• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Gustave Flaubert: Madame Bovary

Sparkchaser,

Where did you get this one:

Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. - Winston Churchill

I mean, can you give the reference? I can't stop laughing each time I see it!
 
When I start a book , I like to finish it. Especially when it's BOTM.
How else would we discuss it?

Saliothomas why did you dislike it so early?
 
I shouldn't be so negative about the book.

They sure do enjoy their cider, don't they?:p
 
I read Madame Bovary probably 40 years ago (at the age of three?) so I was happy when it became our Book of the Month and I would need to reread it. I am not finding it particularly difficult to get into - even though I know in a general way how it ends, so that there is not much suspense. I have read a lot of 19th century novels. Slow down, enjoy the scenery. These novels were not competing with TV or telephone calls or other modern diversions. Their readers wanted to hear all about it. In detail.

Now that I have finished Part I (65 pages in my edition) I would like to comment before going on. I am struck by the fact the story opens with Charles, not Emma, and we are taken into his life and his mind until Chapter V, which is a transition. It is after the wedding and they go to Charles's house. A description of the house, as Emma sees it, is followed by their early married days, first as seen by Charles, then by Emma.

Only then, in the following chapter, do we turn to Emma, her early life, her education, her attitudes. Some commentators point out, correctly, that she was much influenced by the romantic literature of her day. Flaubert amplified this, however, by a direct comment on Emma's nature:

Objects she valued merely for the profit, as it were, that she could draw from them, and rejected as useless everything that did not at once contribute to the consummation of her heart -- for she was by temperament sentimental rather than artistic, and engaged in the pursuit not of landscapes but of emotions.
Click to expand...

Much of Emma's subsequent boredom and restlessness can be understood as her pursuit of emotions.

On to Part II.
 
I finally finished, Yay! I am glad I finished it but I never did warm up to it, all the way to the end I had to push myself to keep with it.

silverseason said:
I have read a lot of 19th century novels. Slow down, enjoy the scenery. These novels were not competing with TV or telephone calls or other modern diversions. Their readers wanted to hear all about it. In detail.
Click to expand...

I don't think the detail or slow pace bothered me so much as what it was focused on, there were times where I was reading a scene and something or someone would catch my interest but then not be followed, it would shift to someone or somewhere else. For all the detail given there were still many things brought up but not really elaborated on, I would of liked more information about Emma's Mother and Brother for instance.

Another thing I noticed that bothered me was at least twice in the book I was surprised that three or four years had went by. Many of the scenes in the book dragged by in great (sometimes excruciatingly boring) detail and then it just pops in there that it's three years later? This confused me and maybe I'm mistaken but the two instances were
when she was nearing the end with Rodolphe there is a quote by Emma that makes it sound as if they had their affair for 4 years and the other was when she goes to Rodolphe for help it says he has been avoiding her for 3 years? And yet they were still talking of Berthe as a small child but if those time lapses were accurate she would have been at least 8 years old or more when Emma died, to old to be told her Mom had gone away on vacation ?
Maybe it was just me, maybe I missed something but seemed to me that time moved very inconsistently in the story.
 
A very interesting remarque abook the start,Silverseason.Mm Bovary begin to exist when she marry Charles.Flaubert paint a portrait of this mediocre and ridicule hero before to introduce us to Emma.Another side of her caractere are those depressions,those terrible time when she goes under,for some quite long period.Then the mood swing and she is hyper,dynamic,enthusiast.I think of her as a very sick personne,in our days she would have been under heavy medication.
 
beer good said:
That's actually a pretty interesting conversation (anyone know if it's in Tom Perotta's novel, too?):

Sarah Pierce: I think I understand your feelings about this book. I used to have some problems with it, myself. When I read it in grad school, Madam Bovary just seemed like a fool. She marries the wrong man; makes one foolish mistake after another; but when I read it this time, I just fell in love with her. She's trapped! She has a choice: she can either accept a life of misery or she can struggle against it. And she chooses to struggle.
Mary Ann: Some struggle. Hop into bed with every guy who says hello.
Sarah Pierce: She fails in the end, but there's something beautiful and even heroic in her rebellion. My professors would kill me for even thinking this, but in her own strange way, Emma Bovary is a feminist.
Mary Ann: Oh, that's nice. So now cheating on your husband makes you a feminist?
Sarah Pierce: No, no, it's not the cheating. It's the hunger. The hunger for an alternative, and the refusal to accept a life of unhappiness.
Mary Ann: Maybe I didn't understand the book!
Click to expand...

So far - I'm about a third in - I think that's a pretty good analysis. I'm struck by the lack of vilification and moral posturing going on in the novel; nobody's really the bad guy here. Charles is an unambitious fool, but a pretty nice guy nonetheless who's pictured as truly devoted to his wife. Emma isn't so much selfish as she's hung up on the idea that there's got to be more to life than this - she's flawed and naive, but not necessarily wrong.

We'll see if I'll end up revising that.
Click to expand...

Coming back to this now that I am finished, I don't think Emma or Charles were ever vilified, more victimized in my opinion, especially towards the end. While Emma was unhappy and suffering from all these romantic fantasies, would she of acted on it if Rodolphe had not so actively pursued her? She was attracted to Leon prior to that and did not act on it. But Rodolphe was an experienced seducer he had many mistresses and went after her aggressively. The money troubles were much the same, Lheureux pushed her and Charles into debt, he seemed to have every intention of bringing them to financial ruin. There is also the passage when she goes to the notary for help and Guillaumin reflects that he and Lheureux had done similar "deals" of this sort in the past. Then there is the profiting of their maid and various towns' folk in the very end. Throughout both Charles and Emma come across as grossly naive, the main difference is Charles is content with his lot and Emma is yearning for more. In the end however Emma was never happy, both of her lovers tired of her and discarded her, she was financially ruined and had to suffer public humiliation, so will she may not have been vilified she was definitely punished for her rebellion. And Charles in turn was punished for his stupidity, he finds out all, just too late.
 
saliotthomas said:
I don't see why BOTM should be such torture,if you do not like a book,having read the start should be enough to discusse the style,the caractere descriton,and take part of the following converstion.
Maybe been French help me been closer to the story,and i like classic.But if BOTM is to continu,no one should have to read a book that they so dislike.
Click to expand...


maybe I misunderstood, sorry.
 
Charles easily taken advantage of because he was mentally deficient and of course Emma because she was a Romantic. Ronny, I never thought Charles was punished, I thought he was victimized because he trusted his wife.

Emma was taken advantage of financially, but she was in control and could have said no to the extramaritial affairs. When I was reading about her financial dealings, I was thinking that she isn't much different then a lot of people in this country that in debt up to their ears because they live far beyond their means.

The blind guy was a strange character.
 
Congratulate me. I've finished Part 2.

If Emma lived today, she would probably be on medication, although maybe not any happier for it. I have seen interpretations of Emma as a failed romantic, but also as a woman trapped in a constricted environment. I picked up on her emotional nature, who she seeks for emotional charges. The reason the story continues to interest us is that all these things are true: romantic fantasies have misled an unsophisticated girl; her life and time offer few outlets or opportunities; she has a nature which craves emotional excitement.

I thought the story of the club foot operation in Part 2 was interesting and affecting. Charles is a mediocrity, but he is well meaning. The doctor of great repute who comes to amputate the leg denounces chlorophorme, that is, the use of anesthetics. He knows what's right!

Charles is very driven by Emma's wishes, both with regards to the failed operation and her extravagance. He is dim, but his love is sincere. He is an indirect victim of romantic fantasy. Who says that love can only take place between handsome and gifted people. The dim and the mediocre can love also.
 
silverseason said:
Congratulate me. I've finished Part 2.

If Emma lived today, she would probably be on medication, although maybe not any happier for it.
Click to expand...

That thought occurred to me too, that Emma would probably be diagnosed with depression on prescribed meds & therapy.

silverseason said:
Charles is very driven by Emma's wishes, both with regards to the failed operation and her extravagance. He is dim, but his love is sincere. He is an indirect victim of romantic fantasy. Who says that love can only take place between handsome and gifted people. The dim and the mediocre can love also.
Click to expand...

