-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Was Edmond Dantès justified in his revenge?
- Thread starter Dynomutt
- Start date
Remember that Dantes' revenge is very biblical in nature; to him, the treasures of Monte Cristo are a sign of divine providence and he perceives himself to be acting as a instrument of God's justice. There's a line in there where he seeks to punish those who wronged him for four generations, I believe, so Dante involving children was almost part of the plan, to punish so severely that the great grandchildren of his enemies felt his wrath.
I'm not saying that justifies it, but the opportunity dropped into his lap must have seemed like God giving it a rubber stamp and the Old Testament is pretty damn harsh.
I'm not saying that justifies it, but the opportunity dropped into his lap must have seemed like God giving it a rubber stamp and the Old Testament is pretty damn harsh.
Not only the treasure, but also how everything works out. Finding Caderousse, who happens to intersect with Bertuccio, who just happens to have the means to destroy Villefort, said means ending up in a chain gang with Caderousse.
When things line up like that, anyone would think it was divinely ordained.
Absolutely, solid point. Everyone is so tangled up in each others' lives that it'd be hard NOT to see it as more than coincidence and part of a greater plan.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
God, to think what a 70s-era Coppola could have done with this story.
Henchmen21
Banned
Never read the book nor saw the movie but OP's description of it sounds a lot like Moby Dick. Difference being that in MD, Ahab never relents and it ends up killing his entire crew (save Ishmael) and his ship.
I remember this dreadful post:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=127363826&postcount=647
...But then I recall him returning for a brief spell. Hope he didn't get sick again.
Robot Carnival
Member
I didn't know I want something like this, damn you for making me crave something that'll never happen.
I've only read the book (4 times now I think) and it's my all time favorite piece of literature. I feel that Dantè's revenge is definitely justify, thou he did went too far on indirectly causing the death of the child and almost killing Albert. there could have been other ways to get back to Mondego outside of killing Albert and in fact what the Count did to him politically would be more then enough consider the importance of it during that period.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I still like to watch Gankutsuou once every few years. Shocking, despite being set in the future and mainly being from Albert's point of view, it's a solid adaptation.
Boogie9IGN
Member
I had never seen this but apparently someone did a rendition of what the Count of Monte Cristo's coat of arms would have looked like according to Dumas's description in the text. Even has the words "Wait and Hope" as the motto
Pretty badass!
Pretty badass!
When I read this book in high school, I was absolutely floored. Still my favorite book, mostly due to the expanse of time that it covers and the intricacy of character interactions. I mean, just look at this:
Anyways, I do believe he was justified, but he did cross a line at some point. I'd have to read the book again to pinpoint exactly where I think that is.
Anyways, I do believe he was justified, but he did cross a line at some point. I'd have to read the book again to pinpoint exactly where I think that is.
This is such a great revenge story. I would really like to see another adaptation from the novel, this time closer to the original material. With that said, I did really like the 2002 movie. The movie Oldboy is very much inspired by the Count of Monte Cristo though I'm sure a lot of people know that.
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
Fantastic book.
As an answer to OP's question, I'd say yes and no. Yes, revenge was justified against those who screwed up his life. But no, he was not justified in going after their family members. He realizes this too, even though by that point in the book he's basically untouchable and there's nothing stopping him from executing his plan in totality. He pulls himself back and prevents himself from becoming a true monster. That doesn't excuse what he was prepared to do, or helping de Villefort's wife poison people (although I agree with the earlier poster who said she'd probably end up murdering or attempting to murder anyways), but that's kind of the point of the novel - trying to determine where the line is, and when and why it gets crossed.
As an aside, I love it when Edmond goes back to his old jail cell at the end of the novel and it's basically a tourist destination. You really feel like you've gone on a journey when he's standing in the cell at the end, where he spent too many years imprisoned.
As an answer to OP's question, I'd say yes and no. Yes, revenge was justified against those who screwed up his life. But no, he was not justified in going after their family members. He realizes this too, even though by that point in the book he's basically untouchable and there's nothing stopping him from executing his plan in totality. He pulls himself back and prevents himself from becoming a true monster. That doesn't excuse what he was prepared to do, or helping de Villefort's wife poison people (although I agree with the earlier poster who said she'd probably end up murdering or attempting to murder anyways), but that's kind of the point of the novel - trying to determine where the line is, and when and why it gets crossed.
As an aside, I love it when Edmond goes back to his old jail cell at the end of the novel and it's basically a tourist destination. You really feel like you've gone on a journey when he's standing in the cell at the end, where he spent too many years imprisoned.
I like the book quite a bit but it always felt to me like it was trying to have its cake and eat it with its revenge stuff. Like, you're supposed to be rooting for and supporting the Count as he enacts his revenge and the reader is thrilled as he destroys those who wronged him and then at the end there's this token "revenge is bad actually don't do it". It's a good book but it's pretty much wish fulfillment and I don't think how it handles it's "revenge is bad" moral is all that great.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
When I read this book in high school, I was absolutely floored. Still my favorite book, mostly due to the expanse of time that it covers and the intricacy of character interactions. I mean, just look at this:
Anyways, I do believe he was justified, but he did cross a line at some point. I'd have to read the book again to pinpoint exactly where I think that is.
That picture perfectly sums up why I love the book.
One of the things I enjoyed doing after finishing the book was circling back and trying to imagine what happens if you strip the Count out entirely. I've always felt the three principle villains (and Caderousse, who I don't feel can rightly be called a villain so much as a co-conspirator) all end up failing to get what they were after anyway.
Caderousse is easy; he was already in ruin before the Count returned. He had the least impact on Dante and the Count really had the least impact on him; he mostly left Caderousse to his own fate and he made his own bad choices regarding the diamond.
M. de Villefort's wife was going to kill Valentine, and very likely Noirtier as well. He'd still lose a child and father, and without the Count supplying the poison she probably would have botched the murder. If that came to light, he'd likely lose his position (the very thing he conspired against Dantes to obtain) for not finding a murderess right under his nose (which is mentioned several times). It's been a year, but I also seem to recall her having tried to poison Valentine before with a different poison but it wasn't effective?
Fernand conspired against Dantes for the love of Mercedes, but he never really had it; she loved Dantes all her life. He'd still have his title and wealth since the account of Ali Pasha would be unlikely to come to light, but the thing he ruined Dantes for, he never obtained in the first place.
Danglars is trickier; he conspired against Dantes out of jealousy over his good fortune; being made captain of the Pharaon, his future prospects and his family. But he flees to Spain after framing Dantes, so he never gains the Pharaon. He settles in Paris as a wealthy baron but he's still an unsophisticated miser with a title everyone knows he bought. And in the end, his wife was cheating on him with Lucien and his daughter fled incognito, so he failed to obtain a family as well. He probably would have kept on as he was, but he never really obtained what he ruined Dantes for either.
You could argue the Count is the catalyst for their actions, but I think things still would have ended up badly for those individuals, which is why Dumas chose to end the book with "Wait and Hope;" God / karma / the universe usually balances things out in the end, maybe not as dramatically or as harsh but all the conspirators end up losing or never having what they were after. But then, we wouldn't have such an awesome book, would we? So while the book wants to be a revenge fantasy while eventually deciding "revenge is bad," it feels like a natural shift as the Count sees he's not the instrument of divine retribution he thought and that even his best laid plans had flaws (namely Maximilian and Valentine). I think that's why the book gets away with it, and I think Dumas spent enough time inside the head of the principle characters to show that despite what they did to Dantes they never really got what they wanted in the end.M. de Villefort's wife was going to kill Valentine, and very likely Noirtier as well. He'd still lose a child and father, and without the Count supplying the poison she probably would have botched the murder. If that came to light, he'd likely lose his position (the very thing he conspired against Dantes to obtain) for not finding a murderess right under his nose (which is mentioned several times). It's been a year, but I also seem to recall her having tried to poison Valentine before with a different poison but it wasn't effective?
Fernand conspired against Dantes for the love of Mercedes, but he never really had it; she loved Dantes all her life. He'd still have his title and wealth since the account of Ali Pasha would be unlikely to come to light, but the thing he ruined Dantes for, he never obtained in the first place.
Danglars is trickier; he conspired against Dantes out of jealousy over his good fortune; being made captain of the Pharaon, his future prospects and his family. But he flees to Spain after framing Dantes, so he never gains the Pharaon. He settles in Paris as a wealthy baron but he's still an unsophisticated miser with a title everyone knows he bought. And in the end, his wife was cheating on him with Lucien and his daughter fled incognito, so he failed to obtain a family as well. He probably would have kept on as he was, but he never really obtained what he ruined Dantes for either.
I think the book showed how revenge can be all consuming. At the end, The Count is finally able to let go of the past and move on with his life.
That's an interesting analysis.
That's an interesting analysis.