Scan barcode
cindymajor's review against another edition
1.0
Mandatory reading for school. Took all my will to read it. Getting through it was like pulling teeth, Everything was described in such long details and there is really not a whole lot happening.
Reminded me why "a classic is something everyone wants to have read but no one wants to read."
Reminded me why "a classic is something everyone wants to have read but no one wants to read."
eliathereader's review against another edition
2.0
Dünya klasikleri okuma kulübünün temmuz kitabı Bilirbilmezler’di. Bouvard ile Pécuchet ismiyle de çevrilmiş. Flaubert’ten öncesinde yanılmıyorsam bununla birlikte 4 kitap okudum ve en çok Saf Bir Yürek’i beğendim. Bilirbilmezler bu düşüncemi değiştirmedi. Aslında keyifli başlasa da bütünlüklü yapıya sahip olmayan kitaplar beni bir yerden sonra yoruyor ve kitaptan aldığım keyif azaldıkça azalıyor. Bu kitapta birbirleriyle tesadüf eseri karşılaşan ve anında çok yakın arkadaş olan Bouvard ve Pecuchet’in maceralarını anlatıyor. Arzularını tüketerek yaşatmaya çalışmanın bedelini mutlaka gelen bir bıkkınlık ve sıkılganlıkla ödemeye yazgılı iki adam. Onlar için bir şeye tamamen sahip olunmalı, bir şey tamamen arzulanmalı, bir şeyde tamamen uzman olunmalı yoksa anlamı yok. Bunun için çiftlik işletmek, arkeoloji, sanat, tarih gibi alanlara büyük bir hevesle başlasalar da çok geçmeden hayal kırıklıklarına gömülüyorlar ve külleri daha dağılmadan başka bir yere atlıyorlar. Karşılaştıkları sıkıntıları, bilgisizliği kabullenmeye tahammülleri yok. Ruhları oradan oraya sürüklenmeye mahkum. Nereye kadar ilerleyeceklerini aslında sadece Flaubert biliyor çünkü yarım kalmış bir roman Bilirbilmezler. Çok ilginç düşüncelere ve karakterlere sahip olsa da yapısından ötürü okumaktan keyif alamadığım bir eser oldu ne yazık ki.
joannaautumn's review against another edition
3.0
Nobody:
Flaubert: *read over 1000 books so he could make the ultimate social satire*
I don't think there was a topic this man didn't touch upon in this book, review to come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
➜A story of two retired copy-clerks (François Denys Bartholomée) Bouvard and (Juste Romain Cyrille) Pécuchet who move to the countryside and search for “food for thought” or “mind stimulations” basically, they see knowledge as a way to fill in their time and always want the best results out of it without really putting in the effort to learn the object of their study.
This was a topic that Flaubert spoke about before in brief in both Madame Bovary and Sentimental education – about how the newspaper’s idea of democratization of knowledge; that, on one hand, doesn’t provide enough information about the topics and is a matter shaped by the journalists(aka. the knowledge isn’t as trustworthy as the one received in academic books) and on the other hand it makes people feel entitled thinking they have the knowledge on the subject.
In this novel, the satire is precisely on the level of investment Bouvard and Pecuchet show towards acquiring knowledge while also exposing the weakness of multiple branches of knowledge and how some of their components simply do not make sense to the common men.
➜Because of this Bouvard and Pechuchet fail in everything they try from agriculture, gardening, chemistry, medicine, biology, archeology, architecture, history, literature, to politics, theology, philosophy, and education. Resulting in the final draft of the ending where they abandon all of their “knowledge” and decide to make a desk where they would write a dictionary of received ideas filled with sarcastic definitions of the terms inside.
In short, the novel raises the question of what is knowledge, what is actually considered worth knowing, and who makes the learning criteria?
Written in an episodic structure with Flaubert’s attention to language parallels his skill in Sentimental education, however, it requires a careful, focused reader with no prejudice to fully enjoy this work.
Flaubert: *read over 1000 books so he could make the ultimate social satire*
I don't think there was a topic this man didn't touch upon in this book, review to come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Abstraction can provide stumbling blocks for people of strange intelligence.”
➜A story of two retired copy-clerks (François Denys Bartholomée) Bouvard and (Juste Romain Cyrille) Pécuchet who move to the countryside and search for “food for thought” or “mind stimulations” basically, they see knowledge as a way to fill in their time and always want the best results out of it without really putting in the effort to learn the object of their study.
This was a topic that Flaubert spoke about before in brief in both Madame Bovary and Sentimental education – about how the newspaper’s idea of democratization of knowledge; that, on one hand, doesn’t provide enough information about the topics and is a matter shaped by the journalists(aka. the knowledge isn’t as trustworthy as the one received in academic books) and on the other hand it makes people feel entitled thinking they have the knowledge on the subject.
In this novel, the satire is precisely on the level of investment Bouvard and Pecuchet show towards acquiring knowledge while also exposing the weakness of multiple branches of knowledge and how some of their components simply do not make sense to the common men.
➜Because of this Bouvard and Pechuchet fail in everything they try from agriculture, gardening, chemistry, medicine, biology, archeology, architecture, history, literature, to politics, theology, philosophy, and education. Resulting in the final draft of the ending where they abandon all of their “knowledge” and decide to make a desk where they would write a dictionary of received ideas filled with sarcastic definitions of the terms inside.
In short, the novel raises the question of what is knowledge, what is actually considered worth knowing, and who makes the learning criteria?
Written in an episodic structure with Flaubert’s attention to language parallels his skill in Sentimental education, however, it requires a careful, focused reader with no prejudice to fully enjoy this work.
tsenteme's review against another edition
5.0
Αν κάποτε έγγραφα ένα βιβλίο, φαντάζομαι πως θα ήταν κάτι σαν αυτό. Από τα μεγαλύτερα έργα της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας. Απορώ πως ο Flaubert έμεινε γνωστός με τη Μαντάμ Μποβαρύ. Είναι ο ορισμός του φιλοσοφικού μυθιστορήματος και επάξια το καλύτερο στην κατηγορία του, απ’ όσα έχω διαβάσει.
Από το έργο αυτό προκύπτουν πολλά ηθικά διδάγματα. Πρώτα απ’ όλα η ημιμάθεια. «Η ημιμάθεια είναι χειρότερη της αμάθειας». Οι δύο ήρωες αφού αποσύρονται στην επαρχία της Γαλλίας, ασχολούνται με όλες σχεδόν τις επιστήμες, με απογοητευτικά αποτελέσματα, φερόμενοι αλαζονικά. Ταυτοχρόνως, αναδεικνύεται η ανθρώπινη ματαιοδοξία της γνώσης των πάντων. Είναι σαφώς περιορισμένες οι δυνατότητες ενός ανθρώπου να γνωρίζει πολλά πράγματα, επαρκώς καλά. Αντιθέτως η δίψα για μάθηση, η όρεξη για δημιουργία είναι μια άλλη θεώρηση του βιβλίου αυτού.
Ο Guy de Maupassant παρομοιάζει τους ήρωες με «δύο σύγχρονους αστούς Σισύφους που πασχίζουν αδιάκοπα να αναρριχηθούν στο βουνό της επιστήμης, σπρώχνοντας μπροστά τους αυτόν το βράχο της κατανόησης που συνέχεια τους γλυστρά και ξανακυλάει κάτω». Είναι ένα έργο στο οποίο ο Flaubert αφιέρωσε σχεδόν 10 χρόνια, μέχρι το θάνατό του. Είναι τόσο ζωντανό, καθώς αναπτύσσει όλα του τα πιστεύω, που δικαίως ο Borges τον παραλλήλισε με τον Πλάτωνα, «ο Σωκράτης καταλήγει να γίνει Πλάτων».
Από το έργο αυτό προκύπτουν πολλά ηθικά διδάγματα. Πρώτα απ’ όλα η ημιμάθεια. «Η ημιμάθεια είναι χειρότερη της αμάθειας». Οι δύο ήρωες αφού αποσύρονται στην επαρχία της Γαλλίας, ασχολούνται με όλες σχεδόν τις επιστήμες, με απογοητευτικά αποτελέσματα, φερόμενοι αλαζονικά. Ταυτοχρόνως, αναδεικνύεται η ανθρώπινη ματαιοδοξία της γνώσης των πάντων. Είναι σαφώς περιορισμένες οι δυνατότητες ενός ανθρώπου να γνωρίζει πολλά πράγματα, επαρκώς καλά. Αντιθέτως η δίψα για μάθηση, η όρεξη για δημιουργία είναι μια άλλη θεώρηση του βιβλίου αυτού.
Ο Guy de Maupassant παρομοιάζει τους ήρωες με «δύο σύγχρονους αστούς Σισύφους που πασχίζουν αδιάκοπα να αναρριχηθούν στο βουνό της επιστήμης, σπρώχνοντας μπροστά τους αυτόν το βράχο της κατανόησης που συνέχεια τους γλυστρά και ξανακυλάει κάτω». Είναι ένα έργο στο οποίο ο Flaubert αφιέρωσε σχεδόν 10 χρόνια, μέχρι το θάνατό του. Είναι τόσο ζωντανό, καθώς αναπτύσσει όλα του τα πιστεύω, που δικαίως ο Borges τον παραλλήλισε με τον Πλάτωνα, «ο Σωκράτης καταλήγει να γίνει Πλάτων».
arpharrison's review against another edition
challenging
funny
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
leelulah's review against another edition
5.0
This is my second approach to a “full” (?) if it can be called that way, work of Gustave Flaubert, of whom I had read a few chapters of Madame Bovary and the Dictionary of Received Ideas previously, so with that and the critique, I thought I was ready to sink my nose in this book.
