Laclos' Dangerous Liaisons

I finished Dangerous Liaisons two days ago, and I still haven't been able to quite wrap my head around it. It's epistolary form is intriguing, and especially the rhetoric of Merteuil and Valmont is a lot to take in. I'm very interested in the libertine novel in general, and the libertine philosophy and rhetoric/language. Especially in Dangerous Liaisons, the seduction is very much a 'war' - as Valmont says. The connection between love and war is an old one, but it still exemplifies this 'war' or even 'games' of love and seduction. This is also emphasized by the fact that a lot of the social interaction that's described is, in fact, playing cards. To my understanding, this was a common activity of the aristocracy of the time; it's fitting, then, that at one point I think it's Valmont who writes something to the effect of "putting the cards on the table". The game analogy of seduction, I feel, ties heavily into the theme of language and the epistolary form in itself. If all languague is rhetoric, isn't rhetoric in itself a form of seduction? Isn't all language a sort of 'game' we play, and the risk we take is the one of trusting whether what we've been told is truth/sincere?

I have so many thought on this novel, and I really struggle to sort them out. The libertine philosophy, which strongly rejects constancy and establishments such as religion, is rooted in the belief that Nature itself is forever changing and never stable, and as such, humanity shouldn't strive to suppress natural urges, nor put itself in a prison of societal structures. However, to ensure understanding and survival, we need structures (or rather, specific rules to a game if we are to play it) to hold as 'true', or even just trust in, to have any sort of communication at all. Does Dangerous Liaisons' libertines cement the view of having 'exposed' the language as forever changing and never stable? Both Merteuil and Valmont display extreme rhetoric skill in leading astray their respective 'victims', but at the same time, are they not also showing that language cannot be trusted since they delicately and logically manipulate? And the epistolary novel in it's genre; can we trust that the letters are the character's sincere thoughts?

I'm very much intrigued by this novel and the libertine theme in general, and I'd very much appreciate it if anyone has interpretations or thoughts to share!