I keep reading stuff by French authors. I know, I know. I'm doing it to myself, I freely admit it. But seriously, guys.
French authors cannot say ANYTHING quickly!
I decided to read this based on a couple of things. First, that Disney movie from the early 90's. You know, the one with Tim Curry as the bad guy. I remember very little else about the movie, but c'mon. Tim Curry. That's a win. The other reason is because I read the Count of Monte Cristo once, and despite its being very long, I enjoyed the story. So I decided to listen to The Three Musketeers on my commute, and I'll tell you what.
People who speak English as their primary language can't seem to agree on what French pronunciation sounds like. Sure, stuff like Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan were all pretty consistent. But every other French name in the book was pronounced differently from one reader to the next.
They're all volunteers, so I'll cut them some slack. But it was a touch distracting.
As for the story itself, I noticed a few things. First off, Dumas is far more comfortable with killing off people than Disney. Without giving too much away, the people who you'd expect to die after watching the Disney movie don't, and the people you wouldn't expect to die do. Aside from the musketeers, that is. Also, the book was written around actual events in French history. It was a plausible story. The movie has little to no actual grounding in fact. Take, for instance, the fact that in the movie, the musketeers don't even look at a musket.
Even though the word musket is RIGHT THERE in their job title.
Downsides of the book? The fact that it's grounded in history is one. Seriously, Dumas. I don't need that much detail. Another downside is the fact that, as I said at the beginning, this guy cannot say anything briefly. Moments that should be very tense become extremely frustrating because, instead of actually doing anything, everyone stands around and talks about the tension for lengthy periods of time.
There's a thing in writing called "show, don't tell." Dumas is really, really bad at that. He shows almost nothing. Everything is told. In that way, his books read more like French history textbooks than novels. Just like Jules Verne's books read more like French biology or metallurgy textbooks than novels. Just like Victor Hugo actually just wrote history books and sold them as novels.
But the story, ah, the story. It's super good. I've heard it said that any author who's works are enduring must have done something right. I'm pretty sure the reason Dumas' stories are still around is because other people have re-written them.
The story is great. The way it's told? Not so much. So my final review of The Three Musketeers? The plot is compelling. Watch the movie. See the play. Find an abridged version of the book.
But I'm not going to recommend the full novel.
French authors cannot say ANYTHING quickly!
I decided to read this based on a couple of things. First, that Disney movie from the early 90's. You know, the one with Tim Curry as the bad guy. I remember very little else about the movie, but c'mon. Tim Curry. That's a win. The other reason is because I read the Count of Monte Cristo once, and despite its being very long, I enjoyed the story. So I decided to listen to The Three Musketeers on my commute, and I'll tell you what.
People who speak English as their primary language can't seem to agree on what French pronunciation sounds like. Sure, stuff like Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan were all pretty consistent. But every other French name in the book was pronounced differently from one reader to the next.
They're all volunteers, so I'll cut them some slack. But it was a touch distracting.
As for the story itself, I noticed a few things. First off, Dumas is far more comfortable with killing off people than Disney. Without giving too much away, the people who you'd expect to die after watching the Disney movie don't, and the people you wouldn't expect to die do. Aside from the musketeers, that is. Also, the book was written around actual events in French history. It was a plausible story. The movie has little to no actual grounding in fact. Take, for instance, the fact that in the movie, the musketeers don't even look at a musket.
Even though the word musket is RIGHT THERE in their job title.
Downsides of the book? The fact that it's grounded in history is one. Seriously, Dumas. I don't need that much detail. Another downside is the fact that, as I said at the beginning, this guy cannot say anything briefly. Moments that should be very tense become extremely frustrating because, instead of actually doing anything, everyone stands around and talks about the tension for lengthy periods of time.
There's a thing in writing called "show, don't tell." Dumas is really, really bad at that. He shows almost nothing. Everything is told. In that way, his books read more like French history textbooks than novels. Just like Jules Verne's books read more like French biology or metallurgy textbooks than novels. Just like Victor Hugo actually just wrote history books and sold them as novels.
But the story, ah, the story. It's super good. I've heard it said that any author who's works are enduring must have done something right. I'm pretty sure the reason Dumas' stories are still around is because other people have re-written them.
The story is great. The way it's told? Not so much. So my final review of The Three Musketeers? The plot is compelling. Watch the movie. See the play. Find an abridged version of the book.
But I'm not going to recommend the full novel.
Comments
Post a Comment