The Three Musketeers: Is It Worth Reading in 2024? — TheCasualReader

Originally published on TheCasualReader.com

My first read of the year was Alexandre Dumas’ The Three Musketeers. I felt obligated to read this novel; after all, my favorite book of all time is written by the same author.

However, if you’ve read The Count of Monte Cristo and are eager to read more by the author, don’t expect the same kind of story with this book.

In fact, this was not even my first attempt at reading The Three Musketeers. Originally, I dnf-ed the book really early on because I just couldn’t get into the story. Now that I’ve finished it, I understand why past me did what she did.

But I’m getting ahead of myself, let’s take a look at the themes, characters, and my honest opinion of The Three Musketeers.

*This review may contain only very minor spoilers, without revealing any major plot events that aren’t featured on the back cover of the book. Enjoy reading!

The Three Musketeers Plot Overview

We’re in France at the beginning of the 17th century. A young (and arrogant) Gascon named d’Artagnan journeys to Paris, where he is to join the musketeers in service of King Louis XIII. His temper, curiosity, and protagonist plot armor quickly put him in the middle of court intrigue, mysterious occurrences, and a friendship with three unlikely companions-the musketeers Athos, Porthos, and Aramis.

Caught in the whirlwind of regal drama, while trying to avoid the watchful eye of Cardinal Richelieu, d’Artagnan and his three musketeer friends journey across France to uncover conspiracies (and drink as much as they can).

Main plot points of The Three Musketeers:

• A young Gascon named d’Artagnan heads to Paris with hopes of joining the royal musketeers.
• Along the way, he strikes up an unlikely friendship with three esteemed musketeers: Athos, Porthos, and Aramis.
• Together, they encounter a conspiracy orchestrated by Cardinal Richelieu and safeguard Queen Anne’s interests.
• Their adventures bring them face-to-face with the notorious and ruthless Milady de Winter.

History and plot synopsis

Apparently, The Three Musketeers is Alexandre Dumas’ most famous piece of work. And perhaps it is, I constantly hear people use “One for all, all for one” outside of context. The story is readable, fast-paced, the characters have simple, digestible archetypes.

The three musketeers Athos, Porthos, and Aramis are initially shrouded in a lot of mystery. They’re dangerous, unpredictable, and even arrogant at times. Each has a distinct personality and you’re left wondering how such an unlikely group of swordsmen became this close. We are never given much of a proper explanation of their names either and most characters don’t question them.

In the introduction of the novel, Alexandre Dumas explains at length that the adventure is based on some obscure story he and his co-writer discovered. That’s where these uncommon names came about, apparently, the same few figures kept popping up in these mysterious documents, and perhaps to safeguard their identities, their real names were hidden.

So we are made to believe that these characters are real historical figures that played a part in true events. And apparently, they truly are based on real people! However, they are HIGHLY fictionalized in the books.

The Three Musketeers Characters Analysis

There are a lot of characters in this story, but I want to highlight the more important ones we see more often. I’ll give you a brief overview of each character, and then I’ll also give you a TL;DR with my thoughts:

D’Artagnan

Filled with and backed by a quintessential blend of fiery determination and an unwavering sense of honor, d’Artagnan is young and starry-eyed with an ambition to make it as a musketeer. He dreams of glory, adventure, and love, courage and naivety he stumbles upon everything he ever dreamed of (and more). Despite his humble origins, D’Artagnan possesses a quick wit and is surprisingly skilled with the rapier, which earns him the respect of the three musketeers and his opponents.

Honest opinion time: D’Artagnan has a serious case of main character syndrome. There’s a Harry Potter quote that describes d’Artagnan perfectly, “I don’t go looking for trouble. Trouble usually finds me.” The plot happens wherever he goes, which ends up feeling unnatural most of the time. Also, this guy’s big mouth gets him in trouble. ALL. THE. TIME. But it also helps him just as much because he’s under such a strong protagonist shield that it gets really difficult to suspend disbelief at some points.

Athos

Wise, mysterious, stoic-Athos is probably the most interesting of the three musketeers, as he seems to have an air of poise surrounding him. His temper is more moderate than the rest of the crew and he often acts as the unofficial leader of the group. Just like the rest of the characters, he uses a name that seems foreign, as if he is hiding his identity for some reason. As the story moves on, we learn more about his history and he peels off many of his layers to reveal his true character.

My opinion on Athos changed a lot throughout my journey with this book. At first, he seemed like the most sympathetic out of the three musketeers, however, he was a little bit too flat and passive, not letting on much so as to get to know him (which is kind of his character arc so it’s alright).

Later on, he reveals more of his inner complexities, but personally, I was appalled by the excessive alcohol drinking depicted. 😐 Additionally, his attitude towards women is questionable, to say the least. Maybe it’s just me, or just the book showing its age, but I didn’t find Athos to be a very compelling character.

Porthos

Porthos has a distinct larger-than-life figure attitude among the Musketeers. He is a man of imposing stature, with muscles that don’t entirely match in brain capacity, but for what he lacks in smarts he makes up for in boundless charisma. Despite his boisterous personality and aptitude for excessive indulgence, Porthos is fiercely loyal and honorable.

The entire time I was reading the book I couldn’t help but think to myself “ Thisguy is a Leo! “ Where he’s lacking in brains, Porthos makes up for in style. He’s pompous, loud, unironically drapes himself in gold as if he’s a king, and constantly embellishes his stories and accomplishments with lies. Regardless, he’s somehow quite likable at times. There was a particular moment where he was courting a lady that legit made me blush irl.

Aramis

How is it that a man of faith, a monk in the making, is also a warrior and lover? Aramis, the youngest of the three musketeers, is a man of many contradictions. On one hand, he is dedicated to the musketeer code of honor and shows formidable prowess with a sword. On the other hand, Aramis constantly aspires to a life beyond the military as a servant of God. He stands out with his intellect and eloquence, often writing poems or (love) letters to his “cousins”.

