Talk:The Three Musketeers

---

Date

For those who do not know, how about listing the actual time period, the dates, these adventures were supposed to occur in. The article does not say.71.112.38.38 (talk)

Question

I should like to know who tranlated "Three Musketeers" into English, and how many English versions exist. In particular what is the origin of the version published by Heritage Press N. York, 1953?

Well, the question is a year old, but the Heritage Press translation is by William Robson. There are a number of English translations (I seem to own four different ones). PKM 04:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know why the musketeers have no muskets. Thank you, thank you very much.Longinus876 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

They do. They just don't use them often. Muskets were slow to reload and considered "ungentlemanly." But at the siege of La Rochelle they carried and used muskets. When confronting Gentlemen, such as members of the Cardinal's guards or the Compte Rochefort, swords would be used as a point of honor. When riding, the "Musketeers" carried loaded pistols, as a musket was too large to be used from horseback. talk 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Does anybody have any information on which English translation is the best one to read? Both in terms of style/readability and accuracy.

Yes! By far the 2006 Richard Pevear trans. -- Stbalbach 15:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Musketeer

I'd like to know the origin of the term "musketeer". They use swords, not muskets. Polymath69 14:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

They DID use muskets - in war or on duty - they were royal guards (they could be classified as Dragoons - mounted infantry). The characters in the book used swords only in personal duels or wartime close-combat. The book mostly describes the latter situations, so you`ve got the wrong impression out of it.

I'm pretty sure they had their muskets at La Rochelle. When they breakfast at the Bastion, Athos mocks the Rochellais as bad shots. talk 19:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oydman (talk • contribs)

Redirect of "Musketeers"

Currently, searching the term "Musketeers" leads to a redirect page that leads to this article.

I believe it should redirect to "Musketeer", but that's my opinion. What do you think? Kareeser 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I was also redirected here. I am going to change that unless anyone objects. Deflagro 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One for all...

This article makes no mention of One for all, and all for one - one of the most famous parts of the story. I have added in a reference but it could do with being expanded or put into the proper place in the story synopsis. Davidbod 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs a Cleanup and Re-write

This is ridiculous, parts of the summary are out of order, major parts that are key to the novel are missing, this is a disgrace, did the person that wrote that even read the book or just a sparknote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UltimateCroutonb (talk • contribs) .

Are you the one using temporary accounts to delete the plot summary section 8 times in the past month? BTW of course anything can be improved, but the plot summary is not that bad. I didn't write it, but I did read the book, it's not clear where your coming from. -- Stbalbach 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So write a summary of your own and delight us with your sparkling insights. You're free to contribute, just like everybody else. What's holding you back? Cryptonymius 07:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And, UltimateCrountonb, learn to spell (it's "ridiculous") before you disgrace yourself. 66.74.56.209 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone's gone through and written the plot summary like Star Wars. This needs to be changed. I haven't read the book myself, but I'm certain there weren't any holographic messages in the original. --69.153.19.190 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of plot summary

Someone has been using temporary accounts to delete the plot summary section, 8 times in less than a month. I've put in a semi-protection request to slow it down, the last time it remained deleted for 2 days. -- Stbalbach 17:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Three Musketeers Book Review

Can someone please help me with writing a review and I am to lazy, can i have some help? For Monday,Thanks

PS, not to long!

"Three buddies fight in medieval France. The book is quite booring." You're welcome.

French and English

The way the French spell and pronounce words are far different from English. So to avoid any ambiguity, it is best to add the correct pronouciation of certain words in any way. 210.4.116.112 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical irony?

I am wondering whether this article should deal with the difference between the popular interpretation of the work and Dumas' intentions in writing it, if they are known. Especially Dumas' views on the historical period, because that affects the interpretation of the book.

The popular interpretation of The Three Musketeers is now very black and white, good against evil. And of course with the three musketeers and d'Artagnan representing good, and the cardinal and his henchmen representing evil. Especially American movie adaptations have interpreted and popularized it in that way.

