r/TheCountofMonteCristo

In other words, in the novel I believe the father died of hunger, but when Mercedes married Fernand, why didn't she try to help Edmond's father, at least so that he wouldn't go hungry?

We all know the story of Edmund, who spent 14 years of his life in prison, but in prison he became cultured and upon his release was able to acquire a treasure and riches. But the question I ask you is, is Mercedes the true victim? That is to say, she married Fernand more out of necessity than love, she had to "bury" Edmund only to see him return as the Count of Monte Cristo and discover that her husband is the cause of all her suffering.

I’m exactly halfway through the book. I think I like it? But I really don’t like Edmond as a character! I’m not looking for spoilers, and I understand that not all characters are meant to be likable, but is it just me or is he kind of a douchebag? I feel like I’m missing something. Obviously I need to just keep reading but I’m curious if you all had this experience with the book at this point.

Obvious spoilers: In chapter 47 – "The Dappled Grays" it is mentioned that she is 36 years old.

>"Madame Danglars, dont la beauté pouvait encore être citée, malgré ses trente-six ans, était à son piano..."

Events in Paris happen in 1838, so she was born in 1802.This either completely breaks the timeline or makes both Marquis de Nargonne and Villefort pedophiles.

Gérard de Villefort age is mentioned in the book as well, he's 27 in 1815. Therefore he was born in 1788. This is from chapter 7:

>"Gérard de Villefort était en ce moment aussi heureux qu’il est donné à un homme de le devenir : déjà riche par lui-même, il occupait à vingt-sept ans une place élevée dans la magistrature"

Benedetto was born in 1817, when she was 15 years old and already married! Furthermore, this means that she was impregnated at 14 by a married older man who was 29 yo, which is insane even for that time period.

I wonder if this is a mistake from Dumas or he was aware of her age and wanted to further emphasize how evil Villefort is.

Edit: The plot thickens. After looking further, I found another description of Madame Danglars in Chapter 44 - Vendetta. Bertuccio is recounting his spying on the Auteil house and he says that he saw a blonde woman who looked 18 or 19 years old. On the one hand this is just his guess, but on the other this could be a proof that Dumas did make a mistake in calculations.

I know this subreddit gets way too many of these lol, but here is another reader who has just finished this amazing book. I began it in June and finished it now in early to mid August, and I read the penguin classic version, so safe to say I flew through it. My main question is should I read The Three Musketeers? Is it anywhere near as good? I’m actually sad after finishing Monte Cristo so I wanted to try another Dumas book. I may end up rereading Monte Cristo at some point but probably not for a couple years; it’s too early now.

For Aristotle, in his Poetics, fiction is the art of lying well. The art of lying well consists of presenting something false and impossible, but combining it with something true, so that the audience, believing the second part, swallows the first.

For Aristotle, art works with the probable impossibility, which is an event that, in the real world (in physics, logic, and real-world history), is impossible to happen, but, within the internal logic of the story, seems perfectly natural, inevitable, and true.

The improbable possibility, on the other hand, is an event that, in the real world, is perfectly possible, but, within the plot, sounds forced, false, gratuitous, and breaks the causal logic of the story.

The spectator is not there to see a newspaper report or a documentary, which is what actually happened, but to see what should or could happen according to the logic of emotions and human characters. If a scene is emotionally true for that character, the audience accepts even the impossible.

Aristotle teaches that if something is impossible or irrational, the author could justify it if that makes the final effect more grandiose. Things are portrayed as they should be, which is idealization and people believe that it is true, even if it is not.

That is why we accept the way the count escaped, how he found the treasure, and how he infiltrated Villefort's house.

Within the very logic of the 2002 film, which follows the improbable possibility, we could accept that outcome. We could say that the ending follows the logic of idealization, of how the ending should be.

Manga, anime, and light novels that involve magic and harems may sound absurd by real-world logic, but within the context of the story, we accept them as perfectly plausible. Even the reincarnation of Ruby Hoshino and Aquamarine in Oshi no Ko might sound absurd by real-world logic, yet within the context of the story, the audience accepts it.

The book's ending is more realistic. The Count's ending with Haydée is much more realistic, due to the similarities they have with each other: betrayal, loss of freedom and of their fathers, and the pursuit of revenge. It strongly resembles Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: when he was released from the Gulag, the reconciliation with his first wife, Natalia Reshetovskaya, did not work out very well. But he had changed too much, and they constantly fought. Later, he met the young Natalia Svetlova, who had a life similar to his; and despite the 21-year age difference, the similarities in their life histories brought them closer, and they stayed together. Like the Count and Haydée, their similarities united them.

But within the logic of the fiction itself, we could accept Edmond and Mercédès as viable.

But which ending would be more cathartic: Edmond returning to Mercédès, or Edmond leaving with Haydée?

