DON'T READ if you've never read The Count of Monte Cristo

:o :o :o If you've never read The Count of Monte Cristo, DON'T READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!! My question might spoil the story. If you have read it, I need help!!!!!!!!!!!! :o :o :o

Dumas is very good at weaving his characters in an intricate web, but I think I got lost in it. Did I miss something, or is the fake son of Cavalcanti the runaway adopted son, who is also the illigitamite child of Madame Danglars and M. Villefort. If this is true, then isn't Monte Cristo setting up a half brother and sister as he is trying to set Cavalcanti up with Euginie? How disgusting!

I've only read to chapter 70 so please don't give me too much info!!!!!!!!

I can't believe nobody has responded to my question yet! I don't want to keep reading the story with the wrong idea!!!!!!! :(

HELLO???

Your topic title scared everyone off..

I've not read it though.

Ummm... I haven't read the book for a while, but I believe that you're right about the half-sister/brother thing, and now I am fairly disturbed. But yes, I do believe your right.

Thank you!! very much! I didn't realize that my title scared everyone off. I noticed that people were looking at it but no one was responding. thanx again for the affirmation!

Shea, I haven't read the book (my French is only gaining strength) but I have seen the movie as a child. It seemed adventurish then. I already forgot all the names from this story except Monte Cristo.

Now I don't think I have humour to read Dumas even when my French improves :)

Every story is an adventure to me because I'm no longer myself, I've become the characters. I guess it's my escape from life.

I never saw the older version of the movie. I saw the new one before I began the book. As I kept reading, I became more and more disappointed in the movie (as I am almost all the time). The book, as always, is much better! ;)

Shea, the movie I mentioned was French, starring Jean Marais (1954).

yeap you're right...they are sister and brother...but we must think that the count of monte cristo didn.t wanted them to get marry he just used them...I mean he used cavalcanti just to hit danglars..he never tried to actually get them married..I mean...not to finninsh their wedding ceremony:P.....the one who continued the story of Dumas's count of Monte Cristo is Jules Lermina in'The son of Monte Cristo"..in which we see more of the relationship between calvacanti and Eugen...so don.t be mean with the count of monte cristo he knew what he was doing just form the start! (ps...I.m a bit happy because romania is finally going to be accepted in U.E..maybe we will finnaly live better!..)

Darksoul makes an excellent point, because - well I don't want to spoil anything, but Monte Cristo's planning is almost flawless untill - well read it and find out.

I haven't read the book.. I was saving up for it though..

I am going to assume that you have not read the rest of the book, but it is revealed that the younger Calcaventi(sp) is the abandoned son of Villefort. I think that the Count could easily read that Euginie was in no way interested in Calcaventi. Plus since the Count knew exactly who Calcaventi really was, and the things he had done, he knew that something would make Calcaventi leave. Either the marriage would go through, and the inevetable revelation would be part of Danglar's downfall, in addition to his financial desolation. Or, as happened in the book, Calcaventi ran away.

In the end, all that really matters is that the Count used Calcaventi for revenge upon both Danglars and Cadderouse.

Please excuse my inability to spell.

Monte Cristo didn't want to see them married, he was merely using then in his elaborate plan for revenge.

The first time I read the book I thought the same, but after reading the ending and having the whole plot come together it made sense. So, yeah Dantes just used them both for his plot.

The situation was created by Monte Cristo, because he wanted to blow Danglars off his socks: he created a marriage that could not take place because the police arrests the groom (I believe), just as it occured when Edmond Dantès (Monte Cristo) was going to marry Mercédès. He creates a déjà-vu for Danglars as to "I know what you did 20 (?) years ago". Of course Danglars doensn't know who Monte Cristo is, so he gets affraid, but he doesn't know of what (like in a dream). Also as the other caracters get déjà-vus.
As an addition: he punishes Villeford and Danglars' wife for their adultery, because someone seems to know something, but they know who and how much as will occur further in the book.

