You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.51 AVERAGE
3.51 AVERAGE
idk jeśli mam być szczera, te ich charaktery są dla mnie mdłe…
j'étais grv dans le truc mais y a 10000 descriptions au bout d'un moment rompich
It’s so difficult to explain my thoughts on this book. I found it incredibly boring at some points, but very dramatic in others. I disliked the descriptions of the female characters, but thought they were interesting social commentaries about the time. I found the romantic subplots really pathetic, but they were also the only thing I found really engaging about the story. I didn’t like reading it but the more I understand what Flaubert was trying to do with the story, the more I like it.
Acabo de escuchar el audio libro por YouTube de 1 hora, muy interesante. Hermoso libro
challenging
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
i love reading books about rebel women, the ones who feel uncomfortable with mundane life or domesticity, because i know women deserve better. i understand emma’s position, being stuck in an unhappy marriage, trapped in a dull routine, with a child she didn’t necessarily choose, and deeply influenced by the romantic novels she read. i don’t blame her, i understand!! she’s just a girl, a girl through and through. i don’t romanticize domestic work either.
but everything she does people will blame her. society will point fingers at her. i can imagine what it’s like to live in a world you don’t want, and your husband is stupid and gullible, says the wrong things, wears ugly clothes, lacks charm, and acts foolishly. all of that would drive me mad too :)))
it’s so annoying when someone says “be happy with everything you have.” i understand you, emma. get behind me, i’ll stab all your neighbors!!!! maybe you didn’t win in this book, but you were never wrong for wanting more.
maybe you were reckless, selfish, and delusional, but you were also curious, hungry, restless. you wanted more. and even though they mocked you, you were brave enough to want something beyond the walls of your small town. i hope somewhere, in some alternate version, you packed your books and left on a fast horse. and you finally get the true love, for god’s sake, i understand you only want true loveee, i will def read that book too
dark
sad
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
A thrilling, enchanting, delightful and deeply moving classic!
I finally know the timeless story of Madame Bovary. What a remarkable journey to delve into the timeless classics whose names I first heard uttered in adult conversations in my childhood in Iran. The Godfather is such an example. Victor Hugo's Les Misérables another. Madame Bovary yet another.
I read Gustave Flaubert`s masterpiece in English, translated not by Penguin Classics which seems to be the most well-known version but by Wordsworth Classics, which I picked up in a small bookstore in London. Despite the extremely smooth translation with countless awe-inspiring passages, I have no doubt much was lost in translation from the prose and poetic style associated with the original French version.
The setting is France provincial life. The year is 1855. And to me, the only character of interest was Emma, followed only as it concerned her, by her lovers, Léon and Rudolphe and only by mild curiosity, her husband Charles. Why did Flaubert waste my time talking about the pharmacist Monsieur Homais, his dull wife, Madame Homais, his annoying family, the priest, the servants, the politicians, the world of agriculture and medicine and the other banalities of provincial life in Yonville?
Naturally, it was to build the backdrop of a great story and necessary act to color Emma in all her true shades against this backdrop. But I only wanted to know Emma. I only wanted to concern myself about her every passing thought, emotion, whim, fancy, ache, pain, disgust and triumph. I wanted all of Madame Bovary - the novel - to be about this one single character, so complex and intense and fanatical she was that there was no tiring of her.
So I don't think the question is whether we like Emma or whether we identify with her. The question is whether we can appreciate first the mastery of the prose and second the complexity and unique character of Emma Bovary. I applaud Flaubert's remarkable candor and ability to precisely portray the unfulfilled desires, cravings, and yearnings of a selfish woman bound to a dull and kind husband for whom she shows no trace of emotion, and I do that without necessarily applauding Emma's actions. In fact, to me, Emma hardly loved any of her lovers. I argue that she lived and breathed happiness only in the ideas of the circumstances, without loving anyone at all.
But all in all, the story of Madame Emma Bovary is a timeless classic and I'd recommend it heartily!
I finally know the timeless story of Madame Bovary. What a remarkable journey to delve into the timeless classics whose names I first heard uttered in adult conversations in my childhood in Iran. The Godfather is such an example. Victor Hugo's Les Misérables another. Madame Bovary yet another.
I read Gustave Flaubert`s masterpiece in English, translated not by Penguin Classics which seems to be the most well-known version but by Wordsworth Classics, which I picked up in a small bookstore in London. Despite the extremely smooth translation with countless awe-inspiring passages, I have no doubt much was lost in translation from the prose and poetic style associated with the original French version.
The setting is France provincial life. The year is 1855. And to me, the only character of interest was Emma, followed only as it concerned her, by her lovers, Léon and Rudolphe and only by mild curiosity, her husband Charles. Why did Flaubert waste my time talking about the pharmacist Monsieur Homais, his dull wife, Madame Homais, his annoying family, the priest, the servants, the politicians, the world of agriculture and medicine and the other banalities of provincial life in Yonville?
Naturally, it was to build the backdrop of a great story and necessary act to color Emma in all her true shades against this backdrop. But I only wanted to know Emma. I only wanted to concern myself about her every passing thought, emotion, whim, fancy, ache, pain, disgust and triumph. I wanted all of Madame Bovary - the novel - to be about this one single character, so complex and intense and fanatical she was that there was no tiring of her.
So I don't think the question is whether we like Emma or whether we identify with her. The question is whether we can appreciate first the mastery of the prose and second the complexity and unique character of Emma Bovary. I applaud Flaubert's remarkable candor and ability to precisely portray the unfulfilled desires, cravings, and yearnings of a selfish woman bound to a dull and kind husband for whom she shows no trace of emotion, and I do that without necessarily applauding Emma's actions. In fact, to me, Emma hardly loved any of her lovers. I argue that she lived and breathed happiness only in the ideas of the circumstances, without loving anyone at all.
But all in all, the story of Madame Emma Bovary is a timeless classic and I'd recommend it heartily!