Again, really just an old HSA discussion. I was part of another HSA group read, led by someone else, where they decided to read Crime and Punishment based on a poll vote. I wasn't really interested in Crime and Punishment, but wanted to do a group read and have discussions. By the end, I thought it was a really depressing book, and I was the only one who finished it so nobody else had any discussion ideas :P So, this time I decided to take the helm, and not poll anybody about it! At the worst, I'd be reading a book I wanted to read anyway, and maybe just discussing it with those who had already read it:
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 06, 2007
The group read will begin next Monday (July 9th). Everyone is welcome to join and discuss. If you don't have the book and can't get it quickly, there is an online version available here:
http://www.online-literature.com/dumas/cristo/1/
I am planning to read about one chapter per day on business days (subject to change). If you read faster or slower, that is fine, just try not to post spoilers before they come up in discussion.
Finnbar
Fri Jul 06, 2007
hmm, the Count, so tortured! so afflicted! maybe I'll reread it with ya'll..
Heather Belle OFC
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I've already read it so I'll just lurk and see what y'all say about it. :D Is that permitted?
Elisabeth Starr
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I haven't read it yet, but have intended to for a while now :D So I'll join you.
Carolyn
Sat Jul 07, 2007
Heather wrote:
I've already read it so I'll just lurk and see what y'all say about it. :D Is that permitted?
Me too. It's been awhile but I seem to remember liking it overall. Because... never mind. I shan't spill anything and I shan't display a potentially faulty memory. ;)
Charlyn
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I might have to start a little late. I am going to a camp tomorrow and I..m not sure I will have time to read. But I..m a fast reader and will be able to catch up quickly Smile
Angie I.
Sun Jul 08, 2007
That's one of my favorite books! I'm in! :D
Patrick Eklektos
Sun Jul 08, 2007
I have already read the book and I was mightily pleased with it. I think I shall do so again. Count me in (there is NO pun here). A chapter-a-day eh? That is easy. I look forward to this post tomorrow! Mr. Green
Sola Deo Gloria
Maece aka Jennifer (Online)
Mon Jul 09, 2007
Lurking is definitely permitted! We may speed up the pace if it seems everyone wants to go faster.
Patrick Eklektos
Mon Jul 09, 2007
I finished my quota of the day! Mr. Green
I would like to observe Dumas' painting of his characters. That is, I would like to take early note of the fact that Dantes is painted as morally good in his conduct of his duties on ship and in his amiable respect for his father. It is interesting to note that, while Dantes did not like Danglars, he did not slight his work. Whereas, the reverse is true of Danglars.
SDG
Maece aka Jennifer
Mon Jul 09, 2007
Yeah - my edition (1936!) has an introduction that includes the following:
Quote:
...the moment a character appears, the reader knows at once whether it is a hero or a villain. If a villain, he "darts an oblique glance, sparkling with hatred"; if a hero he is"tall, sinewy, with a fine pair of dark eyes and and an air of composure and of resolve."
...in the first chapter I recognized this tendency. From what I have heard of Dumas, he is overly simple. In fact, most of his books are written by a group of authors rather than himself alone, and his critics referred to him as "Alexandre Dumas and Company, Fiction Factory." However, his books (particularly The Count) have withstood the test of time and become classics. Just shows what critics know ;)
Also in an insert that came with the book, mention is made of a French lit. professor who declared that there are only 36 plots. Of those, The Count is now considered the archetypal revenge plot. So, while fiction for it's own sake may be little more than fun, it is interesting to me to note that certain works of fiction have greatly impacted other works of literature, and the whole of knowledge in general. I remember reading a short abridged version of The Count when I was very young (complete with many pictures), and loving it. I am glad now to go back and read the whole which I have missed until now.
Daniel J. Mount OFC
Mon Jul 09, 2007
I'll have to catch up with this on Thursday, since I'm busy getting ready to fly out to Atlanta (through Wednesday night). Sorry for the delay on my end! I look forward to catching up with you all then. :)
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 10, 2007
I read the 2nd chapter but don't really have any new comments at this point.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Fri Jul 13, 2007
I'm sorry that I haven't been on here, but we've had a revival this week, and I just haven't had any time to read. I'll get caught up over the weekend. Where are we at? Chapter 5, isn't it?
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 13, 2007
Yup. It's been a bit hard to come up with discussion topics yet...
Angie I.
Fri Jul 13, 2007
It seems I have less time on my hands than I thought so I guess you will have to count me back out. Sorry about that. :(
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 13, 2007
That's ok - it will probably take us around a month to finish, so you can always jump back in later ;)
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 17, 2007
OK - just finished chapter 7. If you are not caught up (and have never read the book), be forewarned of spoilers.
Anyway, characters I found interesting:
1. Caderousse. He is basically a good guy, but ends up doing the wrong thing out of fear and weakness of character. However, it was weakness of character that gave him the opportunity to do good in the first place. If he had not been drunk, Danglars and Ferdinand would not have dared to create their plans in front of him. Yet, if he had a stronger character, he would not have been worried about being associated with a Bonapartist in order to expose trickery against a friend and a good man.
2. Villefort. Another interesting character. Likable, but shallow. I like the sincere description of shallow joy. First is a list of all that Villefort stands to gain from marrying Renee, then the following description "All the elements combined constituted for Villefort a ravishing sum of happiness; so that when with an inward view he contemplated steadily his interior life, it was as if he looked at spots on the sun." HAHAHA! Not quite sarcastic but almost.
Heather Brooke
Tue Jul 17, 2007
Quote:
Quote:
...the moment a character appears, the reader knows at once whether it is a hero or a villain. If a villain, he "darts an oblique glance, sparkling with hatred"; if a hero he is"tall, sinewy, with a fine pair of dark eyes and and an air of composure and of resolve."
...in the first chapter I recognized this tendency. From what I have heard of Dumas, he is overly simple. In fact, most of his books are written by a group of authors rather than himself alone, and his critics referred to him as "Alexandre Dumas and Company, Fiction Factory." However, his books (particularly The Count) have withstood the test of time and become classics. Just shows what critics know Wink
I totally have to agree with you! I found myself already picking out which characters that I will love throughout the book, and those that I will dread!
Maece aka Jennifer
Thanks to another thread, I just discovered that many of the chapters are available in audio format for free.
http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1005
Antonia I. SA 1030
Tue Jul 17, 2007
This is terrible! I want to join in this discussion, but I already know everything that is going to happen, and I'm afraid it will color all my remarks. I would really hate to spoil the story for all those who haven't ever read this before, so I guess I'll just hang back and wait for a safe opening!
Caderousse was definitely weak, and I always felt sorry for him. He was just so lame! Villefort... [great, here is where I have to leave off so not as to give anything away]. Danglars was totally rotten, and Fernand really needed to get hold of himself!
Mr. Green[/i]
Patrick Eklektos
Thu Jul 19, 2007
Sorry I have not been with you all of late, but I have to punch out as I am trading my afternoon Classics for Theology. However, I am still reading Classics in the evening, but, as that is already taken by War and Peace, it does not matter in the slightest. Sorry about that.
SDG
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 20, 2007
Chapter 10:
The king is funny - he doesn't quite seem kingly enough though. I liked the description:
Quote:
...with the self-satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own while he is but commenting upon the idea of another...
Who would ever say something like that today? He says it as if it is common knowledge that an original idea is something VERY separate from a commentary. I agree that it is separate, but it's certainly not a distinction that people seem to make very often today.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 27, 2007
I just finished Chapter 17 - am I getting ahead? I skipped a few days then made them up all at once and I think I may have miscounted how many. Anyway, The Abbe is cool - he reminds me of Robinson Crusoe.
I thought that it was interesting that Dantes confided to Fria that he would not have retained Danglars if the choice were up to him, as he had found inaccuracies in his work. Yet, he never told this information to his own employer. Hmmm.
BTW - how many people are still in this thing? We originally had 16 (anonymous) votes for The Count, and two have since bowed out, and three (including myself) have posted comments. Unless I missed something somewhere...
Loshie
Sat Jul 28, 2007
oh! Tell me where you are and I may try and read it again with y'all.
I read it a few months back, and I have to say it knocked Jane Eyre off for Favorite Old Novel. =P
Maece aka Jennifer
Mon Jul 30, 2007
I guess Chapter 18 as of now - though I think I'm about 2 chapters ahead of where I originally set the pace. Tomorrow I may be further ahead - it's kinda hard to put down :D
Lord Jarodicus
Mon Jul 30, 2007
I randomly grabbed the book at the library, and I'm about half-way finished. Maybe a little more. Very Happy I appreciate a book that I can attack for days on end and still not be done with
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 31, 2007
OK - I just finished Chapter 21, so if any of you are not there yet, beware spoilers!
One thing that is just a little annoying is that descriptions/illustrations have anticipatory details, so that you know what's going to happen long before it actually does. For instance, the picture on the page where he was thrown into the sea told me what was going to happen before he even was carried outside... there were little clues in the narrative all along and yet he was SURPRISED when he wasn't buried (probably because the "grave diggers" were referred to as such). Or, so much attention had previously been drawn to the fact that he kept the knife with him inside the bag - it's not like I didn't know how he would escape *Rolling Eyes* Or the old man telling him about the treasure - the old man had described the treasure to so many other's before, and I certainly never believed that he was mad, it's not like you couldn't see it coming...
And yet, I think that this "I know what's going to happen" actually gets me more interested than if I had no clue. It's kinda like when you're a kid on vacation and you keep asking your parents "Are we there yet?" I KNOW what's coming, I just don't know when, and so I get impatient, and I read more energetically (if that makes sense - reading energetically), looking for the closure that I anticipate. Hmmm...
Daniel J. Mount OFC
Wed Aug 01, 2007
I, too, overestimated the time I had available. But if I can spare the time, I'll catch up with you and start commenting!
Maece aka Jennifer
Thu Aug 02, 2007
Chapter 29: This guy is starting to remind me of Ghost Rider...
Lord Jarodicus
Fri Aug 03, 2007
Okay, an awesome quote from chapter 55:
"But really, my dear count, we are talking as much of women as they do of us; it is unpardonable!"
Mr. Green
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:08
Haha - someone sounds a bit arrogant in the battle of the sexes. Anyway, I'm only through chapter 38, so I guess I'll find out who/if/why about the arrogance later. Anyway, I liked the character Cocles, M. Morrel's loyal, senior accountant. He thought of life as a ledger. Moreover, the idea that everything will add up was like a moral law of the universe for him. If something didn't add up, it was if you had violated gravity. Particularly, if a solid business could not pay, or if a shaky one could, it was like violating the law of gravity. If it happened, he felt he might just as well be insane. I identify with that guy.
Maece aka Jennifer
Thu Aug 23, 2007
Maece wrote:
That's ok - it will probably take us around a month to finish, so you can always jump back in later ;)
When I wrote that, I didn't realize that there were four volumes, and that the thirty chapters listed in the index only represented the first. So, it WILL take over a month. Now that I've been reading more, hopefully it won't take four months.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Aug 24, 2007
I just finished Chapter 50.
I find it very interesting that this story is written at the time of The Enlightenment, The French Revolution, and generally speaking, the dawn of democracy and modern civilization. Yet, the Count seems to be a contrasting personification of vigilante justice, and even cruelty at times.
Think of his slave Ali - the Count felt no duty to save this man's life. In fact, he said that he deliberately waited until the man's tongue has been cut out before he did save him. He seems to have done this simply because it was a whim of his to own a mute slave. He once told a servant of his that Ali was more like a dog than a servant, and were Ali were to fail in his duties, the Count would kill him. His lover (if that is what she truly is - it is hard to say at this point) is also a slave.
He does not believe in philanthropy in general, and in every case where he seems to be practicing it he has a good and selfish reason (for this I admire him, I really believe that any philanthropist who belies himself to be a true philanthropist is deceiving himself, and is therefore dangerous).
The count seems to really believe in physiognomy, and employs it immediately to ascertain the character of everyone he meets. Even if phrenology was popular at the time, for me this seems too naive a belief for one such as the count :-/
I realize that the count did not make friends with Albert and Franz simply from coincidence. Yet, his interest (particularly in Albert) dragged on so long without the slightest hint why Albert was the chosen one??? It was nice to see that finally resolved. Albert is basically the son he would have had by Mercedes, had misfortune not befallen them both. Yet, Albert is also Fernand's son... so if the count loves Albert as a son, it seems in stark contradiction to the general trend of the story that sons are like their fathers. Maximillian, for instance, or either of the boys begotten by Villefort.
It was interesting to see the reference to Rousseau's Emile'! Rousseau WAS French, and from what I've read that book was considered quite an authority on child rearing at the time. I have actually read that book, and it is interesting, though I would not advise taking too much parenting advise from an absentee father of five...
Lord Jarodicus
Thu Aug 30, 2007
I finished weeks ago. :P I really respect a book I can attack for weeks on end and still not finish. I finally put in a few late-nighters and got it done.
Maece aka Jennifer
Enjoy it while you can. It's hard to pull late nighters once you get married.
Anyway, I just finished Chapter 73. I never expected the Count to work as a matchmaker... or un-matchmaker as the case may be. Though, I do think it's quite unfair to be pairing Bendetto with Ms. Eugenie Danglars. She hasn't done anything wrong except to be in love with music rather than a man (and that could change if she met the right guy...), to be independent and strong rather than traditionally feminine, etc. I'm not saying that Albert ought to love her (she doesn't love him either, for that matter), but why do they have to try to set her up with BENDETTO?? I mean, he basically tortured his adopted mom to death! What did she do to deserve him? ...besides, aren't they actually half-siblings?
Oh, and I don't remember what chapter this was from, but I loved this quote about the Count:
"Has the eccentric committed any new originality?"
...as if being original were a crime.
Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Oct 19, 2007
OK - I've been busy lately, but I did finally finish Volume 3. Anybody else have any comments?
Grace
Fri Oct 19, 2007
I haven't been involved in this group read, so I don't know where you all are. But, when you get to the end, I want to have a discussion on whether the book or the movie has a more satisfying ending. I have a definite opinion, but I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Mon Oct 22, 2007
I want in on that discussion too! Mr. Green I have some very strong opinions about the endings! ;)
Grace
Mon Oct 22, 2007
MonteCristo LSP#8 wrote:
Great! Someone let me know when the majority is finished with the book and I'll start a thread.
Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 07, 2007
I think I'm the only one who is still reading it - and I think Jared is the only other one who read it. Anyway, he's finished and I'm at Chapter 105, and I've placed the movie on hold at the library. Interesting thing is, I also put Robin Hood Prince of Thieves on hold (I've never seen it), and lined up like that it was interesting that they both have the same director, and that I'm 10th in the queue for RH and 1st for MC. Hmmm.
...oh! In Ch. 105 he mentions Abelard and Heloise... a story that I studied in my college humanities class. It's so cool to see all of these rather obscure references that most people have never heard of brought up again, I feel like I didn't study them for nothing afterall :D
Another point, I sincerely doubt that marijuana could produce the prolonged fake death of Valentine.
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Nov 13, 2007
Well, I finished the book! YAYYYYYYYY! Anyway, the "wait and hope" was a very good summary of the book, I thought. I got the movie from the library... but didn't watch it because the sound was bad :( So, I put it on hold again and hopefully the next copy won't have any problems. Feel free to start discussing... :)
Grace
Tue Nov 13, 2007
Great! Ok, I'll have to watch the movie again so I can make sure I've got the particulars right. Going off my reading of the book and watching of the movie several years ago, I thought the book ending was horrible! Why does he let Mercedes live out her life alone and grieving and go off with his underage servant? What was the point of that? He's supposed to have gotten over his need for revenge and then he ruins her life. She's not the one who put him in prison, but he destroys everything she loves and leaves her to live with it. Was she just too old for him at that point? Was she too needy? Why did he do that?
The movie ending fulfilled my sense of poetic justice much better. Bad guy and good guy have thrilling sword fight, good guy marries girl and it turns out has a son. So, the bad people have bad things happen to them and the good people have good things happen to them. Not exactly realistic, but Monte Cristo wasn't written to be philosophy, it was a novel and it should have a better ending. The same sort of thing happens in Les Miserable and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. All the characters get to a point where they can live happily ever after and then they either all get killed off, or the story continues on until they are dead so that we know they didn't live happily ever after.
Did anyone else feel the same, or am I being a sappy girl?
Antonia I. SA 1030
Wed Nov 14, 2007
Well to start off, let me say that I haven't watched the new Count of Monte Cristo movie. I've only seen the old TV version with Richard Chamberlain (of course, I do not like this movie as well as the book, but Chamberlain is absolutely fabulous at flipping cloaks). However, judging from the above post, they have just about the same ending, with Dantes ending up with Mercedes, and the boy being his son. I personally hated that ending. First of all, Dantes made a big deal at the beginning of the book that Mercedes was his finance, not his lover. So how did she get pregnant, hmm? Sounds a bit fishy to me. Also, in the book Mercedes doesn't want to go with Edmond, she chooses to live out her life in exile, and the Count, only after being rejected by Mercedes, turns to what's her name, who would have done anything in her power to make him happy, though he was pretty far gone by this point. The Count was just too bitter to lead a normal, happy life. I just hate "forced" happy endings, which is exactly what the movie felt like to me. You know, no matter how bad things have been, no matter how far you have walked down a dark path, all you need is that one special girl, and "poof" you're on top of the mountain again. All the past is wiped away like it never existed, and even though you have completly destroyed the world that the girl has lived in and loved for so many years and have turned into a dark and twisted creature, she is happy to jump into your arms again. Bah! Humbug! Absolutely ridiculous.
As for Les Miserable, I realize that it has been a couple of years since the last time that I read it, but I am almost certain that the one couple (Jean Valjean's daughter and her "young man") ends up okay. True, Valjean has rather a rough time of it, but for Victor Hugo, this is a very, very (and I could add more very's, but I think you get the picture) happy book. In truth, I don't really see how The Hunchback of Notre Dame could have ended "happy". Hugo really liked to kill off all of his characters. One book that I read by him (and forgive me forgetting the name) everything was finally going fine at the end, when, all of a sudden, the two main characters get killed (I think one of them committed suicide, but that is beside the point, they were dead) in the very last paragraph. I mean, really, was that necessary? He could have just as easily let them float down the river on that raft, without killing them, and it would have made the book much more pleasant. Of course, if he had done that, I probably wouldn't have remembered the book, so maybe he knew best after all.
Disclaimer: This is all strictly my opinion. I am not saying that it is the one and only true opinion, nor do I intend to put anyone else's opinion down. I sometime come across that way, but it's genetic, and I can't help it. ;)
Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 14, 2007
GA2007 wrote:
I thought the book ending was horrible! Why does he let Mercedes live out her life alone and grieving and go off with his underage servant? What was the point of that? He's supposed to have gotten over his need for revenge and then he ruins her life. She's not the one who put him in prison, but he destroys everything she loves and leaves her to live with it. Was she just too old for him at that point? Was she too needy? Why did he do that?
That bothered me too, but MonteCristo makes some good points, that Mercedes refused him (at least, if she did refuse him this is a good point - but when did he ask? Did I miss something here?). It did occur to me to think that he was leaving her because she was too old, or at least because she was too absorbed in her own grief to feel love. Still, I did find myself wishing that they could have ended up together... perhaps in heaven :) Anyway, I wouldn't want to see this happen at the expense of compromising either of their noble characters (ie an out-of-wedlock child... that is for Villefort and Madame Danglars, NOT Edmond and Mercedes!). I also wouldn't have been completely satisfied with Mercedes leaving Fernand for Edmond, but given that Fernand kills himself...
