I concur. Victor Hugo does have living descendants, and one of them tried to stop a "sequel" from being written:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/31/books.france

He lost the case, and rightfully so. He's several generations removed from the author, and whatever rightful royalties Hugo and his immediate family deserved has long expired, as well as the right to control the IP. The sequel might suck, but there is no denying the right to write one.

Everything by great authors like Hugo, Dumas, Dickens, Twain, etc. is in public domain and I'm always for modernized translations to encourage a modern audience to read them. No need to beg anyone, or pay off some estate or long-removed descendant to do this!

Les Miz is best known for the 1862 Charles Wilbour translation, and that one is free on the Internet. The more modern translations started with Norman Denny (1976) , and others, such as Fahnestock, Donougher and Rose had stepped in with alternate new translations, with the language varying from "slightly modernized but still based on Wilbour" to "ultra-modern using contemporary slang and terminology".

https://welovetranslations.com/2021/07/29/whats-the-best-translation-of-les-miserables/

THIS!

Thank you! I was going to say something along those lines.

If copyright worked the way that OP had said, the estates and descendants of authors of works in public domain, or nearing public domain status, could simply tinker with a 100+ year old work by and keep resetting/extending the copyright (of the original) forever.

That's not how public domain works.

...but his arrival at the barricades had nothing to do with The Cause. At least the ABC's were fighting for something they believed in- a new Republic. Marius wasn't fighting for anything, or to make France a kinder, gentler democracy someday. He was depressed that the girl he was interested in was moving to England and he couldn't follow her (not that he'd introduced himself to her guardian like civilized people did back then). And Grandpa G wouldn't approve of their marriage. So he was mulling over a death wish. he wanted to die quickly, and he got this message that his "friends" were waiting for him at the barricades.

What he was doing was "suicide by cop" or in this case, getting involved in a shooting match against gov't troops. He took two lives for a cause that meant nothing to him. Not badass or heroic at all.

Whoa!!! This looks like a great and controversial posting!

1. Marius was apolitical, and Grandpa G was somewhat neutral but knew how to survive no matter which faction was in power. He hated Napoleon, and disowned his son-in-law (Marius' Dad), so Marius grew up not knowing a thing about Daddy. That changed, and Marius went into hero-worship mode (for Daddy), and even absorbing Daddy's Bonapartist beliefs at a time when it was all irrelevant (Napoleon already died). The hilarious part was that Marius was so ignorant that he didn't even know who the current King was, and shouted "Down with Louis XVIII, that pig!" when Louis was also dead.
2. No argument there. He was a creepy stalker and Valjean was right to be annoyed and suspected him of being a police spy. Marius wasn't raised by wolves. He should have known better and behaved like any well-brought up young man. Introduce himself to the girl's guardian and ASK to speak to her!
3. The Letter under the Rock. LOL. I fail to see how Cosette even got through reading it. Most of it didn't even sound like it was about her, just some vague metaphysical musings. Dude can't write a love letter worth a damn.
4. I think she was 15. And she was also attracting the attention of that handsome lancer, Theodule Gillenormand. I believe in those times, young men could court a girl (in her home, and with permission from her guardians) and eventually a marriage could be planned out in a few years.
5. I don't get the reference? What happened here?
6. That bothered the F out of me too. Marius was being a fool, so obsessed with his debt to Thenn that he delayed in helping "his" girl's guardian when the older man was trapped in a tenement by thugs. And throwing all that money at Thenn in the end, so he can ruin the lives of black people in America by being a slave trader. Knowing that Victor Hugo was anti-slavery, I never quite understood why Thenn would have such a happy ending... has a good chunk of change, and maybe 30 years of prosperity on the backs of enslaved people. He should have drowned on the voyage to America, or gotten killed in a slave revolt.
7. What annoys me is that Marius let his imagination get the best of him, but we have to admit that Valjean never tried to clarify the situation. He just bowed to Marius' authority as Cosette's hubby and allowed them to ghost him.
8. How wonderful it was that Valjean reconciled with Marius and Cosette, 30 seconds before dying! And he could have been happier for MONTHS and part of Cosette's life if Marius wasn't such a self-righteous d-bag! Valjean stole bread decades ago. Marius was technically a traitor, ready to blow himself and a boatload of soldiers and fellow rebels with dynamite for a cause that he didn't even believe in!

