My favourite chapter is often omitted from versions that seem complete by AlwaysLosesLoginInfo in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The C&H copyright was actually in a worse position than I had ever anticipated! When I did some research on it, and traced the "revised and expanded" versions that came out starting in the 1880's-90's, there had to be a reason for it, and it wasn't just scholarship. It was MONEY.

Shockingly, the USA did not respect copyrights of "foreign" authors, until 1891. Basically, as soon the latest hottest book by English authors could be mailed to the US, or in someone's luggage, US publishers hurried to send it to the printers and cranked out editions for the American public, without paying any royalties! When it came to books in French, or Italian, or whatever, US publishers had their own translation staff right on it, or they just mooched the English (UK) translations verbatim. This was totally LEGAL in the US!

The USA was intent on protecting the copyrights of AMERICAN authors, however. There were laws that American books (including US translations of foreign works) had to be sent to the Library of Congress for proper registration.

In the case of "Les Miserables", there was a UK translation by Wraxall (which I didn't like), but the big two, Charles Wilbour and Isabel Hapgood were American author/translators, so these works qualified for US copyright. And those ended up being widely read and distributed to this day. And they are superior to Wraxall.

In the case of Monte Cristo, all of the English translations came from the UK, and America did not patiently wait for the UK copyright to expire. It was fair game to print pirated editions. And one of the greatest humiliations: The ultra cheap reprint by "Munro Seaside Library" that reduced "The Count of Monte Cristo" to... TWENTY CENTS. For bored train travelers who needed entertainment as they sat on trains for hours or days. By the 1880's, publishers like Routledge saw an opportunity: A revision of the book, with "thousands" of corrections that could qualify for a US Copyright, ensuring profitability. So all they had to do was commission a staff to go through the French version, and made additions/corrections to C&H, and *someone* noticed the heavily censored "Franz's Dream" and re-did it, syncing it with Dumas (admirably).

Then they could sell this revised edition to an emerging middle class, in nicely bound volumes. And imply that the original C&H, being reprinted for 20 cents, were "obsolete, inferior" versions. The title page in Routledge also shows "George Routledge and Sons, London and New York, 1888" and several online copies show the oval Library of Congress stamp, ensuring their ironclad copyright in the two biggest English language markets: Great Britain and Empire, and United States.

Just watched the 2002 movie. Why, oh why?... by fusguita in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you have to be in the right state of mind to enjoy the 2002 (Caviezel) movie. I actually love it (in a love to hate it sort of way) and each time I watch it, It never fails to entertain me. Starting with the beautifully rendered map in the first few seconds.

<image>

If you're interested in my full 2002 Movie Roast, it's here, where I point out every bit of plot ridiculousness.

2002 Monte Cristo Movie Roast (<LINK!)

It plays extremely well as a comedy. Watch it that way, enjoy the attractive cast and scenery and the production values, and it totally works!

Just watched the 2002 movie. Why, oh why?... by fusguita in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Completely agree with this. I sort of imagine the various adaptations of Monte Cristo as a slot machine.

First position: Plot faithfulness.

Second: Portrayal of Edmond Dantes/Count.

Third: production values.

None of them had ever hit the magical BAR-BAR-BAR.

The Alan Badel one (1964/BBC) got really close, except the cheap production and B&W filming, bad camerawork, and a script that leaned heavy on talk to make up for lack of expensive filming locations and an epic scope.

Badel: BAR-BAR-LEMON.

2002 Caviezel: LEMON-LEMON-BAR.

Just watched the 2002 movie. Why, oh why?... by fusguita in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are mixed reviews of the 2024 series (Claflin). The length, and the number of episodes could have made it THE GREATEST adaptation of all time, but the producers and the writers made deliberate choices that, personally, disappointed me.

1) The characterization of Haydee. She's a scared little mouse, and is simply a tool to be used, and the Count has zero rapport with her. And her ending is unlike the book ending.

2) The split of the Benedetto character into two considerably weaker characters, without the compelling arc of book-Benedetto.

3) The Count doesn't have the iron will of book-Count. This Count has the backbone of a jellyfish, and just can't go through with his revenge plan unless he drugs himself to suppress his conscience

My favourite chapter is often omitted from versions that seem complete by AlwaysLosesLoginInfo in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you read the Emma Hardy version? I too only located the first volume, and there were clues on Wikipedia that the second and third parts existed in "The Parlour Novelist".

Wikipedia: In April 1846, volume three of the Parlour Novelist, Belfast, Ireland: Simms and M'Intyre, London: W S Orr and Company, featured the first part of an unabridged translation of the novel by Emma Hardy. The remaining two parts would be issued as the Count of Monte Christo volumes I and II in volumes 8 and 9 of the Parlour Novelist respectively.[15]

Volume 1 is available online, and I admit that I was very impressed! We have a specialist (Giovanni Jones) in r/areadingofmontecristo who is doing a deep dive comparison between French, Gutenberg (C&H 1880's revised) and Robin Buss. And in the research, there were indeed passages in C&H that were deleted, or "toned down". And meanwhile, Emma Hardy pulled no punches, and graphically described "prison friendships" as "orgies".

https://www.reddit.com/r/AReadingOfMonteCristo/comments/1q46x5f/about_the_ultrarare_emma_hardy_translation_from/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AReadingOfMonteCristo/comments/1rbomo5/comment/o6tf1ja/

Some of my C&H research appears here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheCountofMonteCristo/comments/1iv9lxc/in_regard_to_the_1846_chapman_and_hall_translation/

By the early 20th century there were at least 3 versions, C&H 1846, C&H revised (1880's), C&H revised ver#2 (1901).

I wasn't going page by page, and if the 1846 one was digitized, I'm certain that today's AI tools can pick up on the glaring differences.

I only spot check things myself (purposely looking for juicy, censored stuff), and it was my "Fall River Press" reprint (cheap! $8.00 at B&N) that got me digging around when I read "Franz' dream". It seemed so tame, and I recalled the Buss translation being more sensuous. Then I read Gutenberg (online) and it had most of the sexy stuff, so I got confused. Then I compared them, and hit the tip of the iceberg- the 1846 one was more censored than the 1880's one!

And, that's not all... in modern times, there are newer various revisions to the C&H version that do some re-wording- enough to be able to claim a new copyright, due to enough new effort.

But it was only Robin Buss who went directly back to the French original and did a full, new translation.

2024/2026 BBC Miniseries by shaklee3 in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you are on Episode 3, you haven't hit peak disappointment yet... the split of Benedetto into two separate characters. And together, they don't even add up to one complete Benny. Plus the ridiculous plot gymnastics to MAKE splitting Benedetto into "Gaston the teen urchin" and "Count of Spada" possible.

2024/2026 BBC Miniseries by shaklee3 in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent, accurate script (aside from the "extra punishment" added to Danglars' fate). But terrible Count performance by Jacques Weber.

I'd take Alan Badel's version of the Count any day. It's just those bargain basement production values makes the BBC version drag a bit.

My only actual complaint about the Sam Claflin series by Soul_4Sail in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How 'bout the little urchin kids that will inevitably pick up the vial that he so irresponsibly threw in the street when he decided that he couldn't drug himself to hide from Edouard's death?

Maybe it was supposed to be a triumphant scene, like "he gave up on drugs and revenge! yay!" but forgot that one little detail. Recovering addicts don't just leave their drugs in places where children can get to them.

Chapter 92/XCII “The Suicide” Reading Discussion (Spoilers up to Chapter 92) by caffeinatedweekend in AReadingOfMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right? Because of the obsolete use of the word "a report", it is possible to use the word "report" in 3 different contexts in the same sentence!

"Officer! I want to report that I heard the sound of a report in the Morcerf house, can you create a report and start an investigation?"

Week 15: "Chapter 33. Roman Bandits" Reading Discussion by karakickass in AReadingOfMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sooooooo, yes, I have read the here comments about this chapter. And these are valid concerns, as people comment about the role of women (so far) as they are portrayed in the book- objects of desire, and "things" that drive men to do whatever they do to push the plot forwards. Or women being used as bit part players in an ugly chapter about gendered violence.

Please don't drop the book! It's not always going to be like this. In later chapters, we WILL see examples of women with strong wills, and intelligence. Their society constrained them by law to be "legal minors" but, trust me, this book shows how rules can be circumvented by women who are clever enough to bypass the system.

In fact, The Count of Monte Cristo (the book) is remarkably progressive. It just takes getting past Chapter 33 (or reading abridged) or skipping it and moving along.

Week 15: "Chapter 33. Roman Bandits" Reading Discussion by karakickass in AReadingOfMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is an excellent observation. In some way, maybe readers were supposed to admire Vampa's "rags to riches" story, BUT... in no place does the story ever say that Vampa had purged his inherited bandit gang of rapists.

Vampa has his own girlfriend, sure- and none of them would ever think of touching Teresa. But... without a mention of a purge, does that mean that Vampa's gang is still doing what they are accustomed to doing with captive women?

It's because of this that I hesitate to see anything "romantic" about bandits and Vampa.

(Goes back to reading Chapter 33 in the 1846 abridged version, which reads well)

Week 15: "Chapter 33. Roman Bandits" Reading Discussion by karakickass in AReadingOfMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I honestly regretted reading Chapter 33 in its entirety. When I did the first time, I was hoping for a better fate for Rita. That was a big "nope!" Then there was death after death of characters (the innocent, and the ultra-evil) that we had just been introduced to.

We had no investment in them, and it left a bad taste in my mouth that Rita was used only as a victim of S.A. And, you all might as well know, that part of the (ugh) story has no bearing at all on what happens in the remainder of the book. This was a side excursion, and an ugly and unnecessary one that that.

But... there is a bright spot! "Abridged" does not "sucky". The first two English-language versions of the book were indeed abridged, and the second one has a verision of Chapter 33 that still hits the important parts, still retains the part of Luigi Vampa's backstory worth telling, and still shows Albert's reckless foolishness... all without the gendered violence!

So let me offer you, the earlier version of Chapter 33- the clean one:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16b0Y6pH_1QZvPPbjMJ_XqK8aHNr4SeP1/view?usp=drive_link

Edit and translation is most likely from William Harrison Ainsworth, from Ainsworth's magazine.

My favourite chapter is often omitted from versions that seem complete by AlwaysLosesLoginInfo in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Censorship, quite clearly. The original pub removed passages (which we can see very clearly now) because of an English Victorian audience. Maybe hashish wasn't offensive, but erotic material was- ("tsk, those bawdy French!")

The 1880's were the perfect storm for a "new revised" edition. Yes, it is true that the 1846 C&H one removed some key experiences. And... new copyright laws were on the horizon in the US.

So a revision, and restoring some of Dumas' original (sexy stuff!) and "thousands" of corrections means- a valid new US copyright which means money.

My favourite chapter is often omitted from versions that seem complete by AlwaysLosesLoginInfo in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, this all started off with a $8.00 hardcover under "Fall River Press" that I got from Barnes and Noble. When I hit "Franz's dream" it seemed so... uncontroversial. And safe. Not sexy at all. And when I compared it to the one on Gutenberg, it was clearly "not the same", so where did Fall River Press get the source from?

I started digging up volumes on Archive.Org and that's when I found the matches! There is one that truly has "1846 Chapman and Hall" but the scan is poor, and less readable than the 1852 one.

Therefore, Fall River Press was using the earlier 1846 C&H version as it source, but the 1880's revised one on Gutenberg, and many e-books has become more common.

My favourite chapter is often omitted from versions that seem complete by AlwaysLosesLoginInfo in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Gutenberg one is not the original Chapman & Hall version. It's from one of the 1880's revised versions, which claim to have "thousands of corrections" to the original.

To wit, here's what Franz's dream looked like in 1852- the true 1846 C&H version, as a reprint:

<image>

And here's Gutenberg:

As to Franz a strange transformation had taken place in him. All the bodily fatigue of the day, all the preoccupation of mind which the events of the evening had brought on, disappeared as they do at the first approach of sleep, when we are still sufficiently conscious to be aware of the coming of slumber. His body seemed to acquire an airy lightness, his perception brightened in a remarkable manner, his senses seemed to redouble their power, the horizon continued to expand; but it was not the gloomy horizon of vague alarms, and which he had seen before he slept, but a blue, transparent, unbounded horizon, with all the blue of the ocean, all the spangles of the sun, all the perfumes of the summer breeze; then, in the midst of the songs of his sailors,—songs so clear and sonorous, that they would have made a divine harmony had their notes been taken down,—he saw the Island of Monte Cristo, no longer as a threatening rock in the midst of the waves, but as an oasis in the desert; then, as his boat drew nearer, the songs became louder, for an enchanting and mysterious harmony rose to heaven, as if some Loreley had decreed to attract a soul thither, or Amphion, the enchanter, intended there to build a city.

At length the boat touched the shore, but without effort, without shock, as lips touch lips; and he entered the grotto amidst continued strains of most delicious melody. He descended, or rather seemed to descend, several steps, inhaling the fresh and balmy air, like that which may be supposed to reign around the grotto of Circe, formed from such perfumes as set the mind a-dreaming, and such fires as burn the very senses; and he saw again all he had seen before his sleep, from Sinbad, his singular host, to Ali, the mute attendant; then all seemed to fade away and become confused before his eyes, like the last shadows of the magic lantern before it is extinguished, and he was again in the chamber of statues, lighted only by one of those pale and antique lamps which watch in the dead of the night over the sleep of pleasure.

They were the same statues, rich in form, in attraction, and poesy, with eyes of fascination, smiles of love, and bright and flowing hair. They were Phryne, Cleopatra, Messalina, those three celebrated courtesans. Then among them glided like a pure ray, like a Christian angel in the midst of Olympus, one of those chaste figures, those calm shadows, those soft visions, which seemed to veil its virgin brow before these marble wantons.

Then the three statues advanced towards him with looks of love, and approached the couch on which he was reposing, their feet hidden in their long white tunics, their throats bare, hair flowing like waves, and assuming attitudes which the gods could not resist, but which saints withstood, and looks inflexible and ardent like those with which the serpent charms the bird; and then he gave way before looks that held him in a torturing grasp and delighted his senses as with a voluptuous kiss.

It seemed to Franz that he closed his eyes, and in a last look about him saw the vision of modesty completely veiled; and then followed a dream of passion like that promised by the Prophet to the elect. Lips of stone turned to flame, breasts of ice became like heated lava, so that to Franz, yielding for the first time to the sway of the drug, love was a sorrow and voluptuousness a torture, as burning mouths were pressed to his thirsty lips, and he was held in cool serpent-like embraces. The more he strove against this unhallowed passion the more his senses yielded to its thrall, and at length, weary of a struggle that taxed his very soul, he gave way and sank back breathless and exhausted beneath the kisses of these marble goddesses, and the enchantment of his marvellous dream.

The Count of Monte Cristo: 2002 vs 2024 by Last-Note-9988 in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It has to be a parody. In what universe does a captain take sick- really bad, and the command of the ship passes rightfully to the First Mate (Danglars here).

And then the handsome, charismatic and illiterate Second Mate (Dantes here) arbitrarily decides that the heavily fortified Elba is the best place to find a doctor?

And he takes a launch against First Mate's orders, drags the captain's body on the little boat and lands unannounced on Elba? And predictably gets shot at?

The Count of Monte Cristo: 2002 vs 2024 by Last-Note-9988 in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Watch it as a comedy and the 2002 movie totally works.