Haydee was ready to die without him. He started out loving her as a daughter, but she loved him as something else, it's not as though he was taking advantage of her. But, even if he were taking advantage of her, I think that his acceptance and use of slavery was meant to be a pointed contrast to the rise of democracy that came with the French Revolution. You have to remember that this book actually was written about the same time and place the story takes place.
He didn't ruin Mercedes' life, he only unveiled how Fernand had ruined it. He was pursuing justice, and part of the tragedy of sin is that it does hurt innocent people as well as the sinner himself.
GA2007 wrote:
Monte Cristo wasn't written to be philosophy
I take issue with this statement, and I could do so from two angles:
First - the weaker position - everything is philosophical whether it intends to be or not. This is true even of the most trivial things. As Jack Sparrow would say "That is a sad commentary in and of itself."
But - the stronger position - I think that this novel fully intends being at least somewhat philosophical. I agree that it is not a dry doctoral dissertation (neither is life for that matter), but novels very often have a purpose and a point beyond mere entertainment. I believe that some of the main philosophical points of this book were:
1. There is a God, and he does punish the wicked and reward the good... even in this life.
2. There is no such thing as pleasure or pain, only the comparison of the two. You cannot fully appreciate either in the absence of the other.
3. Children, innocent though they may be, often suffer for their parents' crimes, as the Bible says "To the third and fourth generation."
4. "Wait and hope" - meaning that human knowledge is limited, and there is always cause for optimism.
Now, having stated those, I must say that I disagree with number two. What I am about to say may not apply equally to all people, but in most cases I do believe that innocent bliss can be appreciated within itself. Pain hurts, and often even after the tragedy is passed the pain can remain, marring what might otherwise have been a happy resolution. If pain reoccurs too many times, or occurs without any apparent reason, or for reasons beyond one's control, it will lead to an insecurity that will never allow happiness to be fully enjoyed ever again. The doubt will always remain that happiness can be taken away at any moment, for any reason, or for no reason at all... my two cents ;)
This is why I REALLY think he should have told Morrel about Valentine before the month was up. I can understand if he didn't do so right away, because he needed her death to be convincing - but most of the family didn't even know about Morrel yet, and anyway he was willing to tell Noirtier, and everybody noticed his apparent lack of grief! I don't think that Edmond had the right to cause Morrel this month of grief.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Wed Nov 14, 2007
Did Dantes ask Mercedes to come with him?
Maybe I read a bit more into that than was actually there. I am almost certain (though I haven't read the book in over a year) that Edmond at the very least offered her assistance (which I guess is different than proposing) and she refused him, choosing instead to leave (didn't she go away?). I am now beginning to confuse myself as to the ending. I guess I need to go back a read that part again.
Justice
I guess you are right about the Count merely unmasking Fernand, but I don't see how you can say he was pursuing "justice". He wasn't after justice, he was after revenge, brutal revenge and he would use any means to acheive it. For instance, rescuing that condemned criminal (the one without a tongue) just so he could have a mute servant. And while he was rather good at revenge, he wasn't very discriminating. Caderouse hardly had anything to do with the whole plot (all he did was not do anything, and he had the added excuse of being drunk) yet the Count murders him. Danglars, the mastermind behind the whole thing, gets off basically scot-free, only losing his money (which, granted, for him was pretty bad, but still...).
Morrel.
I think that the Count did this on purpose to test Morrel. I can't say why, because I don't really have any conclusive evidence, but that's the way it seemed to me. It was only one month, which might sound like a long time to grief for someone who really isn't dead, but remember that without the Count's intervention, Valentine would really have been dead, which would have been much worse. My guess is that the Count told Nortier, because finding out that his beloved grandaughter was dead just might have killed him. After all, he was a rather frail old man, with no purpose in living.
Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 14, 2007
MonteCristo LSP#8 wrote:
Justice
"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord..." and that is what makes it justice. But in this case, The Count obviously felt he was the Lord's agent of justice. Now, he believed this because of some rather extraordinary circumstantial evidence, but in my mind that is hardly a command from God. However, this is not my book, so let's assume the book's logic and say that The Count is God's agent of justice... and I am not sure that he would actually use any means to get it. Afterall, he never actually killed anyone.
