It is time for our fourth and final #CannonBookClub of 2016. It is my sincerest hope that you have enjoyed this experience, and I look forward to continuing on in 2017. I’m working on genre ideas now, so if you have hopes and dreams of what you’d like to see the group tackle, let me know.
But we are really gathered here today to discuss the epic tome which is Alexandre Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo. It is the story of one man completely changed by betrayal and the desire for revenge. Or is it? There is much to discuss.
Ground rules remain the same as before, discuss in the comments below, try to respond directly to someone’s ideas as suits your own ponderings, and refer to the numbered topics below by number, please, to help people find the conversation topics they are looking for. Also note that while I’ve never once had to use it and don’t expect to now, I’ll delete comments that are not germane to our discussion or get out of hand.
In addition to the topics below I’ve saved a few for our Facebook group, Cannonball Read Book Chat so feel free to wander over there throughout the course of the day.
On to the topics:
- How is “family” an important concept in The Count of Monte Cristo?
- How did you feel about the pacing – is it quick or slow? Does it remain steady throughout the book or change? Does it fit the scope and style of the book? Do any sections drag, or are any rushed?
- Is this your first book which was initially serialized? Was it noticeable to you?
- Is Dantès’ quest for vengeance morally just? Can vengeance ever stand in for justice?
- Discuss Villefort’s decision to imprison Dantès. What are the moral and ethical implications of his decision to imprison Dantès?
- Let’s talk about Dantès’ profound alienation when he escapes from prison and his gradual movement back to humanity. How does he regain his humanity?
- How is the Count at the end of the novel similar or different from Edmond Dantès at the beginning of the novel?
- Valentine de Villefort loves her family, especially her grandfather, and Maximilian Morrel; she would do anything for them. Should we applaud her behavior? How does her behavior compare to that of Eugénie Danglars’? How are these two women different or similar?
- Your mission is to create a new film version of The Count of Monte Cristo. However, the film cannot be longer than two hours. What would you cut out of the story and what would you keep in order to tell your version of The Count? (or, what did the movie version you’ve seen get right?)
And…go!
1. How is “family” an important concept in The Count of Monte Cristo?
Did anyone else find themselves accepting the familial devotion-to-the-point-of-being-willing-to-die-for-it as super duper easy to swallow, since we’ve all (we all have, right?) been mainlining “Hamilton” for the last year? Like, if Phillip will do it, then OF COURSE Albert would?
I think it would have so much harder for me to understand and appreciate this as a thing that used to be so real if not for “Hamilton.”
2. How did you feel about the pacing – is it quick or slow? Does it remain steady throughout the book or change? Does it fit the scope and style of the book? Do any sections drag, or are any rushed?
I was astonished by how easy it was to read. I agree with Malin (in a comment on my review) that the middle bits are a little denser because of all the introductions and names and titles, but I think overall, it’s perfectly paced and matches the scope and style in a great way. When I was about 100 pages from the end, I found myself starting to think “I don’t want this to be over!” 100 pages to go, and I was already anticipating the end, because that’s how long I knew it would take to wrap it up. But then, he’s still wrapping up on the last page, because I don’t think he wastes a single word. Not one! Respect!
I think the book is very nicely paced until Dantès escapes from jail. It starts dragging after the ten year gap, frankly, when Dumas has to re-introduce all our key players. I must confess I skimmed liberally in the parts in Italy with the bandits and Albert being taken hostage, because I really didn’t see why that was a necessary part to be dwelling on. A lot of the bits that drag become more enjoyable with hindsight, when you realize what an elaborate job Dumas is doing setting the scene for the eventual downfall of all these horrible people.
Oh see, I was all in with that stuff. I was like “that’s gonna pay off… and THAT… and THAT! OH AND THAT!” So satisfying!
