#ClassicsCommunity 2021 Reading Challenge discussion
Buddy Reads
>
The Count of Monte Cristo
message 51:
by
Ashley
(new)
Jun 12, 2020 09:54PM
Minnie I’m not at all suggesting that Dantes is experiencing the type of systemic racism that POC experience. Becky explained it better. And I shouldn’t just assume everyone is from the US. But I’m sure those that aren’t at least know what’s going on here. What I was saying is that it’s been emotionally exhausting listening to horrific stories of outright as well as systemic racism. I’m willing to continue to listen and do better. I’m not complaining about that. But I was surprised to see some parallels in this story, meaning that the main character is going to be suffering unfairly and he has no way to fix the problem. So it’s more of the same emotional exhaustion instead of a reprieve. That’s good in some ways. But also, like Becky says, it’s also good it’s a slow read. I am enjoying the thoughts coming from these parallels and am having a hard time articulating my thoughts, but it sounds like you both understand where I’m coming from.
reply
|
flag
So far we’ve been taking about characters a lot. Would you say Dumas is good at crafting characters? Is this story character driven? Obviously there is a plot and it gets intricate (it already has some) but I think you could argue that the characters drive the plot (i.e. Edmonds desire for revenge later). Do have thoughts about anything else having to do with this? Also, the most interesting thing to me this week was the parallel that was purposefully shown to the reader between Villefort and Edmond- both getting married, both have associations with “traitors”, etc... How does this flesh out both characters? Does this add to the idea I’m pondering about it being a character driven book or am I just seeing connections where they don’t exist?
What stuck out to you on this weeks chapters?
I don't think we can talk about a discrimination in this book in particular. its more about cruelty, false friends and unfairness. I think Dumas is good writting mystery and engage us with each chapter. Yes I alsp think is a chatsctrr driven book because the emotions in there.
my favorite part was when Edmond finds out he is going to be send to the island of If.
I like also that parallel of edmodn and villefort because it seems that they are the same but not. for instance Edmond wants to marry the love of his life and Villlefort wants a good marriage.
Just to be really clear, Ashley and I aren't saying that Edmond is facing discrimination as such, just that the feelings of helplessness, frustration and anger that arise from reading about the unfairness he is facing parallel the feelings we have about discrimination.
I think the parallels shown between Edmond and Villefort are interesting. I think it highlights the differences in their characters.Edmond seems honest, caring and quite genuine. He just wants to marry the woman he loves and work hard at his job. He was very pleased by his promotion but wasn't schemeing to get it. His honesty and goodness has landed him in a dungeon.
Villefort is schemeing to make a good marriage and his treatment of Edmond shows he is willing to do whatever it takes to protect and promote his position. He is a success. Obviously we saw similar behaviour from Danglars.
I haven't read it before so I don't know if we're going to see that Edmond has to play them at their own game to beat them, so you have to be schemeing and ruthless to succeed or whether honesty and goodness will win out in the end.
Becky and Ashley, sorry for taking your arguments out of context! I agree with you that the feelings about Dantès' bleak situation simply echo the feelings when watching the news recently. I just wanted to put my thoughts in about the difference, probably shouldn't have spun it so far though.I have read on to about chapter 30, which is when the first arc of the book ends. Not really a spoiler for anyone who's watched a movie or read a blurb but just in case: By the end of that part, Dantès (view spoiler) I found that last line especially to be very powerful, and I actually cried a little bit for him because he's yet again losing all his friends and connections to his old life.
Villefort is, I think, not a very direct mirror image to Dantès; contrasting the two engagement dinners was a clever but mundane little trick on Dumas' part, but so far it doesn't seem like he intends to spin the metaphor any further (but Villefort hasn't figured in the narrative yet).