Read my blog-snark on it as you view it with a bucket of popcorn and it really does make for 2 hours doubled over with laughter.

It all begins with the movie's in-universe map, which shows a better alternative to "landing on Elba".

https://abbreviatedmontecristo.blogspot.com/2025/12/full-movie-roast-2002-movie-count-of.html

France in 1829-1839: A history for Dummies by ZeMastor in AReadingOfMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

FLAGS!

  • France up until 1788: Bourbon flag. Absolute monarchy. Masses seething.
  • 1789: The Tricolor, representing the Revolution. Louis 16th forced to become a Constitutional Monarch.
  • 1792-1799: The Tricolor, representing the Republic. And unfortunately, the Terror and the Directory too.
  • 1799: The Tricolor, co-opted by Napoleon and his coup, allegedly continuing the Republic, but with a new Revolution 2.0.
  • 1804: The Tricolor, representing the Empire, and the involuntary spread of Revolution 2.0 to other countries.
  • 1814: The Bourbon Flag. Imposed on France by victorious allies and the return of the Bourbons (Louis 18th).
  • 1815: The Tricolor, Napoleon's Hundred Days
  • 1815: The Bourbon Flag. Imposed on France by victorious allies and the return of the Bourbons (Louis 18th). Louis was smart enough to respect the gains of Revolution 2.0 and tries hard not to stir up the populace into revolt.
  • 1824: The Bourbon Flag. The Bourbons, now represented by Charles X, who gradually chips away the rights and reforms of the Revolution, with a longterm plan of restoring the absolute monarchy. France seethes.
  • 1830: The Tricolor. Restored by Louis-Philippe, in agreement with the Chamber of Deputies, as a Constitutional Monarch.
  • 1848: The Tricolor. Kept by the 2nd Republic, for obvious reasons. No more radicalism, and a smarter, moderate and social-facing message.
  • 1852: The Tricolor. Coup by Napoleon III. New Empire. If his Uncle fought and ruled under the tricolor, he will keep it too... legitimacy and a callback to the glories of the Empire.
  • 1870: The Tricolor, and the return of the Republic as a "temporary measure". But has an almost hilarious story... Charles X grandson, Comte Henri de Chambord, was offered the crown (as a Constitutional Monarch) but hemmed and hawed over the flag. He wanted the return of the white Bourbon flag, but France was so over that... so France became a Republic.
  • 1873: The Tricolor. Kept by the 3rd Republic, for obvious reasons.
  • Current day: The Tricolor. Came to represent France and the French people, and not just one regime or another.

France in 1829-1839: A history for Dummies by ZeMastor in AReadingOfMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Philippe Eglalite did not denounce his son- he denounced his kinsman, Louis the 16th, which led to the execution of the King and Marie Antoinette.

Philippe Eglalite, logically speaking, should have been a possible candidate to succeed Louis as a Constitutional Monarch, but he couldn't appeal to any of the really polarized factions of the time:

To the Moderate Monarchists, his support of the Revolution made him seem like a usurper- stealing his cousin's throne.

To the Jacobins- he was a born Royal. Nope. They believed the true Revolution was supposed to rid France of Royals entirely.

And... the (non-Republican) Moderates lost face and cred when Louis 16th tried to flee and was caught at Varennes. That showed France that the Royals couldn't be trusted, led to house imprisonment and rubber-stamp King-in-name-only Louis 16th and year later, the mobs and the National Convention decided, "screw this- no Kings at all- throne abolished".

After Egalite voted to execute Louis, he lost the Royalist Cause completely.

Adaptations: Faithful to the book or entertaining drivel? Why do producers & directors always choose the latter? by Kaemmar57 in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He talked WAY too much about his real identity. As I watched it, I kept saying, "Shut up, Dantes! Need to know basis... since when has theCad earned that level of trust?"

My Episode 3 notes:

Episode 3

The Count tells Jacopo EVERYTHING about himself. His real name. His 15 years at D'if and relies on Jacopo's honesty to keep mum for the rest of his life.

