The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

This section brings one character to a tragic end. I am sure I read somewhere about Dumas writing to a friend how sad he was while writing it. Two of our heroes are trapped in a cave and decide to go out with a literal bang (after eliminating multiple forces the old-fashioned way.)

Porthos is rarely a reader's favorite of the musketeers, and yet he is perhaps the most loved by the other friends. His loyalty, bravery and a sort of innocence mean that nobody can ever be angry with him. Porthos and Aramis also have the closest friendship of any two. Way back in The Three Musketeers, Aramis explains how Porthos taught him to fence, so that he could challenge an enemy to a duel. Athos is always a bit above everyone else, not quite an equal player. Aramis and d'Artagnan are schemers, sometimes keeping secrets. But Porthos is open and devoted to everyone. My opinion is that the reason Aramis surrenders is because he has lost Porthos. Of course, he also recognizes the name of the captain as someone in the Order who has to obey him. Convenient, if not really deserved.

Dumas admitted that the strength of Porthos came from his own worship of his father, although his father was of course very intelligent, becoming a famous general under Napoleon. He was tall for the times though not huge like Porthos. And Dumas only really knew his father when he came back after being a prisoner of war, broken in body and spirit. Still, he honored his father both with this character and with that of the Count of Monte Cristo.

D'Artagnan and Louis have a very frank conversation and d'Artagnan seems to finally be won over. Do you find this convincing?

Robin P wrote: "Dumas admitted that the strength of Porthos came from his own worship of his father, although his father was of course very intelligent, becoming a famous general under Napoleon. He was tall for the times though not huge like Porthos. And Dumas only really knew his father when he came back after being a prisoner of war, broken in body and spirit. Still, he honored his father both with this character and with that of the Count of Monte Cristo."

That's interesting. I knew the count was based on Dumas's father, but I didn't know Porthos was. I was also sad when he died.

I have corrected the numbering on this thread (9) and the previous one (8). We only have about 2 more weeks to go on our adventure!

I'm sure I read something about Dumas telling a friend he was crying because "I killed Porthos" - but I wasn't able to find the quote.

Very interesting about Dumas´s own reaction of killing off Porthos. That reminds me a little of the death of Nelly in The Old Curiosity Shop by Dickens.
Both are the innocent characters in their corresponding novels.
How dramatic and visual this scene was in addition. Though I am not quite sure why Dumas had to do that. He could have let Porthos run to the boat instead of giving him this strange fatigue in his legs.

I think Aramis was really, truly sad for the first time in his life. Maybe Porthos was more or less the only one he really cared about and whose loss he feels and feels responsible for.

I must admit I have not fully understood the secrecy behind his Order. He still seems to have enormous power that can even save him from an arrest for treason. So what is actually behind it? The "mysterious and unknown sign" Aramis made with his hand reminded me a little of the Freemasons, but I still cannot really figure out what it all means. Or did I miss anything through the course of our reading? My attention has not always been the most focused one.

And what did you think about the conversation between the king and d'Artagnan? At last he is allowed to rush to Belle-Isle with a pardon of the king, just to find out that the king already knew that Porthos was dead. I do not know what to make of the king in these chapters. He is furious, merciful, almost empathetic with d'Artagnan and Fouquet's friends pleading to be allowed to help Fouquet's wife who has nothing left. He could make this all go away, but then it would not come to the same end as in reality. I think Dumas had some issues to get it all rounded up in a way that might suit the reader and was not too far from the historical facts. But it seems all a little disconnected to me.
Let us see, how the final chapters end.

There are postings online about what medical condition Porthos could have had that would cause sudden weakness. Not that we need a scientific explanation but it apparently interested doctors.

The Order I assume is a Jesuit organization. Then as now there were conspiracy theories about groups secretly controlling the world through dark activities.

You're right about Louis being sort of contradictory in the end, there is more of that in the next chapters. Dumas had to approach real history. It reminds me a bit of The Plot Against America, where Philip Roth writes about the US if the Nazi-favoring Charles Lindbergh had been elected. But he gives hints that the rest of history unfolded pretty much the same, so he has to put in a sudden ending to make it work out.

I read half of this section today.
I’ve been really dreading this part.
I remember the scene in the cave very well from my first reading when I was 12.
I’ve always had this bad habit of looking at all the chapter titles before reading a book. This was a very bad idea. Two of the chapter titles gave away that Porthos was going to die so I knew it the first time I read the book - I just really didn’t want to believe it.
The whole scene of the siege and the cave was much longer than I remembered.
It was a really sad scene, and to see Aramis truly heartbroken was even worse. I think he will always feel guilty for the death of his friend.
I don’t know if Porthos and Aramis were the closest of the 4 friends. I think at times Porthos was closer to D’Artagnan and at times Aramis was closer to Athos. In the first book they all confided in D’Artagnan, even Aramis. I don’t like that the dynamic changed over time and they all went separate ways.
I absolutely hate that Dumas felt the need to kill Porthos like this. Why couldn’t he leave us with an open ending and say that he lived happily in one of his mansions? I know French authors are not big on happy endings. In my mind I’ve always rejected this ending - I’d like to imagine a much happier one.
If Dumas wanted to capitalize on the characters he developed, he could have written multiple prequels to 20 years after. I would have liked that much better.
Some fan fiction novels attempt to do this, so far none of them have been what had hoped for.
Ellsworth even wrote a novel parallel to the 3 Musketeers and it was the most disappointing of all the fan fiction books I’ve seen.

I read this when I was about 13, having loved The Three Musketeers and Twenty Years After. I didn't read the books with the long court sequences at that point, as they weren't really available. I was quite devastated at the death and downfall of various characters. I also agree about the chapter titles!

I remembered how Porthos died but not that it was in the middle of escaping with Aramis.

As far as fan fiction, I recently read the book, One for All, which is basically that. It is a YA book where the 4 friends are teenage girls who come to Paris to go to a finishing school run by Mme de Treville. But it is really a training school for fencing and espionage. A big element is the disability of the main character, who nevertheless is trying to find the killer of her father, who was a musketeer. I don't recommend it for this group, and I don't think that even as a teenager myself I would have thought it was anywhere near the original, but for a certain audience it has been popular. The author credits her love for Dumas and gave the characters names like Portia for Porthos and Tania for D'Artagnan. I'd give the book maybe 2.5 stars, but I'm not the intended audience.

It's surprising there haven't been more books written since there have been so many movies, many of which differ a lot from the original. There was also a TV series on BBC a few years ago. I only watched one episode and wasn't impressed.

I have read a few of Dumas' other books - this group read The Black Tulip. I have read Queen Margot, or Marguerite de Valois, which starts off with a swashbuckling pair but later goes into scenes of torture, which may have been historically accurate but were quite disturbing. I also read The Red Sphinx: A Sequel to The Three Musketeers, which I think Ellsworth translated. It takes place after The Three Musketeers and involves Richelieu but none of the other characters. It is unfinished and a different story is then stuck in, which I found pretty dull.

Of course The Count of Monte Cristo is an excellent adventure, but I found the emphasis on revenge rather depressing. Yes, he had plenty of cause, but devoting your life to getting money and power just to get back at people isn't very inspiring. I haven't yet found another Dumas book with the same humor and camaraderie as the first 2 books of this series.

Robin P wrote: "I haven't yet found another Dumas book with the same humor and camaraderie as the first 2 books of this series...."
I agree with you - The Three Musketeers and 20 Years After will always have a special place as two of my favorite Dumas books. I wish he would have stopped the sequence there. That was almost a happy ending - not perfect, but better than most of his other books.
The common theme is - everyone dies a super tragic death - the more you get attached to a character the more dramatic and tragic their death will be.
I actually really loved Queen Margot. I think I was 13-14 when I read it. It had the most fast moving plot of any Dumas book I've read. It took me about 3.5 days to finish it but I was devastated by the end. I recently re-read it and I felt exactly the same way.
I wanted to re-read the sequels too - I don't remember them at all, so hopefully they end better.
Count Monte Christo had perhaps the happiest, most hopeful ending. I tried re-reading it last year, but I couldn't get in the mood.
Whatever I read next must have a happy ending : )