How to use this Page

Dumas, Alexandre. The Three Musketeers. Translated by Richard Pevear. (This translation was published in 2006. The original was published in the 1840s.)

On the first Monday of the month of April 1625, the village of Meung, where the author of the Romance of the Rose was born, seemed to be in as total an upheaval as if the Huguenots had come to make a second La Rochelle. Many of the townsmen, seeing women fleeing along the main street, hearing children crying on the doorsills, hastened to put on their breastplates and, backing up their somewhat uncertain countenances with a musket or a partisan, headed for the Jolly Miller Inn, before which jostled a compact group, noisy, full of curiosity, and growing every minute.

Thus begins the classic novel The Three Musketeers. It may not be much of an attention-grabber--especially these days--but believe me, there is more than enough adventure to go around (and then some) in this wonderful classic. Set in seventeenth century France during the reign of Louis XIII, the novel focuses on the life and adventures of a young man d'Artagnan. His friends. His enemies. His frenemies. His lovers. d'Artagnan is a man without much fortune; when we first meet up with him he is almost penniless--not quite--and is the not-so-proud owner of a yellow nag of a horse. Despite his father urging him to not sell the horse, the first thing d'Artagnan does when he gets the chance is to unload himself of the poor creature. He may not have much, but he has BIG dreams and BIG potential. He's also rather confident for being who he is. The first to want to duel at the slightest insult. The first to demand honor and respect. He has a clumsy way about him--at least at first. He seems to rub every one the wrong way at the beginning. His first day in town--in Paris I believe--and he ends up with three men wanting to challenge him. Athos. Porthos. Aramis. Three of the king's own musketeers.

But it is to "be" a musketeer that he is there in the first place. To be a musketeer, to serve his king and country, to earn glory (and money) his only ambition. (Well that and to get the attention of the ladies.) I won't get into the specifics--I hope you'll pick this one up yourself--the duels come to a rather unique resolution. The three men already being the very best of friends decide to take d'Artagnan under their protection, to make him part of this tight circle of friendship. To be part of the exclusive all-for-one and one-for-all club.

Friendship. Love. Hate. Revenge. Secrets. Danger. Adventure. Adventure. Adventure. Adventure with a dash of romance. Swordfights. Duels. Honor. Jealousy. Agendas. Ambition. Greed. Lust. And more than a little humor and sarcasm.

I really can't recommend this one highly enough. I loved every moment of it. Dashing men with swords. Dashing men that wear hats with feathers. Had me at hello. Seriously. Once I started, I didn't want to stop. I did of course. I wasn't able to read 704 pages in one sitting. But I doubt anyone could. It was thoroughly enjoyable. And I didn't want it to end.

I would definitely recommend this edition over the others as well. It has some incredible foot notes. :)

"We bow to the inevitable. We’re not wheat, we’re buckwheat! When a storm comes along it flattens ripe wheat because it’s dry and can’t bend with the wind. But ripe buckwheat’s got sap in it and it bends. And when the wind has passed, it springs up almost as straight and strong as before. We aren’t a stiff-necked tribe. We’re mighty limber when a hard wind’s blowing, because we know it pays to be limber. When trouble comes we bow to the inevitable without any mouthing, and we work and we smile and we bide our time. And we play along with lesser folks and we take what we can get from them. And when we’re strong enough, we kick the folks whose necks we’ve climbed over. That, my child, is the secret of the survival.” And after a pause, she added: “I pass it on to you.”

The old lady cackled, as if she were amused by her words, despite the venom in them. She looked as if she expected some comment from Scarlett but the words had made little sense to her and she could think of nothing to say. (709-710)

Changing topics now. I just want to bring to your attention one more thing. The last chapter was written first. (The first few chapters were written last.) Margaret Mitchell had in her mind how the story would end. It was these characters in this last and final state--the frustrated and pleading Scarlett and the resolute and pitying Rhett--that were her characters. Her characters just as she wanted them; just as she first imagined them. Everything that comes before is leading up to this grand emotional finale. Every scene, every conversation. All the little plot twists. All were to lead up to this. It wasn't the other way around. The ending wasn't tacked on because Mitchell didn't know where to go next. This unhappy and emotionally draining scene was her perfect ending. Which is why I find the idea of sequels so laughable. 

Rutherfurd, Edward. 1997. London. 829 pages.

Many times since the Earth was young, the place had lain under the sea.

London is a long novel. A saga of a place, the city of London. It encompasses many times, many cultures, many subjects. History. Religion. Politics. Economics. Sociology. Mythology. Science. Technology. Architecture. Archaeology. Philosophy. Roughly speaking, it begins in 54 B.C., and ends in the midst of World War II, 1941. I won't lie and say it covers each and every century between the two, but if you're looking to fill in the gaps of your knowledge of the British empire, then London is a good place to start.

