“La vita è un rosario di piccole miserie che il filosofo sgrana ridendo. Siate filosofi come me, signori; mettetevi a tavola e beviamo; nulla aiuta a vedere la vita in rosa quanto guardarla attraverso un buon bicchiere di chambertin…”

1625- Si comincia dal borgo di Meung, nella Loira.
Il giovanissimo D’Artagnan è sulla strada verso Parigi quando fermatosi in una locanda litiga con un misterioso uomo che poi sparisce assieme ad una lettera paterna che lo raccomandava al signor di Tréville, capitano dei moschettieri. Perde così il suo biglietto da visita ma prosegue.
Comincia così un romanzo in continuo movimento.
D’Artagnan si legherà ai tre moschettieri e al grido famigerato «uno per tutti, tutti per uno» l’unione sarà saldata.
Quattro uomini con caratteristiche ben diverse tra loro: D’Artagnan con una speciale abilità nel duello e un particolare sprezzo del pericolo; Athos discreto di poche e misurate parole che sa quando è il momento di usare; Porthos possente e impulsivo; Aramis poeta e dotto:

” E infatti, quattro uomini come loro, quattro uomini devoti l'un all'altro dalla borsa alla vita, quattro uomini decisi a sostenersi scambievolmente, a non arretrare mai, a compiere isolatamente o insieme ciò che avevano risoluto in comune; quattro braccia minaccianti i quattro punti cardinali o, riunite, un sol punto, dovevano inevitabilmente, sotterraneamente o in piena luce, servendosi di mine o di trincee, dell'astuzia o della forza, aprirsi una strada verso la mèta che volevano raggiungere, per quanto lontana e difesa fosse”

Non sorprende che I tre moschettieri sia una delle storie più saccheggiate dagli sceneggiatori: il Male e il Bene che duellano districandosi da una matassa d’intrighi femminili.
Le donne, buone o cattive che siano, hanno in ogni caso la capacità di congiurare e spesso gli uomini abbindolati cadono come vittime innocenti (!).
Non ci sono colpi di scena come ne Il Conte…
Non certo una penna precisa e meticolosa come, ad esempio, quella di Hugo ma coinvolgente e divertente al punto giusto e meritevole della sua fama.

First of all I have to say, that the book is interesting and I really like the period (17th century) in which it's told. Nevertheless, it wasn't what I expected. It's already about the musketeers, but not in general, it's only about one -who becomes a musketeer and that disappointed me a little bit.

This is a kick-ass novel, and I am indeed kicking my own ass for not having read it earlier. I'm ashamed to say that I thought it was a children's book. My wife indignantly refuses any responsibility for my mistake... as she points out, it's entirely my fault if I drew the wrong inferences from the fact that her mother read it aloud to her as an eight year old. It turns out, on closer examination of the facts, that Elisabeth's mom must have skipped about a quarter of the text - but I digress. No, far from being a children's book, this is a noirish thriller, stuffed to the gills with violence, sex, nudity, dangerous blondes, corrupt politicians and random acts of mayhem and destruction. I should have known that. Anyway, better late than never.

Quite apart from being a terrific read - I just couldn't put it down - Les Trois Mousquetaires is a remarkably interesting book for anyone who's fond of French literature. The merest glance at my French shelf will show you that I like both so-called serious novels and trash - as everyone knows, the French write the best trashy novels in the world. But what do these two literary traditions have to do with each other? I feel like a paleontologist who's discovered one of those missing links in the fossil record. A kind of literary coelocanth, it's exactly halfway between the two genres. Too well-written to be dismissed as trash, it still has so many of the defining characteristics of the modern French trash novel that it can't possibly be anything but a direct ancestor.

I'd hate to give away any of the plot - there's a twist every other chapter - but let me explain in terms of generalities. Dumas is firmly in the great French tradition of Tragic Love. People in his world are divided into two classes: those who are motivated by Love and Honour, and those who want Money and Power. To be a superior person means belonging to the first group. Unfortunately, living only for Love and Honour isn't very practical, so these superior people generally have rather tragic lives; a theme you see over and over again in mainstream French literature. A particularly clear 20th century example is Belle du Seigneur.



Ariane's husband is only interested in Money and Power, and his dreary monologues about his prospects of being promoted bore her to tears. Naturally, she's drawn to the dashing Solal, who never misses a chance to show how much he despises money (it helps that he's very rich). Equally naturally, it all ends up very tragically indeed.

But let's get back to Les Trois Mousquetaires. Dumas takes real historical events, and reinterprets them through the prism of his ultra-romantic world-view. On his account, the political events of 1625-27 were all about a complicated tangle of love affairs. The beautiful Anne of Austria is Queen of France, but she has at best lukewarm feelings for her husband, the pathetic Louis XIII. Cardinal Richelieu, the true ruler of the country, has made advances towards her, but been rebuffed; he's eaten up by jealousy and spite, especially since he knows through his network of informers that Anne's heart in fact belongs to the handsome Lord Buckingham. To keep the story bubbling, Dumas invents some more people, who play key roles in this complicated game. One of Richelieu's main agents is the psychotic blonde temptress, Milady; her opposite number in the Queen's camp is the ambitious young swordsman, D'Artagnan. Needless to say, both of them are involved in their own intersecting webs of romantic intrigue.

The startling thing to me is that the Dumas formula is still going strong, nearly 200 years later. The immeasurably popular SAS series, which you can buy at any French airport bookstall, is written to almost exactly the same specification. The central figure, Malko, is a modern D'Artagnan: vaguely on the side of the Good Guys, each episode sees him dispatched to a currently topical destination, where he's charged with some weighty task. For example, in Bagdad-Express



Malko's assignment is to prevent the Iraq war by kidnapping Saddam Hussein. He and one of Saddam's sons (I think Qusay) get involved with the same woman, there's a lot of random sex and violence, and, of course, the deal falls through. A still clearer example is Djihad



A Chechen rebel group gets hold of a Russian nuclear warhead, and they pass it on to an Islamicist faction led by a sexy blonde woman. (I know what you're going to say. In the SAS world, Islamicist factions can be led by sexy blondes). This time, after the usual toing and froing, Malko shoots down the blonde when she's just a few seconds away from detonating the bomb in New York. It's all remarkably similar to D'Artagnan's battle against the nefarious Milady.

So what is it that makes this formula so incredibly effective? It's fun to see history rewritten so that politics and economics are less important than who's sleeping with whom. The camaraderie displayed by the Musketeers has become proverbial, and that's also inspiring. But, really, it's Milady who makes the book, and she's the character who's been copied most often in modern trash fiction. (Look at those girls on the covers of the SAS novels. Miladies, every one of them). Although D'Artagnan is a sympathetic hero, she effortlessly steals the show every time she appears, just as easily as Sharon Stone upstages Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct.



What a shame Stone never got to play Milady in a serious adaptation of Les Trois Mousquetaires! Now that would have been worth watching.

I'm not going to waste more time than necessary for this classic. The problem seems to come from me, since I couldn't follow a lot of the dialog. I couldn't make any sense of what transpired here, especially in the last third of the book.

I liked the intrigue with the royal couple of LouisXIII and Anne d'Autruche. And as soon as these historical characters disappeared from the book did my enjoyment evaporate as well. Like I said, I don't want to dwell on this one starred book too much(one for all, and all for one).

Having said that, I read the book in French and I think if I hadn't, if I'd read it in English I wouldn't have been able to finish the book. The French language was a novelty which kept me going. I simply cannot enjoy most classics. Now, to move onwards as soon as I'm able to.

n  All for one and one for all.n

Probably THE most well-known quote from any book in history. This is the tale of D’Artagnon, a young Gascon traveling to Paris to seek his fortune and finding the three Musketeers Athos, Porthos and Aramis upon his arrival.
From then on, it is a swashbuckling adventure full of intrigues, sword fights, heartbreak and much more.

The story has been adapted too many times to count them all, making the names of the Musketeers as immortal as those of their adversaries: cardinal Richelieu, count de Rochefort, Milady de Winter.

Alexandre Dumas has written what I call a true classic. It is a pure satire about all layers of society from the ruling nobility and the Church to the poorest farmer.
The author makes equal fun of what was supposedly honorable, how easily love was declared, how people were constantly in debt (the rich as much as the poor), about what useless and ridiculous topics clerics argued and philosophized, reasons for loyalty and so much more. There isn’t a single topic Alexandre Dumas did not address. Therefore, you have to read this adventure story with more than just one grain of salt.

However, considering the age of the tale, it is all the more remarkable how modern it is written. One very prominent example is the „weak womenfolk“, who nevertheless hold their own against the liars and cheaters that call themselves their lovers, husbands and sovereigns. The queen against the cardinal and king, Constance against her idiot of a husband and even D’Artagnan to a certain degree, Milady against all of them.
They all have suffered from great injustice and make their own fates.
The queen, who is supposed to have such a blessed life but not only sits in a golden cage but is also beaten with a golden whip; Constance, who has the honor of serving the queen but is never taken seriously, only ever looked at as a plaything; Milady, who might not be a „nice“ person, but who spits social convention in the face anyway and does what she has to in order to survive and live well (OK, she really is the bad guy but a man doing the same would certainly not have been met with the same judgement).
They stand opposite men like Athos, who hung his wife simply for a brand, not even listening to the story of how it was given (it was given justly, for sure, but at the time he didn't know that!) and who doesn’t give the least bit of importance to an animal’s life and likes to gamble things away that aren’t even his; or D’Artagnan, who likes to beat his valet and lackay and just wants to have fun and damn who gets hurt; or Porthos, who hops from bed to bed so long as his mistress pays his way; or Aramis, who pretends to be oh so devout, but sees in women nothing but a mirror with which to admire himself; or the king, who might not be the fool he often is portrayed as in the movies, but who is simply not very interested in matters of state (which is probably even worse); or the cardinal, who is actually not a bad statesman per se, but simply a typical Catholic (though just).

We have the politics of the day nicely interwoven in this social critique. The Battle of La Rochelle, the ever changing loyalties of certain provinces and cities. These are but a few examples as there are many more people and aspects here. The people breathe life into an action-packed story of politics, religion, treachery, love, and friendship before a most intricately drawn background.

Dumas has an impeccable writing style as well. I have to point out how ageless the story is, but the engaging, colorful writing style that so perfectly conveys the scorn and mockery of the ways of life portrayed here makes it a delight to read and doesn't give away the book's age at all.

This was not the first time I’ve read this book and I’ve seen many adaptations, but it was the first time I listened to an audiobook version and the narrator did a great job linguistically (pronouncing the French terms correctly) as well as in conveying the sarcasm and ridicule.

I’m on BookTube now! =)

”All for one, one for all.”

I honestly don’t even know where to start with my review of “The Three Musketeers” because the book was so very different to what I expected it to be. When we watch the movies, the three musketeers and d’Artagnan are always made out to be those honourable and noble heroes that save the day and serve their country and whilst the latter description is true, I can’t really say that the former one is as well. Or more directly, there is barely anything noble or honourable about them aside of the fact that they always feel offended in their honour and therefore get into plenty of trouble and fights. There I said it. Am I already drawing a pack with pitchforks? Well, I’m sorry, but it won’t get any better. XD

”Never fear quarrels, but seek adventures. I have taught you how to handle a sword; you have thews of iron, a wrist of steel. Fight on all occasions. Fight the more for duels being forbidden, since consequently there is twice as much courage in fighting. I have nothing to give you, my son, but fifteen crowns, my horse, and the counsel you have just heard.”

Considering that’s the advice d’Artagnan’s father gave him before he went out to “seek adventures” I’m not surprised he spent about 75% of the book getting himself in life threatening situations and drew problems like a dungheap draws flies. Me being salty? Oh boy, I barely even started. You might continue to read my review or if you love this book with all your heart like about 76% of goodreads seems to do (I actually recalculated that, I’m nothing but thorough), just stop reading and abort this mission. Fair warning. I won’t blame you. ;-P

”People, in general,” he said, “only ask advice not to follow it; or if they do follow it, it is for the sake of having someone to blame for having given it.”

Athos was a clever one, you might head his advice or blame me for not taking my warning seriously. Whatever floats your boat. I’ll just continue saying my piece. I know this book is beloved by so many and I’d be lying if I’d say I didn’t enjoy some parts of it. I did. It wasn’t all bad, but it wasn’t all good either and I’m too much of a 21st century person to let some things slide. So this said let’s get down to business.

”What have I to fear,” replied d’Artagnan, “as long as I shall have the luck to enjoy the favour of their Majesties?”
“Everything, believe me. The cardinal is not the man to forget a mystification until he has settled account with the mystifier; and the mystifier appears to me to have the air of being a certain young Gascon of my acquaintance.”

I think by now everyone knows about the main plot of “The Three Musketeers”. A young Gascon named d’Artagnan arrives in Paris to become a Musketeer in the King’s service. But right after he arrives he already offends 3 musketeers and challenges all of them to a duel that is interrupted by the Cardinal’s men. The four men bond over their mutual adversaries and become friends that help the Queen regain her diamond ear studs she gave to her English lover Buckingham before she has to wear them on a ball. Another one of the Cardinals malicious schemes against the queen is thwarted and the three musketeers saved the day. So far so good. What’s interesting is that this only makes about 200 pages of this 560+ pages book. Where all the movies usually end the actual book continues for 350 more pages. So what happens in those pages?!

”Capital! Adieu, Chevalier.”
“Adieu, Countess.”
“Commend me to the cardinal.”
“Commend me to Satan.”
Milady and Rochefort exchanged a smile and separated.

Enter Milady one of the Cardinal’s most trusted and valuable assets. Truth be told, for me Milady was probably the most interesting character in the entire book because she was multi-layered, cunning, as beautiful as resourceful and had absolutely no scruples to do what she had to do in order to get what she wanted. We love a woman that is manipulative af. *lol* Honestly, the way she cheated her way through this book was really admirable and I had to grin when she spent about 6 chapters seducing a man by claiming she was a Protestant only to “convert” to being a Catholic as soon as it served her purpose.

”Who - - I?” cried Milady; “I a Protestant? Oh, no! I call to witness the God who hears us, that on the contrary I am a fervent Catholic!”

Fervent Catholic? Yeah, bet Felton turned in his gave when he heard that coming from her lips. *shakes head* Yet despite being one of the most intelligent pieces on the board she still seemed to be very naïve when it came to certain things. I mean how did she even mistake d’Artagnan for her lover? (Not one of d’Artagnan’s best moments btw. He basically raped an unknowing and averse woman. If she’d known it was d’Artagnan she would have never even considered to sleep with him. But it was dark. Oh what a plot device. Seriously, Dumas, are you kidding me?!) Which brings me right to d’Artagnan and the three musketeers.

”D’Artagnan and Athos put themselves into saddle with their companions, and all four set forward; Athos upon a horse he owed to a woman, Aramis on a horse he owed to his mistress, Porthos on a horse he owed his procurator’s wife, and d’Artagnan on a horse he owed to his good fortune – the best mistress possible.”

I think that sentence and short description is the “four musketeers” in a nutshell and I can’t really say that I’m a huge fan of them. I used to love Aramis the most and I think of all of them he’s still my favourite because he might have the same flaws as the others but he is more or less tame in comparison to them. Yes, he has an affair with a woman even though he wants to become a priest but him yielding to this temptation only makes him more human. Plus he isn’t as hot-headed as the others. Still, when it comes down to it I can’t really be a fan of either of them because I just can’t condone their actions.

I mean they basically only drink, gamble and fight their way through the entire book. They have affairs with married women, can’t seem to be able to hold on to a single coin and treat their hosts as well as their servants poorly. I honestly don’t get why their servants stuck with them because they didn’t get paid for most of the book. Either the musketeers were too stupid to keep money and gave it away like it was nothing (and this even though they were always broke) or they gambled with the little they had and lost it again. Well, and if their servants demanded pay they just hit them and the thing was settled. Talk about real role-models right there. I stopped counting the moments I rolled my eyes or facepalmed myself. Also d’Artagnan literally falls in love with every woman that’s pretty and talks to him and they all suffer because of it. One way or another giving d’Artagnan their affection never ends well. XD If you’re a woman you better stay away from that young Gascon, he’s trouble. ;-)

”Take my wealth, my fortune, my glory, all the days I have to live, for such an instant, for a night like that. For that night, madame, that night you loved me, I will swear it.”

As for the other players in the game. I think there wasn’t enough of the cardinal and we barely found out anything about him. Lord de Winter was okay, I suppose? Buckingham was probably the only truly honourable man in the entire story which is almost comical because him being an English man automatically makes him the enemy of France and therefore of the musketeers. Yet his love and devotion to the Queen was unyielding and he didn’t even think of another woman like a certain someone *cough* d’Artagnan *cough* who changed them like his underwear. Yes, I just said that. You can quote me if you want to. I stand by it. *lol*

I personally think that Milady was the most intriguing character of the entire book, yet at the same time, she was limited by being a woman. No matter how cunning or cruel she was, she could only move in certain patterns and the fact she even got arrested speaks volumes about how women were treated back then. This is a theme that’s running like a thread through the entire book, while the men have all the opportunity in the world and never have to fear any consequences, the same can’t be said for the women in the story. Well, and the way it all ends? Let’s just say the only woman that comes out of it in a good way is actually the Queen and she’s the Queen so I think that says A LOT.

All told, I came out of “The Three Musketeers” feeling quite disenchanted. The heroes I loved as a kid aren’t the heroes I read about. In the movies they were honourable and courageous, fighting against everything that was thrown their way and charmed their way into the beds of their love interests. In the book we get to see an entirely different side of them and I guess that only proves that Hollywood knew what it was doing when it adapted the book into a movie. XD I never thought I’d say this but I think I’ll stick with the movies this time around. I know “The Three Musketeers” is a classic and beloved by many. It has its merits and interesting, whimsical and funny parts, I’ll give you that, but it ultimately wasn’t for me.
____________________________


Ha! I said I’d finish this book until the end of March and I did it!
I mean, okay it’s the 31.st of March but it’s still March! ;-P
I can’t believe I finally made it through “The Three Musketeers”! I’ve been reading this book since the beginning of February and it was HUGE. *lol*
As for my opinion? Well, I’ll have to think about it.

Full RTC soon! ;-)
_____________________________

I dunno about you but I’ve never read “The Three Musketeers” as a book. I watched countless movie adaptations but the book, nope. Never read it.
So when Beki @ Teacup the Storyteller decided to go for a readalong on her BookTube channel in February 2023 my immediate answer was: “Yes, I’m down for it!”
It’s been a while I last read a classic so this is going to be fun! *lol*

Have you read “The Three Musketeers” as a book or did you only watch the movies too? =)

P.S: I bought this version for my kindle and it only cost EUR 0,49. So that’s a very good deal right there. Just in case you’re interested to read it too. Even to borrow it from my library would have been more expensive because I’d have had to preorder it and that always comes with a fee. XD

Find me on:
My Blog
Instagram

If I was a Physicist, I would explain it like this: Athos, Porthos and Aramis are like the protons in an atom. D'Artagnan the neutrons that stabilize it. Actually, this would mean they are Lithium. So, keep them away from water. Or else...unfortunately the King sends them on an expedition to the isles. Now, they would have to cross the channel to get there, would they not?
On their way, however, it shows that rivers and winecellars are no good either.
action - reaction. Everybody under their desks!

If I was a Musician, I would explain it like this: Athos, Porthos and Aramis are like the voices in a fugue. D'Artagnan is the rule that binds them. Actually, in their luckier Moments they are the Fugue No. 19, A major from the first book of das Wohltemperierte Klavier (the first note to be played fortissimo, their Subjects are condensed into that first note and unfurl accordingly in the course of the book). In the more tragic moments, however, they are the Fugue No. 18, G-Sharp minor. Watch out for the Tritone, Mylady strikes again!

If I was me, I would say, it is hard to describe how I love this. I have read it many times and I will re-read it forever probably. I will obsess about this one phrase about Myladys Lips forever probably. I will pity Fenton forever probably. I will pity Buckingham much less forever, probably. After all, he did not really retrieve the queen's honour, did he?

al cuore dumas, al cuore!
«dove troverete, ditemi, un amore simile al mio, un amore che né il tempo, né la lontananza, né la disperazione possono spegnere; un amore che si accontenta di un nastro smarrito, di uno sguardo perduto, di una parola sfuggita?».
se dumas lo fa dire da buckingham a quella sciacquetta di anna d'austria (resti tra noi: appena appena insidiata da quel figaccione del duca, nella realtà sua maestà strillò onde proteggere la propria reputazione) posso ben dirlo io a lui. dopo sei lustri di immutata passione. questo, caro il mio mulatto dall'esondante immaginazione, è vero amore.

I have read a couple of Dumas novels in my adult life, The Count of Monte Cristo and La reine Margot (both excellent), but the last time I read The Three Musketeers was during my wide-eyed, book-devouring adolescence, when I remember loving it. This time round, the experience was a little different (though I still enjoyed it on balance—how could you not?)

What I enjoyed most was the sheer outrageous swashbucklingness of our four dauntless heroes, and some, at least, of the humor of the novel. Dumas works with simple, clear-cut materials in crafting his musketeers, almost verging on caricature. Bluff, vain, physically monumental Porthos; melancholy, dignified, high-functioning alcoholic Athos; dainty, devout Aramis with his mysterious love-life and his sporadic religious vocation—the three are splendidly distinct characters, not exceptional in isolation, but working wonderfully well as an interlocking contrastive triad. Some of Dumas’s most effective moments have D’Artagnan encounter the three of them in succession, each caught in a characteristic stance—as when he goes back to find them after an eventful journey in which he had to leave all three by the wayside in perilous straits. He finds Porthos in bed wounded but too vain to admit it, Athos blockaded in a cellar drinking his way through a desperate innkeeper’s best vintages, and Aramis discussing his imminent ordination with a Jesuit and a curate. Huzzah!

What I wasn’t quite so keen on, this time round, was Dumas’s rather casual treatment of history. He chooses a promising moment: the 1620s, with Richelieu and Louis XIII duking it out as effective co-rulers of France, and the flamboyant Duke of Buckingham, George Villiers, nearing the end of his mesmeric car crash of a political career in England. Religious tensions are also high. The dreadful siege of La Rochelle, where France’s main remaining Protestant stronghold was pitilessly starved out, is the backdrop to a long portion of the novel.

I didn’t feel Dumas fully exploited the interest of this background. The king doesn’t come to life at all; Richelieu does, but we see far too little of him; the siege of La Rochelle is exploited as a setting mainly for a single scene (admittedly a standout) in which the musketeers and D’Artagnon picnic on a captured fort on the battle lines, so as to plot away to their hearts’ content without danger of being overheard. Dumas seems less interested in politics than in gallantry, so we have a whole extended plot line (the affair of the diamond whatevers) rotate around Buckingham’s mad, chastely reciprocated passion for the queen—not the most interesting motivator I could imagine.

I also had problems with the portrayal of women in the novel. D’Artagnon’s love interest, Constance Bonacieux, started in a promising way, as a kind of spy or agent for the queen, responding in a poised, semi-amused way to D’Artagnon’s puppyish devotion. She quickly diminishes into a kind of simpering damsel in distress, falling far too easily into the trap of the villainess Milady de Winter. As for Milady, she has all the makings of a great femme fatale, but I felt Dumas just overlarded her character. The number of times she was compared to a tigress or a serpent or a demon—we get it! we get it! I found myself getting almost bored during the episode in which she figures most extensively, that where she is in her brother-in-law’s custody in England. Reading up on the web after finishing the novel, I found a couple of interesting feminist blog posts pointing out that Milady’s story could have been told very differently, and noting how the narrator's editorializing consistently demonizes her every action, while airbrushing equally dubious behavior on the part of our heroes, notably Athos and D’Artagnon.

It was interesting to read this novel not too long after reading a far lesser-known nineteenth-century historical novel set in a historical period relatively close to this: Walter Scott’s The Monastery. Scott is superior to Dumas in all kinds of ways. He is certainly more interested in history, and he makes better use of it. On the other hand … Dumas! You have to hand it to him, whatever “it” is in this instance. There are reasons why this novel has enjoyed such an afterlife, and why the musketeers archetypes live on.

Bello, anche se non travolgente come IlConte di Montecristo di cui potrebbe esserne quasi un capitolo, il ritmo degli eventi meno incalzante, ma Dumas ci sorprende sempre comunque con la sua capacità di inanellare situazioni e intrighi che si incastrano in maniera perfetta come tessere di un mosaico.
Bellissima la parte finale sulla prigionia di Milady, proprio quando i suoi personaggi subiscono una limitazione della loro libertà Dumas riesce a spezzare le inferriate delle carceri, a demolire i muri delle celle creando i suoi momenti narrativi migliori.
E' centrale il tema dell'amicizia dei tre moschettieri le cui differenti personalità si completano formando quasi il paradigma del Moschiettiere ideale. I tre trovano il loro migliore interlocutore in d'Artagnan che con la sua giovane età offre nuovi stimoli e freschezza; la figura guida del gruppo, il moschettiere che però più ho amato per me rimane il saggio Athos.

n  —Y ahora, señores —dijo D’Artagnan sin tomarse el trabajo de explicar su conducta a Porthos—, todos para uno y uno para todos, esa es nuestra divisa, ¿no es así?
—Pero… —dijo Porthos.
—¡Extiende la mano y jura! —gritaron a la vez Athos y Aramis.
Vencido por el ejemplo, rezongando por lo bajo, Porthos extendió la mano y los cuatro amigos repitieron a un solo grito la fórmula dictada por D’Artagnan:
«Todos para uno, uno para todos».n

No hay película, serie o filme que le haga honor, o que se le parezca, mantenga a las imitaciones alejadas porque solo hay un original.

Los tres mosqueteros es un clásico que mezcla romance, duelos, intrigas, conspiraciones, guerras, amoríos, comedia, y amistad, hay tanta camaradería que como lector con cierta experiencia, me sorprendió que hasta ahora no había leído algo que semejara tanto la amistad entre varones, ese juego que es difícil poner en palabras, que por un lado haces burlas, por otro elogios, hay admiración, hablas de política, de religión, de la bebida, de lo que se “supone” debes o no debes hacer, del dinero, del amor, y lo más importante, sabes que puedes contar con tus amigos y tus amigos pueden contar contigo porque los une algo especial.

n  Athos, Porthos y Aramisn, y no olvidemos a n  D’Artagnann son esa tanda de locos, que cuando están juntos de seguro hay aventura y no te la querrás perder.

Debo hacer una mención especial también a Milady. ¡Qué mujer! Ella es la Pandora de la historia, si aparece en escena cosas terribles se avecinan, la que impuso el término “Femme Fatale”, irresistible ante hombres y mujeres, hacía tiempo que no odiaba tanto a un personaje, pero sus artimañas son tan poderosas que incluso, a pesar de todo, sentí compasión por ella.

Ame este libro, y creo que si alguna vez viste alguna de las versiones hollywoodenses y te gusto, debes leer el libro, porque como todo lector sabe, el libro es mejor, y en este caso es mucho, mucho mejor.

Well, it was no Count of Monte Cristo, but it was still exciting and dramatic. I was much more into the second half, when it starts focusing on the diabolical Lady de Winter. One disappointment was that I had always envisioned the Three Musketeers to be noble, just, Robin Hood-type characters. It turns out that, though brave, they are quite selfish and immoral, and tend to murder people with little provocation. None of the musketeers was very likable to me. Women also don't fare very well here and are talked about in quite unsettling terms. Dumas definitely has a gift for dialogue, though, and it's hard not to be sucked into his world of intrigue and passion.