This book has provided plenty of entertainment and intrigue, though I was a bit confused about where ultimately the musketeers' allegiance lay - it was drowning amidst the swashbuckling and being all romantic. :)
(King? Country? Queen?... whatever)

Everyone: Dickens is too wordy!

Dumas: Hold my wiiiiine.

You know the basic story (cue Bryan Adams "All For Love" song, cue Oliver Platt shouting, "Come, d'ArtagNAN, we are saving the keeeeng!"), but the book is something else entirely. Milady deWinter is really, really evil! I mean, SO BAD. Athos is not so much a lovable drunk as just a very sad, broken man. Aramis . . . needs to be slapped. I like the BBC series' sexier, conflicted Aramis to this one, who keeps trying to become a monk whenever he is left unattended.

But this was certainly enthralling, and starts off with a bang, as d'Artagnan leaves home, gets robbed, fights a duel, gets knocked out, and runs afoul of both Milady and Rochefort in the first chapter! I do prefer the absolutely bonkers revenge tale of Count of Monte Cristo, but there is a really good reason why this novel is much retold and filmed!

3.5 Silver Stars
with Golden Sparks
(because I love Athos!)

at first I was afraid to read it because I'm not a classic reader.
but it had adventurous setting, so I decided to give it a try. (also my mom recommended it very often! she loved it! she loved Athos, so I fell in love with him, before I met him! I was looking forward to see him coming in the book)
✦ it was brilliant, I laughed a lot. but at some points, it wasn't as exciting as a fantasy adventurous action story (as I expected to have, at least, more action). well, it was classic after all.
✦ sometimes, too much historical/political details.
✦ too many POV characters, who,to be honest, I didn't care about some of them. but they influenced the story. (I prefer the heroes realized that in another ways, like, eavesdropping, somehow the event leaked in front of them, or any other ways!)
✦ the writing style didn't bothered me but it was a bit strange (as it was written in centuries ago. XD )

Could we have MORE musketeers stories?
Athos, Porthos, Aramis!
I mean, I want to know how they became such inseparable friends!
I JUST WANNA KNOW!
PLS PLS PLS PLS PLS!
or maybe I just have to use my imagination...

P.s. I love the Musketeers TV shows (2014-2016) very much! (this cover)
a lot better! more action! a lot of adventures & more fun! WOW! I was fangirling over them! (but about the book, just a fan.)

An earlier version of this review  the second one that I had been working on for a couple of days committed suicide and removed itself from existence - possibly this was simply a consequence of my laptop crashing twice in rapid succession, but anyhow as you can imagine that review was far superior to anything else I might write, you are permitted to weep on account of the pain of not reading it, it was Nobel prize worthy for sure - which prize you ask? Well, if I am honest about it, probably all of them.

In truth, it was not a good review, and I had written myself into a dead end so starting with a blank screen is I think a help. This review suddenly fell into place in my head as I was walking home this morning, now that I am sitting at the keyboard, naturally it is slipping away...which is particularly amusing because although I thought that I was reading "The Three Musketeers" for the first time in full, I had the odd sensation of deja lira while reading one of the obscurer parts of the book - not one of the bits that everybody knows from the film and TV adaptations. Perhaps, I wondered, I had read this in full before and forgot about it. At least this time there is Goodreads, evidence and even witnesses to reading!

The best, and possibly only character, in this book is Milady de Winter, one of the many work horses of Cardinal Richelieu. She is ruthless, resourceful, roguish, and other things that don't begin with the letter R. She is a lot of fun and brings considerable energy to the text as an antagonist. The Musketeers themselves are interesting, firstly in that the younger, inexperienced D'Artagnon quickly appears to be superior to the other three slightly older men, He is more sagacious, insightful, and courageous, even a better swordsman - and helpfully he doesn't suffer from the character flaws that establish the others as individuals.

Perhaps in truth as far as the Musketeers are concerned this is a Zen novel, they are simply a bundle of sensory reactions to circumstances that they find themselves in, which might be why Milady de Winter stands out. This I guess is one of several signs that many people were involved in writing this novel.