Other musings...

Maybe Cosette would have been better off married to Theodule.

You're right about marriage being a "transfer of property" in those times, so whatever Marius said, she pretty much had to do. Victor Hugo tried to make them ghosting Valjean as palatable as possible... "we mustn't blame these children. They were young and deeply in love" etc.

Marius even offered to use Grandpa G's influence to GET VALJEAN A PARDON. That almost redeemed him! But Valjean turned it down, thinking it was better if society thought he was dead, etc. and once an ember of suspicion (on Marius' part) went out of control, Valjean was ghosted and more miserable than ever. SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE OFFER OF A PARDON! Can you imagine how happy all their lives could have been in Valjean's final months?

edit: clarified son-in-law and not son.

We get that question all the time, either on r/books or on the dedicated sub r/areadingofmontecristo

Check out this posting. It sounds like abridged would be better for you. If you read the right one, and decide you LOVE it, you can graduate to unabridged later.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AReadingOfMonteCristo/comments/uxm26f/why_such_a_big_difference/

You're only 150 pages in, so you haven't hit "Rome" yet.

It's better not to.

The work they wrote, and what they left behind is more important.

A lot of times it comes off that book fans seem to expect their fave authors to be paragons of virtue, and can be disappointed when they find out the TRUTH, or become very defensive (on behalf of a dead author) when others tell them that their fave media creator is actually a terrible human being.

Others find out that their fave authors, or artists, or filmmakers do what's generally considered immoral or harmful or incredibly racist/sexist things and even jump through hoops to JUSTIFY that. Like pulling anecdotes out of a hat: "Well XXXXX did that too and he's a great [whatever]." or "YYYYY did this and he's not constrained by traditional morality." So that leaves us to wonder about these defenders, "Well, if ZZZZZ doing that is OK with you because he's a great [occupation], what does that say about YOU? You'd do the same thing?"

In the end, it's up to individuals to decide whether they want to appreciate the work and ignore the moral failings of the creator, or to dump the works in the trash and not consume any more media because the creator had stepped WAY over the line. Personal and individual decision and I'd respect it either way.

What's not cool is "cancelling" or intimidating fans, reviewers, or buyers of a work or a derivative work and accusing them of the same sins that the author might have committed, and supporting the author's un-PC thoughts about current social issues. If you don't personally want to support AuthorX because of their stance on certain issues, then don't buy it. Just don't jump down the throats of people who do want to buy it. (ahem. >!Hogwart's Legacy Game!<)

The poster had clarified that they were talking about Scotland as the place where child abuse by teachers and parents and apparently, many people were too poor to buy burgers and pizza for their kids lasted even into the 1970's.

Yes, there was a recession in the 70's, as well as an Energy Crisis and a gas shortage. But compared to today, with homeless camps parked on the sidewalks of every major city, those were the good times. My personal recollection was that we always had food, and burger, or family Sunday night out at a restaurant was still a thing. Buying class rings, or going on major field trips (hundreds of miles away) that cost out-of-pocket were out of the question though.

So how was your 70's life experience?

The statement was NOT quantified as "people living in poverty in the 1960's and 70's..." and poverty did not guarantee child abuse. Most parents of the 1960's and 70's who were poor were not monsters, and it's insulting to a hella lot of good people to imply that they were.

I still challenge the description of how things were in the 1960's and 70's as described by the poster I was replying to.

>Take a child out for a burger or pizza would be considered spoiling them.

What country are you talking about? If you are talking about the US in the 1960's and 1970's, this is not correct at all. That era was the post-war Baby Boom, and the US was in prosperity mode, with plentiful housing and jobs. Returning soldiers started families, and tons of new entertainment opportunities exploded. Books, movies, records, TV, comics, amusement parks, Disneyland, etc. were ways that parents indulged their kiddos. So saying that in the 1960's and 1970's, your average parents were too cheap/stingy/harsh to take their kids out for a burger....? No way!

