You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by shakespearesgirl
Les Liaisons dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos
3.0
This was a hard book for me to finish. Starting out it had a lot of strikes in it's favor already--it's epistolary in style, which is my least favorite style of novel ever; it's about horrible people doing horrible things to each other, which isn't necessarily a deal breaker but is a thing I need to be in a specific mood for; it's got a couple movie adaptations out, both of which I've seen, which can make it difficult for me to settle into a book, particularly if I enjoyed the movie adaptation; and finally, on a physical note, the book was literally falling apart in my hands as I read. I did manage to finish, but my overall impression of the book was mostly neutral. I didn't like it, but I also didn't hate it.
The book is definitely well-written, which is probably what made the epistolary style tolerable for me. The characters are clearly defined, and I never found myself thinking "Who?" when someone's name was mentioned. It's also a book written in the 1700s, though, and a lot of standard rules of characterization and development don't seem to have been in general practice at this point. Laclos' characters do have definitive arcs, but they're all just a little bit too archetypal, in my opinion. Granted, this could be because since the novel was first published, these character types have become archetypes even though they weren't originally, and generally, I tend to allow for looser characterization in general in classic literature.
I think the thing I found most disappointing about the book was that the Marquise de Merteuil's story line ended with her being socially and physically punished. Clearly French society at the time the book was published wouldn't have accepted it if she'd gotten away Scot-free, but there was something very moralizing and pat about her ending.
The book is definitely well-written, which is probably what made the epistolary style tolerable for me. The characters are clearly defined, and I never found myself thinking "Who?" when someone's name was mentioned. It's also a book written in the 1700s, though, and a lot of standard rules of characterization and development don't seem to have been in general practice at this point. Laclos' characters do have definitive arcs, but they're all just a little bit too archetypal, in my opinion. Granted, this could be because since the novel was first published, these character types have become archetypes even though they weren't originally, and generally, I tend to allow for looser characterization in general in classic literature.
I think the thing I found most disappointing about the book was that the Marquise de Merteuil's story line ended with her being socially and physically punished. Clearly French society at the time the book was published wouldn't have accepted it if she'd gotten away Scot-free, but there was something very moralizing and pat about her ending.