Scan barcode
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
5.0
It is an age old ideam but novels should never be used as instruments of instruction. Milton tried to preach virture by Paradise Lost and ended up making Satan attractive. Laclos tried to write against libertines but see!
This is the next level stuff. Besides admirable prose, wonderful quotes, the fact that I would have thought this novel way ahead of its time it had been written a century later and censorship it suffered; there is so much else to admire here. Not only are letters here a narrative device and a means of communication but they also play a role in the plot.
What is most impressive is that since these letters are written by the characters to each other and not in some diary or some annomyous reader, you hear characters not as their honest selves or as confessing to some anonymity - but as they wish to appear to the receiver of the letter. The two libertines (Valmount and Merteuil) in particular but also Tourvel (these french names!) are almost always playing a role, constructing themselves for the reader of letters. Tourvel, for example, in her initial letters to Valmont won't acknowledge the temptation she feels and pretends to be unmoved by his pleas. So what we get is not characters as they are but rather as what they wish to seem to each other.
This kind of deceit is most obviously true in case of letters of seduction by Volmount to Tourvel. In his letters to her, he plays the role of a person he is not - religious, repenting of his old ways. A commonplace tactic of seduction, but he acquires the language of his victim - Tourvel in his letters to her. Another commonplace tactic he uses is claiming that he is hurting and that she is responsible for it. Both of those too create a character whose role he is playing. This act is so complete that Tourvel would later fail to recognise her lover in him when he shows his libertine ways.
It is case of letters between two libertines though, that this role-playing is more brilliantly done. At first it seemed that the two were being honest to each other (they are so at least more than they are honest to others) but then you realise they have reasons to wear such masks even with each other. The two have a strange kind of amorous relationship - they are each trying constantly to impress each other by revealing the tricks they played on a third person. I almost feel as if they probably claimed to be far more heartless than they really might have been just to impress each other.
Volmont seems to show less understanding of this relationship than Merteuil but then he really seems to show very little understanding of his own emotions and that of others. As Merteuil points out, he only knows what he has learnt but lacks invention and has blind spots in observational skills.
Even Volmont's liertine ways are just a role he plays probably unknowingly and clings to - probably because that is only mode of life he understands; it has helped him distinguish himself and has given him a reputation which he values more than anything else. Sexual desire itself seem to far low in his motivations. Merteuil pointed out that he is more interested in the chase rather than conquest and at least twice he decides not to take advantage of women who seemed easily vulnerable. In the end, he is like most men - valuing women according to amount of effort he needed to seduce them.
Merteuil seems to show more awareness of the relationship she has with Valmont, she is one who has constructed this 'friendship' in which - if my reading is right probably to create a space where, in a weird way, they show fidelity to each other, perhaps because she thought he won't be loyal in a more conventional way. She is often seen as spinning everything to suit the narrative of this amorous friendship - turning Vamont's seduction of Tourvel into a knight's quest for herself. She also takes offence when she discovers that Valmont is in love with Tourvel - almost the only time she lets down the veil of being untouched by anything anyone does in the book by showing anger.
Although I don't like anyone who would play such games with innocents, there is something respectable about Merteuil. She definately shows a higher level of observational skills and invention and letter where she talks of creating herself (as against Valmont who was creation of traditions of society) is probably one of the biggest highlights of the book. She has a way of aquiring expressions of others and then using them her own way (another way in which letters play a role in the book) but her virtuso is more visible in less verbal forms of communication. While Valmont uses words to seduce Tourveil and blackmail and force, nah, rape to seduce Cecile; Merteuil seduces her prey by listening and by feigning intrest through gestures and face expressions (far harder to control).
Unlike Valmont, she chose (though even that maybe a lie told to impress) the sphere of sex and betrayal rather than inherit it from some bad company. Unlike him, her object doesn't seem to have a great quantity of lovers, but rather to be able to be admired by men she herself admired. This art of deceit is how she (consciously) gives meaning to her leisurely life - valuing it enough to want to take Cecil as her student in it (although it may also be her way of easing her conscince for deceiving Cecil into giving up her virtue, for whom she seemed to have some genuine affection). Given her times, there probably weren't too many other ways for a woman to exercise her genuis.