Source: I lived in those times. My cousins lived in those times. My friends and co-workers lived in those times and nobody had stories about "...my parents were so cheap that we couldn't go out for burgers or pizza." But I did hear stories about psycho nuns and rulers from the ones that went to Catholic school.

>Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe. This classic novel is over300-years-old but it’s also basically Island of the Blue Dolphins with100% more anxiety about elusive cannibals. <

but minus Blue Dolphins and plus main character owning a plantation run by slave labor, going off on a trip to buy more slaves, selling a child into indentured servitude, random animal cruelty, gets some company after rescuing a native but never bothers to learn the man's real name, encounters a group of shipwrecked Spaniards and lies to them about rescue, leaving them on the island for years after he's rescued and gets back to England.

(I read the book and its sequel recently and was shocked at what a d-bag Crusoe really is.)

Modern Y.A. versions of the Classics.

The series that I think well of is the 1940's-1950's era JJ Little and Ives "Library Edition" classics. Original language modernized for mid-20th century high-schoolers, and the language used is completely understandable for today's readers. In particular, The Count of Monte Cristo is a magnificent adaptation of the original.

1. The Deerslayer / David Copperfield
2. Robin Hood / Last of The Mohicans
3. Jane Eyre / Wuthering Heights
4. Treasure Island / Captain Courageous
5. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer / The adventures of Huckleberry Finn / The Prince and The Pauper
6. The Count of Monte Cristo / The House of the Seven Gables
7. Lorna Doone / Pride and Prejudice
8. Robinson Crusoe / 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea
9. Two Years Before The Mast / Moby Dick
10. The Red Badge of Courage / A Connecticut Yankee
11. Ivanhoe / Kidnapped
12. A Tale of Two Cities / The Three Musketeers

Another series that I'm looking at is the Globe/Fearon "Adapted Classics" from the 1990's. I haven't read too many of them, but I have read 11 abridged/simplified YA versions of Les Miserables, and the one on Globe/Fearon (ISBN 0835904733) is the one I keep going back to because it's great (and yes, I have read unabridged, but reading YA is a better experience).

No dust jacket, book has never been out-of-print, 1955 edition by Collins... it's not going to net a lot of money in resale, but the content is timeless.

Since your photo (with the dust jacket) says "1120 pages", it would be unabridged, and taken from the anonymous 1846 Chapman-Hall translation. It might be possible that a few words might vary from other editions, but it's basically all the same.

The only OTHER unabridged translation was by Robin Buss in 1996, only on Penguin Books (and exclusive, and still under copyright).

From an reading enjoyment standpoint, the Robin Buss one is definitely superior. But having ANY copy of Monte Cristo is good.

Yep. Going from the Lowell Bair abridgement to Robin Buss' unabridged is a natural step up. I have them both (as well as several other versions).

If you read them side by side, you will notice that there is a greater level of detail in Buss. For example, when Albert shows his paintings to the Count in Paris on his first visit, Buss details exactly what the paintings looked like and what the subjects were and who painted them. Bair simply says that Albert showed the Count his paintings and that they were modern works and the Count knew something about them already.

Not everybody wants that level of detail, so Bair is always a comfortable fall-back if Buss gets to be too much.

Both editions are excellent, very modern and have a lot to offer to their different audiences.

Ah, I see. I would guess, then, that the film books call it the "standard" because it was the only Talkie produced in the US until 2002, so any books prior to 2002 attempting to discuss a non-silent US movie adaptation had exactly one candidate. Kinda like saying that in a horse race with one contestant, there will be one obvious winner.

I have to say that Robert Donat speaks and enunciates beautifully. But it's true that the European, and even the Mexican versions hit more plot points and have far more in-common with the book than the Donat one.

Pardon me for asking, but what makes the Robert Donat film the "standard"? TBH, the rewrites in the second half make it unrecognizable as The Count of Monte Cristo. No Caderousse, and the ending fates of all 3 baddies are not based on the book. And, because of the rewrite, >!Haydee's role was diminished and the Count ends up with Mercedes,!< because of that era's Hollywood feel-good style.