Very amusing book, isn't it?? :D

That's an interesting observation. I am not sure if Danglars noticed the "arrest during the wedding" thing. I'll have to pay more attention to it the next time I read it.

ooh, yes. If you compare the two scenes:

Aussitôt la porte s'ouvrit, et un commissaire, ceint de son écharpe, entra dans la salle, suivi de quatre soldats armés, conduits par un caporal.
L'inquiétude fit place à la terreur.
« Qu'y a-t-il ? demanda l'armateur en s'avançant au devant du commissaire qu'il connaissait ; bien certainement, monsieur, il y a méprise.
- S'il y a méprise, monsieur Morrel, répondit le commissaire, croyez que la méprise sera promptement réparée ; en attendant, je suis porteur d'un mandat d'arrêt ; et quoique ce soit avec regret que je remplisse ma mission, il ne faut pas moins que je la remplisse : lequel de vous, messieurs, est Edmond Dantès ? »
Tous les regards se tournèrent vers le jeune homme qui, fort ému, mais conservant sa dignité, fit un pas en avant et dit :
« C'est moi, monsieur, que me voulez-vous ?

Suddenly the door opened, and a police commissioner, with his scarf round his waist, entered in the room, followed by four armed soldiers, commanded by a corporal.
Worry made place for terror.
'What is the matter?' asked the ship owner walking up to the commissioner whom he knew; surely, monsieur, there is a misunderstanding.
-If there is a misunderstanding, monsieur Morrel, answered the commissioner, be assured that the misunderstanding will promptly be repaired; in the mean time, I am the carrier of an arrest warrant; and, although it would be with regret that l will execute my mission, it is not less necessary: which one among you, messieurs, is Edmond Dantès?
All looks turned in the direction of the young man who, greatly moved, but retaining his honor, made a step forward and said:
'It is I, monsieur, what do you want from me?

Mais au même instant la foule des assistants reflua, terrifiée, dans le salon principal, comme si quelque monstre effroyable fût entré dans les appartements quaerens quem devoret.
Il y avait en effet de quoi reculer, s'effrayer, crier.
Un officier de gendarmerie plaçait deux gendarmes à la porte de chaque salon, et s'avançait vers Danglars, précédé d'un commissaire de police ceint de son écharpe.
Mme Danglars poussa un cri et s'évanouit.
Danglars, qui se croyait menacé certaines consciences ne sont jamais calmes, Danglars offrit aux yeux de ses conviés un visage décomposé par la terreur.
« Qu'y a-t-il donc, monsieur ? demanda Monte-Cristo s'avançant au-devant du commissaire.
- Lequel de vous, messieurs, demanda le magistrat sans répondre au comte, s'appelle Andrea Cavalcanti ? »
Un cri de stupeur partit de tous les coins du salon.
On chercha ; on interrogea.
« Mais quel est donc cet Andrea Cavalcanti ? demanda Danglars presque égaré.
- Un ancien forçat échappé du bagne de Toulon.
- Et quel crime a-t-il commis ?
- Il est prévenu, dit le commissaire de sa voix impassible, d'avoir assassiné le nommé Caderousse, son ancien compagnon de chaîne, au moment où il sortait de chez le comte de Monte-Cristo. »
Monte-Cristo jeta un regard rapide autour de lui.

But at the same moment, the crowd of attendants withdrew, terrified, in the first salon, as if some terrible monster had entered in the apartments.
There was, in fact, something to withdraw from, to fear, to cry for.
An officer of the gendarmerie placed two gendarmes at the door of each salon and walk towards Danglars, preceded by a police commissioner, with his scarf round his waist.
Mme Danglars gave a cry and fainted.
Danglars, who thought to be threatened – certain minds are never at ease – Danglars offered the crowd a look that was decomposed with terror.
‘What is the matter, then, monsieur?’ asked Monte-Cristo, walking up to the commissioner.
'Which one among you, messieurs,' asked the magistrate without answering the count, 'is called Andrea Cavalcanti?’
A noise of surprise came from all the corners of the salon.
They searched, they asked.
‘But what is this Andrea Cavalcanti, then?' asked Danglars, almost haunted.
'An old convict who escaped the Toulon prison.'
'And what crime did he commit?'
'He is supposed,' said the commissioner in his emotionless voice, 'to have assassinated the named Caderousse, his old chain comrade, at the moment he came from the count of Monte-Cristo.’
Monte-Cristo looked quickly round him.

