I’ve loved the Musketeers ever since I first saw the 1973 movie but haven’t gotten around to reading the actual novel until now. I even managed to read The Man in the Iron Mask first, which should have tipped me off more about what to expect. But seeing how that book is described as a darker turn, I was still surprised about how the main characters act in the book.
Namely, they’re a bunch of douchebags.
They get into duels (which is illegal) and then have to fight the guards (who are trying to arrest them for doing something illegal) and maim and kill people without any sort of consequences. At one point Athos gets goaded into telling a dude his true name before a duel, only to tell him that now he has to die and go about killing him. Porthos is leeching off a married woman, Athos became a Musketeer after doing the French equivalent of an honor-killing and they all mistreat their servants. Athos beats his if he speaks to him and they all recommend that Dartagan does the same. They financially take advantage of anyone they can, cause havoc everywhere they go and kill a lot of people super casually.
That being said, I do love them for it.
My friend and I used to describe them in the movie as “Varsity Stars who can get away with everything” but I had chalked a lot of that up to being characters in a Richard Lester movie, not the original novel. It was fun to read about them holding wine cellars hostage, putting in no effort to avoid violence and not realizing that rent was something they had to pay until their landlord informed them. They’re not great people, but they’re great to read.
The Richard Lester movies are remarkably true to the book. I love them both.
Alexandre Dumas was well aware of his heroes’ flaws, just as Ian Fleming was well aware of James Bond’s flaws, or Sergio Leone was well aware of The Man with No Name’s flaws. The swashbuckling genre generated by The Three Musketeers was often far less cynical than the original. Lester restored the hilarious cynicism of the original book.
D’Artagnan has several love affairs and tricks Milady into sleeping with him while she thinks she’s sleeping with her lover – and despite the fact that Constance is supposed to be his girl. Richelieu is actually much smarter than the King and has France’s welfare in mind. Ultimately, D’Artagnan ends up working for Richelieu and becomes good friends with Rochefort, who appeared to be the big baddie at the beginning of the tale.
It’s all a big game, life is cheap, and what redeems our “heroes” is that they are brave, daring, clever, and just plain awesome and the people they kill are either non-entities or truly villainous – even more villainous than our heroes.
What are James Bond’s flaws?
He’s a rapist
The historical Richelieu was a Catholic cardinal who intervened in the Thirty Years war to extend it because the Catholic side was winning. He intentionally continued a civil war that “his side” was winning to bleed the Habsburgs more. The war only ended after his death. Clever? Yes. Focused on France’s welfare? Debatable, but OK. A nice person? Very much no. The 17th century is full of absolutely awful people in positions of power, but Richelieu may in fact be the worst.
Like all centuries before or after
Wasn’t Constance literally married woman in the books when she first met D’Artagnan?
Yes.
She is the young wife of his landlord.
Movies usually make her into the landlord’s daughter or niece.