Printable View
Hey!!! I am new to the Forums, and thought that I would see how many Alexandre Dumas fans are out there, and if they would care to tell me of any of his books that I might be interested in. I have read The Count of Monte Cristo, The Three Musketeers, and I am currently reading Twenty Years After. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
I am a big fan of Alexandre Dumas and I recommend you to read " The Black Tulip" its a very interesting story with romance , action and drama, its a beautiful work.
I can't say I'm a huge Dumas fan, but I did enjoy The black tulip!
I'm trying to finish The count of Monte Cristo but it's going rather slowly...
Thanks for the advice!! I have heard that the Black Tulip is good, and plan on reading it as soon as I am through with my current novel.
The count Of monte Cristo is also a great novel maybe its going slowly now but its really an interesting story.Quote:
Originally Posted by vheissu
I have just read an amazing, unknown work by Dumas. It is called Georges! It is a very short piece written one year before the THree musketeers and The Comte de Monte Cristo. Even for those of you who may not be enthralled with Dumas, you will love this book. I could not put it down. It is full of the drama, romance, suspence and action he is known for and is his only work about race.
If you want to be transported, read this book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love Dumas. I originally started with The Count of Monte Cristo then moved onto the Three Musketeers. I recommend all books by Dumas, because he can really tell a story. I have never read The Black Tulip before. Is it a good read?
I found that with the Count of Monte Cristo, even though it was very long, its easy to read style made it a very good and surprisingly quick (for its size) read.
I have finished The Three Musketeers, and i am now reading Twenty Years After, but it is going rather slowly... has any one else read it who can tell me if it is worth finishing or not? Thanks a bunch!
Nope.. haven't read Twenty Years After.. .but read Monte Cristo. Througholy enjoyed the book. Is Twenty Years After a sequel? or a completely separate story?
And it is indeed a sequel but not to Monte Cristo. It is to The Three Musketeers.
I started with Monte Cristo and can't get enough of him... Great writer.
I did find Twenty Years After very slow, but I still wanted to finish it because Dumas always keeps a surprise to the end. Very compelling, that.
I do find Bragelonne miuch better and more Dumas-like. It does spend a ot of time at the court, but at the same time his characters and his plot are much ore exciting than Twenty Years After...
Can anyone tell me how the musketeerbooks fit together?
The three Musketeers, is the first one, then follows Twenty Years After and then The Vicomte de Bragelonne, but what with Ten Years After and The Man in the Iron Mask. I thought they are musketeer stories too, but how do they fit in the trilogy? Or are they just stories apart from it because Dumas couldn't get enough of d'Artagnan, Athos, Porthos and Aramis?
The answer is a slightly complex one. Technically, The Vicomte de Bragelonne is the only sequel to Twenty Years After. However, virtually no one publishes Vicomte as one big monster book. So it is divided in various ways by various publishers. Some split the whole series into 5 and go in this order:
3 Musketeers
Twenty Years After
Vicomte De Bragelonne
Louise De Valliere
Man in the Iron Mask
others split it up differently with one grouping of chapters of Bragelonne called Ten Years Later
Other Dumas books cover parts of the same historical period but have different characters. These include The Women's War and Sylvandire.
Aah, thank you for the explanation!
I worked out that I am reading a copy which is the whole Vicomte, not split up, devided in three volumes, but sold as one book The Vicomte de Bragelonne.
Sad, though. I hoped to be able to read more about the musketeers, but on the other hand wondered what Dumas was going to do after what he did to Porthos. (will not say more) :bawling:
Strange that they divide it up, as it is written as one story. Now I can better understand the comments in the section Vicomte here.
see you.
.....
It's possible that that is not the case, or that the musketeers only have a very small part in it, but it was originally part of The Vicomte de Bragelonne, a book of 1800 pages that spends both time with the musketeers and the court.
Splitting the story up wasn't a good idea because it takes the continuance in the story away...
I wouldn't call myself a big fan of Dumas, 'cause I read only one book- Queen Margot. I like it very much, but for me Dumas idealised Margot too much, his vision of her wasn't correct according to the history. But I guess, he had no choice, 'cause he lived in XIX century and he couldn't have written frankly about some things :) Especially when I compare book with its adaptation- after watching a movie, I thought that the book is quite innocent :)
I intend to read something else of Dumas... Maybe Monte Cristo? If only I had more time...