I would have less disgruntled with some of the pacing problems if this wasn’t literally the ONLY book I read in all of November. I also got in a few audio books, but normally, I have a lot more variation in my reading, and spending a month and a half on a book goes against all my instincts. That made me more unhappy about some of the slower bits. I knew it was going to get good, though, and forced myself to not skim too much.
This was my life for November. I felt that some of the Rome backstory stuff was a little much, but it picked up after that. I was listening to it on audiobook, and the original plan was to switch between audio and print, but I wouldn’t have been able to find my place in the audiobook if I did that. The last chapter also felt a little rushed for me, but perhaps that was just because it was the end.
I stalled out once we got to Paris. I just… had a very hard time keeping my interest level high as Dumas sets up all the pieces for the eventual comeuppance. It almost felt like Dumas was idling while he pulled all the pieces together, and based on how he landed the ending, that’s fine in retrospect.
3. Is this your first book which was initially serialized? Was it noticeable to you?
I think it can’t have been, though I can’t say what else I’ve read that has been. But I did find myself thinking about this a lot over the course of reading the book, and I think the answer is: yes-question-mark?
Which is to say, there are a lot of deus ex machina moments and moments where you just have to accept that the Count did a ton of groundwork, and I think that if a person were reading it in segments over the course of a long publishing period, those moments wouldn’t seem so constant. With binge-reading (as it were) all in one, those moments really add up.
I noticed the serialization during some of the eddies in the storytelling. By publishing in pieces it gave Dumas the chance to explore ideas independently, and he did, often to great effect, but when it happened it was noticeable to me.
Yes, totally! For some sections, he would be all about one theme, and then switch gears pretty thoroughly. That’s definitely a product of the serialization!
I love this so much.
This has been a problem with older shows on Netflix. They weren’t designed to be binge watched, so they don’t really hold up as well as when you watch an episode a week.
I had never really made the connection with serialized novels, and how that allows an author to treat their audience a little differently.
Going from serialized fiction to stories intended to be novels must have had quite an impact on writing, in the same way that the ability to binge watch a show has had on TV.
It was like a show with commercials, only the commercials were real life! I would be interested to see where the serialization sections were. There were definitely ending moments and beginning ones for some of the chapters.
I was going to say in my comment that serialized books are like the 1800s version of TV. It’s a totally different format to play in, and when we sit down and expect to read the whole thing in one go, it’s sort of going against how it was meant to be read. Dickens and George Eliot and that dude who wrote Vanity Fair whose name I am blanking on right now, same thing. SO MUCH BOOK and yet, when taken 60 pages at a time for years, it’s exactly like how I feel about my favorite TV. Imagine reading this for two years. Spending literal years of your life with these characters, the investment you would have. 60 pages at a time wouldn’t have been enough, just like I get pissed off every time an episode of Game of Thrones (or whatever show) ends.
That is why I tried to pace myself, reading only a few chapters at a time, to let myself enjoy the episodic nature of the story. But then I got hung up in Paris purgatory before things really start to come together.
I also think I might have lost track of all of the characters during the early sections in Paris if I’d been reading more slowly or if it had been serialized.
I’m pretty sure I just escaped the Paris purgatory :)
Did it feel like being thrown into the ocean with a cannonball tied around your feet?
I mean, if that feels like freedom, then yes.
4. Is Dantès’ quest for vengeance morally just? Can vengeance ever stand in for justice?
Oof. This is really a question for our times, isn’t it? Or a question for every time, which is why this is a damn classic.
Yes? No? Maybe? I think an argument could be made that people get their come-uppance whether you participate or not. The idea that they were all just needing a nudge from him supports this: that they’re all ripe for their own falls, and just needed the push. That said, should he have given them the nudge? Should he face his own reckoning for the depths to which they all fall under his guidance? Maybe. Because if not, it’s just an endless Romeo-and-Juliet-style cycle, right? When do we stop seeking vengeance for wrong-doing, if everyone is the hero in their own story? If, say, Eduardo had lived, wouldn’t he have been justified in seeking vengeance of his own?