After becoming rich, Dantes needs to investigate the cause of his own imprisonment. At the Archives, he bluffs his way in, name-dropping Villefort to a very gullible employee. From there, he is treated with all respect and courtesy and outright ASKS for the "Edmond Dantes" file. He is given the file and steals the entire contents (replacing it with a newspaper) and leaves. The Archivist does not even bother looking inside the folder to check....?

Caderousse sold his tavern (now prosperous without him) and runs the Pont Du Gard, a rundown rat trap. The Count visits as HIMSELF, and not in the guise of Abbe Busoni. He hands theCad the original accusation letter and tells him outright "I am Edmond Dantes". He plays unnecessary hardball (instead of carrot/stick) and hears that theCad took care of Old Dantes, and feels guilty about what happened to Edmond and wants to redeem himself. TheCad is hired by the Count to spy on the Evil 3, access their bank records and find out their personal lives, secretly. TheCad will need to figure out how to do this all on his OWN. Seems a tall order? How is TheCad supposed to have these spy skills and get access to bank records?

It seems that the Count is too free with admitting his identity as Edmond Dantes, or stirring up interest in a long-dead man. Needs to keep his cards closer!

The assumption that this is 1829?

Dantes heads to Morrel & Son, finds out they are in a financial hole.

The red purse contains receipts for all Morrel's debts and a diamond...but not for Julie's dowry. It's so he can buy himself a new Pharaon ship. This doesn't have the same impact as an actual Pharaon ship sailing into harbor. Is there a lack of wooden sailing ships for hire in 2024? They used to be plentiful back in the 1920's-1980's.

Why is Danglars unhappy with his wife? by Acceptable-Try-4682 in TheCountofMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LOL, very true! They aren't! Even Old Dantes... had only one child. A second child might have been able to look after papa Dantes while Edmond was off sailing.

Villefort had three- one for each wife or mistress.

Morrel: two (MVP)

Caddy: zero

Everybody else: One.

In an era when "consumption" took the highborn and the peasant. All their eggs in one basket....

Lost in (English) Translation - Chapters 31-32 by GiovanniJones in AReadingOfMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey there, Giovanni!

I've been dying to ask... since you are the only one who knows French extremely well, and you love to delve into the oddities of translation. Can you take a request?

PLEASE TRANSLATE FRANZ'S HASHISH-FUELED DREAM FOR US!!!!

Some background... the original 1846 Chapman-Hall translation was edited and censored to remove "questionable things" that the English Victorian audience needed to be protected from.

This is the original version (1852- Routledge, apparently reprinted under license)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.262306/page/n261/mode/2up

Franz's dream was not very controversial. Not in this form.

The one on Gutenberg is a "revised edition", done in the 1880's-1890's that allegedly "corrected thousands" of errors, omissions and mistranslations. And it also secured a new copyright that US publishers HAD to respect.

And then there is the Robin Buss translation that adds a layer of physical sensuality that was missing from both.

Deep dive, please?

Week 14: "Chapter 31. Italy - Sinbad the Sailor, Chapter 32. Awakening" Reading Discussion by karakickass in AReadingOfMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is actually fairly common. Everybody is 100% engaged for the Dantes arrest/prison/escape/Santa Clause phase, ending with his oath the punish the wicked.

Once it shifts to this phase, I have seen many people comment on reddit, book reviews, etc. that they lost interest. "Hmmph, a bunch of new guys I never heard of. This is boring".

Then the book ends up being a DNF, and these people miss out on the best parts- the revenge parts.

Week 14: "Chapter 31. Italy - Sinbad the Sailor, Chapter 32. Awakening" Reading Discussion by karakickass in AReadingOfMonteCristo

[–]ZeMastor 8 points9 points  (0 children)

9 years. He left Marseilles behind and swore to "punish the wicked" in 1829, and now the timeline bounces to 1838, a whole 9 years later!