You might enjoy London if:

a) you love history
b) you like viewing life in terms of the 'big picture'
c) you like reading stories of human nature--the good, the bad, the ugly--what makes us human d) you like family sagas that trace particular families through generations and generations and more generations.
e) you really want to grasp and understand the royal lines from beginning to end (because goodness knows this knowledge is oh-so-practical)

I first read London back when it was first published in paperback. It was a bestseller. (It had been a bestseller.) It was my first Rutherfurd novel, and it certainly wasn't my last. I had JUST decided to become an English major and a History minor. What does this have to do with anything? Well. I was taking history and literature courses. And a good teacher knows that to understand the literature, you've got to have a good grasp of history--the time, the place, the culture, the society in which a work was written. Through a period of five years, I essentially took courses--sometimes very specific courses--about Britain. I did not take the course on Chaucer. Or the course on Milton. But from the 16th century through the 21rst century, let's just say I was immersed. Of course no study is complete and absolute. I'm sure there are still gaps. But I feel relatively confident with that time period, that culture. I read London fairly early on in my studies. And this DID help me grasp the big picture. One of the things that I will always always be thankful for is that the novel finally helped me understand the royal lines.

But I'll be completely honest. London isn't a novel that is for everyone. You have to sincerely love historical fiction. And you've got to be committed to reading a 800+ page novel. If you read it in hardcover, you also have to be committed to lifting it up and carrying it around. (Paperback is easier, but I wore my copy out!) Like most long historical sagas, you might want to exercise your right to skim. (Like me reading Les Miserables but giving myself permission to skim the battle scenes and the detailed descriptions of how sewers are built for example.) Some of the details I was interested in, some bored me.

One of the things it handles nicely is the conflict in Britain between Catholics and Protestants. And also the conflicts between Protestants. Quakers. Baptists. Puritans. Anglicans, Calvinists. Presbyterians. etc. Going back even further, it imagines what it would have been like in pre-Christian days. Before the gospel message reached the British shores. What it was like when missionaries came. What it was like when this faith was seen as completely bizarre and breaking with everything they knew. When it divided families and cities and towns.

The novel is divided into 21 sections. Some sections--most sections--stand alone. They're only loosely connected to the novel as a whole. (We'll see what the various families are doing in this century.) Other sections are tightly woven together. The action, the characters tie together quite well. Sometimes the generations of family are close between sections (parent-child, grandparent-grandchild) and sometimes hundreds of years have passed. This is somewhat interesting to see as a big picture. How family lines are always climbing or declining in wealth and prominence. The poor family can centuries later be among the leading, ruling families, and then centuries later, be right back in the gutter. I suppose what I'm saying is that the novel shows how small decisions can added together over a period of time make a big big difference. But at the same time it shows that life does go on, that human nature doesn't change, that things like desire and greed and love and hate and revenge and ambition are the backbones of society.

Because the book is in sections, I almost think of them as twenty novellas or so, in terms of quality there is a bit unevenness. Some sections are great. Very interesting. Very well-written. The characters, the action, the story being well-paced and just excellent. Other sections are just okay. The pacing lags a bit in places. The interest isn't always there. If I'm being completely honest the last few chapters drag for me. The first three-fourths of the novel being worthy of four stars at least and the last fourth being a mere three stars.

I do like Edward Rutherfurd's writing.

Buddhists add a sixth sense to the five we ordinarily think of, and it’s thinking itself; to the Buddhist, thoughts impinge on the mind just the way sights, for example, impress the eye. It’s the vibrant interplay of sense organ, sense object, and consciousness that make up our experience of self.

The concept of Bob Raczka’s More Than Meets the Eye, part of his Adventures in Art picture book series, treats only the five conventional senses, but he engages the mind as a sixth sense in the process. “Have you ever tasted a painting?” he asks, illustrating with Vermeer’s milk jug, Cassatt’s cup of tea, and of course Thiebaud’s frosted cakes. Hockney’s splashing diver, Jamie Wyeth’s stinky pig and Rivera’s tortillas, among others, point out sound, smell, and touch respectively. Works by Vasarely and Chuck Close demonstrate the art of really looking at pictures.

We don’t get Raczka’s charming rhymes in this book, but there is plenty of art food for thought for children and parents alike. Raczka understands that art is an experience, and he serves it up deliciously. In crossing senses, he also crosses cultures. The images and the senses he evokes and inspires are universal.

Patricia Stohr-Hunt’s blog, The Miss Rumphius Effect (where she’s known as Tricia) has a wonderful list of sense-evoking books for kids.