Morally and ethically speaking, Edmond should probably have taken his obscene piles of money and gone off and lived a happy life somewhere, forgiving and forgetting and whatnot. But that wouldn’t exactly have made for an exciting book, now would it? Besides, he uses the deplorable morals of these people to have them destroy themselves. It’s not like these are objectively good people. He provides Villefort’s wife with poison, warning her that a drop or two is a restorative tonic, while more of it would be lethal. SHE’s the one who chooses to go around poisoning her extended relatives out of greed for herself and her bratty son. Caderousse could have lived quite happily at his inn with his whopping big diamond, but nope, had to get greedy. Fernand deserved to be exposed for his betrayal of the pasha and ruining Hayda’s life (now there is a woman who deserved more vengeance in her own right than she really got).
All in all, with the exception of the horrid Edward, it wasn’t even as if he visited his vengeance on more than one generation. Eugenie escaped her meddling parents and went off on a lesbian adventure with her friend (this is my head-canon, you cannot ruin it), Valentine was lucky enough to fall in love with Maximillian (or she would probably have been collateral damage), Albert was kidnapped for a bit, but came to no harm and Mercedes’ pleas managed to save him. Having to make his own fortune in the world will probably be very good for him.
Yes to all of this!
And also, is there another possibly interpretation of the Eugénie ending? She is straight up lesbian adventuring and living the dream… no doubt! She’s the big winner!
*possible
Oh, I’m glad I read this comment before finishing the book so now I too can imagine this lesbian headcanon.
It’s not headcanon, it’s real! It’s REAL!
Watching the Chamberlin 1975 version and Abbe Farria just says, to himself, that vengeance belongs to the Lord, and hopes that Edmond will turn away from such before they destroy him. I think the great emotional removal of the Count is the destruction of Edmond, so that line resonated with me.
Oh that’s really good. It also really fits in with the whole crisis of conscience Edmond has, in terms of whether or not he’s an agent of God or just a guy with a well-earned chip on his shoulder.
5. Discuss Villefort’s decision to imprison Dantès. What are the moral and ethical implications of his decision to imprison Dantès?
Screw that guy, and his moral cowardice. Politicians be politicking, amiright?
Its the original sin of this story, without Villefort’s self serving decision there is none of the rest. Which leads to my personal view of #4, Dantes is just in the dominoes he sets to fall. Although, some of the particulars didn’t sit well with me. Benedetto, especially.
Totally agree! The letter is a bell that can be unrung until Villefort locks it down!
Oh, Villefort is absolutely the worst of the lot when it comes to betraying Edmond to serve his own needs. Even when Morell comes to plead Dantès’ case after the return of Napoleon, he’s all like “Sure, sure, we’ll put a good word in for him…” then he’s all “What prisoner?” He’s a horrible person and pretty much deserves everything he gets. His first wife seems to have been pleasant enough, but his second wife is a self-serving harpy. As soon as it was established that poison was being used, he shuld have known it was her. Valentine, that sweet simple drip of a girl would clearly never hurt a fly.
“Sweet simple drip of a girl”… perfect.
And RIGHT? How could he not immediately see that woman was out for herself, full time all the time? And that spoiled child of hers…. ugggggggggggh.
He was never really any good at reading people… the fool.