By the way, I studied the facsimiles of the magazine in which the novel was first serialised and noted down the chapter divisions and "parts". Part 1 is the Marseille part and ends with chapter 30. Part 2 plays in Rome and ends at chapter 39. Part 3 is the Paris part and goes on until the end. The funny thing is that while the first two were published more or less continuously from the end of August to the end of November 1844, Dumas apparently went on a six-month holiday with his son (Alexandre Dumas fils of The Lady of the Camellias fame) and only started writing part 3 from June 1845 to January 1846. It reminded me of the story of Victor Hugo who was ordered by court to finish The Hunchback of Notre Dame or pay a year's worth of wages per overdue day to his publishers (he ended up pulling all-nighters and his wife ended up having an affair with his best friend). The magazine actually engaged another writer in December 1844 after it became apparent that Dumas wasn't going to get to work anytime soon who kind of stepped in with his own novel.
As I said, I’m having a hard time saying what I mean, so I’m not too worried or surprised people took my words out of context. Thanks for making our point more clear though, since I’m struggling!! Good points about the parallel events. It does show more of their differences and sets up their characters that way. Interesting that it doesn’t continue. I read the abridged version as a teen. I also have seen movie versions and used to say it was one of my favorite novels as a young person, which I find funny now because I haven’t read the full version and don’t know much about Dumas or the background. I don’t think as a teen that I realized there were abridged and nonabridged versions, though.
Anyway, wow! I had no idea this was also serialized! Can you imagine waiting years to read a book? I guess it’s like modern day TV. We don’t get the full story for years. And that is getting harder to believe too with the ability to binge on Netflix and such. Thank you for the background! I should go research some more! But I always love when people do the work for me and bring me good context info....so thanks for letting me be lazy 😂
The story was publish by chapters, in fact.well a song of fire and ice fans have waited years to the end of the story and the waiting continues.
Haha happy to! ^^ I'm always very curious about the publication history of books, and this one was actually pretty hard to find because every. single. article that I read literally just repeated the phrase "it was serialised" without any further info whatsoever, sometimes adding "it was serialised in 18 parts" (which is not true, the collected chapters were published in 18 volumes IIRC but the first publication was one half to two chapters every day or every other day in 139 instalments). I like to note down the instalments and which chapters were published when (e.g. Dickens) because it's a lot more fun reading it as it was published - like a TV series, you're absolutely right! Every instalment has its own little arc and you always close the book satisfied yet eager for more. With Dumas it was really hard to find that information; perhaps it's available in French, but I don't speak French, so I had to click through the facsimiles on the BNF website. It's really interesting to put yourself into the shoes of first-time readers! The feuilleton (the culture and entertainment section in which such novels were always published) is right on the lower half of the front page, which says a lot about how important it was for people. Interestingly though, in the six-month break it wasn't pushed back, which must mean that the substitute novel was either pretty popular as well, or the feuilleton in general was so massively popular that it had a fixed place on the front page. I rather think the second one, IIRC my professor told me something like that in a lecture about feuilleton novels. Oh, another a fun little detail is that the "episode" header always listed the dates on which previous instalments had been published, so you could check if you had missed out on any.
The history of the publication is really interesting - thanks for sharing that! I didn't even know that about Victor Hugo, that's really unfortunate. This is my second read of The Count of Monte Cristo but it's been several years since I read it and the version I read then was abridged, so I feel like I'm reading it for the first time and I'm really enjoying it. I'm getting a lot more from it this time than I did last time.
The first time I didn't notice the parallels between Villefort and Edmond, but they are really interesting to see. Both young, both engaged, both involved in some way with conspirators, both in some way looking forward to a promotion, etc. Edmond, though, is about 7-8 years younger than Villefort and he has almost a childlike naïveté in him about some things, in my opinion, while Villefort seems more in tune with the way of the world, even though he is clearly motivated by selfishness. At this point in the story, it does seem to me to be more character driven. Dumas seems to focus more on his characters than anything else.
Edmond is much younger than I realized before this reading. Why do you think Dumas chose to make him so young? Thinking about how he’s compared to the older and more powerful and less innocent Villefort has me wondering.
Maybe he's young to reinforce his innocence at the start.
Yes, I agree with Becky. He is either barely 19 or about to turn 19 IIRC? I mean, imagine yourself at that age having a solid career opportunity lined up, the person you love wants to spend the rest of their life with you, your community respects and upholds you... and then you get thrown into prison literally 15min (!!!) before your wedding (I was screaming at the book to hurry uppp!), not even told what for, and forgotten there for 14 years without a trial. I mean, it would be tragic at any age, but he was barely out of adolescence!But he is very good-natured to the point of naivete; he might have guessed what was in the package the dying captain gave him for Napoleon, and it was crystal clear what Napoleon was sending to Paris. So in that sense he was stupid to uphold his promise to the captain and rely on Danglars' not saying anything, even though he knew he didn't like him. I know that reliability is a prized character trait (both by the Dantès' and by Morrel later in the Marseille story) but man, it only ever bites them in the ass.
Villefort is so well connected! He sees this letter implicating his dad, and thus him (sort of). He’s able to work the system to keep himself “safe” and out of jail. I think that’s another benefit of him being older. Edmond doesn’t have the life experience or connections that come from the extra years. Also, it’s interesting that I’m reading it as if Danglars is the evil mastermind. Is anyone else feeling that way? Or is it the way I’m reading it? Rally Fernand is the one who sends in the letter. But he seems like he’s innocently benefiting from Dantes being gone instead of the reason it happened. Danglars is the one who had the idea. And he’s a coward for convincing other people to do his dirty work. But he seems more evil. And then Villefort takes it to the next level. To protect himself he condemns Dantes to life imprisonment. Yet he doesn’t seem as evil either. Maybe because he’s dealing with something someone else started? He didn’t seek to ruin Dantes the way Danglars did. His actions are arguably worse in their consequences, but he didn’t simply want to ruin another man. He was being selfish. And Fenand was taking advantage of a situation presented to him. Just some random musings....
I agree that Danglers seems the most evil. He's the one manipulating the situation, the others are reacting in ways that are selfish or weak and causing damage to Edmond, but like you say Ashley, Danglers seems to be the mastermind.
I think the conspirators + Villefort are kind of different representatives of how people don't necessarily have to be evil (but certainly can be) in order to do evil.Danglars is definitely the mastermind who actively wants to do harm.
Fernand doesn't have any scruples to enact the plan, but he wouldn't have initiated it himself.
Caderousse is a perfect example of how someone doesn't have to have bad intentions, it's enough to give in to weak fears and stay silent to cause a tragedy, or rather not prevent it (I think there can be different philosophical viewpoints on whether he actively caused it or just didn't prevent it).
Villefort is a ruthless egoist who wants to protect himself and his first and foremost.
It anticipates the discussions about civilian complicity in Germany and Austria (and other countries) after WW2, I think.
I think you're right Minnie. It anticipates many discussions that have happened since and continue to happen. I think these ideas are relevant at all levels from individual issues, such as a kid seeing another being bullied in the school playground, up to international issues, such as should we take action against another country if they are mistreating their citizens.
The kid in the playground could be weak and silent or selfishly silent because if someone else is the victim it isn't them or could join in with the bullying either deliberatly or by just going with the flow.
We're seeing examples again at the moment in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement and the discussions around silence being complicity.
You're absolutely right.On a general note, I'm so happy that I (re-)started this as a group read, discussing it with you guys made me see so many new levels to this book! Like right now I realised that it's not just a simple popular revenge story to satisfy our sense for poetic justice, it's a much more complex discussion of who is guilty and how are they guilty and how far can you go in taking your revenge if a deity or more importantly the state won't do it for you? (This is me knowing a little bit about the ending, but I'd love to have a discussion with you after we've finished!)
Thank you guys! <3
I was thinking something very similar earlier as I was posting my last comment. I normally read quite quickly and rarely take the time to think more deeply about books/characters/themes etc. This discussion is really adding to my reading experience.I've not read the book before and know very little about it beyond it's a revenge story. I wonder how/if we will see things differently along the way with our different levels of knowledge about the ending.
Yes! So perfect. There are so many different ways to be guilty and some could argue that maybe some characters (like Cauderosse) aren’t actually to blame. I think it’s an age old question. Is saying nothing being complicit? Can you be neutral or must you pick to be either and solution or the problem? So, in other words, if you’re not actively solving the problem are you adding to it? It’s really interesting to look at each of these 4 characters and see how their guilt is so different. As we keep reading I think we will have to ask ourselves what guild Edmond carries too. Can we blame him for his revenge? Last year I read Les Mis and a few other books with similar ideas. Who is to blame for certain actions? Like Les Mis- can we blame Valjean for stealing bread? Was it societies fault he was forced into this desperate place? Is it society’s responsibility to take care of each individual person? I think these ideas will apply to Edmond too.
Hi all! I got a bit delayed starting The Count of Monte Cristo this month but I’ve now started it. I’m only 5 chapters in but so far I’m really enjoying it! Hopefully I’ll catch up with you all in no time
So I read something about how we often forget that Dumas was black (it part of we’re being particular). He experienced racism and discrimination in France and used that to write his books. So while I wasn’t comparing Edmonds experiences directly to racial discrimination, it seems that Dumas was writing from that place. He was teaching similar lessons through this story. And it makes me wonder why he didn’t just come out and write about slavery or racism. Do you think he had a different story to write that was more literary or whatever? Do you think he was writing it to be more accepted by people of the day? I wonder his reasoning. Also, his dad was a military man. He invaded Egypt. At least what I read said he did. I should fact check this story some more. Apparently when he got there, he was so large in stature, the people thought he was Napoleon and respected him....which seems weird because he was taking over....but that’s the story. So when Napoleon actually gets there, he’s like small guy, right? And the people prefer Dumas’ father. So Napoleon hates him and makes his life difficult. So Dumas writes these situations in his books where fathers are vindicated and people in power are brought down. I thought that was kind of funny. We already see that in Edmond’s father a bit. He doesn’t get absolution. In fact his story is sad. But there is great respect there. He sees his dad before his fiancé. We see the great relationship they have. So I thought that was cool background!
How’s everyone doing this week? What thoughts have you had? I’m just finishing up and I’ll come back with some more thoughts.
That's really interesting. I hadn't really realised that Dumas was a POC. It does cast a different light on the themes in the book. He clearly was writing from experience in terms of discrimination and unfair treatment. I think it would have been difficult for him to write about racism directly and have the book accepted, particularly as a POC. Presumably it was part of his thinking though.
That's also interesting about fathers. Yes, Edmond has a very good relationship with his father. Also, Villefort did what he did to Edmond because of his own father. Although it's less clear how much he was saving his father and how much he was saving himself from the trouble that would be caused if his father was found out.
This is as much as I know:Dumas liked to take historical source material and people it with memorable characters and exciting adventures; it's that he did with The Three Musketeers and its sequels and also The Count of Monte Cristo. In the latter case his source material was an alleged real case of a guy who was betrayed by his friends and sent to prison for years, somehow got out and acquired wealth and used it to revenge himself on his former friends in gruelling ways. I think the difference was that the last friend actually mortally wounded him, so in the end all of them died. Dumas read this in a compilation of adventurous biographies and started writing what we now know as the Roman part, but his research assistant told him that it would be much better to first tell the betrayal story instead of slowly revealing it in the course of the novel.
We also know that Dumas' father was imprisoned in Naples for two years before being reluctantly bailed out by the French government. Napoleon apparently didn't like that one of his most capable generals was becoming more popular than him, later he actually refused to pay General Dumas and his widow his pension. He died embittered when Dumas was 3 years old.
As for slavery, I know there is something later on in the book and I've heard that it's fairly problematic?
I've never read anything about Dumas writing to expose discrimination of POC. But then again, I also only found out about him being a POC this year. It's another instance of POC being silently painted over, I guess. It would be amazing to read a good biography on him!
Thanks Minnie, it's really interesting to see the history associated with the book. I had no idea it was based on a true story.Even if Dumas didn't intentionally write to expose discrimination of POC, his experiences with racism surely affected his view of the world, his ability to understand the effect of unfairness and his understanding of what it would be like to be the victim of that.
Yes you're right. After the book I'll look up some biographies and cultural analyses on race issues, there just has to be something! I think that one of the effects of the book on my personal reading habits is going to be to explicitly seek out non-white voices in classical literature from now on. Starting with Pushkin, his grandfather was an abducted chieftain's son from the Congo (?) who also went on to become a famous Russian general, actually. But there very likely has to be more.
I didnt know that Dumas was POC, this change the way of seeing his novels. I agree with Becky "his experiences must affecter his writting" I knew he wasn't very loved in the society, people prefered Victoe Hugo but I thought it was because his extravaganza live.Yes the count of monte cristo is based in the life François Picaud and others stories.
I also read that Dantes is based on Dumas himself to an extent. And he had a ghost writer (not sure why they called it that...) who he collaborated with. It sounded like the ghost writer would come up with vague ideas or outlines and Dumas would write them. I really need to read a good biography. Maybe we can do one together after. I also want to read The Black Count by Tom Reiss about Dumas’ father.
Have you seen the hashtag going around about “black out” the best seller lists from book stores? I bought a bunch of books by POC that I’ve been wanting to read this week to support the cause. I try to seek out other perspectives, but I could do a lot better.
I really enjoyed this week's chapters, especially reading about how resourceful the abbe was. I liked the way he had created all of the tools he needed, even pen and paper. Also a bit of a cliff hanger ending, well not so much hanging as dropping. I'm looking forward to the next part of the story where I guess we'll be starting our journey to monte cristo.
I’ve been MIA this week and miss this discussion! I will catch up tomorrow and be back. Hopefully we can all discuss even with a holiday weekend for the states!
Let’s get back to discussing!! I’m finally caught up and on a good schedule! How is everyone else doing?Some of my thoughts from the last 2 weeks:
Interesting portrayal of depression and hopelessness. And then hope comes in the form of a friend! I am thinking about the fact that it’s an abbe. Is that significant? His hope and futures comes from a religious leader. But also, his revenge and hatred. He wouldn’t know who ruined his life or had the ideas to devote the rest of his life to ruining theirs.
Did you have any thoughts on the words about books and learning in chapters 16 & 17? He lists the books they are the most important to a learned person. And then in chapter 17, he talks about how “human knowledge is confined within very narrow limits”. Also “to learn is not to know; there are the learners and the learned. Memory makes the one, philosophy the other.” Thoughts on these? Do you agree?
Dantes is young and innocent, maybe childlike, in the beginning. Now he has 14 years “experience” and age beyond that. He has patience to wait as he travels with the smugglers instead of jumping at any chance to get to Monte Cristo. He is able to play his character and deceive the smugglers so they don’t suspect him. But at the same time, he is still child like in the way he can’t wait to get to the treasure and is so focused on that.
I love this quote at the beginning of chapter 20. “No. I desire to struggle to the very last; I will wish to recognize the happiness of which I have been deprived.” At this moment he decides not to sit in that desire to die and decides to try and make his life better and do what it takes to live and escape. He will accept struggle to get what he wants. Thoughts? I think life is full of struggle. Do we choose to accept that with the good that comes? Does it have to be that way? Other thoughts?
Things keep happening to foil things for Dantes. Like when he falls and get injured on Monte Cristo. Is providence sending a warning or are things things really blessings for the divine to whom he keeps praying? The injury allows him to stay on the island. But was it all/mostly good or was it a bad situation that he made the best of? Was it a warning not to go down the path he’s headed on?
Hey, so happy to be reading this again! I don't know how far you are, but - don't klick before the Monte Cristo chapters - (view spoiler) Or did I get that wrong?
Yes, he faked the fall so that they would leave him alone on the island.He does have bad luck though. When it said he moved all of the treasure into the boat, I was thinking that might not be a good idea, with luck like his the thing will probably sink!
I do agree with the line you quoted Ashley - “to learn is not to know; there are the learners and the learned. Memory makes the one, philosophy the other.” There is definitely a difference between remembering a list of facts and having intelligence.I hadn't thought about whether there was any significance to his friend and the person who set him on his path to revenge being an abbe. There could be. I don't know what Dumas religious views were, do you?
Becky wrote: "I do agree with the line you quoted Ashley - “to learn is not to know; there are the learners and the learned. Memory makes the one, philosophy the other.” There is definitely a difference between ..."All I am finding in my attempt to learn about his religious views are things he wrote or said. He wrote 2 lesser known Christian novels, one of which he never finished.
I also found this quote, which I think is actually from his son
“Here is Christianity with its marvellous parable of the Prodigal Son to teach us indulgence and pardon. Jesus was full of love for souls wounded by the passions of men; he loved to bind up their wounds and to find in those very wounds the balm which should heal them. Thus he said to the Magdalen: "Much shall be forgiven thee because thou hast loved much," a sublimity of pardon which can only have called forth a sublime faith.
Why do we make ourselves more strict than Christ? Why, holding obstinately to the opinions of the world, which hardens itself in order that it may be thought strong, do we reject, as it rejects, souls bleeding at wounds by which, like a sick man's bad blood, the evil of their past may be healed, if only a friendly hand is stretched out to lave them and set them in the convalescence of the heart?”
I am having fun reading this section, knowing we are finishing up the first “part” and getting close to where Dumas stopped publishing for 6 months. I’m reading each chapter and thinking how I’d have to wait for the next publication if I were reading this in Dumas’ time. It makes some of the decisions make more sense. For example, chapter 26 has a lot of dialogue and waiting and deciding that wasn’t super necessary. Obviously everything is necessary to the creation of the story and is part of the art of a great writer/artist, but the same message could have been gotten across more quickly. However, it makes for an interesting self contained chapter. Each one has to stand on its own enough to satisfy the serial reader. But it has to leave you wondering what’s going to happen next. It’s a very interesting thing to consider and see how the story is structured differently than one that is written as one cohesive whole, published at once.
How is everyone doing? Minnie was ahead a month ago, where are you now? Is anyone else ahead? Should those of us barely keeping up with the schedule read faster so we can discuss more? Or are most of us on schedule? Who is still here?
I'm still where I was a month ago, mid-chapter 33, due to uni stuff. I've decided to wait for everyone and continue in time with the schedule, as there are some books I want to wrap up anyway, so it suits me fine. So according to the schedule I should be reading on until chapter 35, is that also where you guys are heading?
Ashley wrote: "How is everyone doing? Minnie was ahead a month ago, where are you now? Is anyone else ahead? Should those of us barely keeping up with the schedule read faster so we can discuss more? Or are most ..."I'm purposely sticking to the schedule and reading 5 chapters each week. I thought at first it would be too slow but I'm really enjoying it this way.
However, if people aren't commenting because the schedule is too slow for them we could increase the speed. In that case I would suggest 10 chapters a week to keep it simple.
My first vote though, would be to stick with the schedule we have.
What do other people think? Would more join in the discussion if the schedule changed?
I really enjoyed this section too. There was lots of drama.It is interesting to think about how it was serialised. We’ve got a little way to go to the 6 month break at the end of part 2 (chapter 39). It will be interesting to see how that chapter ends. How much of a cliff hanger did he leave people with?
I guess that, like Dickens, the serialisation is a significant factor in the length of the book.
I think it’s interesting that Edmond has visited and helped his friend first before setting off to get his revenge. Obviously Morrel needed help immediately but it also makes me think that Edmond is separating the goodness from the badness. He has finished with the good and now can leave that behind and just seek revenge, sacrificing the goodness in himself if he needs to. I’m not sure I’ve said that well.
