|
|
#1 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34
|
Mordant
I finished Twenty Years After. I was curious about other people's reaction to Mordaunt. He did go to far with his desire for murder but, there were times I could feel sorry for the guy. Left an orphan at three. Losing his money and postion. I felt with a few twists and written from his point of view Mordaunt could make a case for himself like the Count of Monte Cristo.
Sorry about the misspelling. The thoughts are faster then the spelling. Last edited by Pandora Eve; 11-15-2007 at 12:30 PM. Reason: misspelling |
|
|
|
| Word from our Sponsor: |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wiltingen, Germany
Posts: 803
|
That's what Dumas uses to get you as a reader where he makes Mordaunt pleed to get him in the little lifeboat when our friends escape...
I really thought so too but then we see how bad he really is... Although Dumas did a good job serving that surprise to you as a reader.
__________________
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 24
|
I wonder to what extent Dumas intends us to associate Mordaunt with Cromwell and the Puritan movement. The later Monk episode slightly redeems this bunch but for the most part Mordaunt and that vibe is the face we see of Protestantism and Puritanism. Furthermore, after portraying Richlieu as the big antagonist in book one, suddenly he is lionized in book 2.
And what are we to make of the hints that Mazarin is the father of Louis XIV? What do you kids think? Plausible? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wiltingen, Germany
Posts: 803
|
Considering puritanism, Felton was also a very nice image of it... Of course Dumas was writing about a time when protestants were supposed to be vilains, so it is natural that he makes them look bad... And Cromwell, after all he cut off the head of the king, so in a certain way he made himself a vilain. Certainly, I suppose, in the eyes of the royalists.
Concirning Richelieu, he is not only made a great person in Vingt Ans Après, already at the end of The three Musketeers he is made better than he was. I think most of the blame is to put with Mylady, who made use of his jealousy towars Buckingham, to make a war between the Queen Anne and the cardinal, so that Buckinghal would be taken away from the court, so she could kill him... By the end he realises and is made a normal man again, by doing something for d'Artagnan. In both books the English play the role of vilains. Of cours because of the wars between the two countries, but probably also because the French have never liked the English and vice versa. Aramis says it: 'Ils sont toujours grossiers, comme tous les gens que boivent de la bière.' ('they are gross, like all people who drink beer'). There is a profound disliking in that sentence. Not of a certain person, as Mordaunt, for example, or the protestants, or Cromwell, but just a hate towards the nation. And then it was easy on a scene of war to make one the villain and one the good guy... Concirning the relationship between Mazarin and Anne, in fact, there were rumours going on in the 19th century and before that Mazarin and Anne would have been married. Mazarin was a cardinal, but was not a priest who made a promise to remain celibatary, so it was possible. But the marriage was not made public because Anne wanted to keep her power as regent to her son, which, if the marriage would have been made public, the cardinal would have taken over, being the husband. Whether Mazarin was considered the father of Louis XIV, I don't know, but I seem to think that Mazarin entered services after Louis XIV had been born. Dumas writes that the king had a profound disliking towards Mazarin, and I don't think that he would have written that if Mazarin would have been considered as his father, but I might be wrong. Of course afterwards it was proven that this 'marriage' had absolutely not taken place, but Dumas still used the old theory.
__________________
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Rate This Thread | |
|
|