I thought we might delve into just who the main antagonist in the Three Musketeers is and whether or not he truly is a bad guy. The basis of Cardinal Richelieu is all there in history. He was a massive schemer and was very power hungry. He has been noted to have even made deals with Protestants even though there were very uneasy tensions between them and the Catholics. One of the most interesting differences between history and the Three Musketeers is that Richelieu was not orchestrating a war against the English. Instead, most of his schemes involved helping the Deutch Republic fight against Spain and the Holy Roman Empire in the Eighty Years War. One similarity to the novel is that his schemes never worked out. In the novel, his plot to power is stopped by the Musketeers. In history, he was stopped by France almost going bankrupt. Another common theme is his poor reception among the people. In the novel, he is not liked by most people although it is not exactly said why. In real life, he was considered by many a traitor to the Catholic Church for his deals with Protestants. His biggest failure to the people is most likely sending France into near bankruptcy. Back in the 1600s, there was no middle class. Richelieu was part of the upper class, so when he raised taxes to pay for his war efforts, he exempted most of the high class from paying. This was not received well at all by the lower class. This led to revolts against the higher class that Cardinal Richelieu always stomped out with brute military action. We cannot say for sure, but there is a strong chance that a similar thing happened to the French lower class in the novel. The Cardinal is pretty accurately portrayed in the Three Musketeers.

Alright today, I will be comparing Robin Hood to the Three Musketeers. First, let us start with the main characters. In the Three Musketeers, you have d’Artagnan, who is a swashbuckling, glory seeking, hot head. He wants nothing except to be the best. If you examine the character you can see that d’Artagnan is not the greatest hero. (This was explored in a previous post) In Robin Hood, the main character is Robin of Locksley. He is nothing but noble. His entire goal is to help the less fortunate that are being targeted by Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham. He does have a romantic interest that he pursues, but it is not the same as d’Artagnan where it is winning her that drives his entire mission.

Next, the supporting characters. The main supporting characters in the Three Musketeers are the three musketeers. They are always there for d’Artagnan, but their relationship seems kind of stretched. They start off as enemies ready to kill each other at a moments notice, but then they become friends in what seems to be a very short amount of time. I just find it implausible for them to be that trusting so soon. Now, Robin Hood’s go-to man is Little John. Granted, they start off fighting over who should cross the river first, they become friends because John was seeking out Robin Hood because he wanted to help the common folk. They have a shared passion that they were willing to fight and be proud of. This seems much more plausible to me.

Finally, the love interest of both stories. In the Three Musketeers, d’Artagnan falls for Constance. A married woman, who when her husband refuses to go, sends d’Artagnan to receive the Queen’s jewels from the Duke of Buckingham. Robin Hood has Marion. Marion spends the entire novel trying to protect Robin from the clutches of Prince John.

Overall, I think that Robin Hood is a much more solid story because of the way that the characters are written. Yes, the story may be very fictional, but at the same time, it seems somewhat plausible.

You know, one thing that is really interesting about The Three Musketeers is how dark the story is. Alexandre Dumas paints it as this tale of suave heroes of a past age. The parts that no one really mentions is how dark these heroes are. Right away in the story, D’Artagnan is ready to kill the three men that he offends in the streets of Paris. These “honorable” musketeers are in turn ready to do the same to him. The only thing that stops them from fighting is fighting the Cardinal’s guards. During the battle, D’Artagnan almost kills one of the Cardinal’s officers. Of course, the only thing the king would do in response to this is put D’Artagnan on the fast track to becoming a musketeer. The king doesn’t even meet with D’Artagnan. He makes no judge of D’Artagnan’s character. Later in the novel, D’Artagnan meets a married woman that he soon starts having an affair with. Then she gets sent to jail, and the three musketeers get sent to England to cover up an affair between the Queen of France and the Duke of Buckingham. The Cardinal is the one trying to bring it to light, but then he also tries to have the Duke of Buckingham killed by Milady. Another thing is the heroes themselves. None of them are particularly heroic. They perform heroic actions, but they all have ulterior motives. Athos used to be an honorable man fighting for France, but when they all join together he is a drunkard fighting out of rage because he was betrayed by his wife. Aramis doesn’t even want to be a musketeer he wants to be a priest. Even though he seems like a godly man, he also uses his knowledge of the Bible to seduce women. This does not seem very heroic at all. Finally, Porthos only wants money and fame. Nothing about that seems very noble or heroic.

One very interesting plot point in the Three Musketeers is the Musketeers being disbanded by the Cardinal. The Cardinal convinces the King of France to disband his royal guard when they are on the brink of war with England. You would think the King would want as much protection that he can get, but he settles for just the Cardinals Guard. You would also think that he would reinstate them once three Musketeers defeat forty of the Cardinals Guard by themselves.

