Rafael Sabatini (1875–1950)

Not bad, reminiscent of Dumas but not as good. Andre-Louis's adventures across revolutionary France were interesting, but the ending was fairly predictable. The villain turned out to be a little more human than we had been led to believe, which was a bit of a surprise, but I guessed early on the role he would play in Andre's life. The absolute self-centeredness of of the aristocracy is well-portrayed, but the characters felt a bit flat. Partly that's due to the omniscient viewpoint, but Dickens did that and his characters spring off the page.

Sabatini leans into the Scaramouche trope, a stock character in traveling troupes of the time, perhaps too much as Andre is also kind of a stock character. The story kept my interest but didn't deliver the excitement of Dumas.… (lisätietoja)

This books was incredibly frustrating as the protagonist, Andre-Louis Moreau, is the definition of a Marty Stu. He's good at everything. He's super charming, so when he makes a bunch of very wrong assumptions, he's immediately forgiven. Everyone loves him, and every woman fell in love with him. On top of this, he refuses to help his friends save their friends from getting massacred in duels until he personally benefits from these encounters, even though he's the best fencer in the city. He is the definition of male privilege! Sabatini's novels are typically like this, but he usually offsets his perfect characters with descriptive prose regarding battles and genuinely clever plots to cheat the enemy that it becomes more amusing. Also, usually his male characters have at least one fault. AL's only fault was revealed at the end, and it was that he was a coward (which he is): he runs away from everything, but he's still celebrated as some sort of hero.

AL gets his cake and eats it too. He goes around as a republican, touting how people born into privilege shouldn't run the country or be considered great just because of their birth. While we agree with these sentiments now, that wasn't the case back then. Back then, these republicans were stealing the aristocrats of their land, homes, and their way of life. Not only that but what followed was the French Revolution, and we know how much of a mess that was. To the old-timers, the republicans had brought hellfire down on everyone. YET, at the end of the novel, AL gets the girl of his dreams and lives with his RICH AF family, completely forgiven! Seriously?!

Not only that, but the aristocrats were more likable in general. Yes, they were overpowered, but they had more heart. They looked out for each other. Granted, their friends and family have more resources than servants, but they seem to genuinely care about each other, even when they've hurt each other. AL always assumed he was right and would break his own principles for personal gain and never had an existential crisis about it. In contrast, Azyr was a terrible person, but he tried to atone for his mistakes, and he fought for what was his, while AL let himself get chased out of multiple towns. Azyr's behavior makes sense based on the ideologies he grew up with while AL is just an entitled jerk. The former is sympathetic while the latter is not.

In the end, AL changed society enough that he always ended on top, even though everyone else lost their homes, friends, and everything they owned. He might've lost some things in the process, but his mentality and heartlessness prevented him from caring. As a result, I didn't care about him or for this book.

… (lisätietoja)