Darn, I already wasted an hour on this stupid review!
This is the next level stuff. Besides admirable prose, wonderful quotes, the fact that I would have thought this novel way ahead of its time it had been written a century later and censorship it suffered; there is so much else to admire here. Not only are letters here a narrative device and a means of communication but they also play a role in the plot.
What is most impressive is that since these letters are written by the characters to each other and not in some diary or some annomyous reader, you hear characters not as their honest selves or as confessing to some anonymity - but as they wish to appear to the receiver of the letter. The two libertines (Valmount and Merteuil) in particular but also Tourvel (these french names!) are almost always playing a role, constructing themselves for the reader of letters. Tourvel, for example, in her initial letters to Valmont won't acknowledge the temptation she feels and pretends to be unmoved by his pleas. So what we get is not characters as they are but rather as what they wish to seem to each other.
This kind of deceit is most obviously true in case of letters of seduction by Volmount to Tourvel. In his letters to her, he plays the role of a person he is not - religious, repenting of his old ways. A commonplace tactic of seduction, but he acquires the language of his victim - Tourvel in his letters to her. Another commonplace tactic he uses is claiming that he is hurting and that she is responsible for it. Both of those too create a character whose role he is playing. This act is so complete that Tourvel would later fail to recognise her lover in him when he shows his libertine ways.
It is case of letters between two libertines though, that this role-playing is more brilliantly done. At first it seemed that the two were being honest to each other (they are so at least more than they are honest to others) but then you realise they have reasons to wear such masks even with each other. The two have a strange kind of amorous relationship - they are each trying constantly to impress each other by revealing the tricks they played on a third person. I almost feel as if they probably claimed to be far more heartless than they really might have been just to impress each other.
Volmont seems to show less understanding of this relationship than Merteuil but then he really seems to show very little understanding of his own emotions and that of others. As Merteuil points out, he only knows what he has learnt but lacks invention and has blind spots in observational skills.
Even Volmont's liertine ways are just a role he plays probably unknowingly and clings to - probably because that is only mode of life he understands; it has helped him distinguish himself and has given him a reputation which he values more than anything else. Sexual desire itself seem to far low in his motivations. Merteuil pointed out that he is more interested in the chase rather than conquest and at least twice he decides not to take advantage of women who seemed easily vulnerable. In the end, he is like most men - valuing women according to amount of effort he needed to seduce them.
Merteuil seems to show more awareness of the relationship she has with Valmont, she is one who has constructed this 'friendship' in which - if my reading is right probably to create a space where, in a weird way, they show fidelity to each other, perhaps because she thought he won't be loyal in a more conventional way. She is often seen as spinning everything to suit the narrative of this amorous friendship - turning Vamont's seduction of Tourvel into a knight's quest for herself. She also takes offence when she discovers that Valmont is in love with Tourvel - almost the only time she lets down the veil of being untouched by anything anyone does in the book by showing anger.
Although I don't like anyone who would play such games with innocents, there is something respectable about Merteuil. She definately shows a higher level of observational skills and invention and letter where she talks of creating herself (as against Valmont who was creation of traditions of society) is probably one of the biggest highlights of the book. She has a way of aquiring expressions of others and then using them her own way (another way in which letters play a role in the book) but her virtuso is more visible in less verbal forms of communication. While Valmont uses words to seduce Tourveil and blackmail and force, nah, rape to seduce Cecile; Merteuil seduces her prey by listening and by feigning intrest through gestures and face expressions (far harder to control).
