schemer who employs dodgy characters to
promote his personal ambitions. The first adventure of the musketeers concerns
some diamonds that the Queen (Queen Anne of Austria) has given to the
love-struck English Duke of Buckingham. The diamonds need to be retrieved to
avoid compromising the Queen. Following this, D’Artagnan falls in love with the
pretty Madame Bonancieux, who then disappears, apparently abducted. He also
gets involved with a mysterious woman, mostly known as Milady. As it turns out,
she is a minion of the cardinal and the arch villain of the story. When D’Artagnan
causes her some embarrassment she sets out to kill him.
When the musketeers are sent to La Rochelle to participate
in the siege of this city, they demonstrate bravery against the enemy, but mostly
they try to defend themselves from the murderous Milady. The story now takes a
tangential direction, and we follow Milady on a mission to England to assassinate
the Duke of Buckingham, her capture and following escape. For this section of
the novel (around a hundred pages), the musketeers are not even mentioned. Finally,
with Milady back in France we get a final and dramatic meetup of the characters.
The great strength of this novel, and likely the basis of
its massive fame, is the extraordinary flow of the story. Dumas writes dialogue
with a speed and fluidity I have not encountered in any novel prior to this one
and it is a style massively imitated since. He writes like a modern action
movie by wasting little time on descriptions but let the action and the plot
drive the story. That has the pleasant effect of making this a page-turner
novel that keeps you on edge and waiting for what happens on the next page.
Employing this format, Dumas could have written on any topic and it would have
been a great read.
When we get down to the actual story, things become a bit
more problematic. Obviously, we are supposed to sympathize with the musketeers
and think of them as great guys, but in reality, they are rash, violent and
proud brutes. Maybe in the nineteenth century their qualities smacked of
bravery and manliness, but in the twenty-first century, they are the type of
people you do not want to meet on a night in town.
Then there is the conflict between the musketeers and the
Cardinal Richelieu. I had a hard time understanding this conflict. Richelieu
worked for the (in the story largely incompetent) king to secure and protect
France. He drove an organization and centralization campaign we would consider
modern and was not surpassed until the era of Napoleon. In a Europe dominated
by the devastation of the thirty-year war, he was the glue that tied France
together. When the musketeers are in opposition to him, they are largely
supporting the enemies of France: Spain, Austria and particularly England.
Doing this, amounts to treason and yet the musketeers are the heroes while the
Cardinal is the villain.
The only way I can explain this is in the conflict between centralization
and regional independence, between king and nobility, state and regions,
unionism and federalism. This is a type of conflict that goes back to antiquity
and still takes place today. The musketeers in this light represents the
nobility who is losing power when Richelieu usurps it for the state. Whether this
is a good or a bad cause, I will let the reader decide.
While I read the story, I was frustrated with the meandering
storyline, especially the very long detour with Milady, but as the weeks have
passed, I see it as less of a problem. Since the flow is never lost and the
story remains interesting, it is simply something to accept and just flow with
it. And that is the thing with this book: You are never bored by it. Perplexed
and confused, yes, but never bored.
That is the best recommendation I can give a book.
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar