The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

(Note: I've confused myself with the chapters I either mislabeled last week's discussion or didn't read thru to chapter 8. I intended to follow the schedule Deborah posts, but I might have inadvertently left out chapter 8 from last week. Sorry for any confusion, I'm including some discussion from chapter 8 below.)

I am truly enjoying this book far more than I expected to after the first week's read. There were some twists this week and a budding love story.

Boxtel continues to amaze. From digging around in van Baerle's garden and breaking into his home to following van Bearle to the Hague and paying off the executioner... there really is no other word to describe this character except obsessed. I'm left wondering, "what will he do next?" Any thoughts? I know I asked last week but the same question begs to be asked, are we done with him or will we see more of him do you think? I have to admit when he got beat up my thoughts were, "it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy."

I'm glad Rosa is playing a bigger part in this story, I like her character. She may not be educated but she seems to have a lot of common sense and of course love for van Baerle. Do you think van Baerle made a wise decision, having a chance to escape the prison as Rosa urged him to do after he set her father's arm?

It was interesting that van Baerle made Rosa his heir. I'm not sure he had feelings for her when he did this... so why do so? Is it solely because she was there and of good character?

I also found the pardon interesting, in that is wasn't granted for the sake of justice but for his (William's) own sense of spiritual guilt. Any thoughts about this?

Did you find the situation with the pigeon plausible? It seems awful that those pigeons were the ones who found their way to van Baerle's house. So far I think this is the one piece of the story I find fetched.

Yes, the pigeons are a bit much. I think Dumas attributes it to the workings of God!

Most of this section takes place in one prison or another. Dumas uses prisons and prison escapes a lot in his plots. In The Three Musketeers, Milady seduces her way out of prison. In Twenty Years After, there is a complex jail break by a nobleman. The Man in the Iron Mask is a prisoner, and of course there is The Count of Monte Cristo. Queen Margot also has captured heroes, come to think of it.

I have a feeling we will see Boxtel again.

Yes, we'll see Boxtel again. In his mind, he's gone too far to turn back.

I'm enjoying it so far. Yes, there are wild coincidences, but that's Dumas. And yes, it's true that there are a lot of prisons in Dumas's works.

I really like that Rosa had already formed a plan herself before the note came.

William is turning into a paradox. Is he bad or good, wise or foolish or all of those things? One thing is for sure, that after turning down the opportunity to escape, the only way that van Baerle could escape execution was through William’s pardon.
Rosa continues to show a high level of intelligence and fortitude, engineering her father’s transfer to the prison. Now that she and van Baerle can meet regularly, both their relationship and the tulips have a chance to blossom. I am pondering how much of Rosa’s father’s nastiness is real or just put on for the sake of the prisoners in his charge.
I think we will see Boxtel again, and I am intrigued to find out the part that William of Orange will play - probably a villain.

Dumas and Walter Scott were both good at presenting royals as complex characters with complex motives, who often did good things for bad reasons and vice versa.

With Dumas, I tend to expect some coincidences being used to further the plot. It's just a habit of his. It's best to just let yourself be carried away with the story rather than thinking too much. My English teachers described this as "willing suspension of disbelief." In his day, Dumas was a popular fiction writer, not "Literature" meant to be deconstructed or scoured for symbolism.

Dumas creates a lot of interesting characters, which is one of the things that makes reading his works so enjoyable. He knows how to tug at our heartstrings to make us care deeply about the characters he wants us to be sympathetic of (Rosa, van Baerle), and he makes his villains bad without making them so much into caricatures that we laugh at them instead of hating them (Boxtel). The royals are treated like other characters rather than being made into 100% good or evil.

Regarding Rosa being the heir, it felt to me like van Baerle saw some goodness in her, and he didn't really have anyone else to be his heir. He seemed to be rather alone in his life. The de Witts were dead, and he seemed to be living alone with his servants prior to his arrest and did not have much of a social life.

Boxtel is a horrible man who has been completely twisted by jealousy. Although maybe it shouldn't have, I couldn't help smiling when his plan to get the contents of van Baerle's pockets failed so miserably.

Anne wrote: "With Dumas, I tend to expect some coincidences being used to further the plot. It's just a habit of his. It's best to just let yourself be carried away with the story rather than thinking too much...."

Yes, if Dumas were around today he would either be writing made-for-TV movies or turning out multiple books a year with assistant writers, like James Patterson. Neither of those are insults, he was a popular success, just like some current writers.

Dumas' novels often have scenes that strike me as "cinematic". Of course there were no movies then but there was theater, and that was his first area of writing success. A number of his novels were made into stage plays and then movies almost as soon as that medium was invented. It's pretty easy because there is usually plenty of action and the dialogue is straightforward.

Anne wrote: "In his day, Dumas was a popular fiction writer, not "Literature" meant to be deconstructed or scoured for symbolism."

That's a very good point. It's nice to read a book just for fun sometimes, and Dumas is great for that. I don't think I've ever read anything by him that I've actually disliked (though the very last book of the Three Musketeers series was a rather disappointing end for the beloved characters).

Lori wrote: "don't think I've ever read anything by him that I've actually disliked (though the very last book of the Three Musketeers series was a rather disappointing end for the beloved characters)."

I've loved all his works that I've read, but I haven't gotten to the end of the Three Musketeers series. I have the books, but I keep getting distracted by other works.

Robin wrote: "Yes, if Dumas were around today he would either be writing made-for-TV movies or turning out multiple books a year with assistant writers, like James Patterson."

Yes, he would be totally up for writing made-for-TV movies, or maybe soap operas. He did use ghost writers for at least some of his work. It's a matter of debate how much writing was done by Dumas vs. his ghostwriters.

One idea for a series read would be, NOT all of Dumas, but all of the Musketeer series. However, it's tricky because the last parts are published in English under various names containing various parts of the later story (Ten Years Later, The Vicomte de Bragelonne, Louise de La Vallière, The Man in the Iron Mask. I see some of them are listed as "The D'artagnan Romances" and it's true he does star in all of them.

Van Bearle and Boxtel both are very much “addicted” to their tulip growing overlooking other aspects of life. It seems that Van Bearle is using Rose to have the final triumph of seeing the black tulip flower. He uses Rose’s love to him to further his goal. The only positive aspect is that he still has scruples, and possibly could develop real love for Rose. Boxtel, of course, is the villain here. He has no scourges whatever. He is incapable at this stage of his life to develop meaningful relationships, his addiction has gone to a stage that seems to be irreversible.
Just some thoughts.

Just realized our heroine has the name of a flower!

It should have been “scruples”, not “scourges” in the sentence about Boxtel - auto correction again!
Yes, Rose has the name of a flower, an Bearle stays with flowers, whatever he does next.

Van Baerle has never met a woman like Rosa before, someone who can rival his passion for tulips. There is a battle going on inside his head about which he loves the most but we know that there can only be one winner. After all, it seems that Rosa has every man in every town beseeching her to be his bride, yet she chooses to love someone who is incarcerated in a prison with a life sentence and therefore inaccessible.

Regarding Dumas as a TV screenwriter, he does tell very good stories, but I also think ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’ goes much deeper than pure storytelling.

Regarding a series read of D’Artagnan’s Romances/Three Musketeers series, I would definitely be in. This is my first time reading Dumas after loving every adaptation I’ve seen, and I really like this book. I am reading partly on audiobook and partly on Gutenberg, but I particularly enjoy listening. Dumas definitely has us loving his characters and the suspense comes from that love. I definitely like Rosa more than Cornelius, but his resilience and positivity is so striking. Thank you for those comments on William of Orange, this has left me wanting to do some nonfiction reading on him. I loved his character in Versailles, the only period drama I’ve seen to include him. Dumas has done a great job with character and I appreciate his humanization of the royals, something I’ll look forward to in future readings.

I would join in a series read too. The 3 Musketeers is one of my favorite books, so I wouldn't mind reading it for a 4th time. If reading in English, the translation is very important . Many are abridged (without always saying so) and others are poorly done, leading to confusion and/or boredom. I read it once before as a buddy read, and poor translations led to a lot of confusion, and I had to do quite a bit of explaining.

Lori wrote: "It's nice to read a book just for fun sometimes, and Dumas is great for that. I don't think I've ever read anything by him that I've actually disliked"

That's really good to know. This is my first Dumas read and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I will definitely be reading him again.

Robin wrote: "Just realized our heroine has the name of a flower!"
I hadn't caught that.

Trev wrote: " it seems that Rosa has every man in every town beseeching her to be his bride, yet she chooses to love someone who is incarcerated in a prison with a life sentence and therefore inaccessible."

Today we'd call that "dysfunctional" and tell her to get therapy, lol.

Gem ☘️Kiss Me I'm Irish☘️ wrote: "Robin wrote: "Just realized our heroine has the name of a flower!"
I hadn't caught that."

It's interesting the different things we notice while reading. That was the first thing I noticed when she was introduced. (view spoiler)[ When they were talking about naming the flower, I thought how strange it would be to have a tulip with the name of an unrelated flower in its scientific name. (hide spoiler)]

Anne wrote: "Gem ☘️Kiss Me I'm Irish☘️ wrote: "Robin wrote: "Just realized our heroine has the name of a flower!"
I hadn't caught that."

It's interesting the different things we notice while reading. That was ..."

I missed that too. I'm really bad at catching those things, I read pretty literally. It's so interesting to me when folks catch those kinds of things that I just glossed over. Thanks.