That movie came off to me as needing to conform to the Hays Code, so all of the good stuff (revenge) had to be altered drastically, because the book, as written, had a whole slew of no-nos that were forbidden by the Code. It's also notable that Hollywood did not make another attempt at making a Monte Cristo movie until the 21st century. But the UK, France, Mexico, Argentina, Norway and the Soviet Union were happy to step in.

Can't be a plea deal when the accused didn't even place a plea or try to make a deal. V. was truly ready to release Dantes, and Dantes was ready to head out the door. Until V. found out the letter was addressed to Noirtier. Up until that point, V. wasn't ready to prosecute Dantes (and he wanted to impress Renee with his mercy). V. had seen real foaming-at-the-mouth Bonapartists and wouldn't hesitate to condemn them but that boy wasn't one of them. He saw a dumbass who was in way over his head in something that he didn't truly understand.

V. didn't hang out with the old man because of political ambitions. But we have seen that V. was willing to warn Noirtier that the police were looking for Gen. Quesnel's assassin, and the description of the perp looked just like ol' Dad. And V. just stood by as Noirtier shaved and changed his clothing, and even took parts of V's own wardrobe. So they had differing politics, but V. wasn't hostile or willing to let his father get arrested.

Yeah, Dantes was a naive fool, but I'd write it off as "typical 19 year old". Dantes might have heard a few things here and there, but blew it off as, "Meh, doesn't concern me. No politics for me. All I care about is my job, my Dad and marrying Mercedes. Oh, the captain's last wish was to deliver this letter... ummm, OK."

And that's exactly what he told V. and V. saw his sincerity and believed him.

True, but one of the key points in the book was that Dantes did not even get a trial. Villefort just had him quietly hustled away to D'if.

Could possibly mean that the bar for an execution was pretty high, and would have required a trial and a certain bunch of signatures. V. wanted to keep the entire affair on the down-low (protecting Noirtier), and an actual trial would have mean that Noirtier's name would have gone out. And Dantes' likeability and naivety might have won over the other judge.

It could also mean that V. is a better human being than he seemed to be initially. Like, only wanting to shuffle Dantes away until it was convenient to release him (after Napoleon's death). But eventually he forgot about that and Dantes was left to rot.

This is not the only example of "French traitor protagonist in a classic novel slipping between the cracks and not being executed." Victor Hugo allowed Marius to live, and even get married, and live aboveground after Marius' involvement in the Revolt. Marius was at the barricades, shot at soldiers, and threatened to blow everybody up, ffs. But Hugo waved it away by saying that Marius' months-long convalescence saved him, the hubbub died down, and nobody bothered to look for him because so much time had passed.

"Many" = 2.

Johannes the jeweler and little Edouard de Villefort.

Albert and Mercedes don't really count, because the destruction of their lives was self-inflicted. Nobody forced them out of their home or reduced them to desperate poverty. If they wanted to, they could sell the house, take the money and move somewhere else.

OTOH, look at the lives he had saved/helped as the Count:

1. Morrel Sr.- saved from suicide, and gifted a new ship to regain his rep and prosperity.
2. Noirtier- Currently safe at Leghorn, happily awaiting Val and Max so he can bless their marriage. Without the Count, Madame Villefort would have eventually found a way to kill him.
3. Julie Morrel Herbault- due to the Dantes' doing, she could marry Emmanuel and not live in poverty when her father was financially ruined.
4. Emmanuel Herbault- Able to marry Julie Morrel because she's got a dowry (courtesy of Dantes). Otherwise, his family would not have approved the marriage to Valentine.
5. Maximilian Morrel- Would have committed suicide with his father, but Dantes saved the father, and also the son. Received a HUGE wedding gift in wealth from the Count.
6. Ali- saved from execution by the Sultan. Seems to be content serving the Count.
7. Haydee- sailing off with the man she loves. If it weren't for the Count, she would still be a slave and a concubine in a Sultan's harem.
8. Peppino- would have been executed, but the Count bought his freedom.
9. Valentine de Villefort- she would have been murdered by poison by Madame Villefort, but the Count saved her (for Max's sake) and gifted her a huge wedding present in $$$.
10. Eugenie Danglars- Would have been married (reluctantly) to Albert. Instead, the Count provided her with a forged passport, enabling her to run away to Italy with her girlfriend. (she's LGBT).
11. Louise D'Armilly- Thanks to the Count, she ran away with the person she loves (she's LGBT).