It was Danglars’ plot to put him in prison in the first place, but it was Villefort who kept him there, so I always thought Danglars was worse. Danglars put him away for his own gains, while Villefort saw it as saving the good name of his father (and in turn, his.) Danglars went after Edmond Dantes, but Villefort went after the opportunity he saw fall into his lap. I’m not saying Villefort is blameless, but Danglars was the start of it all. I think Monte Cristo may have seen it as well, because he has the most direct hand in Danglars’ suffering. He doesn’t stop Caderousse from being killed, he isn’t the one who directly defamed Fernand, and he gave Villefort’s wife the means of destroying his family. And the Benedetto thing, but he kind of brought that on himself. But in addition to the ruin of Danglars the banker, he sees to the starvation of Danglars the man. Caderousse gets off kind of easy, and perhaps he would have ended that way even if he hadn’t tried to rob Monte Cristo. Fernand kills himself, which Monte Cristo isn’t very pleased with, so perhaps he had more punishment planned for him. Villefort suffers twice, both with the poisoning of his family by his wife and the ruination of his reputation by Benedetto, which can relate to the amount of suffering that Dantes went through. And yet it was Danglars who he lets go, for he suffered and was forgiven.
my trouble on that point is that Danglars is, to an extent, just reporting the truth of the situation and everything is hunky dory until Villefort realizes his damn father is part of the conspiracy and then he goes in to ass saving mode and here we are. Although I do concede the point about Monte Cristo’s involvement in each downfall.
See, but even with Danglars and Fernand’s plotting, Dantes would have stayed free. I think Villefort is the worst of the three because he knows exactly the magnitude of his crimes, how they will hurt an innocent man, and he does it anyway. Fernand and Danglars don’t feel guilt for what they did. They feel justified. Villefort does feel the guilt, but because he’s a coward and has ambition, he ruins an innocent man. I didn’t see it as him protecting his father as much as protecting himself.
Absolutely. Villefort was not really protecting his father, as much as he was protecting himself from scandal. He was after all celebrating his betrothal to a very wealthy heiress and was up and coming in the government. His father being revealed as part of a plot would have destroyed his engagement and future career prospects. Fernand and Danglars’ letter wouldn’t actually have been enough to convict Dantés if Villefort had been a just and honest man. Therefore I think his crime is the worst. Ranked in terms of guilt I would say 1) Villefort, 2) Danglars, 3) Fernand and 4) Caderousse (who was more of an incompetent accessory to the betrayal, although he should have tried to help Dantés’ father more).
And also, Danglars never imagined that it would go so far. Villefort really puts it all over the edge, and he does so knowing the consequences of the action, and with a willingness to live with it. Danglars is just jumping from rock to rock on his way up the mountain (I mean, setting up a Ponzi scheme is short-sightedness in a pure form, on a giant scale), and Fernard is that, but even rougher. What Villefort does, he does so with NO scales on his eyes. And I agree, it’s not about him protecting his father, it’s about him always looking out for Number One.
I can see that. And Danglars was basically a tattle-tale, because the letter was treasonous. I think he was hoping for Dantes to be put away forever, but probably expecting some kind of scandal that would allow him to be captain instead. It worked out better than he thought it would (at first.) And Villefort was always looking out for himself and definitely knew what he was doing.
6. Let’s talk about Dantès’ profound alienation when he escapes from prison and his gradual movement back to humanity. How does he regain his humanity?
I was actually surprised by how easily he slipped back into the groove of things. Like, his brain was en FUEGO with solutions to challenges the moment he hit the water. I would have been like “what are these cell phones of which you speak?” if I’d escaped from prison after 14 years. Did I miss something here? I read the unabridged edition, and I actually felt like there was a big gap from him discovering the treasure to appearing on Morrel’s doorstep, totally on top of his game?
After the initial few chapters where he makes sure to save Morrell from ruin (that is right after he escapes and finds the treasure, right?), he does go away for ten years to plot and scheme. I think you can do a lot of getting used to civilization again in that time. He is of course in Terminator-mode when he first re-emerges, cold, manipulative and unfeeling. He’s completely unmoved by everything that happens until Mercedes comes to plead for Albert’s life. Then his icy veneer starts cracking, and as a result, he starts questioning what he’s doing to Valentine, and is upset about the fate of Edward. His reasons for making Maximillian believe his beloved was dead and buried for a month were pretty sound, in the end, I thought. He needed to know how incredibly lucky he was to have her. After all, he told the grandfather the truth right away, it was only Albert who still believed she was gone. He even let him pull a Romeo, sacrificing himself for love (except not really), so he could see how close he had been to losing everything.
