Dumas's original idea was to cut the first 20 chapters from the novel and begin with the quest for revenge. In your opinion, which works better and why?
I believe that Dumas made the correct choice to include the first 20 chapters. The first 20 chapters show another side to Dantes that is not shown in the quest for revenge. The first 20 chapters also provide a lot of back story for the story.
I think that cutting the first twenty chapters would be an absolutely terrible idea. To do that would be getting rid of the part of the story that engages the reader. Without that the reader would not know why he was getting revenge, and how angry you would be if you were Dantes. Without the first twenty people may feel sorry for the people Dantes is getting revenge on. This would skew the story and leave the reader meandering from the true meaning.
I think that the first 20 chapters contain vital information the pertains to the rest of the story. Dumas refers back to them throughout the novel and they help lead up to various parts of the plot. If I did not know the reasons for Edmond's imprisonment, about his father, or about Mercedes, I think that the story would have been a lot harder to follow and understand. The novel might lack any explanation for Edmond seeking revenge.
Dumas made a brilliant choice when he kept the first 20 chapters. The depth he adds to the storyline and the characters themselves is reason enough to keep it. Also it has an emotional appeal to the reader: it allows the audience to root for Dantes as they experience the injustices against him. This is pure pathos
The answer would vary with the audience he was trying to appeal to. If he was trying to appeal to a wider audience, a shorter novel would have been better. However, Alexandre Dumas is just a boss at writing and made what would have been the worst part of the story, close to the best. It would have been like skipping to the battle scenes in Lord of the Rings. They're nothing without the first parts of the movies.
I think that it would depend greatly. I think that keeping the first 20 chapters was a very good decision because it sets the scene incredibly well for the rest of the novel. However, the first 20 chapters are quite disconnected from the rest of the story. It made me slightly confused while reading it, and I think that they should be included, but it would not have been bad if they were changed slightly to make them flow better with the rest of the story.
Without the original 20 chapters the book would not have flowed as well. the motivation for Dantes' actions would have been lacking and therefore the need for vengeance would not have been as strong.
While the first twenty chapters do add the motives for Dantes' revenge, the story would not be worse without it, just vastly different. Instead of being introduced to the naive young Dantes, we would have first met the distant Count, which would give us a vastly different, and not so sympathetic view of his actions as he seeks revenge.
I believe that Dumas made the correct choice to include the first 20 chapters. The first 20 chapters show another side to Dantes that is not shown in the quest for revenge. The first 20 chapters also provide a lot of back story for the story.
ReplyDeleteI think that cutting the first twenty chapters would be an absolutely terrible idea. To do that would be getting rid of the part of the story that engages the reader. Without that the reader would not know why he was getting revenge, and how angry you would be if you were Dantes. Without the first twenty people may feel sorry for the people Dantes is getting revenge on. This would skew the story and leave the reader meandering from the true meaning.
ReplyDeleteI think that the first 20 chapters contain vital information the pertains to the rest of the story. Dumas refers back to them throughout the novel and they help lead up to various parts of the plot. If I did not know the reasons for Edmond's imprisonment, about his father, or about Mercedes, I think that the story would have been a lot harder to follow and understand. The novel might lack any explanation for Edmond seeking revenge.
ReplyDeleteDumas made a brilliant choice when he kept the first 20 chapters. The depth he adds to the storyline and the characters themselves is reason enough to keep it. Also it has an emotional appeal to the reader: it allows the audience to root for Dantes as they experience the injustices against him. This is pure pathos
ReplyDeleteThe answer would vary with the audience he was trying to appeal to. If he was trying to appeal to a wider audience, a shorter novel would have been better. However, Alexandre Dumas is just a boss at writing and made what would have been the worst part of the story, close to the best. It would have been like skipping to the battle scenes in Lord of the Rings. They're nothing without the first parts of the movies.
ReplyDeleteI think that it would depend greatly. I think that keeping the first 20 chapters was a very good decision because it sets the scene incredibly well for the rest of the novel. However, the first 20 chapters are quite disconnected from the rest of the story. It made me slightly confused while reading it, and I think that they should be included, but it would not have been bad if they were changed slightly to make them flow better with the rest of the story.
ReplyDeleteWithout the original 20 chapters the book would not have flowed as well. the motivation for Dantes' actions would have been lacking and therefore the need for vengeance would not have been as strong.
ReplyDeleteWhile the first twenty chapters do add the motives for Dantes' revenge, the story would not be worse without it, just vastly different. Instead of being introduced to the naive young Dantes, we would have first met the distant Count, which would give us a vastly different, and not so sympathetic view of his actions as he seeks revenge.
ReplyDelete