The Three Musketeers are very interesting characters themselves. They really show the political feel of France at the time because they are technically outlaws, but they still have the French public’s favor over the Cardinal’s Guard. They are really an idealistic protector of the innocent because they stand up for what is noble and just. They also are still loyal to the King of France even though he disbanded them. One could also argue that it is D’artangnan’s love for the Queen of France’s lady in waiting for Constance that provokes the musketeer’s quest.

One interesting thing about the Three Musketeers is that the highest position of English Government that anyone deals with is the Duke of Buckingham. Throughout the book, they talk about him as a great individual of power which he has some of, but he does not have the same power as the English King. No one even alludes to the King doing anything in the novel. It just baffles me how they are on the brink of war, but they do not mention the man who would actually start it.

The only disappointing thing about this book compared to some other Dumas novels is how straightforward it is. Most of the book is a fairly simple plot that works out in the end. The one thing that is good about that is that it at least has a satisfying ending.

One thing that is very interesting about the Three Musketeers is the political message it sends. There are many times throughout the book where the French Government is shown as corrupt because it was written at a time of civil unrest before the French Revolution. The most obvious examples in the novel are the king and the Cardinal. The King of France is shown as very helpless and as needing the Cardinal to help make all of his decisions. This shows that the people felt like their government was helpless. The other example is the Cardinal because he is very corrupt and trying to rule France. This supports people’s ideas that the French Government is a corrupt system.

One great thing about this novel is the amount in depth that Alexandre Dumas goes into detail. Every single setting that they journey too is explained in depth so that the reader can fully understand where they are at and what that part of France or England looks like. Another thing extremely detailed is the character descriptions. Every main character gets a description regarding their height, bulk, and facial features. They also have some of their personality traits described so that we can get an idea of what characters are like. One more thing is that Alexandre Dumas drew pictures of what each of his Musketeers looks like. These are very helpful for being to imagine the characters in their different scenes.

One of my favorite parts of this book is at the beginning.  The scene where D’artagnan meets Athos, Porthos, and Aramis separately and angers them all into a duel is just full of fun. This scene also is a perfect demonstration is the enemy of my enemy is my friend because when the Cardinal’s Guard shows up to arrest them; they work together to defeat them.

I thought we would make a gradual transmission into book number two, so today I will be talking about the history of Alexandre Dumas’ book The Three Musketeers. It was written in 1844 under the original title Les Trois Mousquetaires. The book itself takes place in the 1620s. One of the most interesting things about this book is that it is based on real people. The main character, D’artagnan, was based upon Charles de Batz-Castelmore. Numerous other characters in the play such as Athos, Porthos, Aramis, Cardinal Richelieu, and King Louis XIII.

One very interesting thing about The Three Musketeers is that Alexandre Dumas thought he was plagiarizing another story. He came across a manuscript in his studies and one just sparked his imagination. He did not believe what he had read and even wrote a preface about how it could be plagiarism.

Another interesting thing about The Three Musketeers is the number of times that it has been adapted into other mediums. The story itself has numerous sequels, but Hollywood, in particular, has always loved the Three Musketeers. Throughout the silver age, there have been twenty-four different interpretations of the story. This does not include television adaptions like the Musketeers and Banana Split’s The Four Musketeers. One very common factor in Three Musketeer movies is that the more they stray from the original story the less successful the movie is. The most successful interpretation is most likely the one from 1973 starring Charleton Heston. Disney also made a version which is very loved but did not receive the same type of reviews as the 1973 counterpart. There was one that also came out in the 90s titled The Musketeer which focused more on making The Matrix type fight scenes rather than the story. The most recent movie would be the 2011 version which tries to incorporate a more unpredictable story and tried to set up a sequel. Sadly, this film was not well received even though I thought it was very well done.

Wow. My mind is blown. This may have been the best plot twist I have read in my relatively short existence. Tyler and the Narrator are one. The Narrator has been hallucinating Tyler the entire time. I have so many questions about everything. My first question, does the Narrator and Tyler have another person in the novel that enjoyed its life and that was the one that existed before the apartment exploded? This could explain why the Narrator suddenly changes almost everything about him from what he was before an insomniac. An interesting concept could be that the entire fight club was just a hallucination. What if everyone he had been fighting was a different personality trying to gain control of the body. This book really just screws with everything you think you know.

The struggle between Tyler and the Narrator really translates to the struggle of society. Two parts of the same thing fighting for control. Every part of humanity can be defined by this struggle. Whether it be parties fighting for control of the government, religions clamoring for people, or people fighting for ideas. We are struggling. The only thing we can ever hope for is a peaceful result. In the end, does it matter who was right, or does it matter who was successful?

