The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Our story is finally galloping along. I had forgotten about the note relating to Fouquet. It serves Colbert's purpose of further infuriating the king against Fouquet. But there is a more adroit intriguer out there with a bigger plot. I'm a bit sorry that, although Dumas often has people telling each other things the reader already knows, we don't get to see how Aramis explained to Porthos the abduction of the king.

It seems an important contributor to the plot is the work of carpenters - arranging the secret staircase for Louis & Louise, and now adapting the king's bedroom. Also, it's impressive to see how Aramis was able to bring back the release order to make the switch. However, the whole issue about switching clothes could have been avoided.

It's a bit hard to believe that Philippe, who had been mainly indoors with little exercise, could be taken for Louis, who was regularly exercising outdoors, riding, hunting, etc. and that Philippe could know all the protocols and personalities. But we have to suspend disbelief for a good story.

Which side will d'Artagnan take? He once again is very frank with the king and he obviously admires Fouquet. There are a couple of interesting moments in the conversation of Aramis and d'Artagnan. D'Artagnan says Louis isn't the real king of France, and Aramis is relieved to find his friend means Fouquet. Aramis also swears that he will never harm "the son of Anne of Austria, the true king of France."

The story is all of a sudden picking up quite a lot. After these endless court scenes the description and story of the kidnapping, which is the major topic in the novel (at least I thought so) is rather vague. Was this maybe because describing it in more detail would have shown the flaws of the whole undertaking?
Some people must have been informed, some people must have been lured away from their positions, things like that...

As you mentioned, Robin, Porthos was the masked giant, but how did he get persuaded to be in on this plot. I was also surprised while reading that Aramis despite being disguised seemed to talk with his regular voice which might have been recognized by the king. He himself remembers it at last when being in the Bastille. Also the reaction of the king to be taken away seems a little low, especially thinking about his earlier outbursts of temper.

So these scenes could have been much more than they are...

The note finally makes an appearance. I was wondering why Toby (the servant) stole it. Now we know it was because Colbert ordered him to do so. How convenient that he had it in his pocket right in time to undermine Louise.
I thought it was silly that Aramis had Fouquet write the note in the first place. Aramis is typically so well informed.
But apparently everything to do with Fouquet plays a part in the downfall of Aramis.
I still don’t find the story moving fast enough.
I wonder if I’m gradually losing interest 🤷🏻‍♀️
Maybe I’m just really distracted by other things.
It’s sad that Aramis didn’t trust D’Artagnan.
As loyal as D’Artagnan is to the king 🤴, I think he would have been more loyal to his friends. It was a mistake not to trust him and it was a mistake to believe in Fouquet.

Do you guys find the prisoner switch plausible?

I personally thought it was ridiculous. As much as I like Aramis - I think he could have come up with something much better.
Besmo remembered the original release order (the one with the ink stain). Aramis has to spend a lot of time convincing him and in the process implicating himself. Besmo simply knows too much - including the fact that the prisoner resembles the king.
In the movie 🎥 the escape of the prisoner was more believable
Philippe had an iron mask on so no one in the Bastille knew his true identity.
I rarely like a movie better than the book, but in this instance I do. 🤷🏻‍♀️ The movie has some silky bits, but unfortunately the book is much sillier. I have to conclude that at this point of the saga, Dumas was simply milking it for more money - and needlessly stretching the story.

Yes, I also remembered that the prisoner had to wear the mask in prison so nobody would recognize him, which makes more sense. And there is no way even a identical twin could have the same way of speaking, walking, etc. after being through such a different life. There is a hint of that later. Of course this is romantic fiction, but also there was a feeling that nobility was an innate thing. You get that in Oliver Twist, he stays sensitive and honest because his mother was noble, even though she died at his birth and he lived in the workhouse and on the streets.

The story does pick up in the next section. Kudos to those of you sticking with this odyssey!