The Man in the Iron Mask - Week 10 - thru the end

[Robin P, Moderator]

This section is a bit longer, but it seemed best to just finish. However, feel free to take the rest of the month to finish at your own pace, and comment as you go.

A huge acknowledgment to those who completed the whole Dumas project! I just checked and we started Aug 30, 2020.

Dumas was writer of the Romantic period, a time when emotions were prized, and often both the natural world and the physical body were reflections of inner emotions. We see this in the decline of Athos, as well as the sudden demise of Mousqueton. In the case of Athos, it may seem bizarre that he changes so quickly, yet his symptoms of staying in bed and refusing visitors are actually recognizable to us today as signs of depression.

As a contrast, we have some sweetness and even humor in the reading of Porthos' will. Where will all his fortune end up with Raoul gone? I wonder if unclaimed lands reverted to the crown, which would be a bit ironic, Louis XIV getting all that, and Colbert perhaps managing it? And who inherits Athos' territory and wealth? Interesting that none of the four musketeers produced children from a marriage.

The grand emotions show up again in the death of Raoul, when it ends up turning the tide of battle, and in the death of d'Artagnan at the exact moment of claiming his reward of the baton signifying he is Maréchal of France.

It is true that Louis had a mistress named Louise de la Valliere and that she was replaced by Mme de Montespan, who was later replaced herself. We get to see Louise's prediction of this and then its fruition. Was d'Artagnan too hard on her when they met at Raoul's grave? Although she admits her guilt, she still doesn't deny or regret her love for the king. At least she has that much gumption. In the later hunting scene, the party ends up right by the grave, but also near the town of Meung, where the very first chapter of d'Artagnan's story began. Dumas must have wanted to bring things full circle.

The various wars conducted by Louis are also historical, although of course the specific battle scenes are made up.

Why do you think Aramis is the last one left alive? He has maneuvered his way back into power. It almost seems like he made a deal with the devil, as in The Sorrows of Satan; or, The Strange Experience of One Geoffrey Tempest, Millionaire.

What are your impressions of the saga as a whole? Would it have been better if Dumas had left his characters as they were at the end of Twenty Years After? Would the cycle be stronger if it hadn't lingered so long on court intrigue? In the whole last books of The Vicomte de Bragelonne, Louise de La Valliere and The Man in the Iron Mask, do we ever see all 4 friends together? Those were always the strongest chapters, in my opinion.

Thanks again to everyone for your participation!

[Ana]

I didn't realize how close we were to the last chapter - I decided to just stay up and finish. I had forgotten most of the filler parts in the books, but I vividly remember the end. I think that was the reason I was so behind in the reading - I was trying to postpone the inevitable.

I hate the way everyone died. Porthos who was the strongest dies in a moment of weakness, D'Artagnan gets close to his coveted title but then gets killed on the spot. Athos gets to see his son die a pointless death (I can't call it heroic - reckless perhaps). The death of Athos was so cinematic and I think Dumas made it the saddest of them all. He took extra special care to leave the readers completely heartbroken.

I'm just going to try to erase this ending from my mind as fast as possible and imagine a better one.

Robin P wrote: "Why do you think Aramis is the last one left alive?

Because he was my favorite <3 and Dumas felt sorry for me. I was sad enough that he killed everyone else. At least I can imagine Aramis had a nice, long life - maybe lived to be 100 : )

What are your impressions of the saga as a whole?
I know I said a lot in the previous threads, but to sum it up:
I love the first 2 books, I don't like the last 3 and I hate the ending.

Would it have been better if Dumas had left his characters as they were at the end of Twenty Years After?
Yes! 100%
With mild improvements - he didn't need to kill Rochefort.
Athos should have ended up with Madame de Chevreuse ;)
And everyone should have lived happily ever after.

Would the cycle be stronger if it hadn't lingered so long on court intrigue?
Yes, those chapters were so long and boring.
In Queen Margot, there was court intrigue, but the pace was so fast. Night and day difference.

In the whole last books of The Vicomte de Bragelonne, Louise de La Valliere and The Man in the Iron Mask, do we ever see all 4 friends together?
I don't think so. In fact we hardly see them at all.
That's what ruins the books.

[Lori, Moderator]

Ana wrote: "Athos gets to see his son die a pointless death (I can't call it heroic - reckless perhaps)."

Raoul's pointless death really upset me. Porthos's death was sad, but it was heroic. D'Artagnan's death was kind of poetic. But Raoul's was pointless and stupid. It made sense to me that Athos would die after his son did, but Raoul's death shouldn't have happened that way, and I'm also trying to forget it.

[Robin P, Moderator]

It helps that Raoul was such a stick figure, I didn't care about him the way I did about the others. Still, his death wasn't even to help his fellow soldiers or gain territory, it was basically suicide. Louise wasn't worth it!

[Lori, Moderator]

Robin P wrote: "It helps that Raoul was such a stick figure, I didn't care about him the way I did about the others. Still, his death wasn't even to help his fellow soldiers or gain territory, it was basically sui..."

I didn't care about him too much either, but I cared about Athos.