Monte-Cristo takes over the role of Morrel, asking what the problem is, even in the same words... He also objected against comming to the wedding altogether and also against signing the contract for Andrea. Probably because he was planning this, as he handed the proof against Andrea over to the police the day before so that Villefort could not be present and that the two who started the whole thing (Frenand and Danglars) would be only present. Caderousse is dead, but after all, he didn't have anything to do with it as such.
If it would have been just a coincidence, Monte-Cristo wouldn't have told the story first and would certainly not have kept the commissioner busy so Andrea could get away... He would also not have kept Caderousse's vest and letter until the same afternoon. He probably changed his plans to attend the wedding because Andrea came to ask him to. Bad but amusing personality, the count :D

I agree that the scenes are almost identical. I just don't know if Monte Cristo planned it that way. I think that he didn't want to sign the contract because he didn't want to taint his own name when it became known that Andrea was a criminal.

He certainly meant to use Cavalcanti to disclose the (earlier) relationship between Mme Danglars and Mr de Villefort, as Cavalcanti was their son they believed to be dead. Maybe the robbery was a coincidence, but why did he not hand over the letter he made Caderousse write to Danglars and his vest? Monte Cristo was there when Caderousse died, as the priest Busoni and he sent Ali for Villefort and a doctor (?). Yet he kept the vest and letter and handed them only over the next day a few hours before the wedding was to take place. He refused Cavalcanti to get in the carriage with him as 'he didn't want to be disturbed by his driver', although Ali couldn't speak...
Maybe it was just a snap decision brought on by circumstances. Of course he couldn't hjave planned the fact that Danglars was going to marry his daughter off to Andrea. He couldn't have planned that Andrea was comming to rob him and kill his comrade...
If it was a snap decision, it was certainly a surprising move in the story, if you start to think about it...
You see I am convinced of the bad caracter of Monte Cristo... :D

Well, one of the reasons that The Count of Monte Cristo has become one of the most well loved stories in history is due to the fact that almost everyone can relate to Edmond Dantes at some point. I don't think that Monte Cristo was worse or better than anyone else.

I can't remember him directly hurting his antaganists. He just let them hurt themselves. He certainly manipulated situations to get to the desired end, but he never killed anyone.

Humans are predictable. He knew that people follow patterns. It is the basis of psychology. If a person does one thing in their youth, they will probably do the same thing later. When he was in prison, he didn't know what Fernand was doing in Tampina(sp). But does it suprise anyone? He was always base. All Edmond really did was bring things to light at the right moment.

Yes, one would for less start on something like Edmond did...
As for the bad caracter, there are no bad caracters, only disliked ones and ones, like this one, that have undergone unnecessary suffering. Then it is nice to know that the other one is punished for it, isn't it?

As for the hurting themselves bit: that's the clever thing about it! I first watched a mini series with Gérard Depardieu as the count. About 7 years ago. I remember my father pulling a face that I was going to watch another costume drama, but after a while he came to have a look at the tv and... was hooked also. I read the book 6 years later and that was even better than the series. I remember that I wished my courses to be over and my students to leavbe so I could go on reading...

He probably studied psychology in the orient and when he came back he could read everyone as if he was an x-ray machine... He even keeps Bertuccio under his thumb in the right way...

I believe that sounds right. I've read the book when I was very young, and did not like it. It was the only book of Dumas I did not like. The Three Musketeers and the following books, and other books fascinated me, but I could not like The Count of Monte Cristo. Edmond Dantes assumes that he is God--why? Who gave him the right to revenge? He had everything, but his goal in life was to destroy others. A psychopath?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EugenieIsabelle

Edmond Dantes assumes that he is God--why? Who gave him the right to revenge? He had everything, but his goal in life was to destroy others. A psychopath?