No, that’s what I mean, I feel like we didn’t get to see him adjusting. Like, he comes out, kicks ass in getting himself on a crew and getting himself to the treasure, and then saves Morrel like a boss, with his Sinbad the Sailor persona fully fledged, and then goes away, presumably to lay all the rest of his groundwork with the banditos, and the banks, and get all his research ducks in a row? I don’t see him blinking his eyes and says “computers? internet? what is this world that has changed without me?” You know?
To the Albert point, I actually had a problem with this manipulation, more than anything else. Like, okay, you’re the hand of God, and an avenging angel, and blah blah etc. But you’re going to withhold information so that this guy can prove to you that he really loves this woman, and even convince him that he’s committing suicide and dying in the arms of a friend? Why should Albert have to prove himself to him?
Just realised I’m getting Maximillian and Albert mixed up. Albert – son of Mercedes – goes off to make a name for himself. Maximillian – charmed son of Morell, becomes fantabulously wealthy because Edmond doesn’t need money anymore? Seriously, why not keep some money for yours and Hayda’s upkeep, Eddie my man?
To be fair, the world changes WAY more rapidly now then it would have back in the early 1800s. Once the Industrial Revolution kicked off properly, society changed a lot faster. This is before that, and while he’s lost a lot of time, there won’t have been the technological leaps and massive political upheavals to get accustomed to that we would have to do. Most people still lived simple lives in agriculture.
That’s frankly more astounding in the novel, the speed at which he could get things done and houses entirely decorated, in a time when there was only manual labour.
Totally good points!
But I think that *everyone* is astounded by his efficiency, right? People are constantly asking him how he gets stuff done so thoroughly and quickly. I did have a hard time swallowing it, too, but felt like it just had to be accepted as a thing, otherwise I couldn’t have moved forward with it all.
I really do think that all comes down to the fact that he has unbelievable amounts of money and because he’s all about the revenge and hasn’t really thought about what he’s going to do when he’s all done getting said revenge (much like Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride), he really doesn’t care how much money he has to spend to get things done asap. It’s not like he’s concerned he’s going to run out of money. In a pre-industrialised society, you would have had a lot more people for menial labour, so if you paid enough of them tons of money, they probably would drop everything to decorate your house in 48 hours. They’d just take stuff intended for other customers and give it to you, because the money makes it worth it.
I think its both Dumas keeping his story moving, and realizing that to his reader it is going to sound extravagant, so why not let other characters comment on it? The Count is supposed to be a one of a kind wealth, so Dumas explores the ends of that.
Oh yeah. Yeah yeah yeah. Yeah!
He had been training with Faria for a long time, so maybe he worked on personas? And there was some time between his escape and his arrival in Marseille when he was with the smugglers, so he had a bit of an adjustment period, a few weeks at least, maybe a few months. There were 7 chapters between him escaping and his visit to Morrel! Then we skip the 10 years.
(I looked it up. He gets picked up by the smugglers on February 28th, and he makes his first visit to Morrel on June 5th.)
We can always rely on you to look up the pertinent details.
7. How is the Count at the end of the novel similar or different from Edmond Dantès at the beginning of the novel?
How is anyone like their 19-year-old self? Granted, back then, people were “grown-ups” as 12 year olds. But on the flip side, he wasn’t totally “cooked” when he was sent to prison, right? Like, he and Mercedes were babies getting married, and his formative years really happened in the dungeon, right? I think he’s most himself as Le Compte, ultimately, because that’s who he became “when he grew up.”