Minnie wrote: "I'm still where I was a month ago, mid-chapter 33, due to uni stuff. I've decided to wait for everyone and continue in time with the schedule, as there are some books I want to wrap up anyway, so i..."Hi Minnie, I was writing my comments when you posted yours so we've crossed over. I read up to chapter 30 this morning and will be at 35 next weekend. I tend to do the 5 in one sitting over a cup of coffee each weekend.
Great, so I'll start reading on tomorrow :)The end of the Marseille part gave me chills - Dantès sailing away and his little speech about how he has no one left to bestow benevolence on. As far as serialisation goes, I think a contemporary reader would have been very eager to find out more! I'm comparing it to a well-done season finale or perhaps mid-season finale.
It sounds like we are all good to stick with the schedule. Let’s just keep on. I was just hoping to hear from everyone to see how it was going!That’s interesting about leaving off all the good and moving onto revenge. I think it’s an important observation. I was wondering what you all thought of him helping Caderousse.
I really wasn't sure why he helped Caderousse. He obviously wanted information from him but I thought he could have left it there and not helped him. It makes me wonder if we'll see more of him later although I don't expect to. What did you think of Edmond helping him.
I also wonder about him coming back. It seems uncharacteristic if Dumas’ writing so far to just leave that as it was left. No explanation. I suppose we aren’t even told that it IS Dantes at that point. Are we just supposed to know? Is it explained later? Maybe. I want to keep his helping phase in a nice bubble and revenge in its own time and part of the story. But I don’t think it’s that clean cut and it’s probably not supposed to be. He does help Morrel, but he does it in a round about way. He could have simply excused the debt, but it probably would have looked suspicious. I still would have almost preferred to see him obviously forgive them debt and help his friend to see the last bit of goodness before the revenge. I’m still stuck on that idea you brought up.
Anyway, all of that to get to Cauderrouse. It’s not clean cut as I wish it was. There was selfishness in wanting info. Edmond knew he could manipulate him because he wanted money. And his wife too. She’s prideful and not a happy person. But I also wonder if it’s partly to cause guilt. Make him feel bad for taking money from a man whose demise he helped instigate. Or did Edmond really not realize he was a part is the plan? I mean he knew he was there. He knew he did not stop it. He knew he was dunk. Does that make him not as accountable? Does Edmond forgive him some? Or is he playing games and starting the revenge? Those are the things going through my mind.
This week was hard! What is the point of these chapters? Why did Edmond being a random guy to his secret home? Why are we being told this random story? Did we need to learn some history and certain things about Edmond? Are these characters going to be important later? What did you think of these chapters?
Ok I hadn’t finished chapter 35 when I commented. It seems that chapter is to establish The Count of Monte Cristo the name and the character and to make sure the reader knows he is also Sinbad. Do you think the readers of the time realized this before this chapter? Does anyone know? We all at least know some of the story line of revenge, so we assume this man doing weird things is Edmond, but does the reader of the time know that?
I suppose he goes and gets the treasure on the island, which would make a current reader make the connection with Edmond and the abbe. So I wonder if all these things were clues that added up or if it was just as obvious as it is to us.
Honestly, it's hard to tell. I also thought the chapters were rather... tangential? I enjoyed it more when we still had a little bit of an insight into Edmond's head as with the fake abbé and English agent episodes.I think the young men on their Roman holiday (unplanned wordplay, who else knows the movie? I adore Audrey Hepburn!) are the kids of the original traitors? The family name of one of them is the family name Caderousse gave Edmond/the abbé as being now the noble title of either Danglars, Villefort or Fernand (I think the latter?). So that would mean Edmond wants to get to them through their kids.
I also think the hotelier is in on it with th Count of Monte Cristo. That whole convoluted history of Luigi Vampa the bandit smells a whole lot like bait and/or distraction maneouvre to me!