At the end of the novel it takes all four musketeers, plus their for respective servants, plus the executioner of Lille  always a useful guy to know and have on your side and Milady's brother-in-law to bring Milady down and stop her rampaging through the story. Indeed implicitly among men irrespective of language, religious belief, calling, or who they serve, there can be companionship. However between men and women and even among women this is impossible, in those cases there can only be domination or submission. Which is why Milady has to be curtailed and why D'Artagnon's love interest Constance Bonacieux gets killed  though frankly she had rather outlived her plot usefulness by that point and served the text only by adding a slight note of tension and pathos through her demise.

Companionship among men, however, only goes for men of approximately the same social standing who can get their swords out in public and compare them, sympathy for men of lower standing is occasionally possible, while above them all is the king, Louis XIII. He comes over simply as a windsock, puffed up and going in the direction that that the last person to speak to him pointed him in. This is rather similar to how Charles IX was portrayed in La Reine Margot. Possibly is is a highly realistic way to think of Kings and political leaders.

Perhaps the theme of the story is the making of modern France, here is a world in which young men can come together in Paris from different regions, it doesn't matter anymore if they are Catholic or Protestant  though if anybody asks you are Catholic of course, they can all wine and dine together,and have adventures without consequences. The book is about the sunny uplands of  relatively privileged youth, the only dark clouds on the horizon are the future  because you you might become a priest, or get married, and women.

It is fun, the action is pushed along through McGuffins, each of which dominates a more or less freestanding lump of text. Ideas are picked up and dropped, like D'Artagnon's yellow horse, or his broken sword which helpful repairs itself in the silent space between chapters, which again suggests to me that this book had multiple authors, I would imagine that it was written episodically because in the earlier chapters there is a definite effort to pad out the length - for example people are described as being between the ages of twenty-three and twenty-five - or some other three year period which is a bit worrying in how vaguely precise it is.

I read this through in French, there was a hundred page stretch round about two-thirds of the way through which seemed particularly difficult - but that might just be a sign that I was particularly distracted at the time. As still is the case for me when reading in French, it's all somewhat more understandable when I read it twice, but when a book is about six hundred pages long one feels a little disincentivised to start reading chunks of of it repeatedly and in places the story does gallop along and I wanted to keep going to reach the next sword fight, unjust imprisonment, surprise interview with the all knowing Cardinal Richelieu, or bottle of wine.




note
Relationship between the musketeers and their servants: e.g. " le reve du pauvre Basin avait toujours ete de servir in homme d'Eglise" ( page 292) are the masters the embodiment of their servants' desires?

I'm really at a loss as to how I should review this book. I'm burdened with mixed feelings, both positive and negative. They are equally strong that I'm not sure how I exactly feel about the book. I'll not venture to state the story or any part of it, for there cannot be many who have not read it, or if not, have watched a movie adaptation. I will only express what I felt for the story, the characters, and the writing.

First I'll begin with the writing. This is Dumas's forte. The exhibition of wit and humour coupled with his ability to create an intriguing tale, keeping the reader in suspense as to what would unfold, is amazing. Over and over he has displayed his mastery in writing, making him one of the widely read and popular French Classicists. Here too was no exception. There was wit, humour, and intrigue which held the reader’s attention and interest.

The story is a mixture of fiction with an actual historical account of the events that unfolded in the court of Louise XIII of France, and in England, focusing on George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, at the time of siege la Rochelle. The roles played by France and England in this siege, and the power struggle between these two great enemies (at the time) divided by religion are well portrayed. This allowed the reader to gain a good insight as to the history while enjoying the fictitious story. All these inclusions made the book an interesting read and a quick page-turner.

Now to the characters, and this is where I fell out with the book. However, to do justice to Dumas, I will admit that though some characters had been presented with favour, others have been presented neutrally, letting the readers be their judges. The favoured characters, as anybody would guess, are the three musketeers - Athos, Pothos, Aramis, and the young Gascon hero, D'Artagnan. While I accepted D'Artagnan in the favourable light in which he was portrayed, for the most part, I couldn't do the same for the three musketeers. If Cardinal Richelieu, Comte de Rochefort, and cardinal's guards were bad, the actions of the defending King's musketeers were equally bad. Though the author tried his best to justify them, he utterly failed before my tribunal. The only favoured character that Dumas and I could fully agree on was Madame Bonacieux, the truly loyal servant of the persecuted Anne of Austria, the Queen of France. Surprisingly, however, my interest was piqued and held by those characters Dumas has portrayed neutrally. Cardinal Richelieu is one. Though I wouldn't for the life of me sanction his actions and his persecution towards the Queen, he was not despicable as I expected him to be. My Lady De Winter is another story. She is a novelty to me in the history of classics. A heartless, vengeful woman with an evil disposition, she was the only character I found who roused my emotions. If I may say so, I despised her with passion and didn't feel any remorse at her tragic death.

Overall, however, keeping my perceptions of the characters at bay, I was able to enjoy it. The big question now is whether I would read the sequels? For the time being, the answer is "no". I'm not enamoured much with the musketeers to indulge myself immediately with the sequels. I have read the synopsis of the two and feel I might be able to enjoy them. But when may I lay my hands on them is a question for the future.

I'm surprised that d'Artagnan and his three friends in so many people eyes are heroes and "good" guys. Because they are not. Author has made cruelty, crime and sinful deeds OK if its done by "inseparable" friends and cloaked it in heroism and gallantry.

I had a lot what-the-heck moments. Almost every chapter.

The book is full of "Duma's occasional lapses of memory"
However the story is interesting and the book is a true page turner.

Nobody told me this book would be funny! Well, in case you didn’t know it, this book is funny! I did know it would be ridiculously long, but I did the audiobook, and Bill Homewood was a very fun narrator, and it didn’t feel as long as it could have.

For some reason, I’ve always thought this book would be boring, but it’s a swashbuckling adventure Romance, so in hindsight that was a weird opinion to have. Maybe because the cover looks boring, or I’m used to many classics being boring, but I’ve read The Count of Monte Cristo, so I should have known better. Also, and I know that many of you might not agree with me here, but I genuinely love the Leo DiCaprio Man in the Iron Mask movie.

It’s also kind of miraculous that this book still reads so well, because it’s historical fiction that was written 200 years ago about a period in time 400 years ago, and the way Dumas uses his fictional history comments on things in his contemporary France that no longer mean much of anything to us. You can tell me all day long about how there was a schism between the crown and the church and the Cardinal Richelieu vs. the Queen elements in the book are meant to evoke that, but it doesn’t mean anything emotionally to me. It’s basically just set dressing, So your characters have to be good enough to overcome that, and to provide meaningful emotional stakes, and they are! Their rather amoral nature and dedication to some ideals over others was a bit puzzling at times to my current day sensibilities, but it was always entertaining.

For instance, the response to even the most mild insult was a duel, and like, who cares if that guy dies? He said he didn’t like your nose. But then, you get scenes like Porthos telling someone he will make them full of holes, so it all evens out.

Read Harder Challenge 2022: Read a classic written by a POC.

Chiudo l'anno col botto, come è giusto che sia. Un tourbillon di emozioni e avventure, uno dei più perfetti di tutti i tempi, leggero nel senso più positivo del termine, fresco perché lo leggi nel 2021 e non è invecchiato di due minuti rispetto il giorno della sua pubblicazione.
Rilettura a distanza di quindici (e più) anni dalla mia prima lettura: da un lato è stato come leggerlo per la prima volta, c'erano tanti dettagli che non rammentavo; dall'altro lato è stato un ripasso che ha avuto come diretta conseguenza di reimmergermi nella storia e farmi rivalutare (e di molto) Vent'anni dopo.

È perfetto pur essendo imperfetto (un po' come lo strabismo di Venere...?): a seconda dei gusti e delle sensibilità di ognuno, ogni singolo lettore troverà un passaggio in cui il ritmo sembra rallentare o in cui i dialoghi iniziano a sembrare un po' stiracchiati, eppure tutto l'insieme ha indiscutibilmente la sua perfezione, del resto la popolarità dell'opera e la immensa quantità di trasposizioni cinematografiche sono lì a testimoniare, e insomma non necessita certo della mia approvazione né di una mia arringa per vedere riconosciuto il suo valore.

Oltre all'aspetto avventuroso, oltre al carattere inconfondibilmente cappa&spada, ci sono svariati siparietti comici a dir poco irresistibili dei quali si parla poco; e poi c'è un altro aspetto del romanzo di cui si parla poco ma che tuttavia salta all'occhio con prepotenza, un certo carattere Sturm und Drang: c'è una Parigi alquanto bucolica (qua ci si nasconde dietro un filare di noccioli, là ci si incontra presso un recinto dove il pastore pascola le sue capre) e poi appena si esce dalla città ecco venirci incontro mari burrascosi, cieli cupi e tempestosi, un antico maniero arroccato in cima alla scogliera, villaggi spettrali come nel più perfetto dei film horror, e un'infinità di dettagli dark gothic che sanno sempre ringalluzzire il lettore pur senza mai scadere nello splatter (per nostra fortuna, ai tempi di Dumas lo slpatter manco si sapeva cosa fosse...), e dunque concludo rinnovando il mio entusiasmo: più nuovo del nuovo, più fresco del fresco. Ora spero che questa rilettura/ripasso mi sarà di giovamento anche alla scoperta del Visconte di Bragelonne.

The book did not disappoint.
All for one and one for all! Yes Two is better than one. Yet three is much better than two. There is something happening every chapter.Fast paced and adventurous it is. It's also a little amusing how extremely formal the book is, even the insults are too formal.
Overall, The Three Musketeers is a book that one must read even once in his life for it is certainly worth the read.

I found myself back in Paris this winter because my 10 year old son, the indomitable Miloš, took on The Three Musketeers for his essay, and I read it in support. It is my sixth or seventh reading, but I haven't read it in a while so I honestly can't remember which reading it is, not that it matters. I had quite the experience this time through.

In the past I have been obsessed with the treatment of Milady de Winter -- both Dumas' treatment of her and the Musketeers' treatment of her -- but this time I was much more focused on the Musketeers themselves. Most if not all of that can be chalked up to Miloš' essay topic. About half way through he was zeroing in on the fact that the Musketeers, particularly Athos and D'Artagnan (who begins the tale unattached then turns Guard then turns Musketeer) are vastly less than heroic. So my reading went down the same path, and damn are they an ugly bunch.

I've spoken and written of their iniquities in the past, so I'll leave the listing of their bad behaviours aside, but I will say that I was struck most profoundly -- once again -- by the way pop culture has twisted the Inseparables.

I am sure that Dumas' didn't conceive of them as humorous, sexy, devil-may-care, lily white, honourable or even upstanding heroes. He conceived of them as flawed men living in a flawed society, busy taking advantage of whatever they could to get ahead, get in a bed, get rich or richer or forget their pasts. Sure they are fun to read when they have a rare sword or musket fight (and there are precious few when you consider the page count of this book), but so much of who they are is so unsavoury that, as Miloš said to me, "they can't be heroes." No. They really can't.

I wonder if we started a petition of literary fans if we could get HBO to produce a version of the Musketeers that makes them appear as they truly are, though I doubt it. BBC has succeeded in making their time dirtier and grungier, and even made Cardinal Richelieu vastly more nasty than Dumas intended, but their Musketeers are as charming as ever Hollywood made them. I, for one, would rather see the nasty Musketeers. I want to see them as they were conceived by Dumas. That would be something.

Certainly a swash-buckling, adventurous novel that totally entertains and makes you chuckle throughout. This is not one to take seriously at all – the story nor its characters and that’s why it works – it’s just absurd! It is melodrama, duels, swords, horses, duping and out-duping, betrayals, falling in "love", duty, friendship, camaraderie, a femme fatale, and a villainous Cardinal. I’m certain you’ll find something to make you smile or laugh or both if you decide to pick this up and read it. Now to find an excellent adaptation to watch!

Meraviglioso!