Madame Bovary
Ratings252
Average rating3.6
Hated everything about the characters. Wonderful writing, but couldn't stand another selfish second.
A pesar de que Emma es uno de los personajes más odiados de toda la literatura, creo que a la vez es uno de los mas incomprendidos, y que ese odio no se justifica ya que Emma es la representación de esa insatisfacción vital y de esa rebelión contra la sociedad que todos, almenos una vez en nuestas vidas, hemos experimentado. Emma huye de un matrimonio infeliz, huye de un mundo que no esta hecho a su medida pero tambien huye de una epoca que no es la suya.
“Love, she thought, must come suddenly, with great outbursts and lightnings,–a hurricane of the skies, which falls upon life, revolutionises it, roots up the will like a leaf, and sweeps the whole heart into the abyss.”
(i read the thorpe translation but it wont let me specify)
god forbid anyone be whimsical or perhaps even a bit quirked up
It is like American psycho set in 19th century France. Just unnecessary long of conversations that go nowhere, and descriptions that serve no purpose. But instead of being done intentionally it feels like author tried to imitate descriptiveness of russian realism but got focused on wrong things. It is a good premise but could be easily be done in less the 100 pages.
Cheers.
Fiquei bem disappointed but not surprised com a morte dela cpmo punição por ter traído o marido
Eu sei que não foi o ponto que o autor queria trazer, mas tudo o que aconteceu com Emma foi culpa dos costumes da sociedade, do plano que a mulher já nascia fadada a seguir, ser uma boa esposa, uma boa mãe e tal
Madame Bovary deja marca y ello se debe, principalmente, a Emma. El talento de Flaubert para construir uno de los personajes más complejos que he leído -y que por algo es de los personajes más icónicos de la literatura universal- es envidiable. A través de toda la obra, Emma me ha generado los sentimientos más contradictorios, entre ellos ternura, enojo, compasión, pena y rechazo.
Por supuesto que hoy el argumento suena tan trillado como el de una telenovela de las 3 de la tarde, pero en su momento la novela fue tan polémica que hasta le costó a Flaubert un juicio.
En mi opinión, el aspecto más valioso de la obra lo encuentra el lector al analizar cómo el rol de la mujer, es decir lo que la sociedad dictaba que una mujer debía ser/hacer/pensar, acaba por limitar a Emma en todos sus ámbitos: se encontraba encerrada en su matrimonio cuasi forzado frente al cual la única alternativa posible era el exilio (y bien lejano); sus capacidades económicas propias eran nulas; y sus posibilidades de desarrollo intelectual estaban acotadas al piano y los quehaceres del hogar (en repetidas ocasiones le recomiendan a Charles limitar sus lecturas).
La propia Emma reflexiona sobre esto al explicar por qué prefería un hijo varón:
”Un hombre, por lo menos, es libre; puede recorrer los países, atravesar los obstáculos, probar las dichas más lejanas. Pero a una mujer le está continuamente prohibido todo esto. Inerte e inflexible a la vez, tiene contra ella las morbideces de la carne junto a las dependencias de la ley. Su voluntad palpita a todos los vientos como el velo de su sombrero sujeto por un cordón; siempre hay algún deseo que tira, alguna conveniencia que coarta”
“quería morir, pero también quería vivir en París”
sobran como 400 paginas, y d lo poco entretenido q hay dura tan poco q frustra
You live through Madame Bovary. A yearning for love, and life straight from romance books without opportunity, without an idea of what to do.
The author writes her with all her flaws without any judgement, there are just actions and consequences, cause and effect.
One thing I really like about being in a Great Books book club is that I read books that I would likely otherwise never get around to; in addition I have an opportunity to discuss the book and get other readers' points of view in a way you don't get from reading reviews and critical analysis of the work. Maybe I would have gotten to “Madame Bovary” sooner than “The Orestaia,” but it helps to get a push now and again.
With that said, I missed the meeting due to my Spring volunteer activity of preparing taxes for low to middle income and senior taxpayers on Saturday mornings (the two weeks following this meeting were a yoga retreat out of the country, so three weeks off from taxes seemed egregious).
So, my thoughts are clouded by being on a retreat, meditating daily, eating delicious vegetarian food, and the sound of the Pacific ocean (and local roosters and goats) surrounding me.