Unlike Valmont, she chose (though even that maybe a lie told to impress) the sphere of sex and betrayal rather than inherit it from some bad company. Unlike him, her object doesn't seem to have a great quantity of lovers, but rather to be able to be admired by men she herself admired. This art of deceit is how she (consciously) gives meaning to her leisurely life - valuing it enough to want to take Cecil as her student in it (although it may also be her way of easing her conscince for deceiving Cecil into giving up her virtue, for whom she seemed to have some genuine affection). Given her times, there probably weren't too many other ways for a woman to exercise her genuis.
Darn, I already wasted an hour on this stupid review!
eevee_saur137's review against another edition
dark
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
One of my favorite books about messy bitches who live for drama.
My favorite is the Audible translation with Dominic West and Janet McTeer.
My favorite is the Audible translation with Dominic West and Janet McTeer.
cassmpt's review against another edition
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
L'ayant étudié en cours, je ne peux que l'aimer puisque j'ai pu comprendre tous ses détails et j'adore cela dans les livres : de pouvoir tout comprendre en précision et pronfondeur, big up à Mrs Ruimi qui fût seulement une prof adorable et trop fun
dantalion_xi's review against another edition
5.0
How do we not study this in school?
Les Liasons Dangereuses is many things.
It is a incredibly engrossing epistolary novel (yeah, I would see a contradiction here too).
It is a tale that tries to look like it is frivolous, while being absolutely raw.
It is a satire on the costumes of the aristocracy, as well as a satire on the concept of decency.
And it is fun. In a sense. It is also very painful.
Many scenes stayed with me in the same way some deaths in George Martin's books stick with you.
I was disgusted, and in awe at the same time, for the corrupt morals of the protagonists, for the ease with which they destroyed others' lives.
Such a pure portrayal of the basest human instincts, and of how low we can go if we put our mind to it, deserves to be remembered among the masterpieces of literature.
Funnily enough, Laclos wanted just that.
He thought he would write a novel, for the first time in his life, that would make him immortal.
And he went ahead and did just that.
Perhaps, the writer's greatest achievement, is making the reader feel sympathetic towards the protagonists' misfortunes, notwithstanding all their "mischievous" deeds.
Les Liasons Dangereuses is many things.
It is a incredibly engrossing epistolary novel (yeah, I would see a contradiction here too).
It is a tale that tries to look like it is frivolous, while being absolutely raw.
It is a satire on the costumes of the aristocracy, as well as a satire on the concept of decency.
And it is fun. In a sense. It is also very painful.
Many scenes stayed with me in the same way some deaths in George Martin's books stick with you.
I was disgusted, and in awe at the same time, for the corrupt morals of the protagonists, for the ease with which they destroyed others' lives.
Such a pure portrayal of the basest human instincts, and of how low we can go if we put our mind to it, deserves to be remembered among the masterpieces of literature.
Funnily enough, Laclos wanted just that.
He thought he would write a novel, for the first time in his life, that would make him immortal.
And he went ahead and did just that.
Perhaps, the writer's greatest achievement, is making the reader feel sympathetic towards the protagonists' misfortunes, notwithstanding all their "mischievous" deeds.
eliza_m_ecrire's review against another edition
4.0
Encore une fois, si je lis ce livre, c’est en raison d’un élément de la culture populaire récente. Pour faire court, un remake de ce roman au même titre est sorti sur Netflix avec cette twist : ça se faisait en contexte moderne. Par contre… sans vouloir gâcher quoi que ce soit, le film est une catastrophe ambulante : mauvaise trame, mauvais jeu d’acteur, mauvaise adaptation, tout simplement. Alors, j’ai voulu lire le roman originel pour voir s’il valait plus le détour.
Mon verdict : oui, oui il en vaut la peine.
Critique complète ici : https://lesmotsdezaza.wordpress.com/2023/02/19/critique-11-les-liaisons-dangereuses-2011-par-pierre-choderlos-de-laclos/
Mon verdict : oui, oui il en vaut la peine.
Critique complète ici : https://lesmotsdezaza.wordpress.com/2023/02/19/critique-11-les-liaisons-dangereuses-2011-par-pierre-choderlos-de-laclos/
sandy_dream's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
3.0