Not that he's perfect. but overall, he did more good than harm. More innocents saved, and the guilty punished.

Fair enough.

In particular, look at:

Chapter 91: Albert and Mercedes leave Fernand's house, with no money, no job and no real plan until the Count's letter gifts them 3000 francs and a roof (old Dantes' house) in Marseilles.

104: Confirmation that Mercedes and Albert willed all their money and property to the poor.

106: Ultra-pitiful chapter of Albert and Mercedes sleeping in shabby, cheapo rooms, struggling to scrape up enough money to get transportation to Marseilles. <self-inflicted and a direct result of no planning.

112: The Count's last meeting with Mercedes. A depress-fest that confirms how much he wanted to help her, but she refused.

"The Son of Monte Cristo", "The Wife of Monte Cristo" and "The Treasure of Monte Cristo" are not by Dumas. They were written by Jules Lermina as a way to piggyback and profit off of Dumas' name and characters.

If you read them, you'll be disappointed. Let's say that everything that Dumas gave to the Count, Lermina took away, until he was a broke and lonely hermit back on Monte Cristo island.

Tell me where this alternate ending is? Is it a book? A movie? A stageplay?

I'm always interested in reading about, or watching variations of the story.

No. That wasn't Fernand's fault at all. Old Dantes was a proud man, and didn't want to accept help from anyone. Mercedes even wanted him to live with her so she could take care of him, but the old man refused. He became a hermit and stopped eating. Mercedes recruited the senior Morrel to help, but old Dantes insisted on isolating himself until he died of starvation.

Old Dantes had an inkling that he'd never see Edmond again, and willed himself to death.

OMG no, go and donate the B&N abridged version. That's one of the poorly-done abridgements. In the end, Dantes only bats .50 as far as getting revenge and TWO of the culprits are completely off the hook (due to selective editing and dropping of pertinent chapters).

Read these instead:

Unabridged- Robin Buss on penguin Books

Abridged- Lowell Bair on Bantam Books.

You can still get a lot out of the abridged version, or even the comic book version, or the one for kids. Just a case of getting the RIGHT one.

It's even possible to co-run a subreddit r/AReadingOfMonteCristo for an entire year and ONLY using abridged versions (on purpose) to summarize and discuss the book. I'm doing this to prove that "abridged doesn't suck" and nobody's complaining there.

Abridged gets a lot of hate because there are several poorly-done abridgements, but there are 2 excellent ones as well.

But HOW did he ruin Mercedes? He already told her (in "bread and salt") that he's forgiven her for marrying another.

Fernand had plenty of blood on his hands... betraying Ali Pasha, a ruler that he served, resulted in the deaths of tons of Janina defenders. He took bribe money from the Turks and helped himself to "slaves" (like Haydee and her mother) and sold them to line his own pockets. That, plus ruining young Edmond's life with 14 years at Chateau D'if in order to get Mercedes for himself. Of course he deserved his fate.

Dantes (as the Count) wanted to help Mercedes. He offered plenty of financial assistance, but she refused it, only accepting the 3000 franc dowry and a roof (old Dantes' place). As the widow of Fernand, she voluntarily donated the Morcerf property and money to the poor and walked away from it all. Her own decision and choice. Not the Count's doing. If she wanted to, she could still be living in that nice house in Paris and not embarking on that pitiful journey to get to Marseilles to start over (from the bottom).

As we had left her, she would only accept the Count's help "if Albert approved it". So she was an indirect victim of the Count's revenge, but she had plenty of escape hatches and resources that she refused to take. Like the saying goes, "can't help those who won't help themselves."

IRL, people deal with this all the time. Family members die. Tragedies happen that might make you temporarily homeless (fire, flood, earthquake, disaster). You can deal with it, and tap every resource available (friends, relatives, existing bank accounts, insurance payout) and rebuild your life, or you can sink into a deep, dark depression and will yourself into an early grave. I am sad to say that for Mercedes, the latter is quite probable.