The Three Musketeers | A Review

Hello everyone, I am the lowborn G.E.M.Simov, a fellow surprisingly proficient in intrigue and warfare, here to tell you about Alexander Dumas’ classic, “The Three Musketeers”.

Simple review details - I rank books on an out of 10 basis, granting up to 3 points in 3 categories, as well as a last, single point from my own self, depending on my experience with it.

A disclaimer - I read a translated version of the book, not the original French, and, as such, some perceptions might be a bit affected.

Content

The Three Musketeers is a book that claims to be about a real person who really existed and really did whatever he did. It is also a book that is, very clearly, not about a real person - or, if it was about a real person, it is exceptionally embellished and hyperbolic to an unhealthy degree.

Among its merits lies the quality of time encapsulation - reading this book allows the reader to take a gander at the world as it was in the past, and even though there is great effort put into the beautification of everything, it still works wonders and does some exceptionally good things.

It shows off how society worked, with a particular emphasis on nobles, which is understandable, in a sense. There are some things that were a bit baffling - such as the claim that nobles ‘could not lie’, whereas commoners were under no such obligation. Of course, the context here does wonders, but it is as if commoners are depicted as innately bad, or far more prone to sin than nobles. That, itself, has value as a means of discerning what the perception of people was, and how nobles differed from commoners.

Aside from showing off how society worked, it also betrays a few interesting things about mindsets - naturally, and most central to the book, is the distinction between men and women, and how women simply can not do most of the things that men can do, about how there is an ontological barrier between the two. It is absolutely baffling with how much conviction this wall is upheld, not just by the characters in the book, but also by the writer himself.

There's a certain level of displeasure that I find myself experiencing as I read through the many statements regarding women, and it is somewhat foul that the villain - that being the cardinal - has many great, redeeming qualities, and how he is, at most, a bit of a foil to the musketeers as a result of his good intentions, and, on the other hand, the only redeeming quality that the villainess has is that she is clever and impossibly beautiful, and also an astonishing actress, and exceptionally intelligent, far beyond just being clever, and she is also staggeringly perceptive, but in this improbable manner.

In fact, everyone but the villainess manages to be somewhat believable. She is implausible - because she is in her mid twenties, yet she is so capable, so knowledgeable, that it would be difficult to explain that for even a person with a background as a noble - and she is not a noble, from what the book entails. So in the confines of just 9 years, from when she was 16, she became the best lady in literally the entire world, and she became so proficient at seduction (starting out in a monastery, as a nun!) that she can so easily ensorcel a man in less than a week so as to drive him to throw his life away?

This is more of a story issue, but I'd argue it is also content. Why? Because it is impossible for a woman to be like that. It is impossible for someone to be that good at that many things. However, it is exactly because she is a woman that she is so good at those things - after all, is it not the woman who misleads and tricks man in the Bible and causes “man’s” fall from grace?

The book embodied this sexist view of things that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and not just because of the discrepancies between what appears plausible to me and what is presented as plausible in the book, but also because the man villain is almost painted as a dignified, good guy, whereas the woman villain? Completely irredeemable, “crazy bitch”.

Here comes another issue with the book's content - these people, all of them, live for revenge. They either live for love, which love is bafflingly surface level - they see someone, they fall madly in love, impossibly so, and then off of one or two interactions get ready to commit the foulest of crimes in the name of their love. If that love is scorned, of course, they become so vengeful and horrible that it is baffling.

So the book says that the crux of the matter is that people are driven by their hatred towards others or by their love towards a single fellow. The cardinal hates the queen because he loves her but she did not respond in kind, he hates duke Buckingham because he loves the queen and she might love him back, the king hates the queen because he fears she might love duke Buckingham, but even when it turns out that his worries could have been for naught, he keeps hating her because… He has to hate.

Everyone hates. The villainess hates everyone, she does not seem to want anything out of life but revenge, which is impossibly baffling. “Hurr durr fury like a woman scorned”

The characters in this book are not characters. Again, this might be more of a story issue, but it is content as well. The same applies to some of the good guys - Porthos and d'Artagnan - have horrible motivations and approaches. They're… They're nasty dudes!

