Recent reading

[luzula]

I have a cold (or so I assume; I tested negative for covid, at least), and so am endeavouring to rest in bed and do some comfort reading. But before that, I finished these:

Dangerous Liaisons by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos (1782)
I like to feed my brain on 18th century prose regularly, and two people had told me this was page-turney. Indeed it was, though I can only reconcile myself to the characters if I consider that soon the French revolution will arrive and hopefully force them all to work for a living (and I would not mourn if some of them faced the guillotine). I do enjoy epistolary books, and the collaborative Librivox audiobook was very good, perhaps with the exception of Valmont, who is read in a moustache-twirling-villain fashion which makes it difficult to understand why Madame de Tourvel falls for him. But after all the reader has to act out Valmont raping a young woman with great self-satisfaction, so I guess I can understand the choice. I guess I am surprised at how much the villains get their punishment, though? I had the impression this would be a more amoral sort of book. But I guess several of the more virtuous characters also end badly. I do wonder at Valmont dying by Danceny's hand, though--I had thought Valmont much more able to manipulate the more inexperienced Danceny such that he would avoid being challenged by him. (ETA: Note: comments contain spoilers.)

How to Be Animal: A New History of What It Means to Be Human, by Melanie Challenger (2020)
Non-fiction; I got this after listening to an interesting podcast interview with the author. The theme is, by the author's own summation, "that humans are animals, that we struggle with that fact, and that this matters to us immensely". It ranges widely within that topic, from AI to psychological research to animal research to the author's personal musings. I found it worthwhile, though sometimes it summed up scientific studies in a single sentence in a way that made me wonder what got lost in the compression.

Comments

[cathexys]

I can only reconcile myself to the characters if I consider that soon the French revolution will arrive and hopefully force them all to work for a living

I laughed out loud!!!

[luzula]

Glad to amuse. : )

[chestnut_pod]

Aw, sorry you're sick! Here's hoping for a swift recovery.

[luzula]

Thanks! It's nothing serious, but comfort reading and bed rest is doing me good.

[sanguinity]

One of the things I enjoyed was how sharply Valmont and Mertieul were able to pivot their apparent character, depending on whom they were writing to. They're both terrible people who are very good at feigning virtue, sincerity, concern, etc. Which is to say, I hope Valmont's reader wasn't always mustache twirling!

I can only reconcile myself to the characters if I consider that soon the French revolution will arrive and hopefully force them all to work for a living (and I would not mourn if some of them faced the guillotine).

You're not the only one -- according to Wikipedia, there was a contingent who considered the novel revolutionary propaganda. Although if that were the case, I would have expected them to go unpunished, as clinching evidence for why a revolution was needed.

I guess I am surprised at how much the villains get their punishment, though?

I assume it was a genre convention of the day, but couldn't really say. Speaking personally, however, I was disappointed to see the Marquise chastened and punished. God forbid a woman do anything!

[luzula]

Valmont must be a difficult challenge as a reader, I think, because the reader has to choose how to interpret his unreliable narration. I felt that the reader of the Librivox audiobook read his letters to Madame de Tourvel as "thin layer of exaggerated sincerity with moustache-twirling villainy shining through", and I think I would have preferred something that was closer to how she must have received them, because otherwise it is incomprehensible that she fell for him. And it would also have made his ability to pivot between different recipients, as you say, more clear.

Speaking personally, however, I was disappointed to see the Marquise chastened and punished.

I thought the smallpox scars were unnecessary! The inheritance stuff I expected, since it was signaled earlier, and I didn't mind it. And the social humiliation scene felt out of character (like Valmont's death) since surely someone as adept as she would have handled it better, or avoided it in the first place.

Actually garonne put her thoughts in an email so as to avoid spoiling people (which is why I'm hiding this as well, so that her efforts are not wasted), and her thoughts were that the author didn't actually want to punish his main characters, and so did it in a ridiculous and overdone fashion (especially with Merteuil) to make fun of or parody the "villain is punished" convention. Hmm.

[sanguinity]

Re possible readings for Valmont, I'm reminded that grrlpup and I meant to watch the various film adaptations (there are at least three). I'll be sure to keep an eye on how much, and how consistently, Valmont twirls his moustache.

Hm, I'm not convinced by garonne's reading, although it might simply be a matter of my not having read the other works that this one might have been in conversation with. But I will have to chew over what I'd consider a satisfying ending to the proposed FotH x DL crossover, should I ever write it.