However, this doesn't seem to be present in Dumas' writing. It is true that d'Artagnan and his friends are on the whole honourable persons (allowing for the personal flaws of the musketeers and their servants) trying to act according to romantic, chivalric standards. But it is not suggested that they are actually fighting for a good cause -- and for readers with some knowledge of the history of the period, the cause appears dubious indeed. One could argue that Richelieu is fighting for a worthy cause with immoral means, and d'Artagnan is serving a poor cause with the best of intentions. It is significant that at the end, when d'Artagnan admits that he and his friends have crossed the line and committed a murder, the cardinal reacts by offering him promotion. The d'Artagnan of the end of the book is sadder, wiser, and and has lost most of his illusions.

The Three Musketeers is usually read as a celebration of friendship, courage, and chivalry. Which it is. But there seems to be a darker subtext, saying that chivalrous people are admirable but also useful fools, and that the people who really want to serve the nation have to get their hands dirty, with blood if necessary.

84.194.240.50 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Mutatis Mutandis

Plot summary has been vandalised again

"In a series of incidents at the môtel, d'Artagnan became the father of three musketeers: Athos, Porthos, and Aramis." etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.122.17 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Anachronisms

1.Lille and Armentières in 1625-1628 were part of the Spanish Netherlands. The executioner from Lille and perhaps Milady de Winter might have been subjects to Philip III and Philip IV of the House of Habsburg, Kings of Spain and Dukes od Burgundy.

2.Early in the novel Dumas refers to the Spanish red and yellow flag. He could be referring to a red cross of Burgundy on yellow background -or vice versa-, but the Spanish current red-yellow-red flag dates from 1785 and it wasn't upgraded to national and army flag status until 1843. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Benedictines of Templemar

..where Milady was once a nun or novitiate. Dumas might have been referring to Templemars, in the nearby of Lille. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Auguste Maquet

I'm reading a biography on Dumas and it gives a lot of detail on his collaborations with Auguste Maquet, including on this work. It has several quotations from Dumas' letters to Maquet about the writing. I notice that the Auguste Maquet article mentions this, but I don't see Maquet mentioned anywhere in this article. I accept that Dumas was the one who made these characters come to life, but shouldn't Maquet's contribution - even if rather prosaic - be described in this article? If people are OK with it, I'd like to add a small section on that. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I came here for the same thing. Maquet isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, which is a little disconcerting, since Maquet is apparently a major influence behind some of the plot points in these books. If you still have access to that biography, please do add some information! I will look at your reference and possibly read it myself. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Maquet should be added as co-author (or at least ghostwriter). This particularly should be the case given Maquet's own page lists him as the author! (so either that page is wrong or this is) It seems very well accepted that he wrote the plot if not the dialogue and colour. --Q --Quarrel (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant snarking?

I can't tell what the point is of the two paragraphs in the Origin section starting:

Attention to the extent of Dumas' preface is called for when compared with the recent analysis (2008) of the book's origin by Roger MacDonald...

Really? Who exactly is calling for my attention? Why? Okay, I have my attention focused on the extent of Dumas' preface -- what am I supposed to be noticing now?

It sounds like somebody is trying to blast Roger MacDonald for some perceived crime against historical accuracy, but they don't have the guts to come right out and do it, so they're settling for passive-aggressive snarking with the superficial trappings NPOV.

If that's not the point of those two paragraphs, then they seriously need to be re-written. If it is the point, then regardless of whether this MacDonald guy is actually guilty of the insinuated crimes, this needs to go elsewhere, possibly in a completely different article. Why is the very start of an article on Dumas' book snarking at some apparently unrelated second book when the rest of the article doesn't even mention a man in an iron mask? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.134.201 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've just read this article for the first time, and the reference to MacDonald is confusing and irrelevant, so I have deleted it. CharlesSpencer (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Kitty

What happened to Kitty?Bmpeden (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Brief Summary and Detailed Summary

The "Brief Summary" seems long enough to be bordering on pointless duplication. Not many other articles on novels seem to bother with two plot summaries.

I'd be in favour of its removal. Catsmeat (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)