I have just finished The Last Cavalier - Being the Adventures of Count Sainte-Hermine in the Age of Napoleon, or Le Chevalier de Sainte-Hermine( in the origional French)
It is excellent, the first part sets the stage and introduces all the major players( patience is needed for this part as it is quite long and goes into the history of Reveloutionary France in many aspects using actual historical figures in the main roles{including a small part about Dumas own father} and espically deals with Napoleon and the main charcaters family history as well)
The second part gets down to the actual story of the Comte de Sainte-Hermine, also known as Hector( and by a few other names as well as the story progresses),
However it is incomplete as Alexandre Dumas died before he could finish it,
I still recomend this book however.
I recently finished reading the d'Artagnan romances - and loved them, although I almost cried towards the end :(. I've also read The Count of Monte Cristo (which is my favourite Dumas). I've just started The Black Tulip and Sylvandire, and I'm enjoying both :D
Oh, I cried my eyes out at the end of the Vicomte (The Iron Mask)!
I so much regretted the end of the trilogy. Never again can I read anything about d'Artagnan, only if I start again...
As a Dumas fan I can simply advice yo to read all literary works of Dumas.
PS: Read both father and son. They were both master-piece creators.
Kiki;Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
If "The Vicomte de Bragelonne" in English, would you please tell me publisher's name-publishing year-translator's name and any information that would help me to get the book. It's hard here to find that kind of complete edition.
Thank you.
Fulya
I like all his novels. I admire his talent and skill to make such an interesting plot which never gets exhausted.
Take a look on here. There are a few notable (historic) translations and amazon-links. I would prefer a historic translation as it evokes the original style more than one that is contemporary.Quote:
Originally Posted by fulyaoktem
http://www.cadytech.com/dumas/work.php?key=348
I hope you find something... Truly great book.
Well, thank you. Hope to read Dumas,pere in French someday :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
New to the whole posting thing but love, Dumas Three musketeers is my most read book probally read around twenty times catch something new every time now reading the count of wating on twenty years to come in the mail should be a good read.
However i wanted to know if any one else thought that Cardinal Richelieu pushed the story in the three musketeers further then our heros did, I say with out the bad guys d'Artagnan would have stayed at the Bar
Of course! That's the whole thing about Richelieu. He is the bad guy, but only because he runs the country with a clear vision and that vision clashes with d'Artagnan's and the queen's (although it is probably Buckingham in that case who clashes :D).
Later in the trilogy, it is emphasised that d'Artagnan respected Richelieu more than his later boss Mazarin because at least Richelieu was what he seemed: clear and to the point, didn't push d'Artagnan around and respected him too despite having had him against him. Mazarin was a nasty piece of work.
I think, all in all, Richelieu came out of that book in a very upright manner. Ruthless, but at least wi(h a goal.
Since childhood Dumas father and son have being among my favorite authors.
For example, there is a second part of the Count of Monte Cristo, the title translated into Spanish is La Mano del Muerto ( The Hand of the Death , free translation) I have search for this book in English but so far my search have being useless, it seems there are fewer Dumas' titles in English than in Spanish.
In the second part, the Count of Monte Cristo is abandoned by his friends and allies and he and his family suffers total anihilation .
My opinion of Dantes character have evolved with the passage of time , the first time that I read , The Count of Monte Cristo, I considered him a hero and benefector of the downtroden but sucessive readings and the reading of the second part , The Hand of the Death showed me a much darker and brutal side of Dantes.
He lost a lot moral authority when he shows ruthless and lack of guilty for the downfall of innocents, the family of his enemies , why to be held responsible for the sins of their parents?
he did not seems very moved or guilty that the death toll of innocent like the death of the son of Madame d’Villefor, Edward . Did he feel shock or trouble? Why he did not try hard enough to prevent such death?
Did he try to prevent Madame d'Villefor from poisoning the Marquises?
No. In matter of fact , he did not the care the death toll of innocents if such death could be used to his advantage to hurt his enemies?
His behavior remind me that Dantes ' Dumas is a not wholesome character , he opened his heart to the Dark Side , like Darth Vader and he earned the payment for his behavior in the Hand of the Death.
His enemies show not mercy toward his family who was innocent of his behavior. It sounds like the old Hammaburi Code, an eye for eye and tooth for a tooth.
Isn't about time to stop the hero workship of Dantes, The Count of Monte Cristo and acknowledge his mean spirit , selfish side?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame la Fere
The saga of the Three Musketeer, Twenty years later, the Viscount of Brag
is amazing . Cardinal Richelieu is portrait as the bad guy when in reality Cardinal Richelieu has France interest closer to his heart than
Queen Anne in the saga. Queen Anne flirting with the enemy , the Duke of Buck. I found reprenhensible . If the Huguenots with the help of the English have won the war , maybe France would have gone through partition and French territories could have become English again .
Lady Winter, is a very evil character , whom I dislike a lot but she was working for Richelieu who was promoting French interests.