Porthos, as an example, is a gold-digger, a type of blackmailer, a harrowing manipulator. It's so unsettling and unpleasant to read about his personal adventures as he borderline extorts an older woman for her money, all the while her husband is still alive and suspicious of it all, and the whole thing is played for laughs: “oh women be showing off infidelity”

It is THE norm, women who are unfaithful to their husbands pay their lovers, and their lovers live off of these women via their husband's money. It's astonishing - and if it were true, wild. On the other hand, it is very interesting to consider the wild stuff that's on display - 23 year old women getting married to 50 year old men, 50 year old women married to 70 year old men - political marriages with no love in them at all. It makes sense that the women would seek love outside of these arrangements.

Then d'Artagnan - oh dear is he horrible in his approaches to things, in particular the way he goes on to deal with m’lady and Katie. He just uses them, in particular Katie. He lies to her, gaslights her, and he's the hero, he's the good guy - it never comes back to bite him, he just does his thing and discards her when she's no longer of any use to him. Women as objects…

THEN there's the idea of manhood and manliness. The man is that, that and that, but, curiously, d'Artagnan gets to defy these norms by crying a couple of times, yet there is no repercussion for that. He even wears a dress at one occasion, and the only reason he gets spoken to in a bad tone is because he is not recognized immediately. This shows off that the Norms for manhood are rigid and restrictive, and that they are unnatural, but that men should be able to break away from them… Not women from the norms of what a woman is, though!

Overall, the book’s contents are exactly that - something from a bygone era. Of course, the value of examining them and figuring out why they were as they were is important, but when it comes to reading the damn thing and finding pleasure in that? The content is disturbing at times.

2/3

Richness of Expression

This is an old book, and, as such, it features lots of old words that are no longer in circulation. In addition, what with it being about France, a lot of those words were, probably, never in circulation to begin with, not in the lands where I'm from. Thus, there is a lot of stuff to find within it - in particular, the various currencies - as there are some very intriguing words that work a bit differently than they do nowadays.

That being said, the book does not have any great distinctions within itself, no spectacular lines of text that stand out like some pinnacle of literature. In fact, it was very simple, very unimpressive, very middling. There was a particularly large swath of the book that I found so unfathomably drab that I simply read through it in the ‘fast forward’ setting, because it was that grating, boring and unpleasant to read.

There were also many spelling mistakes, which I would have to attribute to the quality of redaction performed on the translation, but it was still something that really left an impression. Additionally, there was a grave mistake that actively broke continuity - as such I do not know whether to attribute it to the story or to this section, because it could be that, instead of a 26, a 25 was written. However, it could also be a failing of the story itself.

Regardless, all those things compound into a less than stellar performance.

1/3

Story

The Three Musketeers is a stupendously long book which feels as though it does not need to be as long as it is, considering that nothing leads to anything in the end. I am going to spoil this couple-a-century old story, so be warned about that.

It follows d'Artagnan, who goes to find his fortune with a recommendation from his father. He loses the recommendation and nothing ever comes of that, aside for the formation of ‘an enemy’ whom d'Artagnan will seek for the entirety of the story.

Then he meets the musketeers, and thinks to himself that they are cool, and suddenly all his life he has wanted to become a musketeer (which conflicts with what was previously said and shown of d'Artagnan). He gets in a couple of fights, earns a name for himself, then the fights stop happening (curious), he gets roped into a kidnapping, then that resolves itself, then he helps a pretty lady do some things, then he meets a few big wigs, then he gets a big ol’ quest, goes to England, meets the bigwig, then gets a reward and a date with the pretty lady… But she gets kidnapped again, he wants to save her but, alas, no can do. Then an Englishwoman catches his eye, he visits her a couple of times, falls in love at first sight, but she does not love him. He tricks her, dishonors her, and reveals to her that he has tricked her, while also finding out her huge secret, and she now hates him. Then he goes to war, a couple of attempts on his life fail. His friends find out some juicy details and get together with him, come up with a plan to prevent bad stuff from happening, including his death, and it is set in motion. The Englishwoman has her own ‘fantastical’ adventure (horrible), succeeds in her task (through the power of bullshit) and even goes back to France. Meanwhile, d'Artagnan and friends get let off for a few days and go to check up on a lead regarding the missing pretty lady. Contrivance after contrivance, somehow the Englishwoman gets there first, ensorcels the pretty lady, then poisons her. d'Artagnan and company find the Englishwoman, judge her guilty and an executioner executes her. The end.