[Robin P, Moderator]

Athos didn’t get to do much in this part of the series, he was more a passive receiver of others’ actions, which was too bad. Dumas made a point of how good Athos was and how he would be welcomed into heaven. I couldn’t help remembering the many people he killed, not only in war, but in duels, when he was young. Not to mention Milady (twice). Supposedly they were all justified, and Catholics get to confess at the end and be forgiven in last rites. This brings me back to where I started this project - in spite of being a pacifist and feminist, I have a literary weakness for swashbuckling! We can’t really apply modern morality or it would take away all the fun.

[Ana]

I agree with both of you.

Raoul must have been obsessed and completely depressed to rush to battle in such a foolish way.

Louise was definitely not worth it. The king must think so too since he dumped her shortly after.

I only feel bad for the pain it caused Athos.
And to think that Raoul could have enjoyed all of Porthos’ wealth. 🤷🏻‍♀️
Robin, you bring up a good point - what happens to it all now? I know there is a fan fiction book called The Son of Porthos which attempts to answer that question. I’ve just been so disillusioned by fan fiction musketeer books lately that I don’t think I’ll read it.

I really enjoyed this read along with the group - even when the group shrunk and book got boring.
I can’t believe it has been over a year since we started.

Thank you Robin for always leading the discussion :)

Now that we’re done with the musketeers is there another project?

[Robin P, Moderator]

Thais, Ana, and thanks to everyone who hung in there, and those who did any part of the project.

The Mods were just wondering about another project. Any ideas?

[Ana]

The Accursed Kings by Maurice Druon - it’s
about the French monarchy in the 14th century.
It’s a series of 7 books.
Similar to the Dumas books we just finished - but the pace is much faster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Acc...

[Robin P, Moderator]

Ana wrote: "The Accursed Kings by Maurice Druon - it’s
about the French monarchy in the 14th century.
It’s a series of 7 books.
Similar to the Dumas books we just finished - but the pace is much faster.

ht..."

It sounds great, but it wasn't written during the period this group reads from. The books have to be actually written between 1714-1910.

[Ana]

Oh, I forgot about that rule.
We’ll have to come up with something else then .

[Robin P, Moderator]

I thought of Edith Wharton but much of her writing was after 1910.

[Hedi]

I have finally finished the book as well. And as you all, I was devastated and annoyed about the ending. Did Dumas really have to kill off everyone?!
As mentioned already, I also considered Porthos´s death as one thing, but young Raoul killing himself more or less twice by recklessly running into battle despite any contradicting orders/ commands placed to him and then when having a very slight chance of healing "falling out of the bed" and destroying himself. That was too much to bear. Louise was definitely not worth it. And I was thinking the same question about all the inheritances. I guess if there were no other nephews or nieces nearby that all the wealth fell back to the crown.

Then Athos has his vision of Raoul calling and leading him to heaven. He only keeps on living until he gets the official information of Raoul*s death. I would also have guessed that he suffered of depression.

Mousqueton dies in an instant "swimming" in his inheritance of all the fine clothes.

And then D'Artagnan becomes finally Marechal to be killed a few seconds later.

Why this ending? Why not a little of a happily ever after in form of retirement into their respective estates or something like that, more what Aramis got. And why does Aramis survive while everyone else dies? Sorry, Ana, he has never been my favourite. ;-)

What are your impressions of the saga as a whole? Would it have been better if Dumas had left his characters as they were at the end of Twenty Years After?

I think Dumas should have kept himself more to a plot around the musketeers instead of creating a historical saga. The later books are more about the court and the musketeers become secondary. As a reader you lose interest and the new protagonists are not really sympathetic enough to identify yourself with them. In the first 2 books the musketeers were definitely the protagonists in a saga laid into historical events, but that becomes vice versa in the later books.

Why do you think Aramis is the last one left alive?

Good question, I do not know. Maybe it is survival of the fittest. :-) Aramis is the smartest and at the same time the one with the least scruples. He is the most hypocritical musketeer of the four in my opinion. Athos is the good one, Porthos is the innocent one and d'Artagnan is somehow the loyal one. However, Aramis is more adaptable and finds his ways even if it is not always the in line with the previous. I mean even in the earlier books he is the priest, but at the same time commits sins not matching his calling.

BIG thanks to all of you for the discussions and an even bigger thanks to you, Robin, who kept us going even when we fell behind. I am not sure whether I would have made it all the way without you all.

Overall, I must say that different sections of the books felt very different when reading. These last chapters were partially written again in a very fine and almost poetic language whereas other sections were really not only content wise, but also literally boring and undistinguished. That is maybe the biggest verdict I have for the whole series. If I think of Anna Karenina, which
I read many years ago, I remember that there were sections about farming which were almost endless, but the quality of writing seemed on the same level with the rest. I cannot say that of this series.

[Robin P, Moderator]

I would guess that Dumas wrote the ending himself, which is why it reads better than the long court sections. Some authors deliberately kill off their characters to avoid the public clamoring for more about them (though that didn't work for Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes!) But I think Dumas would have been happy to keep writing about the musketeers and raking in the money that would bring.

Thanks for the kind words, Hedi. Earlier this year, I doubted myself whether this project was a good idea. I couldn't have done it without the participation of our members!

[Lori, Moderator]

Robin P wrote: "Would it have been better if Dumas had left his characters as they were at the end of Twenty Years After?"

Maybe. I think the later books were more about the king's exploits than the Musketeers. Twenty Years After is my favorite of the series, even over the first book. Some of the plot details bored me a bit, but we got a deeper insight into the musketeers' individual personalities, which I loved.