Reviews

Les Liaisons dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

tessavanvlaanderen's review against another edition

dark tense fast-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Character
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.5

kahinareads's review

emotional medium-paced

5.0

joannaautumn's review

5.0

” So here I am like the Divinity, with blind mortals vying in their prayers to me while I never change my immutable decrees. However, I abandoned this august role in favour of that of consoling angel and in accordance with that mandate, went to call on my friends in their tribulation”.

-Letter 63
The Marquise de Merteuil to the Vicomte de Valmont 9 September 17—

What a splendid book this was – a theatre in epistolary form.

An epistolary novel is a novel written as a series of documents. The usual form is letters, but diary entries, newspaper clippings, and other documents can be used as well.
The epistolary form gained a lot of popularity in the 18th century, especially with widely popular works of Samuel Richardson [b:Pamela|417549|Pamela|Samuel Richardson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387740117l/417549._SY75_.jpg|2214950] (1740) and [b:Clarissa, or, the History of a Young Lady|529243|Clarissa, or, the History of a Young Lady|Samuel Richardson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1373639647l/529243._SY75_.jpg|2767990] (1749); Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s [b:Julie, or the New Heloise|27788|Julie, or the New Heloise|Jean-Jacques Rousseau|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388285302l/27788._SY75_.jpg|2195139] (1761), and arguably the most popular from this list Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's [b:The Sorrows of Young Werther|16640|The Sorrows of Young Werther|Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386920896l/16640._SY75_.jpg|746264] (1774).
It’s notable to mention that the first Canadian and American novels were epistolary ones: [b:The History of Emily Montague|1025930|The History of Emily Montague|Frances Brooke|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1320437979l/1025930._SY75_.jpg|1012174] (1769) by Frances Brooke and [b:The Power of Sympathy and the Coquette|99400|The Power of Sympathy and the Coquette|William Hill Brown|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348232059l/99400._SY75_.jpg|95828] (1789) by William Hill Brown.

Other works worth mentioning, written in this form, include Jane Austen’s [b:Love and Freindship and Other Early Works: (Love and Friendship) a Collection of Juvenile Writings|22632592|Love and Freindship and Other Early Works (Love and Friendship) a Collection of Juvenile Writings|Jane Austen|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1406512346l/22632592._SX50_.jpg|74330105] and her novella [b:Lady Susan|91582|Lady Susan|Jane Austen|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328864949l/91582._SY75_.jpg|2424548] (1794), Mary Shelley’s [b:Frankenstein: The 1818 Text|35031085|Frankenstein The 1818 Text|Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1498841231l/35031085._SY75_.jpg|4836639](1818), Anne Brontë's [b:The Tenant of Wildfell Hall|337113|The Tenant of Wildfell Hall|Anne Brontë|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1479652419l/337113._SY75_.jpg|1389477](1848), F.M. Dostoyevski’s [b:Poor Folk|67326|Poor Folk|Fyodor Dostoyevsky|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348171372l/67326._SX50_.jpg|28898] (1846), Bram Stoker’s [b:Dracula|17245|Dracula|Bram Stoker|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387151694l/17245._SY75_.jpg|3165724](1897) and more modern works such as [b:The Color Purple|52892857|The Color Purple|Alice Walker|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1572261616l/52892857._SX50_SY75_.jpg|3300573](1982) by Alice Walker, Stephen King's novel [b:Carrie|10592|Carrie|Stephen King|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1166254258l/10592._SY75_.jpg|1552134] (1974), [b:We Need to Talk About Kevin|80660|We Need to Talk About Kevin|Lionel Shriver|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1327865017l/80660._SY75_.jpg|3106720] (2003) by Lionel Shriver and so forth.

Depending on how many people are writing the letters included in the novel, we have three types of epistolary novels:

1)Monologic (giving the letters of only one character, like The Sorrows of Young Werther, We need to talk about Kevin)

2)Dialogic (giving the letters of two characters, like Poor Folk)

3)Polylogic (with three or more letter-writing characters, such as in Bram Stoker's Dracula, Richardson’s Clarissa, and Laclos’s Dangerous Liaisons).

What makes this novel stand out from most novels of the genre is ambiguity.

Laclos removes his presence from the novel completely, we don’t know what his stance is, what he thinks as the author, and which message should we single out as being the moral of the story. By doing so, he is leaving the public and each reader to individually figure out the message for themselves.

Is this a standard novel of the period of Enlightenment?

The French Enlightenment in the last two decades of the eighteenth century meant a fusion of the wit of Voltaire and the idealism of Rousseau. It spoke of Vice and Virtue and assuming a stance that vice is to be punished and virtue rewarded.

But the vicious characters would have likely gotten away with their wrongdoings had they not let their pride and vanity get in their correspondence and the fate of virtuous characters ends tragically – so this theory wouldn’t be completely true.

Is he criticizing the morality of the French nobility of the Ancien Régime?

There are a few strong reasons against this: All the characters in the story are aristocrats, including the virtuous ones like Madame de Tourvel and Madame de Rosemonde, in his personal life Laclos enjoyed the patronage of France's senior aristocrat—Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans and furthermore, royalist and conservative figures of the time enjoyed the book, including Queen Marie Antoinette.

Is this a novel about the difficult position of women in society, and therefore having traces of feminism?

The narrow education received by Cécile and Mme de Tourvel leave them ill-prepared to deal with the people like Valmont, their social horizons are dominated by the marriages which are arranged for them, even Mme de Merteuil, who was privately educated and deliberately remains a widow, is marked by the pressures which lead her to overcompensate(Letter 81).

Evidence proves different: Mme de Merteuil may in some respects be a liberated woman(most striking in her confessional letters to Valmont), but she is hardly a model of female emancipation. She shows no solidarity or compassion towards other women, often calling them narrow and unintelligent, insulting their looks as well as personalities.

An even stronger argument is the writer’s conclusion for both of his antagonists: Valmont is granted something approaching an honorable death in a duel, giving away his letters with Mme Marteuil and causing her downfall while she lives crippled and socially outcast.

Most critics agree that by its tone and theme, Dangerous Liaisons belongs to the ‘libertine’ tradition of fiction. Such a tradition formed one strand of the philosophical novel, its uniqueness lay in its exploitation of the shock value of eroticism.

At a time when it was dangerous to criticize Church and state openly, ‘libertine’ literature constituted was a useful form because it dealt with the private relationships on which public values were based - this means that the first rumblings of the Revolution to come were sexual, and not political. Therefore, it is meant to provoke and disturb the status quo.

True intentions of Laclos may forever remain unknown, however, the interpretation that I favor is the one based on the two legendary antagonists: Vicomte de Valmont and Marquese de Merteuil.
In his essay, André Malraux, argues that, despite its debt to the libertine tradition, Dangerous Liaisons is more significant as the introduction of a new kind of character in French fiction: Vicomte and Merteuil are are "the first [in European literature] whose acts are determined by an ideology”.

” But above all, reserve your greatest fears for those restless, idle females whom you call sensitive and who fall so easily and so helplessly into the grip of love, who feel the need to think about it even when they’re not experiencing it and hurl themselves headlong into the turmoil of their ideas, producing those letters so full of tenderness and so dangerous to write and who aren’t afraid of entrusting this evidence of weakness to the object of their affection: foolhardy women who are incapable of recognizing in their current lover their future enemy.

But what have I got in common with these feckless women? When did you last see me depart from the rules which I’ve laid down for myself and be untrue to my principles? I say my principles deliberately since I don’t mean other women’s haphazard principles, accepted uncritically and followed out of sheer habit; mine are the fruit of deep cogitation, created by myself. I can truly say that I am a self-made woman.”

Mme Merteuil and Vicomte de Valmont place themselves above their contemporaries because neither acknowledge any power (not human or divine), greater than themselves.
These characters are truly a work of art. Guided by their own principles they are selfish, prideful, manipulative, actors who enjoy the fruit of their schemes.

