Please Help!
Please Help!
I think that looking back, he definitely was justified. I know while i was reading it i started to feel like he had gone too far, but once i looked back and though about what had happened to him, he really got those guys good. There had to be more evil in Paris though, i hope he didn't actually naively think he had quashed the entire problem lolOriginally Posted by anh-thu
Please Help!
It depends on what you think about revenge. If you go with a compassionate Christian reading where one should forgive all sins, then the Count is wrong in pursuing revenge. But if you choose to adhere to the "eye for an eye" interpretation, he's completely justified in seeking revenge.
Also, I'd like to point out that the moniker of the Count only comes about because of Edmond's victimization. Had these calamities never befallen him, the Count of Monte Cristo would never have come into existence. So there are questions of how pursuing revenge effects one's identity. Is the Count a completely different person than Edmond Dantes? Is he morally a better or worse person?
That's a very interesting oint, Wilde Woman!
I think there is, in the end, a question Dumas asks.
When the Count goes back to the prison he has doubts as to the justness of his revenge after having been refused by Mercédès, he reads a passage in Faria's writing that does approve of what happened to the bad guys. But, like Wilde Woman says, there is a question of identity: is Edmond the same as the Count (a beast, like Mercédès calls him), or is he Edmond, but then he needs to get rid of the identity of the Count.
I think that is what he does when he gives away his money and his cave, forgives Danglars and lets him walk away without money.
An eye for an eye is good, but in the end one must forgive to gain rest in one's heart.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
He was totally justified in his vengeance quest, he always stopped himself from doing something he may regret.
The only reprehensible thing he did IMO is enabling Madame Villefort in her poisonings and ignoring them when they were happening(with the exception of Valentine).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote