Did She Fall Or Was She Pushed? Dangerous Liaisons Readalong 2024

@BishyBarnyBee (and anyone else) I re-read Viv Groskop’s essay on this book (in a book called Au Revoir Tristesse) and she essentially argues that Laclos essentially makes us complicit by drawing us to the Marquise and Valmont as more interesting, so you sort of read it hating that you so invested in them. That’s definitely how I feel reading it, like, dirty, but I keep going back for more - and liking it.

Don't tell Mama about the books 😅
I dread to think about what's in the books!

Mme de Merteuil's influence on Cécile is worrying. Her mother doesn't have a clue what's going on.

I agree that Danceny sounds manipulative and very much like Valmont with his self-pitying ways.

La Présidente's letter was amazing. She really gave it back to him. I would love if she continues to stand firm and keep him at bay but am not hopeful.

Letter 26: Madame de Tourvel to the Vicomte de Valmont

• Tourvel tells Valmont that his feelings aren't returned and that he should never have expressed them.
• She was repulsed and embarrassed by his behavior and says he was mistaking her for one of those women who would get involved with him.
• She wants to stay as far away from him as possible and can't believe he treated her with such disrespect.
• He asked for her guidance and advice, so here it is: get lost.
• She just wanted to be friends, and now he's ruined that.
• His expressions of love were insulting and offensive, and if he keeps it up, she'll refuse to see him again.
• He should forget the incident ever happened.

Letter 27: Cécile de Volanges to the Marquise de Merteuil

• Cécile seeks out the advice of the Marquise.
• Confessing her indiscretions on paper of course gives Merteuil power over her. Exactly what she wants.
• Cécile encloses letter from Danceny and asks how she should proceed. Should she write him back? Is it wrong to love someone?
• She trusts she'll get wise advice.

I’m enjoying this immensely still and I don’t know if I am just a horrible person or lack some sort of empathy but I find Valmont and Merteuil highly entertaining, almost like panto villains but a lot better.

I think doing good is probably inherently selfish, because it does make us feel good, but I’m not sure there is anything wrong with your action helping someone and feeling good about it. I do agree with pp that it’s bragging about it or showing your goodness off that is less appealing, unless I suppose in order to raise awareness, then there is some sense in it I suppose.

I am wondering if we might see some twists and turns - so far I don’t feel I’m getting lots from Cecile and the (currently) chaste characters. I wonder is Laclos has something more for us, I feel like the author is very clever with the epistolary style and I wonder if the other characters will become more rounded in time.

Finally managed to catch up and am very much enjoying all the discussions! I thnk the episode of Valmont helping the family is quite nuanced. Of course he does it for selfish reasons but I think we also get glimpses of true sentiment here and the author is teasing us with the possibility that Valmont could be won over to the "moral" side.

The debate about doing good and being recognised for doing good is something that interests me. I was always brought up with the idea that if you do a good deed, it is better to do it in private ("But when you give to someone in need, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you." - Book of Matthew) and it still makes me feel a bit icky when I see videos on social media of people advertising their good deeds and getting praise for it...urgh...makes me a feel a bit funny even thinking about it. 😂 I think this is an important thing to bear in mind too - which is why the whole spy element is so effective. Tourvel really thinks he was doing this privately - she fell right into his trap!

He really is awful, isn't he.

Sorry for lowering the literary standards of the thread, but is anyone else thinking about the Friends episode where Phoebe and Joey argue over whether all good deeds are done for selfish reasons?!

Absolutely. You do what feels good. Giving money to the poor here is equated by Valmont to an exquisitely pleasant sensation (like an orgasm?)

Interesting that his immediate response is to ‘pay’ the poor family for his pleasure, although said pleasure was caused by him already giving them money to clear their debt, and that he then goes on immediately to think in monetary terms of his eventual sex with Madame de Tourvel — he’s now ‘paid’ for that by putting down money as part of his charade to impress her, so he can feel ok about treating her however he pleases afterwards. (Or is he just showing off to Merteuil here?)

I would have said that a libertine didn’t ‘need’ to pay for sex, but Valmont definitely seems to default to paying for pleasure here…?

I did like the description of Valmonts feelings at doing good. Probably one of the most 'dangerous' lines in the book undermining the whole edifice of doing good works at a stroke, and equating Christian morality with libertine philosophy.

The chilling question is what Merteuil imagined would have happened to Cecile when Gercourt found out the truth. Best scenario he holds his tongue for fear of public humiliation, but he might well have been so furious that he went public.

Yes, I always wonder whether I just think they're the ages Glenn Close and John Malkovich were they played them (I also saw a good Donmar production with Dominic West and the brilliant Janet McTeer, and Una Stubbs as Valmont's aunt)... Does it change anything if everyone involved is in their 20s?

Madame de Tourvel I think comes across quite strangely in letter 21 -- whatever her curiosity about being stuck as a fellow-houseguest with a notorious libertine who turns out (she thinks) to be unexpectedly nice in person, sending your servant to follow him out hunting, and trying to talk him out of it and sulking when he refuses to cancel his hunting trip (not to mention then writing t Madame de Volanges with a full report!) all sounds a bit mad/unduly nosy. I mean, I get that it's hot, her husband's away for a long time, and the only other person in the house other than Valmont is a woman in her 80s, but still!

I like the way Valmont plays for laughs the bit about being followed and contemplating aiming a shot at Madame de Tourvel's servant, and then gets terribly interested in his own emotions when he rescues the poor family from eviction, as if he's unfamiliar with many of them. Basically, he's saying it felt so good that he thinks that benevolent people shouldn't really get the praise they do because giving is so enjoyable -- and he enjoys the sensation of rescuing the family so much he then gives them everything in his purse as 'payment' and gets slightly snitty they aren't as obviously demsontrative as when he saved them from eviction.

Incidentally, does anyone's edition have any notes about how much money is actually involved by today's standards? Is Valmont giving the family a lot of money when he gives them 16 louis d'or?

Yes, I’m not sure it actually improves anything! Especially if you see Merteuil as lying to Valmont (or maybe deluding herself?) that Cecile is actually dying for more experience and a natural who is likely to turn out a second Merteuil in time, so that the reader isn’t as fixated on this poor innocent bring debauched for the games of two amoral intriguers… I mean, nothing Cecile has said in her own letters suggests anything of the kind.

Is Merteuil just bigging up Cecile’s looks, charm, curiosity etc in the hope that Valmont might still get bored with his pursuit of the Presidente and undertake the job of seducing Cecile?

(Im still reeling from discovering the Presidente is only 22! It makes me wonder whether Merteuil and Valmont are also far younger than I’d imagined…)