This whole book has been meticulously planned out. Throughout the entire novel, there are clues laid out. The biggest one is that Marla, Tyler, and the Narrator are never in the same room together. Expanding on that point, Tyler is rarely seen by other people with the narrator. The most interesting thing for me in this book is that the Narrators multiple personalities can talk to each other. They trade the control of the body, but they are both still there at the same time. Sometimes, the insanity is just too much.

It is amazing how many movies have started with the same basic premise as Fight Club. You start with a man who is bored with his life, and you can go anywhere from there. In the case of Fight Club, the Narrator’s life starts to spiral out of control. The first (and one of my favorite movies) that comes to my mind is the Thomas Crown Affair. Whether it be the original or the remake (the remake is definitely better) they both focus on Thomas Crown an eccentric millionaire who gets bored being the best. So he does what any normal bored man does, and steals a priceless painting from a museum. The other thing in this movie that is similar is that his plans get sidetracked by a female character he falls for. Another movie would be the Gumball Rally. An entire movie about numerous characters who race cross country every year because they are all bored. One thing that is similar in this movie is that it is an organization that causes hijinks just like Project Mayhem. One recent movie that has a similar premise is Central Intelligence with Kevin Hart and Dwayne Johnson. Kevin Hart’s character is someone who is unhappy with their life and wants a change. Dwayne Johnson’s character is reminiscent of Tyler because he kind of provokes their counterpart into doing their acts of mayhem. My last example is the new Magnificent Seven. The interesting thing about this example is that it is not the main character who is bored. It is Chris Pratt’s character. His character thrives on mayhem throughout the entire film because he simply does not have anything to do besides play cards and drink. There are numerous points in the film where he creates mayhem like when he provokes any of the other members of the Seven or throws off the enemy army with his sacrifice. I think that Hollywood has definitely capitalized on our boredom and created characters which we can empathize with.

I think that one of the most interesting things about this book is how it got started. Chuck Palahniuk, the author of Fight Club, first came up with the initial concept after he went back to work after a camping trip. On his camping trip, he had an accident and bruised his face. It was his co-workers avoiding asking him what happened that made him write Fight Club. It amazes me that no one asked him about his face. Nobody wanted to confirm their suspicions on what had happened to him. This really brings to light that some parts of the book and the Narrator are based on himself. In the book, there are numerous scenes where he is at work and his boss and co-workers avoid him. Sometimes, not knowing the truth works out.

Another interesting reason why Chuck Palahniuk wrote Fight Club was that he was sick of only seeing successful female centered books. He wanted to write a book about modern-day men.

One of the darker aspects of the book is when the Narrator and Tyler create Project Mayhem, which is a fascist group led by Tyler in order to “stick it to the man.” This was actually based off of the real organization the Cacophony Society, which Chuck Palahniuk is a part of. They want to experience things that most people don’t. Now, Project Mayhem is a much darker take on it, but it is another thing that is based on the author’s life. Finally, because of his novel, Chuck Palahniuk is regularly approached by people wanting to know where the nearest fight club is. The most interesting thing is that it could be. This novel could have happened. Even today, people were inspired by Fight Club and now have their own fight clubs or prank pulling organization. We truly are a most fascinating species.

One of the most interesting aspects of Fight Club is the way the characters have decided to live their lives. The Narrator goes from being normal to an Insomniac, who deals with it by going to random support groups. After that is ruined by Marla, Tyler and the Narrator start fight club. When Fight Club isn’t enough they work at a restaurant and do things like pee in people’s soup and other hijinks. When all of this is not enough, they created the Agents of Mayhem. They go out into the world and create anarchy just to give themselves the self-esteem boost that they can make a difference. The real hook with the Agents of Mayhem is that in its own twisted way it makes sense. The Agents create chaos in the world and people react to it. This lets them know that they had an impact. This is one of the only instances that I have ever seen anarchy orchestrated for the sole reason of people being bored with their lives. In other literature, such as V for Vendetta the main character, V, creates anarchy to fight a fascist government. In Skyfall, the guy that Javier Bardem plays creates anarchy to get back at a government that turned its back on him. This makes an intresting translation to real life because I think today is the age of boringness. We can look at our phones for hours and see people living out lives. How are we entertained by something like this? Many people don’t feel the urge to go out and do things now because everything is catered to us. When does having easy access to something go to far and become laziness? We are to the point where we don’t even have to leave the house to buy things. There are advantages to having this access, but we are losing some of the social aspects of life. The reason this book has an impact to people is because it shows us examples of people being sick of the usual. Being sick of the usual life and trying to make a change.