Usually, I find Dumas' books are carried by their characters. He has the ability to write characters that you can take out of the context and carry around with you as memories of real people (they are not merely functions of plot). This isn't really the case in this book. Mainly, I think, this is because he is leaning towards melodrama to a greater extent, and that requires that his characters be either bad or good, not shaded with grey areas (unlike his musketeers, for example).

There are also fewer historical characters (though they make a very few appearances) on the playing field, and that removes one of his strenghts.



I liked Luigi Vampa, mostly because I am a sucker for he idea of the literate bandit. And possibly also because he is just hinted at. Too many of the characters in this book are painted with strokes that are too broad, which means the minor characters become the more interesting.

I was also fascinated by the daughter of Danglars. That was a fairly unequivocal reference to lesbianism, and I can't believe I did not catch it the last time I read it. I was surprised at how stated it was in a book of this nature. Is the moral that a girl can only be independent if she renounce men altogether? Or the reverse, that if she desires such independence, she must be a lesbian? I am intrigued.

I also liked Noirtier. He was an actual character, I felt, not just a melodramatic plot tool. His son might have reached the same height with just a few more touches of shadowing. He had great potential in the beginning (at a time when he was really the only character who interested me), but became less nuanced towards the end.

The count/Dantes ... I find it difficult to give an opinion that is unequivocally yay or nay. He is interesting, though. In part because so much of his character is only vaguely hinted at. The gigantic gap between the characters of Dantes and the count -- because they really are not the same person -- emphasises the major span of time that we do not know anything about. And this is also the most interesting part of the story, for me: what is not told, or only suggested along the way. But the count as a character .... He appeals to me because he very clearly has a plan, and this creates a confidence that just as we saw the beginning, we will get to see the ending. But I am confused by his omniscience in some chapter and complete blindness in others. But I did like his deviousness and apparent ability to direct plot at whim.

Faria... I love Faria. He is the high point of the book for me. I always forget about his religiosity and remember only his insane knowledge, back story, tragedy, colour. Faria has texture, and I think he is the only real character in the book. The only reason to get out of Château d'If is that he is no longer there. I think I would be happily imprisoned for any number of years if I had a tunnel connecting me to that man. Which begs the question: should Dantés revenge himself on his enemies, or thank them thoroughly?


I thoroughly dislike reading about people who are too good to be believed. As my title suggests, the gallery of characters appears to be constructed according to a good/bad division (good come to good; bad come to worse -- that is what fiction means, after all ) with the warped count watching over it all.

This means, of course, that the more interesting characters are bound to be the bad ones. The good are inspired only through their internal goodness, whereas the bad need motivation. I was not a great fan of Valentine (but for some reason I do not mind young Morrel as much).

On a more visceral level, I obviously disliked the characters who I was meant to dislike. Danglars, Fernand, Caderousse, Benedetto .... They are Bad People.



Of course not. But that is entirely beside the point. The question is whether they were real, which so many Dumas characters are, but none in this book.




There is another thing that has been bugging me about the characters, and I cannot decide whether it is a stroke of genius or just off. They all change so much between the first and second periods. It is not only the count who completely changes personality -- they all do (except Mercedes and Villefort). Danglars perhaps least of the baddies, but Fernand? It is quite astonishing.



A word on the women, finally. Mercedes, Valentine, Madame de Villefort, Mlle Danglars, Madame Danglars, Haidee. I was suprised at the breadth, I confess. Some are obvious angels (Valentine, primarily), some obvious monsters (Madame de Villefort) -- in fact, it is interesting that it is in Villefort's house that we get the clichéd extremes of Woman.

Mercedes is interesting in that she did not wait or kill herself (the two options really open to her as a melodramatic heroine), but actually married Fernand (reneging on all the vows she made initially). She breaks out of the pattern and becomes one of the betrayers. This is of course why she cannot be awarded love in the end (which makes the end dissonant, in a way I did not like but found intriguing -- because the reason why I did not like it was that it did not fall into the expectations the genre and the earlier eulogising of Mercedes had created in me).

I already commented on Mlle Dangarls, but her mother is another of those that I cannot place. Her importance lay mainly in being a plot function, I felt. She has no personality of her own.

And Haidee. She has an interesting back story, but no colour herself, if that makes any sense. I am always a bit disappointed in her.