Oh, Dantès is so very innocent, naive and trusting when he is locked away in prison, where he is tempered like steel. When Faria reveals exactly how he must have come to be set up, he seems disbelieving at first, because even having gone nearly mad, forgotten and abandoned in the dark of that dungeon, he seems to have believed it to all be some terrible mistake. It’s Faria’s tutoring, which allows him to develop his mind and the cold realization of the shittiness of others that really starts to temper his personality. The cold unfeeling Count isn’t really who he is, that’s a front, but I think it’s much closer to his “true self” than the innocent young sailor.
So well said!
8. Valentine de Villefort loves her family, especially her grandfather, and Maximilian Morrel; she would do anything for them. Should we applaud her behavior? How does her behavior compare to that of Eugénie Danglars’? How are these two women different or similar?
Shoutout to Dumas for including lesbians! Dammit, I totally forgot about Eugénie when I was writing my review! Hell to the yes about her!
I mean, Valentine is a product of her time, and she does the best she can, right? I found it interesting that Le Compte was obsessed with children being punished for the sins of their parents, but then turned it all around pretty quickly to “reward” Maximilian for being such a cool kid. There’s a lot to unpack with that, and I think I’m still processing it.
Yup, I read Eugenie Danglars as lesbian too. The happily disguising as a boy, chopping off all her hair to run off with her best friend. No wonder she didn’t want to marry any of the suitors her father presented. Good thing too, what with Andrea being her half-brother (ick!).
And Andrea coming down the chimney into the room that had two beds but only one was inhabited… by two ladies? YUP! YES!!
She is referred to as being ‘masculine’ a few times, too. Dumas wasn’t really trying to hide it.
9. Your mission is to create a new film version of The Count of Monte Cristo. However, the film cannot be longer than two hours. What would you cut out of the story and what would you keep in order to tell your version of The Count? (or, what did the movie version you’ve seen get right?)
I actually thought about this a lot while I was reading! What on earth do you cut out? I’ve got to watch at least one of the movies, and see if I’m outraged by it! Possibly the stuff with the Italian banditry, although then Danglars would need a different end. The Cavalcanti stuff? Because Villefort gets enough punishment just with all the poisoning drama? Maybe that. And that allows alllll that exposition to get tossed, too. It’s a nice mini-revenge subplot, but maybe cut-able.
The 1934 version I watched with crystalclear last night got a lot right, and I agree with its cuts. Basically it ignores going back for Morel, dumps Maximillian (Valentine ends up with Albert…), Caderrousse is gone entirely, and all servants are now Jacopo. In order to get down to a movie run time, it works, but I really think this book should be adapted as miniseries, and since I don’t speak French I can’t really check out the Gerard Depardieu 6+hour version.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x263kzs_the-count-of-monte-cristo-1934-robert-donat-elissa-landi-louis-calhern-feature-action-drama_shortfilms
Oh wow! So interesting, combining the servants is such a good idea. So Calderousse is gone, but the Cavalcanti plot remains? Man, I gotta get on some of these movies….
Nope, Cavalcanti plot also gone.
We see Fernand getting frisky with another lady once he’s married to Mercedes, but I don’t think we know who it was supposed to be. We don’t know if Villefort was also sleeping around, but we see no evidence of it as Benedetto is not around. I don’t think we see any of the other wives, although Valentine de Villefort came from somewhere!
Man, at what point is it an adaptation, and at what point is it just another story a similar plot and the same character names?
That, my friend, is the question for the ages. Can his really be adapted into a movie that runs less than 2 hours? The 1975 version runs at 2 and a quarter hours and is therefore out, even though it keeps much more of the plot in play. The 2002 version is also 2 and a quarter and just – its BAD and is not a true adaptation in my book. I’m leaning towards no…
I think it almost has to be a trilogy. After all they made the Hobbit into 3 movies, and it’s a quarter of the pages of Count of Monte Cristo
I think the 1934 was just under 2 hours, and they could have made it more accurate very easily. Damn trial with its rolly podium!
The Wishbone episode was accurate with what they put in, and it was less than a half hour. Just imagine what they could have done with 2 hours!