[/I]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
The Friendship of Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan seems
so closed and so fraternal but in the saga
politics force the friends to choose,
Aramis became the boss of the Jesuits and his interest clashed with the ones of D'Artagnan, Porthos died siding with Aramis
and Athos sacrificed his family happines putting first his loyalty to the Crown
And D'Artagnan when pull comes to shovel, choose over his dearest and closest friends
the service to the Crown .
Aramis is the only one who survive at the end
What kind of picture ? Dumas like many of his fellow writers of such period
were very complex and force characters into very challenging choices
If you ever read the Miserables ?
By the way? How many people today will choose political alliance over
close knit friendships? like the Musketeers did ?
There have been a few sequels to Count of Monte Cristo, but none were written by Dumas. The one you're looking for (original title: A Mão do Finado) was written by by Alberto Hogan. Acccording to Conrad Cady, it was published in French and its original Portugese. Given that it's an unofficial third-party sequel from 1853, you may have to find a copy in one of those languages and translate it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryIV
Good Dumas reference website: http://www.cadytech.com/dumas/
That is what I meant, though. For d'Artagnan, he is the bad guy, but he is not really, as he shows in the end. His motives are not hate or anything, his motives are running France in place of the useless king (someone needs to do it of course). Although, I seem to remember that Dumas wrote a piece in The Three Musketeers about Richelieu once being the lover of the queen and thus his jealousy being sparked when she hooked up with Buckingham, the then embassador of England to France. As he would like Buckingham out of the Queen's life, he sparks a war, manipulating the king obviously in doing things against the protestants and then sending the beautiful Lady de Winter to seduce Buckingham. Things work and Buckingham gets killed and France is safe from civil war (for the time being).Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryIV
Richelieu wasn't a bad guy per se, but only in the situation.
Aramis had always been one who dared to put his ambitions first. As soon as anything gets in the way, he will clear it up. That's it. His friends were only lucky that they were not the obstacles.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryIV
Porthos had always been gullible and thus is a bit of a sad creature who meets Aramis at the wrong time.
Aramis does not even care about politics, he just wants to be king. As he becomes head of the jesuits (second to the pope) and embassador to France from the Spanish king, he really has accomplished everything he ever wished for. France is nothing compared to Spain at that point. It has the Netherlands/Belgium, the richest area in Europe and the world back then, and a great empire in the Americas.
D'Artagnan, contrary to what you claim did not choose to let Aramis and Porthos perish, he was mastered by his king who had ordered that action was to be taken and if Mr d'Artagnan was not prepared to (which he did foresee), Mr d'Artagnan was to be temporarily stripped of his rank and the lead to be taken over by his junior officer. D'Artagnan, at that point, is trying to buy Porthos and Aramis some time, but he is not allowed to. He will never forgive Aramis for getting Porthos involved whom he knew was gullible and naïve.
Athos really doesn't do anything a minor nobleman did not do in those days. Noblemen were supposed to do service to the crown and as such his son should also do so. That is quite clear. If he dies, he will have died for a good cause. The point of that story line is not that he sacrifices his son (that was natural to him), the point is that Raoul himself decides that he does not want to live if he cannot have Louise.
Louise is really in a pickle, because she is damned if she does and damned if she does not. Maybe she was in love with Louis at first, but everyone knows that a relationship is not going to last. However, as soon as Louis sets eyes on her (firstly just as a diversion from Madame, his sister-in-law, later for real), there is no way she will marry Raoul for the simple reason that Louis is a covetous bastard (sorry) and so does not want to marry her to another. It could be done, though, as Henry VIII did it in England with one of the Boleyn girls and (allegedly) still had a relationship with her. It also happened to Louis XIV himself as he married Athénais, one of the three friends (Louise, Athénais, and ?) to Mr de Montespan but keeps her as his mistress and had a range of children with her. Still, Louise may not marry and so she goes to her downfall as after a while she is discarded in favour of her friend. Evident in the epilogue of The vicomte de Bragelonne.
Athos really has no say in this and is as distraught as Raoul when the king refuses his consent (which was obligatory), even imprisoned at some point, briefly.
Actually no-one, not even Aramis or d'Artagnan, sacrifice themselves to politics. It is evident that d'Artagnan really respects his master by the end, because he sees that he is much more willed and moved by real political motive than Richelieu ever was (Mazarin just wanted money). As a soldier he respects his orders as he often stresses, but needs a master who does not take advantage of his power. That is why he gets upset at the king wanting to lock Athos up because the latter said something about his covetous behaviour. D'Artagnan despises this kind of thing because it has no clear purpose. That, for him equals honourable conduct. He who abuses his power to achieve personal satisfaction is no man. In that, he despises Aramis too.