Aramis is quite sympathetic, but I felt like there was much more to his character that could have been developed. Oftentimes, it feels like he was an afterthought that Dumas kind of used only every now and again when he remembered he existed. I feel like there was much more potential for drama surrounding Aramis and his endeavors. Perhaps he’s more developed in later novels.

Cardinal Richelieu

It is up to dispute who has more power over France-Cardinal Richelieu or King Louis XIII?

A mastermind politician, incredibly powerful and influential. It’s almost entirely unbelievable that a quartet of vagabonds like the three musketeers are capable of tripping up this man’s plans. The Cardinal acts as a chief advisor to the king and often uses his authority in any which way possible to keep a firm grip of control over all royal machinations.

I’ve seen a few movie adaptations of this story and the only Cardinal Richelieu I can picture in my mind is the depiction by Tim Curry (thanks Disney!) I liked the Cardinal as a character, but in my opinion, he falls off by the end of the book. He seems far less threatening and way too soft on our characters. Also, he gets overshadowed by a much more compelling antagonist.

Milady

Strikingly beautiful, charismatic, and opportunistic-Milady de Winter is an iconic femme fatale whose allure masks her cunning and ruthless nature. Even d’Artagnan finds her irresistible, despite being aware of her true nature. With a mastery of manipulation and espionage and a close relationship with the Cardinal himself, Milady plays a role in many of the major schemes against the crown.

Milady is one of the most compelling female antagonists I’ve ever had the pleasure to meet. She’s barely in her early 20s and she’s managed to make a name for herself in high society, despite her origins.

My Honest Opinion After Reading The Three Musketeers

I really wanted to fall in love with this book. Not only is Alexandre Dumas the author of my favorite novel of all time, but the author of my favorite fantasy series, Steven Brust, has quoted The Three Musketeers as his inspiration for his Vlad Taltos books.

With all that said, I was left slightly disappointed by this novel. Was it atrocious? No. Will I read the rest of the books in this story? Of course, I don’t like leaving books unfinished (unless they are absolutely, irredeemably unreadable), but there was so much more that could have been done here.

But, my rating of The Three Musketeers is, reluctantly, three stars:

Rating: 3 out of 5.

And here’s why:

Predictable plot

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t find it satisfying when I can tell how a story will go at the end while I’m halfway through it. I won’t get into spoiler territory, but there was a particular point by the end of the book, where we are made to believe a character is in an inescapable situation, yet the entire build-up was OBVIOUSLY leading to an escape.

And it wasn’t just clear they that they’d make it out, it was easy to guess exactly how it’ll happen. So then why waste 50 pages of my time when they’re meant to do nothing but build anticipation towards something I already knew would happen?

Perhaps this isn’t a universal reading experience for others who read The Three Musketeers, but it was for me and it happened multiple times throughout the novel.

One-dimensional characters

This one was especially painful. Certain characters are literally nothing more than a few tropes smushed together into a flat caricature of a person. It also felt like they were deeply underdeveloped and not in a “they’re a mystery, there’s more to them” kind of way but in a “the author had nothing else to add” way. Which just didn’t do much for me as I never had the thirst to know more about them. Oh, it’s the pretty maid. Oh, it’s the drunk, spunky swordsman. That’s all they are and I really felt like the side characters had too much NPC energy.

France is the tiniest country in the world?!

How many times did the characters of this book end up on one end of the country to the other, to other countries even, so quickly as if they were teleporting? Hello, it’s the 17th century!? Ryanair doesn’t exist yet, you can’t fly around Europe that fast!

In my honest opinion, the worldbuilding was definitely one of the weakest points of this novel. When the world feels entirely too small and as it revolves only around our main characters, there’s not much to learn and care about outside of the drama and intrigue.

And it’s completely fine if the narrative is character-driven! However…

Unlikable main characters

I’m sorry, but the three musketeers plus d’Artagnan must be the most annoying ppl in France. Even when I tried to cast my own bias aside and accept the fact that it’s a historical book so certainly it doesn’t hold up to modern standards of human decency, the musketeer trio and their spicy sidekick are seriously such a rowdy bunch.

They gamble, they drink, they’re obnoxious and violet, they get in fights all the time and get away with it because of scheming, connections, charms, or whatever other tactic available.

And listen, I LOVE an antihero main character. My favorite characters in books, video games, and movies are always the antiheroes or righteous villains. But these guys are just… they’re not it.

They’re not branded as antiheroes, quite the contrary: they’re often quoted as brave, strong, imposing, and heroic. They get rewarded for their actions and are deemed worthy men. However, all they do is d*ck around and get in trouble. They’re not in any way better than most of their enemies, so why am I, as a reader, supposed to sympathize with them, yet hate the villains?

Conclusion: Is the Three Musketeers Worth Reading?

Despite my low-ish rating of The Three Musketeers, I still think the book is worth reading. It’s a timeless classic, it’s very readable and I can see how it can be fun for readers who enjoy swashbuckling adventure novels.

At the very least it was worth it for me to get some extra context of Alexandre Dumas’ writing. And, as I mentioned, I did notice specific moments that Steven Brust implemented similarly in his Vlad Taltos series.

One last warning: there are quite a few moments of misogyny and… acts against women that I found unpleasant to read, but that’s what you often get with these historical books. 😐 If you would rather not deal with another case of #menwritingwomen, maybe you won’t get much out of this book.

Still, I think Milady is probably one of the more interesting characters whose narrative isn’t entirely driven by her association with men, so at the very least it’s worth reading for her.

* Find the book from the featured image here.

Originally published at https://thecasualreader.com on February 7, 2024.