Their view of the world is one where sex is a form of power, love and feelings are a form of weakness, and deception is placed above honesty. The evil purely derives out of their flaws which they turned into their advantages.

Besides being the main antagonists, they are also the ones who move the plot, they are the dynamic force in this novel. The reader gets the full picture through many different points of view about the cause and consequence of their doings as Laclos arranges the letters in such a way where their actions are highlighted in contrast to the letters written by other characters.
The mere fact that they are writing to each other in detail about their deceits shows their theatrics, vanity, and love for the dramatic – they require, demand an audience. It is their own flaws that bring their downfall.

It’s less important whether Valmont loves Mme de Tourvel, or whether Mme de Merteuil loves Valmont, the fact remains that Marquise Merteuil cannot accept losing control of the Vicomte, nor can the Vicomte tolerate being outsmarted by the Marquise.

” You men have no conception of virtue and the high price of sacrificing it! But even the least sensible of women must know that quite apart from the moral lapse, any weakness spells disaster for her, and I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone could ever let herself fall into that trap if she’s given it a moment’s thought.”

-Letter 121
The Marquise de Merteuil to the Chevalier Danceny From the Château de —–, 22 October 17—

The ending goes in favor that this type of cold principles guided by lowly causes and feelings, with no trust, honesty, and feeling is doomed to failure and ridicule. The Vicomte and Marquise have emotionally crippled themselves by their cruelty resulting in death and isolation.
It is their feelings in the end that guided their principles not vice versa.

“Who can fail to shudder at the thought of all the disasters which can result from one single dangerous acquaintance! And what trials and tribulations would we not avoid by being more careful!”

-Letter 175
Madame de Volanges to Madame de Rosemonde Paris, 14 January 17—


The true dangers here, indeed, lie in dangerous acquaintances. Not only are Mme Merteuil and Vicomte de Valmont dangerous to everyone around them but to each other, as their deeds are deservingly, harshly punished.

” A man enjoys the pleasure he feels, a woman the pleasure she bestows. This difference, so essential and so unnoticed, has however a very marked effect on their respective general behavior. The pleasure of one partner is to satisfy his desires, that of the other is primarily to arouse them. For the man, pleasing is merely a means to succeed whereas for her it is success itself. And feminine flirtatiousness, for which she is so often blamed, is nothing but an abuse of this way of feeling and for that very reason proves it is true. And so this exclusive fondness for someone, which is a particular characteristic of love, remains, for a man, purely a preference which is, at the most, useful for him to assess the extent of his pleasure and which some other affection might weaken but not destroy, whereas for women it’s a deep emotion which not only abolishes all desire for anyone else but, being more powerful than nature and outside its control, causes them to feel nothing but repugnance and disgust even in situations which ought apparently to provide them with extreme pleasure".

-Letter 130
Madame de Rosemonde to Madame de Tourvel From the Château de —–, 4 November 17—

The beauty lies in multiple interpretations and impressions that raise awareness and discussion. Whether one view this as a morality tale, a social and class critic, a piece of the french enlightenment, a novel of libertine tradition, a novel about the eternal war of the sexes, an introduction to the new type of character in literature this novel leads to conversation and challenges readers to take a stand.

Simultaneously being a great source of entertainment, in the end: whatever the true intention of Laclos was, he accomplished to intrigue many readers and critics over the years, rightfully earning the title of a classic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* update: 13.9.2021. I just dropped in to say that I have been thinking about how much fun this book was; this is a rare case where I return to a book to bump the rating up, so yay for DL for passing the time test

horriblehumain's review against another edition

slow-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Character
• Strong character development? It's complicated
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

2.0

incredibly dull

aribook's review

funny lighthearted slow-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Character
• Strong character development? Yes
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
• Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.5

theskyisnew's review

4.0

It’s always fun to return to an old favorite. I do forget how kind of zzzzz it is at first but then it starts spiraling into petty hilarity and cruelty. Dangerous liaisons indeed! I just wish I didn’t picture John Malkovich as Valmont lol

ayagardou's review against another edition

4.0

je suis surprise d'avoir autant aimé ce livre.
je ne suis habituellement pas très friande des romans épistolaires. mais j'ai été conquise par l'intrigue et les personnages. je ne les aime pas tous (loin de là) mais il m'était agréable de découvrir leurs lettres et leurs manigances. j'en ai détesté certains et j'ai eu de la peine pour d'autres.
je comprends pourquoi les liaisons dangereuses a souvent été adaptés au cinéma ou en série. les thèmes sont assez intemporels.