I wondered considering his father's treatment of his mother, if Charles would consider himself as being very romantic. His devotion to his wife was much different than the marital behavior he witnessed growing up.
 
i read the book as a little girl and i remember i found it irritating a bit then - now i cant really understand where flaubert failed us - are we asked that we like his heroine? i dont think so - literature can be written about naive, not very interesting characters too, they do exist in life too - i think the tragedy of being mediocre is depicted very well here - i disagree that flaubert is trying to show that other matters are more serious in this world, and i disagree that emma is selfish or egotistic - if she were, she wouldnt be suffering so much - plenty of women like her walk this earth today - and sometimes a person who cant rise above their nature desrves a bit of sympathy - some people arent as strong as others to fight a very limitting disposition - and i also think, beyond all that, that emma was brave - she could have considered her emotions ridiculous in favour of her own comfort - dismissed the idea of her being trapped in exchange for a merry life - but she valued her beliefs in her own way despite them making her appear as frivolous often - i am not sure as to whether her rebellion against adjustment and settling down and compromising came from her free will or her dna, all the same tho, this question alone makes for a very interesting book - its not easy being emma, and there s nothing simple about it, trust me, i ve been there and still am:))))
 
I am reading the translation by Francis Steegmuller.

I have read up to chapter five.

The stage has been set; the recently married husband and wife - he blissfully in love, she wondering when passion will set in.

I suppose that the relation between Charles' parents, and his first wife have foreshadowed and will shadow or parallel the marriage of Charles and Emma.
....
 
silverseason said:
Now that I have finished Part I (65 pages in my edition) I would like to comment before going on. I am struck by the fact the story opens with Charles, not Emma, and we are taken into his life and his mind until Chapter V, which is a transition. It is after the wedding and they go to Charles's house. A description of the house, as Emma sees it, is followed by their early married days, first as seen by Charles, then by Emma.
.
Click to expand...


I also commented EXACTLY on this earlier. It does not start with Emma nor it finishes with Emma.

I had a feeling that the author tried to tell: Emma was important only for her own self in her own mind. The world did well without her before her appearence and can cope without her after she is gone.

She is just one person, one soul, and all the pride, the thoughts, the deeds were important only in her own world. The storm was in her heart. It did effect a bit the others, but fast forgotten. We are all lonely poeple...
 
Libra said:
We would medicate her so she won't have feelings. It's sad.
Click to expand...

It is just in reference with the long periods of depression that Emma suffers .Medication does not remove felling,they just make it bearable to go through such times.Their is something schizophrenic about Emma,her sudden enthusiam for the foot operation,and a disguste for all things when her expectation fails.She is not a luckwarm personne,she does not know moderation,but it is more than that.She has a highly self destrucive nature.
I am not one prone to psychotherapy but she would need to see someone.
Even in the eventuality of her living with the perfect match,an rich,handsome,young man.I think her nature would find some fault that she could build on and after a time reach this hollowness thats devouring her.
 
saliotthomas said:
It is just in reference with the long periods of depression that Emma suffers .Medication does not remove felling,they just make it bearable to go through such times.Their is something schizophrenic about Emma,her sudden enthusiam for the foot operation,and a disguste for all things when her expectation fails.She is not a luckwarm personne,she does not know moderation,but it is more than that.She has a highly self destrucive nature.
I am not one prone to psychotherapy but she would need to see someone.
Even in the eventuality of her living with the perfect match,an rich,handsome,young man.I think her nature would find some fault that she could build on and after a time reach this hollowness thats devouring her.
Click to expand...

Very well said , but have you ever had the feeling that you are so desperate to change something and you can't and you feel overwhelmed?I understand this women needed some kind of help and she would not be happy with anything, but I also understand the "desperation" for some kind of change.
As for the foot operation, I think she was just wanted for Charles to become famous from it and fame would bring more money for her to spend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top