Talk:The Three Musketeers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Three Musketeers article.
Article policies
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the 19th century task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Needs a Cleanup and Re-write

This is rediculous, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Constance

Constance is a great character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.131.166 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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