rmesquirrel's review against another edition

Too boring for me.  Also I don't like the style,  it is reminding me of the books I was forced to read in school. 

leah_j's review against another edition

dark slow-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Character
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.5

_ellisnoble_'s review against another edition

4.0

Quando andavo al liceo e in letteratura inglese iniziammo a studiare il romanzo moderno, rabbrividii quando sentii la trama di 'Pamela' di Samuel Richardson, la storia di una ragazza che resiste alle molestie del padrone di casa finché questo, affascinato dalla sua virtù, la chiede in moglie finendo a vivere felici e contenti; rabbrividii ancora di più quando realizzai che questo romanzo aveva avuto non solo un enorme successo all'epoca, ma negli anni a seguire era stato considerato uno dei migliori mai scritti... ragion per cui credo non sia stupido credere che sia una conseguenza del suo successo la presenza, nella storia della letteratura, di numerose storie d'amore tra ragazze innocenti ma determinate e ragazzi affascinanti ma tossici.
Nello stesso periodo venni a conoscenza di un altro romanzo epistolare famoso dell'epoca, ma più per i suoi contenuti scandalosi che per i messaggi morali trasmessi (nel Settecento dovevi divertire e insegnare se volevi scrivere romanzi), ovvero la storia di una marchesa e di un visconte che decidono di traviare due donne virtuose per motivi diversi, operazione che riesce in entrambi i casi, ma di cui poi si trovano a pagare le conseguenze. Dopo anni finalmente ho deciso di leggere questo romanzo e più volte mi sono trovata a pensare se tutte le lodi ricevute dalla 'Pamela' per aver trasmesso un buon messaggio non lo meritasse più 'Le relazioni pericolose'.
Già perché questo romanzo ha il merito di mostrare i personaggi sia quando scrivono di sé sinceramente sia quando fingono di essere altre persone manipolando chi si trova attorno a loro, e nel farlo è come se l'autore mostrasse come il linguaggio dell'amore, soprattutto romantico che quasi impone all'altra persona di ricambiare i sentimenti pena render miserabile la vita di chi li prova in primo luogo, sia tutt'altro che ispiratore di amore, ma di una serie di obblighi che suonano tanto di ricatto, anche quando quello stesso linguaggio è usato fra personaggi in apparenza puri di cuore; quanti discorsi sulla romanticizzazione di comportamenti tossici che si fanno oggi ci saremmo risparmiati se si fosse passato sopra gli elementi 'scandalosi', che anche quando vengono narrati non sono mai spettacolarizzati gratuitamente e invece lasciati molto vaghi per far capire giusto il necessario che è successo.
Last but not least, questa storia può anche essere considerata femminista ante litteram per il personaggio della marchesa di Merteuil, che agli occhi del mondo viene considerata una donna irreprensibile, ma solo perché ha fatto in modo di diventare la donna che la società voleva che diventasse affinché nessuno sospettasse della sua seconda vita molto più in linea col suo vero carattere, ma che alla fine della vicenda viene eletta come prima responsabile di tutte gli eventi accadute grazie a Valmont che la smaschera, mentre a lui, pur conosciuto da sempre come libertino e avendo fatto anche peggio della Merteuil nel corso della storia, basta morire per esser redento. I famosi doppi standard per cui ci si aspetta sempre che una donna sia sia superiore moralmente a un uomo e per quanto la marchesa non sia un modello da seguire, rimane comunque un ottimo esempio di indipendenza femminile in un'epoca molto più rigida della nostra e un personaggio molto più simpatico (nel senso letterale del termine) e realistico di cui leggere