By positioning Cécile’s letter first in the novel and then directly contrasting it with Merteuil’s plot to bring her downfall the power and wit of Merteuil’s writing is highlighted. And her willingness to excite and take power is reinforced and we feel more for Valmont and Merteuil as perpetrators of these acts than the other characters like Tourvel and Cécile, as victims. The reader, therefore, relies upon both Valmont and Merteuil to provide the action and move the novel forward. The epistolary structure of the novel maps the progress of their plans and unveils their most powerful tool in doing so; the tool of language. Language for them is, in fact simply a medium of expression that may easily be manipulated to give the desired effect on an intended audience. In letter 4 Valmont introduces the metaphor of his pursuit of Tourvel being a battle and hunt:
‘Voilà ce que j’attaque; voilà l’ennemi digne de moi; voilà le but où je pretends atteindre.’
The hunt, chase and anticipation are of paramount pleasure for Valmont, not only the conquest, and it is this chase that the reader enjoys following so are directly dependent on Valmont for this. This is a sharp contrast with his letters to Tourvel in which he is sensitive and tender:
‘Quoi! L’amour me ramène a vos pieds,’
This skilful and adaptable style and tone is indicative of his linguistic supremacy and comfort in using language. The fact that Merteuil and Valmont’s writing styles shift so frequently makes it difficult for their characters to be fully revealed. Their ‘voice’ in the epistles shifts according to the addressee which makes a true character portrait almost impossible. This is perhaps one of the most seductive features of the novel because, compared with Cécile who reveals all in her first letter, and Danceney who considers letter writing to be a, ‘portrait de l’âme,’ both Merteuil and Valmont write with purpose and skill. ‘Vous dites tout ce que vous pensez’ explains Merteuil to Cécile in letter 105. The reader feels empowered when reading their letters to the other characters, because we understand their purpose and the author’s ultimate goal. Cécile is counselled by Merteuil in letter 105, who remarks, ‘et ce M. de Valmont est un méchant homme, n’est-ce pas? This irony serves to place the reader in a position to understand her cruel ironic humour, which brings her closer to the reader. This self-confident audacity draws the reader ever closer, and we are seduced without considering the real implications of the plan for Cécile and Tourvel. By juxtaposing letters to Cécile and Mme de Volanges which are letters of exemplary uprightness, this audacity is made clear which lends Merteuil a certain charm and wit.
The novel seems to be geared towards the reader preferring Valmont over Merteuil. Their correspondence is an exciting display of skill between equals, with Merteuil making clear attempts to dominate him and forcing him to acknowledge her supremacy, for example her dealings with Prévan. However, as the novel develops Merteuil ceases to be in complete control of the situation when it is clear that Valmont has genuine love for Tourvel. In letter 153 Valmont explains to Merteuil:
‘Il ne l’est de vous répéter que, de ce jour meme, je serai ou votre Amante ou votre ennemi.’
To which she replies ‘Hé bien! La guerre.’ This letter is a pivotal moment in the plot, as it signifies point that the relationship between the protagonists ceases to function in the way it had, the implication of which is that the book must end because they are the plot drivers. The result of this letter is that Valmont is shown in a more positive light than Merteuil, as he has offered her the choice. The novel does seem to be geared towards compelling the reader to like Valmont more than Merteuil. He is given a sense of world-weariness by Laclos which evokes sympathy from the reader:
‘Pourquoi courir après celui qui nous fuit, et négliger ceux qui se presentment? Ah! Pourquoi?...Je l’ignore mais je l’éprouve fortement.’
Valmont is accorded a certain degree of redemption at the end of the novel. He dies by Danceney’s sword, and behaves honourably, but does he offer the letters at the and as his last strike in the war with Merteuil, or is it an act of repentance? Although he talks of his sexual endeavours in a mechanical and sensationalist way, his correspondence with Tourvel seems to consume him and he may genuinely love her. An emotional depth is shown in letter 96 when he explains that he wants to enjoy the ‘délicieuses jouissances’ of Tourvel. Whereas the cynical Merteuil admits that she is incapable of love, ‘Je m’assurai que l’amour, que l’on que nous vante comme la cause de tous nos plaisirs n’en est plus que le prétexte.’
This may offer an explanation as to why Merteuil is silenced like all other characters, and stripped of respect while Valmont dies with some honour; the reader is ultimately seduced by Valmont and not Merteuil.
Just as their crafted language illustrates and imposes Merteuil and Valmont’s supremacy over the other characters through their letters, it entices and entraps the reader. We are ultimately dependent on them for action, humour and wit as they are the only characters capable of displaying these qualities.