That's the story told in more than 700 pages, and it is… Middling. A lot of intrigue, a lot of stuff happening all over, secrets and such and such, which is interesting, but it only works for the first half of the book, which roughly concluded with d'Artagnan’s return from England. From then on there's a lack of engaging intrigue, and, not only that, but everything becomes exceptionally contrived. Everything depends on lucky happenstance - the trio will meet the cardinal, the trio will hear the cardinal, d'Artagnan will not drink the wine because the king has arrived, a funky little piece of paper will magically be lost by the second most skilled agent of the cardinal and will wind up in d'Artagnan’s possession, somehow a dude will pull out a knife from within his inner breast pocket and stab a guy before that guy even manages to draw his sword, even though said guy was holding his sword and was becoming increasingly suspicious and is also an exceptional duelist, SOMEHOW somehow somehow…

Everything is constantly working like that. Everything is a string of: luckily, without anyone knowing, the executioner Atos found was also the guy who branded the villain in the first place and has a grudge against ‘em! Wow, convenient! Everything is so convenient!

Like… Conveniently, this fanatical Christian guy thinks suicide is absolutely inadmissible, but then he goes and commits murder because… That makes sense. The story falls apart the more the reader examines it, and it becomes less and less coherent and more and more bothersome to go through. The section mentioned in the “Richness of Expression” section, which is about m’lady’s imprisonment and stupendously impossible escape, is painful to read through. Literally - it makes no sense that this man who has been saved and in a sense raised by sir Winter, who is told to be careful and to be wary of m’lady, just goes on and gets played like a fiddle by her. It is so baffling that it works out for her, perfectly at that, and that no one talks to anyone and no one communicates at all.

Another issue is how the characters do not change in the slightest. They start as they are and they remain as they are. The reader finds out more about them, but, somehow, these great events that transpire do not change anything about these people - and that is because those aren't people. The characters in this book are weak, simple as. They have the same motivation, the same vibe, and they're almost always the same.

In fact, only the cardinal seems to have a development - he goes from being displeased and a bit hostile towards the quartet to wanting them on his side, being ambivalent and even benevolent towards them. One of the villains goes through an arc, but then, again, it's more of a revelation of who he is, rather than him changing himself. The case of Felton, who gets literally mind controlled by m’lady, is not applicable, because it is so implausible and unbelievable, so bewildering and awful, that it is really just a case of her casting actual spells.

Worst of all is how love works in this world. Everyone falls in love with everyone else at first sight, but only the important characters. They barely communicate, they barely talk to one another, yet they just have this insane, fiery adoration for one another that it becomes cringe worthy. Sure, people might be able to fall in love like that, but it is not the norm, by any means… Right?

Overall, the story is unsatisfying. The characters are unsatisfying. Nothing winds up happening, in a sense, even though something happens. The threads that are left hanging are left hanging, nothing is really resolved, and there's this excruciatingly sombre conclusion to the story, which was purposefully filled with stupid scenes meant to be engaging and entertaining, meant to make the reader merry, such as this stupid business with the horses and the saddles.

1/3

Legendary Point

Does this book get the Legendary point, so craved and wanted by all and none at the same time? Does this legendary story, so influential in the field of literature, get recognition from yours truly? NO, it does not.

It had a few moments, but the way it handled itself - the weight of the events, the reactions and conversations between the characters, the insane contrivances, the nonsensical garbage associated with a certain character… It fell flat, and I am left with a more befouled opinion of the book than before.

0/1

Conclusion

4/10 I both feel as though the score is too low, because this is one of the CLASSICS, but also as if it might even be too high. I was excited to read the book, and then I read it, and it was excruciating, it was unsatisfying, it was not even fun. Its great merit is that it is a window into the past, into a world that no longer is, but at the same time that merit really clashes with everything else in it. I find myself challenged by the task of figuring out if I can recommend this to anyone, and I'd say I can't.

In the bag of mediocrity I generously chuck it, to gather dust and remain there.