The three Musketeers is a typical historical novel-feuilleton. But from this it does not cease to be amazing. Traditionally, the heroes of the books are divided into positive and negative. At the same time the distinction between these two characteristics is never clear. And Dumas.
On the one hand all the characters of the book can be attributed to a particular “camp”: the reader is absolutely clear that the root of all evils in the novel – a treacherous cardinal Richelieu and his entourage Comte de Rochefort and Milady.
At the same time the reader does not doubt that the three Musketeers along with d’Artagnan represent a “force for good” as fighting against the Cardinal, do not give the Queen to Sully his honor, to help the King, etc. Simultaneously, the three Musketeers, if you look closely, are a disgusting people together, they kill people left and right (while de Treville tries them to cover up and justify before the King), separately too, have a few attractive features: Athos is a drunk, Aramis is a hypocrite prone to posturing, Porthos lives at the expense of women. And do they not always right and good.
At the same time, in certain moments, you begin to understand that the Cardinal is not so bad, and maybe he does everything “for the good of France,” no matter how tried to denigrate Dumas (who, by the way, the book “Twenty years later” pays tribute to the deceased Cardinal, noting that the current (Mazarin) is just his shadow).
The king is represented as spineless and going on about other people. About Anne of Austria, too, can say a lot… Good and evil in the novel Dumas merge, blend, often mutually replace each other. He makes it clear that not everything that is good is really good, and from all sides, and everything that is bad is not really evil actually.