This is the secret of the novel “Montecristis”

What is “roman”? What is it? When do we have the right to use this term outside and inside literature? Calm down readers: It is not the intention to give here a rhetorical lecture and literary theories. I'd just like to share with you some of the little sensations that I've recently reread, of the colossal monument in the imaginary reality (in the double sense) that is the Earl of Montecristi from Alexander Dumas (1803-1870).
Around the earl, it has written beautiful things Umberto Ecco (the mass sperm, 2001). Perhaps, though, some conclusions may be added to his noble canonization. Let's see, starting over.
The Count of Montekristo was written and published about 1844.
At almost the same time, the 20-x0-macineria” heavy literary production, which was Alexander Dumas, conceived the masterpieces of the music team, “Three musctisiers”, “One years later”, “Brageonezo <7>. But the earl was a step higher, more ambitious, for the establishment and almost contemporary of events regarding his readers at that time.
In extreme synthesis: Roman protagonist Edmond Dante is originally a young sailor, a lot of experts in his work, and extremely honest, to whom the bonds of the three unfaithful characters are handcuffed: Fernand Monde, Gerard de Villefort of Dunglars. He is imprisoned in the terrible French prison called the Castle of Iffy, spent several years in almost absolute isolation and extreme despair (Dantes accused of bonapartism, so it is not disfellowshipped for Dumas to allow some antiburnik poison to be spilled in his confession.

There he is acquainted with another innocent prisoner, Abatin Faria, who came and appeared suddenly in his cell after he had dug, amid inhuman suffering, an underground tunnel that had to be pulled out, but a miscalculation takes him right to Edmond's cell. From the abat Faria, the educated Italian priest, Edmund understands many things; but above all, it is known, before Faria dies, with the existence of a treasure hidden on the island of Montecristi. Edmond flees from the castle of Ife with a trick as smart as a macabre, is given possession of the treasure and begins a new life. In the second half of the novel Edmond moves from one disguise to another, in a persistent quest to get to revenge. The work, however, has a happy ending, such as the production of which Edmund regains human right to forgiveness and love.
The Count of Montekristo has suffered negatively in times “marks” and be an appendix novel, voted essentially because of product commercialism or, as it is said in modern times, of the market “”. There is no doubt about it at first. However, the result makes him worthy of greater attention today.
Let's try to reconnect with the original questions. Romani 1) is a strong, complex story that cannot (play: can't) claim great dimensions; 2) part of a single story, but meaning a lot; 3) is made up of characters that are each person the bearer of a particular <x0fat”, which, however, is exactly composed of that of many others; 4) meditates solidly on a system of real reporting and fiction, between the possible and the impossible, that is, between what it is, which is, which is also done at a point.

Now the Earl of Montecristi presents all these characteristics without question. But could not the same discussion be applied to another work, which according to a general judgment has a much broader scope, like “War and Peace”? Yes, of course, it can. What's the difference, then? I'm afraid the difference is, as once stated, in” content”. Logical weight, sentimental weight, the Ideal of War and Peace is unique compared to the one expressed from cover to end at the Earl of Montekristo.
However, this said, everything else remains valuable to the Count of Montecristi, which means that his “macina” has such a remarkable vitality, which makes it of great value to modern readers. Today's readers, the one who no longer needs to be told that he should read a text because he will live a subx2> useful”, enough to know that he will be passionate and fun.
From this point of view, the Earl of Montecrristo holds surprises that hardly cause contemporary works to experiment. This is easily verifiable: If we begin reading each of its chapters today, it is very difficult to get rid of it without reaching its end.
The experience of Earl's first readers, who read it every week in an appendix of a time organ, and apparently expressed the anxious expectation that something would happen, can also be relived by modern readers who will not a bit tire of breaking off the text at the key points of the story to return to their own, much more banal.
The fact is that “romancesk”, that original, is another thing, compared to what we've already listed. It's design of a world of understanding that wouldn't be if this novel wasn't written. It's lying in every case, looking for true evidence of what we see confession. What we see in the story is also a reality that is clearly distinct from the fact that we continue to believe in it and call “reality”.
From this point of view, the Count of Montekristo is a true wealth treasure of course a lie, but destined to increase our need for a different “ ” reality, which is not reduced to the middle of our daily life.

Alberto Asor Rosa / La Repubblica fit in from the world.al