In the case of rescuing the criminal so that he could have a mute servant, I do not think he did that either for justice or revenge. Neither do I think he did it for mercy, I think he did it mainly because he wanted a mute, and secondarily because he wanted someone loyal. In this case I think The Count's reasons go back to what I said about the contrast between slavery and the new democracy. Though, non-Western punishments are well-know for not fitting the crime, and to have your body permanently mangled, to become disabled, and then to die - merely for stealing - is not quite just IMHO.
In the beginning Caderouse actually wanted to help Dantes, though he was a coward. For that, The Count rewarded him. However, Caderouse became greedy to the point of committing murder. When The Count discovered this, his mercy towards Caderouse was over! Even so, The Count did not murder Caderouse, he merely did not save him from being murdered by another. Even if The Count had murdered him, it could be called self-defence given that he caught Caderouse in the act of breaking and entering.
In the case of Fernand, The Count did not kill him, he killed himself. Also, in the case of Villefort, The Count did not actually kill anyone. Did he give poison to Madame Villefort? I can't remember now. However, he was not the murderer. When he saw how many had died because of his actions, he felt sorry that it had gotten out of control (perhaps he only meant to disgrace the family with scandal, both through Madame Villefort and Benedetto), and lost some of the zeal for his mission. That is why he did not pursue Danglars further... though even if he had his zeal, I don't think it was ever his intention to murder anyone, as no one had actually murdered him or Mercedes or his father (Despite his dramatic comments at the execution in Rome ;) ).
Antonia I. SA 1030
Thu Nov 15, 2007
I agree with you about the servant. That was a last minute addition to my post, and it didn't come out quite like I wanted it to. I was trying to use that as an example that he wasn't necessarily interested in justice, or he wouldn't have rescued him (for he was quilty). The Count definitely felt that he was God's agent of justice, but I didn't get the feeling that the book agreed with him, if you know what I mean. But that could just be me.
Maece aka Jennifer Thu Nov 15, 2007
Hmmmm - I'd never considered that the book might disagree with him... though at the end he had some doubts about his position.
I was just reading over this thread again, and a few things occurred to me:
1) I CAN'T BELIEVE I DIDN'T MENTION THIS BEFORE!!! Anyway, the scene with the telegraph operator, where he bribes the gardener who is talking about not sleeping so that he can guard his 16 (or whatever pitiful number it was) strawberries from mice! Ha! I just loved this because I love gardening! Anyway...
2) It's really poetic justice how Caderouse met his end because Dantes didn't expose his enemy, when the reason that Dantes suffered was because Caderouse didn't expose his enemies... except that Caderouse, a murderer, deserved what happened to him and Dantes did not deserve what happened to him... also, Dantes actually did expose Caderouse's enemy after Caderouse died.
Grace
Sun Nov 18, 2007
Well, I'm out of my depth here because I haven't read this book since 2003. But, ya'll have made me want to go back and read it again.
Off topic, I know that Hugo kills off all his characters, but I don't like that he does that, even though I loved all the moral philosophy in Les Miserables. I think he did it because he was getting paid by the word and when he counted up the happy ending total it wasn't enough to make rent, so he tacked on another few chapters by killing them all off and got his paycheck.
Antonia I. SA 1030
Mon Nov 19, 2007
That's great! I think that may be the funniest thing I've read lately. Mr. Green
Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Nov 27, 2007
Wow. Talk about random motivations... couldn't he just invent longer happy descriptions?
Antonia I. SA 1030
Tue Nov 27, 2007
I seriously doubt that he could even if he wanted to. I think the guy must have been seriously depressed or something, why else would he write such gruesome stuff? Les Miserables is still one of my favorite books, but it certainly isn't something you read to cheer yourself up. For that you'd have to go with P.G. Wodehouse, The Hitchhikers's Trilogy, or Don Quixote.
No comments:
Post a Comment