I absolutely loved The Count of Monte Cristo because it had everything I want in a great book: revenge, mystery, betrayal, romance, and characters with complicated motivations. I especially enjoyed watching Edmond Dantès transform from an innocent young man into the Count of Monte Cristo and carefully carry out his plans against the people who ruined his life. The story kept getting more interesting as all of the different characters and plotlines eventually came together.
What I loved most was how satisfying the long buildup was. Dantès spent years preparing his revenge, and seeing his plans unfold was incredibly entertaining. At the same time, the book made me think about whether revenge can actually bring someone peace and what happens when punishment goes too far.
The one part I didn’t like was that Mercedes and Dantès didn’t end up together. I really wanted them to have a second chance because I don’t think Mercedes did anything wrong. From her perspective, Dantès had been gone for years and she believed he was never coming back. She had to move on with her life, and I don’t blame her for marrying Fernand. I wish Dantès could have understood that and that the two of them could have found their way back to each other.
Overall, The Count of Monte Cristo was an incredible reading experience. Even though I didn’t love the ending of Dantès and Mercedes’ relationship, the story, characters, and revenge plot made the book one of my favorite books I’ve read.

I enjoyed it, though I did struggle in the middle. Hence I took my time and took little over 2 months to finish the same and I am glad I did.

The book made me think that even though Dantes took his vengeance, at the end he isnt a happy man.

He feels that he is the cause of death of Eduard, I do not think he is. But yet takes the blame and feel he has gone too far.

Inspite of dragging down his enemies to the point of death, bankruptcy and madness. He still feels a hole in his heart.

The death of his dad, his lost years and losing the one he loved, these unfortunate circumstances cannot be undone by inflicting misfortune on others.

The biggest question that I found at the end of the book was

If vengeance cannot give one happiness then what is the remedy for when one is wronged.

Should one accept that vengeance cannot sooth your soul , but it is a necessary evil to bring them down.

So imagine this, you've been chosen as the director of an

"A count of monte cristo" movie and your first job is to select the actors for the cast, this is a question I've been pondering for a long time and so far I've only come up with two actors for the role of danglers which are Mads Mikkelsen for old danglars and young Leonardo Di caprio for young danglers. You can choose any actor that is still alive and potentially turn back their ages like I did, so who would you choose and which part of the story would you leave out?

I’m not an experienced fiction reader. In fact, The Count of Monte Cristo is only the second really big novel I’ve finished, so I’m looking at it from the perspective of someone who isn’t used to reading 1,000+ page classics.

I have to say, though, I thoroughly enjoyed parts of this book. The beginning, with Edmond Dantès and everything that happens to him, completely pulled me in. I was invested in his story, his transformation, and where his journey was going. Then, toward the end, when everything the Count has been planning finally starts coming together and his revenge unfolds, the book grabbed me again. Those were easily my favorite parts.

The middle was where I struggled.

There are so many characters, families, names, relationships and different storylines that at times I felt like the story was going all over the place. Some of these people I simply never became that invested in. There were individual chapters I found boring, and even stretches of several chapters where I had to push myself to continue. I kept wondering when we were going to get back to the story I actually cared about.

But I also think you have to remember that this book was written around 180 years ago. We live in a completely different world now. In 2026, we’re accustomed to everything happening quickly. We want the dopamine hit, we want the story to move, and we want to know where something is going. Long tangents can feel frustrating because our instinct is basically: get to the point.

The Count of Monte Cristo comes from another world. It reflects an era where storytelling could be much slower and more expansive. Dumas could spend enormous amounts of time introducing people, building relationships and setting pieces into position before eventually showing you why they mattered.

And when those pieces finally start coming together, you understand why so much of it was there.

Personally, if I were writing a revenge story like this today, I would make it much faster-paced. I think you could shorten the book considerably while preserving the parts of the story that I found most compelling. But at the same time, doing that would probably make it something fundamentally different from The Count of Monte Cristo.

So despite getting bored at times, I’m genuinely glad I finished it. The ending rewarded me for sticking with it, and I finally got to experience the complete story rather than just knowing The Count of Monte Cristo as this famous classic about revenge.

I’m also proud of myself for finishing roughly 1,200 pages, especially as someone who doesn’t normally read much fiction. I actually read it digitally on my computer, so I never had this enormous physical book sitting in front of me reminding me how much was left. Maybe that helped.

Overall, I wouldn’t say I loved every part of The Count of Monte Cristo. I loved the beginning. I struggled with parts of the middle. Then I became invested all over again toward the end. But when I finally finished it, I felt that the journey had been worth taking.

And if you’re not normally a reader of huge classic novels and you manage to get through this monster of a book too: kudos to you. I applaud you.