For whatever reason, I expected Gustave Flaubert's writing to be more stuck up, but that may because I knew very little about him or “Madame Bovary” before reading the book. Flaubert's descriptions of the countryside and daily life were some of my favorite parts of the book. At some points, I even enjoyed Madame Bovary's description of the daily life of a bourgeoisie woman who is so bored with everything that she must destroy it all. Madame Bovary was quite a spoiled little thing and, I learned after completing the novel, that Flaubert intended the book as a satire about the bourgeoisie, which put a lot in perspective. Emma is very stupid, but, I must confess that I know a few people who are similar (although, aren't dead). Emma always wants what she doesn't have, which is a little bit Scarlett O'Haraish, but Emma never works for what she wants and gets is, whereas dear Scarlett was a ruthless businesswoman and good at marrying into money.
Overall, I enjoyed the book and might have liked it more in early high school, although I was probably more judgemental about Emma while on the yoga retreat (when I'm supposed to not be judging!!) than I might have been in another context.
Below are the discussion questions another member of my Great Books book club pulled together for our February 24, 2018 meeting:
1. Why do you think Flaubert faced legal injunctions when he tried to publish this book? He faced an obscenity trial when it was first printed as a magazine series in 1856.
2. Which characters did you find most/least sympathetic and why? Which did you find admirable, amusing, villainous? (Or just plain stupid.) Is Emma believable as a real woman?
3. How does the point of view in the novel affect your impressions of the characters? Is there a particular example of viewpoint that you found striking? Who is narrating the book? Where is he getting his information?
4. How would you describe the tone of the book? Does it change at any point? (Humorous, satirical, tragic?).
5. How are gender issues relevant to the novel? Does the author himself evidence misogyninistic traits? Flaubert was quoted as saying “Emma Bovary, c'est moi” (“Emma Bovary is me”). Does the writer show affinity for her? How might a female writer have told this same story? Are Emma's problems gender-specific?
6. What IS Emma's problem, anyway?! What does Emma want? Who's to blame for her discontent? Is she the Holden Caulfield of 1827? What other heroine does she remind us of?
7. What was Emma's education like? She is described as a star student. She entered a convent at 13 and her mother died while she was there. How did this shape her personality? If Emma is “corrupted” by reading romance novels, what is Flaubert suggesting about himself as a novelist?
8. How is Flaubert's theme of tedium and repetition enhanced by the beauty of his writing style?
An example would be Emma being seduced by Rodolphe against a backdrop of droning speeches at the Agricultural Fair. Can you think of other literary devices Flaubert employs? Did you enjoy them?
9. How does socio-economic class figure in the novel? How would a Marxist analyze the book?
What does the Blind Man signify, other than a need for universal health care? Did the characters have power to forge their own destinies?
10. How would you classify the genre of the novel? Keep in mind that the era is post-Enlightenment, pre-Freud.
Oh so many thoughts... I'll sum them up in three: not what I had imagined, frustratind ending, bunch of awful human beings as characters.
Re read: Emma, eterna insatisfeita, superficial e leviana. Charles, o homem do campo que jamais deixou de se-lo, talvez um dos autênticos do livro. Leon, o fiel que se questiona. Lheureux, que sobrenome irônico é esse?. Rudolphe, me soa para sempre o epítome do amante sem vergonha. Não gosto nada do livro, mas percebo que os personagens são sólidos no decorrer de todo o tempo, e não é isso que compõe um clássico atemporal?
Al principio me parecio que iba a ser aburrido. Es un libro lento y no pasan demasiadas cosas aunque el libro trate de toda la vida de la pareja protagonista. Si estas buscando un libro con mucha accion o donde el argumento se mueva rapidamente, este no es tu libro. En general los eventos se ven venir y es esta anticipacion que tambien tienen los protagonistas lo que los hacen incluso mas atractivos cuando estos eventos suceden.
Creo que el lenguaje al principio me molestaba, tantas palabras que no conocia y fue lo que me trajo de vuelta a la historia. Flaubert es un maestro del lenguaje y de la descripcion, en especial cuando describe los sentimientos de los personajes. Una maravilla, merece una relectura solo por releer sus descripciones.
Y por eso le doy 5 estrellas, los personajes tienen una corriente de pensamientos y de sentimientos que somos capaces de leer y esta corriente varia simplemente porque el personaje recuerda algo en particular. Y no solo de madame Bovary, Flaubert nos deja ver el mundo interior de varios de los protagonistas del libro.
A la vez la historia es simple y muy lineal, quiza es un punto en su contra para alguna gente, para mi es lo que la hace especialmente llamativa. Me da la sensacion de que si otras historias se hubieran mezclado para darle “mas profundidad” lo que hubiera pasado es que el libro seria un lio confuso.
Что меня постоянно удивляет в классических произведениях, - причем, неважно в какое время они были написаны, - это точная передача эмоциональных состояний человека, в том числе современного. По-моему, это невероятно, - два века назад жили такие же люди, как мы, переживали о том же, сомневались, терзались, страдали. Их также раздирали противоречия, и они также пытались справиться с собственными демонами.
Несмотря на то, что вся эта история, по признанию самого автора, вымышлена от начала и до конца, представить ее реальность не составляет труда. Какую женщину не раздирают сомнения относительно безрадостности ее жизни и брака? У кого-то сомнения эти мимолетны, у кого-то не находят должного выхода в череде повседневных забот, кого-то они гложут и мучают... Эмма Бовари пошла до конца, - она всю жизнь ощущала сомнения, всю жизнь хотела лучшего, всю жизнь пыталась понять, что нужно ей. Юный ум, впечатлительность и романтическая литература сделали свое дело, - теперь ничего не могло принести ей полного удовлетворения. Незнание собственных желаний превратило ее истеричную, вздорную, пошлую женщину; неумение ценить то, что было у нее, разрушило всю ее жизнь.
Считаю, что такие произведения, которые признаны классикой, обязательны для ознакомления, поскольку проясняют человеческие типажи и позволяют заглянуть за кулису неизвестного. Вопросы “А что если?.. “, “а может я достойна лучшего?..”, “неужели это - все, что будет у меня в жизни?..” не имеют ответа, который может понравится, поскольку не определяют вектора движения. Эмме давалось все, чего она хотела; ее беда была в том, что она не знала зачем она это хочет, какую цель на самом деле преследует.
Словом, мое сочувствие героине Флобера, и безоговорочная жалость. Читать обязательно.
It is from realism so it may be boring sometimes but I can also apreciate how beautiful it is. Some things (how it talks about common things such as love, how the caracters are...) makes it beautiful. And the end is just heart breacking.
I confess to being one of those insensitive creatures who are incapable of becoming really emotionally engaged and sympathetic with Emma. I could probably afford to be more understanding or whatever, but ugh, I spent way too much time a) being bored, and b) rolling my eyes at Emma for being such a drama queen. Sorry, I know, I‰ЫЄm a horrible reader and human being, however I will confess that there was some great writing and some really moving parts, even if I can't remember specifically what they were. Also, I think I might have a chronic condition that renders me incapable of appreciating literature translated from the French because I don‰ЫЄt think there are ANY French writers I really love (except for Beckett, who doesn't actually count because he wasn't even French and he often translated his own work). So that's a hypothesis I‰ЫЄll try to disprove one day. Boo to that and boo to me.
What a painful book. Charles, the protagonist, is an average guy who gets lucky (so he thinks) and marries a beautiful woman. He loves her and does everything he knows to make her happy and gets for his efforts, instead of anything like reciprocal affection, shafted in ways made me cringe and hesitate to even keep reading. Despite his best intentions he is an inescapably unexciting man, incapable of being ever enough for Emma. Regardless of his flaws, nobody deserves the fate he suffers.
Emma's complete self-centeredness is appalling. She's the train wreck that you can't look away from. She's passionate, flighty, erotic and materialistic. She hates the mediocre towns and the mediocre people she is surrounded by. She constantly strives to appear to be more than she is. She never hesitates to to justify her depravity and make herself the victim or to willfully postpone and ignore the consequences of her actions. Even in suffering she is irredeemable. Emma must inspire at least a little fear and a little desire in every man's heart, especially in those of men married to beautiful women.
As much as I enjoyed it, if I had read Madame Bovary before reading Anna Karenina, I would have probably appreciated Madame Bovary more. Tolstoy wrote Anna Karenina after Flaubert wrote Madame Bovary, and there is speculation that Tolstoy had read Madame Bovary and was possibly influenced by it. Maybe that was the case, even so, I still found Anna Karenina to be the more dynamic and masterful work.
In Anna Karenina there were so many more fully developed characters–Kitty, Karenin, Levin, Nikolai etc. By contrast, in Madame Bovary we really only know Charles and Emma, and to a much smaller degree, the chemist and Emma's lovers. Flaubert takes a depressing, Hobbesian view of human nature and while he masterfully captures the mind of an adulteress, Tolstoy is the king of encompassing in his work not only a large range of human nature and experience, but also a much more redemptive view of humanity.
Emma is not a likable protagonist. In fact, as a group we thought that few, if any, of the characters were likable. This book was the first of the ‘realistic' novels, describing the lives of the emerging bourgousie in France. Different translations lead to a slightly different reading experience. My personal choice is Steegmuller.