What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Musketeers
It is an account of the same events as those told in the Dumas classic, but told from the point of view of the Lady DeWinter, in an insightful manner, often hilarious, and always very entertaining. It also follows the actual historical events closer than the Dumas original, and gives more accurate pictures of the historical figures. Not a substitute, but a very well written complement to the better known original.
First published January 1, 1939
2 people are currently reading
17 people want to read
About the author
Tiffany Thayer
68 books3 followersTiffany Ellsworth Thayer (March 1, 1902 – August 23, 1959) was an American actor, author and founder of the Fortean Society.
Thayer's first published book, Thirteen Men, was publicized into the best-seller class.
Thayer's first published book, Thirteen Men, was publicized into the best-seller class.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 29, 2020
Whhhhhyyyyyy? Why was this written?! Ostensibly, this was meant to be the events of The Three Musketeers, told from Lady de Winter’s perspective. And for a while, it looked like I was reading the book I was sold on – we have her origin story, or at least part of it. We watch her corrupt others in her youth, receive her brand, meet Athos. But even as the story opens, there’s an evil in her that we’re never made to understand.
Most of the novel is a retread of The Three Musketeers, with the novelty of being told by a fairly incompetent author. As a writer he was despised by his contemporaries. Dorothy Parker noted that “he is beyond question a writer of power; and his power lies in his ability to make sex so thoroughly, graphically, and aggressively unattractive that one is fairly shaken to ponder how little one has been missing.” Case in point, a few extracts from Three Musketeers:
“Her lips stood out. Her chin stood out, too… Yes, yes… Her confessor noticed them too. Like half-grown melons, hard and energetic. The temptation was to test their ripeness with the fingers.” [ellipses in original]
“Her breasts like half-grown melons” [again with melons?!]
“'Sweet Constance,' said D’Artagnan, gazing at the breasts which lay like pink-nosed puppies in his palms…”
And to be clear, the majority of the novel that is a retread of The Three Musketeers, is NOT told from Lady de Winter’s perspective. We see no more of her scheming, learn nothing more of her inner life than in the original. Worse still, Thayer put his own, grotesque spin on events, so that it’s moderately revisionist with respect to the canon. This defeats the purpose, as far as I’m concerned. I wanted to know what was happening off-stage, so-to-speak, in Dumas’ telling, not hear the same events told tediously.
His characters are flat and insufferable. His narrative is lacks flair. His prose is lewd and unnecessarily sassy. He calls characters by a series of nauseating nicknames: Steeniebucks (Buckingham), Mondi (Richelieu), Cabbage (Lord de Winter). His telling of the siege of La Rochelle leaves out the four friends’ show of bravado! And as if Thayer wasn’t content to spoil one Dumas classic, he twisted events such that Twenty Years After would have to be re-written in order to remain consistent.
The book was represented as being more historically accurate than the original. I mean, maybe if all you care about is the sexual proclivities of Buckingham, Charles and Louis. It’s like if The Three Musketeers was serialized in the National Enquirer. Thayer is a poor writer, but the events he depicts leading up to the story of the original are plausible, and set up the story nicely. The rest of the novel is a complete waste of time – time much better spent reading Alexandre Dumas.
Most of the novel is a retread of The Three Musketeers, with the novelty of being told by a fairly incompetent author. As a writer he was despised by his contemporaries. Dorothy Parker noted that “he is beyond question a writer of power; and his power lies in his ability to make sex so thoroughly, graphically, and aggressively unattractive that one is fairly shaken to ponder how little one has been missing.” Case in point, a few extracts from Three Musketeers:
“Her lips stood out. Her chin stood out, too… Yes, yes… Her confessor noticed them too. Like half-grown melons, hard and energetic. The temptation was to test their ripeness with the fingers.” [ellipses in original]
“Her breasts like half-grown melons” [again with melons?!]
“'Sweet Constance,' said D’Artagnan, gazing at the breasts which lay like pink-nosed puppies in his palms…”
And to be clear, the majority of the novel that is a retread of The Three Musketeers, is NOT told from Lady de Winter’s perspective. We see no more of her scheming, learn nothing more of her inner life than in the original. Worse still, Thayer put his own, grotesque spin on events, so that it’s moderately revisionist with respect to the canon. This defeats the purpose, as far as I’m concerned. I wanted to know what was happening off-stage, so-to-speak, in Dumas’ telling, not hear the same events told tediously.
His characters are flat and insufferable. His narrative is lacks flair. His prose is lewd and unnecessarily sassy. He calls characters by a series of nauseating nicknames: Steeniebucks (Buckingham), Mondi (Richelieu), Cabbage (Lord de Winter). His telling of the siege of La Rochelle leaves out the four friends’ show of bravado! And as if Thayer wasn’t content to spoil one Dumas classic, he twisted events such that Twenty Years After would have to be re-written in order to remain consistent.
The book was represented as being more historically accurate than the original. I mean, maybe if all you care about is the sexual proclivities of Buckingham, Charles and Louis. It’s like if The Three Musketeers was serialized in the National Enquirer. Thayer is a poor writer, but the events he depicts leading up to the story of the original are plausible, and set up the story nicely. The rest of the novel is a complete waste of time – time much better spent reading Alexandre Dumas.
July 18, 2008
This book was touted as The Three Musketeers from Milady's point of view, so I searched down an out-of-print copy to read it. I was hoping for a view of the circumstances in the novel from her perspective, explaining her motivations and possibly portraying the actions and habits as the Musketeers as "cavalier" in the negative sense of the word.
However, while the book did have many more scenes of Milady's actions, it never really strayed too far from the original narrative. Milady was said to be unabashedly evil from the outset, with no real insight into her motivations other than her unrelenting thirst for power...but we knew that. Dumas told us that in the first version.
I guess I wanted a Milady-as-sympathetic-protagonist story, and what I got was the-Musketeers-as-Thayer-retold-it. One point of note: "Tiffany" is, in fact, a man--and writing as he did in the 1930s and 40s, I guess a feminist viewpoint was a little much to ask.
I am going to write the play version of Milady's real story, though...
However, while the book did have many more scenes of Milady's actions, it never really strayed too far from the original narrative. Milady was said to be unabashedly evil from the outset, with no real insight into her motivations other than her unrelenting thirst for power...but we knew that. Dumas told us that in the first version.
I guess I wanted a Milady-as-sympathetic-protagonist story, and what I got was the-Musketeers-as-Thayer-retold-it. One point of note: "Tiffany" is, in fact, a man--and writing as he did in the 1930s and 40s, I guess a feminist viewpoint was a little much to ask.
I am going to write the play version of Milady's real story, though...
October 21, 2010
it was a little confusing at times but overall very good.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews