Justice for Athos

[Margot]

Are you into Zen Budhism? You're talking about everyone being at peace with themselves, except of course, Milady, and I was just wondering. I can just see our musketeers meditating and chanting their famous mantra, all for one, one for all. Of course, if our musketeers were into Zen instead of Catholicism, they wouldn't get so hung up on their emotions and mysogynistic ravings and delusions of superiority. But you're right about the whole honor thing, even if they were Budhist, because you know, samurais are into it, too!<br>The bit about Alphas and Deltas is very interesting and I think it holds some truth for some people, but you can't really know what the lower orders were thinking because this book was written from the point of view and for the upper classes. But even a driven or incredibly talented peasant would not be able to move up in the world, so to speak, because of the restrictions of social class. True, it's not really important how the lackeys think or feel, that Grimaud "fears his master like fire" or Planchet thinks D'Artagnan is the greatest thing since sliced bread. In fact, it's amazing that Dumas would even give the lackeys much of a personality or dialogue. What results are these lackeys with one-dimensional characters whose personalities are just really an extension of their masters. These aren't real people. Even lower class people have their own identities or personalities. Whereas your musketeers are given in-depth studies throughout the book and their personalities are revealed on many levels. As to Athos, he is very phlegmatic and dignified, no denying that, but I still think his treatment of Grimaud is a little unreasonable. It's not like Grimaud can just throw up his arms and quit. He doesn't really have a choice. It's either keep the crappy job or starve. He can't get a higher paying job like a doctor or lawyer because he was never allowed the education. He can't suddenly learn fencing and join the musketeers himself because he's not a noble. These people didn't have a lot of avenues and they took what they got because they had to. What they thought about it no one really knows because maybe they didn't pause often to think about their lot when they were merely trying to survive. It's ironic how it was proper and expected for nobles to have a child-like lack of emotional control and for their servants to endure all with an enormously god-like amount of patience. And yet, who were the masters? Who suppposedly ruled in this society? Comparing the two, who really was the stronger? Who truly was dependent on who? It's all relative. But then, history does not lie.

[margot]

Oh, and I loved your title, John, but I think Athos is perfectly capable of seeking justice for himself.

[anomious]

can you tell me your opinion on Aramis and his characteristics, because i'm doing an essay project on these books and i'm comparing how some readers felt about each character. I read your comments and enjoyed reading them, however, you did not talk about Aramis. You depicted the other two except for aramis. <br>i would appreciate it if i could use your name and your comment on aramis for my essay project.<br><br><br> Thank you

[Margot]

No one doubts that Athos was an elegant, well-mannered gentleman but I think what some people do not like about him is that he is quick to judge and slow to forgive, even himself. Hence, the drinking problem. As to honor, I don't think it's as obsolete today as you think. It's just known by different names like honesty and integrity. And I think it was just as neglected and abused in the seventeenth century as it is today. The reason why so many people admire the musketeers and enjoy the book is because the musketeers cared about honor and lived by it unlike other characters in the book like Milady or Rochefort. There are some archaic forms of honor that border on the ridiculous that really, in myopinion, have nothing to do with honor in its true form. In the name of honor, musketeers would maim and kill over a game of cards or a shallow but cutting remark. I think that's juvenile and shows the remarkably low value of life in the seventeenth century. That sort of honor is almost extinct but the honor, or the idea that survives is a deeper form that the musketeers also cared about, like doing what is right, not just taking the path of least resistance, that sort of thing. Like when Athos approached Milady and demanded her little slip of paper that condemned D'Artagnan. He probably didn't want to see her again but he risked that to save his friend, which did not benefit him in any way. I think that's admirable and I think those ideas are still valued today, but are rare, as they have always been. But... let's not belittle the lackeys, either. They deserve a lot more credit than people give. I don't think it's accurate to say they were happy in their place because there's no way of knowing. Dumas never really describes their opinions or their personal lives, because frankly, no one really cares. At least, the elitist nineteenth-century readers didn't care. I also think it was inaccurate to quote Huxley because the whole point of his book was to warn about what may happen to society. It was a form of satire like Jonathon Swift's A Modest Proposal, proposing one thing in order for people to see the reason in the opposite. What I mean is that Huxley wrote a "negative utopia", a frightening future world where people do not value lives and are practically brainwashed into being happy with their status. The whole point was that this was wrong and led to destruction. And my point is that the lackeys probably were not happy. Poor people aren't poor because they want to be. It's not true that in the seventeenth century, at least in France, that any man could learn to handle a sword and climb the social ladder to success. First of all, only noblemen were allowed to even carry a sword, much less learn how to use one. So even if you had some ambitious peasant who wanted to be a musketeer, he would just get laughed at and would probably end up going to city and working for one, or if he was really clever, impersonating a noble. But then he'd probably get caught and have to endure some horrific punishment like they had in pre-revolutionary France. So that's another thing, even if you have what it takes, so to speak, they had convention and punishment to deter them. A lackey wasn't someone who gave up easily, didn't care or was satisfied with being treated like dirt. I don't think they liked the way their masters treated them but what could they do? Gang up and start a revolution? Well, yes, but it would be a while yet. It was either work or starve. That's the problem with those kinds of societies, you could have a very clever, intelligent, talented person who is never realized because they have no opportunity to nurture that talent. They need to survive. You can't live off dreams, they tell you. Because of the fact that the only way servants really could gain honor was to be loyal and obedient, I think Mssrs. Planchet, Grimaud, Mousqueton and Bazin do a very good job of it, along with taking all the crap. I think you have to be pretty clever and resilient to please and remain in the service of as volatile musketeers as our four. The lackeys weren't inferior in intelligence or worth, though they were treated and thought of as such. They were just working class people trying to make a living, the true France, and the proof that honor is not an exclusively aristocratic trait.

[Unregistered]

I'd recommend a course in grammar and spelling before you make public your work. Try writing in MS Word and use their tools first, before transferring the result up on the web with copy and paste. No offence meant, but it detracts from the value of your work especially since the mistakes you make are easily corrected ... and you will be the better for it.

[John]

Being a fan of fiction since my very first novel (The hobbit), i always try and find out more about the epoch or things the fiction was based on.<br><br>I personally loved The Three Musketeers although i haven't had the pleasure of reading the other 2 books.<br><br>I am writing this after reading some of the comments on Athos's behavior. I will try at all times to justify Athos's actions and thoughts for he is my personal favorite.<br><br>First off, lets see the backround of the times. In the XVIIIth Century honor was everything. If someone called you a name and you ignored him as one of the previous replies kindly sugested, you would be considered a mockery, not even a man. Honor was more valuable than life or afterlife itself. Men in those times rathered to go to hell, a hell much more vivid, feared and real to them than it is to us nowaddays, than loose an ounce of honor. People today see honor as a lost cause, they don't care about it, they don't defend it and they dont respect it. But as i said, back then it was more valuable than life.<br><br>Another of the important aspects of this time is that people were divided in many many classess, not like our general High, Middle and low classess. The diversity of classess back then was huge, ranging from the richest, to the poorest. From the Rich Nobles to the Poor nobles, the Rich mediocres and poor mediocres. Servants were not considered less. they WERE less. Yes i know that sounds cruel, but after all, those were the times, and the lackeys accepted this and were at peace with it. Also remember, glory is only for those who fight for it. Any man could have learnt to handle a sword well and made a name for themselves, like D'Artagnan did. I believe that a person shapes his/her own desitiny through hard work and resolution.<br><br>Now, lets see, Athos, a Noble man, suddenly gone poor, nobleman none the less. As a young, rich man, he meets this beautiful young lady and marries her without knowing a man had already died for her vileness and seduction. For this she was marked with the Fleur de Lis, symbol of infamity. As honor being such an important thing, one marked this way is dehonored and a murderer. Athos could not believe he had married an infamous woman, back then this meant great repugnancy and was like marrying a nasty serial killer prostitute in our days. In those times la fleur de lis was like a warning. If whomever had it comitted another crime, they were to be judged more severly, most of the times even scaling to death sentence for crimes not deserving this. So Athos decided to hang her, not a wrong choice in my opinion, considering the kind of woman she was. The period of time after this to when Athos becomes a musketeer is hazy and never really revealed, but it can be gathered that Athos lost his fortune, and vowed never to fall in love again (now thats a wrong choice, not all flowers are thorny. ), but even if he later wanted to revoke this vow, he could not for he was a man of his word, like most men in that time.<br><br>His attitude and Manners.<br><br>Being a man of thought he was always deep in this excercise and contrary to Porthos, only gave concrete, direct, and short opinions when needed. He wasn't very talkative, and that was his style, and that was the style of many a noblemen. As for beating Grimaud, his lackey, at first for not understanding his signals, well, it was the usual at the times, and like i said before, the lower classes accepted being lower, and took this normally. Quoting A happy World by Aldous Huxley "The Deltas (lower class) are happy doing their jobs, they do not want to be alphas (high class), for they find them boring and too hard working, they were happy as they were. The alphas on the other hand would not want to be deltas as they find them boring and would not do the kind of work those did. To each his own." I believe happiness derives from what we are taught is good for us, or rather, conditioned us to believe as good. So, those who want to defend Grimaud, Mosqueton, Bazin and Planchet, thing again, for they didn't work hard enough to get higher, and they were happy in their level. Such were the times.<br><br>Athos was an elegant figure, he had presence, serenity, seriousness, among other characteristics. He was valiant and courageous. And to monsiur annonymous (the one who wrote a previous reply), a maniac? how can he be a maniac, he's the most serene of them all, except perhaps, and i emphazise that perhaps, Aramis. <br><br>Haing defended Athos's elegance, i shall retire to re-read this great epic, by my favourite fiction author. But first, remember, place yourself in the times before you judge.<br><br><br>If anyone wants to comment this review, send compliments ;), or just good old hate mail, click on my name at the top of this review ( [email protected] ).

[jcpalmer]

Thank you very much.

[fulyaoktem]

can you tell me your opinion on Aramis and his characteristics, because i'm doing an essay project on these books and i'm comparing how some readers felt about each character.


You're doing something that I always want to do: An essay project for Dumas's musketeers...

For the honor of Monsieur de Treville's Black Musketeers, how may I help you? ;)