---

I don't totally agree...
Edmond Dantès takes up the role of God, doesn't assume he's God, that would be sacriladge and blasphemy and Dumas was certainly religious... Edmond decides to take the right in his own hands because he thinks God has forgotten him, and has forgotten to punish the bad people and reward the good...

His goal in life was to punish the bad and in that they destroyed themselves. He never lays a hand on anyone. They do it to themselves because they lived a lie. Not only concerning the matter with Edmond but also further in life: Villefort had an affair with Mme Danglars, Danglar had used the money which he made after Edmond's disappearance as base for his riches, Mondego/Morcerf had murdered someone to become a nobleman and Caderousse, initially hasn't done anything wrong because he didn't get the chance, but once given the diamond he murders his wife in order not to have to share it with her and then teams up with Cavalcanti to rob the Count aka Edmond. They all punish themselves because of a seret the Count discloses. The only one that hasn't done anything bad in his life, Morrel, has done badly with his company and is on the verge of bankrupsy in the beginning of the book, and is saved by the Count.

During the whole book the Count is convinced of the good nature of his work. He only does what God ought to have done, and forgot, in his opinion. But, after he has seen Mercédès, he is not so sure anymore. That's where Dumas asks the reader the question, whether it was good what the Count did and so whether it was right for the reader to also feel what Edmond felt. In the end he gets approval, but he still needs to 'pay' for his acts, as he will never get Mercédès as his wife. Maybe God has mercy because he saved Valentine although she was a Villefort?

I don't think he was a psychopath because he stopped after everyone was punished, he even granted Danglars mercy. If he were a real psychopath he would have killed them all, wouldn't have listened to Maximilien Morrel regarding Valentine and not to Mercédès regarding pardoning in connection with Danglars...

Hi there!

My first book written by Dumas and that got me hooked up was The Count of Monte Cristo. I have read it quite a while ago and, after reading kiki1982's posts I feel that I should re-read it as soon as I get the chance. You really seem to have understood the book well, I never noticed some of the things you said. I remember that when I finished it I spent some time thinking about it, how complex are the characters of Dumas, how well they develop and what talent he has of telling a story apparently not so special and making it one of the best stories I've ever read. From then on, I've always admired his works. The people then seem in his books so much more superior to people nowadays (is that a stupid thing to say?), but I have always admired those types that are wise and can manipulate others and have hidden secrets and pains but they still show a smile on their face. And it's really interesting to get an insight in their minds... which happens in this book quite a lot as we can follow the Count's thoughts and plans.
Well, thanx for sharing your opinion on the book. It was really nice to read this topic and discover things that I have missed when reading it myself. I don't know how much sense whas in what I just said, but today I have to return some books so I spent another night reading and I'm really sleepy now.
So... see you,
Rokku~

Thank you for your compliment, it's appreciated!!

Well, Rokku, I actually cheated a little ;) ...
Ten years ago, when I was a teenager, I watched a film adaptation wuth Gérard Depardieu as the Count, in mini series. My father thought that it was another boring costume drama that they used to broadcast every Friday on Belgian tv, but he started to watch as well and was hooked on it...
A lot of the stuff in the book was incorporated in the excellent film adaptation (like the discussion we had about the agent of Thompson&French in London, Lord Wilmore and the 'Englishman' (?) who had the ship built for Morrel). Only the end had been changed... He got together with Mercédès again... That was probably done because otherwise the miniseries would have needed another 1,5 hours episode and would have cost much more...
Anyway, about 8 years after that I decided to read it as it was in my bookcase... But in the mean time I had already watched the film and that formed my opinion, only the end was much better than the one in the film...
I guess I had already a general view and meaning of the book before I started reading it. But it helps when you start thinking about it...

Have you read the Musketeers yet. That's really wonderful. It doesn't go as deep as the Count, but it is hilarious sometimes. I am now at the second sequal (after a rather dissapointing first sequal), but until now it's quite enjoyable...

I realize that this is an old thread, however, though M.C. did introduce Calvalcanti to the Paris society, he didn't create the matrimonial prospects that resulted. But I doubt that the situation bothered him.