[luzula]

There are opinions on the adaptations in selenak's comment below if you're interested, but they're spoilery.

Also, the moustache is metaphorical, obviously, since he's an 18th century character. : )

But I will have to chew over what I'd consider a satisfying ending to the proposed FotH x DL crossover, should I ever write it.
I feel very protective of the FotH characters in this scenario!

Did you check out the fic for DL, btw? I have some open in tabs right now that look promising, mostly ones that queer the canon...

[sanguinity]

Thanks for pointing me to selenak's comment!

Also, the moustache is metaphorical, obviously, since he's an 18th century character. : )

omg, you and your thing about mustaches! It's not like you would have found Valmont attractive in either case. :-P

I feel very protective of the FotH characters in this scenario!

So do I! Obviously our Heron trio emerge stronger than ever, but I also envision this happening pre-DL, so Valmont's and Mertieul's defeat and humiliation must be private instead of public. But to make this work, the threat to our Heron trio must be credible, and their victory decisive, so... *still thinking this over*

Did you check out the fic for DL, btw?

In the first half of the novel I wanted Cecille/Mertieul fic, but as I recall there wasn't that much of it. But last year there was a substack readalong of DL, so maybe more has emerged by now. I never did go searching for fic after finishing the novel. Do make recs if you find anything good!

[luzula]

omg, you and your thing about mustaches! It's not like you would have found Valmont attractive in either case. :-P
It's true, Valmont would have found me an extremely difficult challenge. But I can in fact appreciate moustaches, on the right person and in the right time period! I think Jude Law as Watson looks very nice in his.

This gen fic about Valmont and Merteuil during the French revolution was quite good! This Valmont/Danceny fic has gone to my ereader, but it looks promising. I enjoyed this Cecile/Merteuil fic except that it had Merteuil being far too honest to Valmont about her feelings for Cecile.

[desireearmfeldt]

It's been a while since I've read the actual book, but at least in some adaptations, the implication is Valmont being killed by Danceny is some combination of Valmont having been shaken off his game, or Valmont committing suicide by duel. Because he is actually changed, or at least shaken, by the events that occur.

[luzula]

Hmm, yeah, I can see that. The scene happens off-stage in the book, so of course it can be interpreted in different ways. Perhaps shaken by what's going on between Valmont and Merteuil? I do interpret them as having actual feelings for each other.

[antisoppist]

There was a good radio drama version of Christopher Hampton's play I heard, which I've now found here, if you ever want to listen to a different version.
https://archive.org/details/les-liaisons-dangereuses

[luzula]

Thanks for the tip! : )

[sanguinity]

Oh! Ciaran Hinds stars in that! I was going to listen anyway, but I'm particularly interested now.

ETA: I've now listened to the first episode, and Ciaran Hinds is delicious. As is Lindsay Duncan! Thank you so much for the rec!

[antisoppist]

I'm so pleased! I listen to a lot of radio drama and remembered it being excellent and them both really slimily gorgeous. I'm glad someone made it available for more people to hear.

[sanguinity]

I love radio drama! For whatever reason, audiobooks tend not to work for me (there are exceptions, but they are rare), but radio dramas hit my brain in a way which works very well.

[regshoe]

I can only reconcile myself to the characters if I consider that soon the French revolution will arrive and hopefully force them all to work for a living (and I would not mourn if some of them faced the guillotine).

XD

I know what you mean about feeding the brain—I also find real 18th-century prose is good inspiration for fic writing :D I might give this one a miss, though, it sounds a bit much.

Get well soon! Rest and comfort reading sounds like a good plan in the meantime.

[luzula]

Yeah, I think this one is not your style. Not my usual style as well, I think; I do usually prefer main characters I can like more. But nevertheless it was quite page-turney and entertaining!

Thanks! <3

Spoilers for adaptions

[selenak]

Re: the French Revolution, you and Christopher Hampton (initially) both, since he ended the stage version of his adaption of the novel with the Marquise de Merteuil not getting the pox marked face and a milder version of the social ostracism than the novel, BUT she raises her glass to the the new year 1789 as the final line of the play, and then the curtain comes down and you hear the sound of the guillontine falling. In the film version directed by Stephen Frears, Hampton, who also wrote the film script, changed this - Merteuil still doesn‘t get disfigured, but she is booed and hissed at at the opera for the final scene. (No allusion to the French Revolution.)

Re: Valmont and Merteuil getting punished at all, and the theory of de Laclos doing a parody, honestly, I could see both. (I.e. that‘s what he meant and no, he didn‘t, it‘s a sincere ending.) Yes, novelistic convention was that they should get punished (or reformed), but then again satire and parody was a fine 18th century literary convention, too, see also: Voltaire. (In general, but I‘m thinking specifically of the part of the ending of Candide that spoofs the conventional „lovers must end up together“ part of a happy ending, and also the Pucelle as a parody of the heroic epic.) Then again, Chloderos de Laclos wasn‘t the Marquis de Sade and didn‘t want to be. Incidentally, he has a walk-on part in Hilary Mantel‘s novel about the French Revolution A Place of Greater Safety, because he was for a time the right-hand man of the Duc d‘Orleans, later Citizen Philipe Egalité, still later beheaded anyway, since Mantel is going with the theory (shared by historical Marie Antoinette) that the Duc d‘Orleans was encouraging the Revolutionaries with an eye on eventually making himself King and replacing the main Bourbon line with the Orleans line, which of course massively backfires for him. Laclos is told by Camille Desmoulins „this kind of thing only works in your novel“, I think.

Moustache-twirling reading of Valmont: that‘s a shame. I think some adaptions - looking at you, Milos Forman‘s Valmont and teen AU Cruel Intentions - err on the side of exculpating and heroifying Valmont (and in those versions he does seek out death in his duel with Dancency because he‘s repentant and desperate, though not so much that he doesn‘t also want revenge on Merteuil, hence him giving Dancency her letters) - but a Valmont who is very obviously to all listeners/audiences evil doesn‘t work, either. He should come across as charming and sincere to those who don‘t know. BTW, the original cast for Hampton‘s stage adaption decades ago were Alan Rickman as Valmont and Lindsay Duncen as Merteuil, which I would have loved to have seen. The film version has Glenn Close as Merteuil, and she‘s still my definite Marquise, and John Malkovich as Valmont who of all the screen Valmonts I‘ve seen also works best for me, though I know where those who complain he‘s too unsettling for them because John Malkovich are coming from. (Forman‘s Valmont has Colin Firth as Valmont, pre Darcy Firth even, I think, and no, it doesn‘t work, but that‘s not because of Firth, it‘s because the script leans too much in his favour. Annette Benning is Merteuil as a kitten, not the splendily lethal lioness Glenn Close is.)

Back to the book: decades ago when doing some research on Lord Byron it struck me what an international bestseller it must have been because in the midst of Byron‘s separation from his wife Annabella, his mother-in-law, Lady Milbanke, who hates her sister-in-law Lady Melbourne, writes a furious letter that Lady Melbourne is totally the Merteuil to Byron‘s Valmont for having engineered Byron‘s marriage to Annabella in the first place, and expects her correspondant to get that reference. (In 1816, i.e. roughly fourty years post French publication.)

Re: Spoilers for adaptions

[luzula]

Actually I prefer the guillotine to the smallpox scars for Merteuil, because the smallpox scars just say "let's humiliate her as a woman! her beauty is the important thing about her!". While the guillotine is gender neutral and is something you do with someone who is actually dangerous. (This is what I would prefer symbolically speaking, I mean--personally I would prefer facial scars to death.)

Laclos is told by Camille Desmoulins „this kind of thing only works in your novel“, I think.
Heee.

Alas I am very bad at watching tv/movies at this stage of my life, or I would watch the Glenn Close/John Malkovich one.

his mother-in-law, Lady Milbanke, who hates her sister-in-law Lady Melbourne, writes a furious letter that Lady Melbourne is totally the Merteuil to Byron‘s Valmont for having engineered Byron‘s marriage to Annabella in the first place, and expects her correspondant to get that reference
Oh, that's cool.

Re: Spoilers for adaptions

[sanguinity]

BTW, the original cast for Hampton‘s stage adaption decades ago were Alan Rickman as Valmont and Lindsay Duncen as Merteuil, which I would have loved to have seen.

Ooooo, what a delightful casting! Right now I'm listening to an audio dramatisation of Hampton's play with Ciaran Hinds and Lindsay Duncan, and they're both fabulous. I listened to part one today; tomorrow I'll listen to part two.