And it couldn’t have been more precise. Much like Don Quixote, when you think they have done badly enough to feel furstrated abnd quit, they just don’t.
It’s a bit difficult not to enjoy this and wonder what would have been different if Flaubert would have finished this book, or what would have happened if he lived in a more contemporary setting, but it’s clear that the actuality of this book remains intact and as captivating as Don Quixote, or Pantagruel.
It’s considerably shorter, but not less exciting in the least. I think that it shows the dangers of wanting to apply pure knowledge that we do not understand to reality, with hilarious and sadly true results.
Obviously, Don Quixote has idealized fiction as a starting point. And Pantagruel is the smart one in a world of idiots. I’d say that Bouvard and Pécuchet are even more miserably treated by his author. They’re almost too similar until the major disagreements start. Still, there’s a lot of references to contemporary events, and essential questions of human nature.
It makes us question how do we receive that knowledge and how much of it can we trust, after all we organize it on systems for a better understanding, and it makes us question things we take for granted.
Probably all of our wisdom, repeated from books, isn’t anything but folly in the end. We have to consider the problem of knowledge more seriously, and fight the inner contradictions of being exposed to multiple theories, and it’s something I always have wondered, yet Flaubert manages to put it so easily.
In Borges’ article, Vindication of Bouvard and Pécuchet, he explains that Flaubert became a bit like them, by trying to learn about all these things so quick, to depict all the phases they went through, or maybe it was the other way around, wasn’t it?
I wish I hadn’t read it so quick, but the time is running.
And it couldn’t have been more precise. Much like Don Quixote, when you think they have done badly enough to feel furstrated abnd quit, they just don’t.
It’s a bit difficult not to enjoy this and wonder what would have been different if Flaubert would have finished this book, or what would have happened if he lived in a more contemporary setting, but it’s clear that the actuality of this book remains intact and as captivating as Don Quixote, or Pantagruel.
It’s considerably shorter, but not less exciting in the least. I think that it shows the dangers of wanting to apply pure knowledge that we do not understand to reality, with hilarious and sadly true results.
Obviously, Don Quixote has idealized fiction as a starting point. And Pantagruel is the smart one in a world of idiots. I’d say that Bouvard and Pécuchet are even more miserably treated by his author. They’re almost too similar until the major disagreements start. Still, there’s a lot of references to contemporary events, and essential questions of human nature.
It makes us question how do we receive that knowledge and how much of it can we trust, after all we organize it on systems for a better understanding, and it makes us question things we take for granted.
Probably all of our wisdom, repeated from books, isn’t anything but folly in the end. We have to consider the problem of knowledge more seriously, and fight the inner contradictions of being exposed to multiple theories, and it’s something I always have wondered, yet Flaubert manages to put it so easily.
In Borges’ article, Vindication of Bouvard and Pécuchet, he explains that Flaubert became a bit like them, by trying to learn about all these things so quick, to depict all the phases they went through, or maybe it was the other way around, wasn’t it?
I wish I hadn’t read it so quick, but the time is running.
blueyorkie's review against another edition
5.0
The peasant and the working-class world had no better treated by a Flaubert who, although born in Rouen, was no illusion of the natural greed of his compatriots. In the events of 1848, the great and small cowardice of the notables sifted. With a rare purity and the absolute opposite of the Hugo of the "Misérables", Flaubert finally camps irretrievable children of the convict that Bouvard & Pécuchet, as are philanthropists as moved naive, try in vain to raise out mud where they were born.
In short, this book is incredible cruelty to human nature, to which he leaves no possible forgiveness. And yet, in front of this parade written of silhouettes, the reader has fun from start to the end, sharing between laughter that inspires him the successive failures of the poor Bouvard and Pécuchet and the tenderness that, little by little, the fundamental originality of these two characters finished up encouraging him.
Of course, we do not laugh out loud - though, sometimes. And here we are, much closer to English humour than Rabelaisian bursts. Nevertheless, this novel reads without effort in a single day, and when it closes, one wonders if, finally, in his youth, we did not miss Gustave Flaubert.
In short, this book is incredible cruelty to human nature, to which he leaves no possible forgiveness. And yet, in front of this parade written of silhouettes, the reader has fun from start to the end, sharing between laughter that inspires him the successive failures of the poor Bouvard and Pécuchet and the tenderness that, little by little, the fundamental originality of these two characters finished up encouraging him.
Of course, we do not laugh out loud - though, sometimes. And here we are, much closer to English humour than Rabelaisian bursts. Nevertheless, this novel reads without effort in a single day, and when it closes, one wonders if, finally, in his youth, we did not miss Gustave Flaubert.
alfonsofuggetta's review against another edition
4.0
Libro straordinariamente attuale, parla di due personaggi improbabili che si avventurano in tutti i settori dello scibile umano, inanellando situazioni paradossali e tragicomiche.
charlottereed's review against another edition
2.0
Flaubert claimed that he read over 1500-something amount of sources for this novel. There is so much information in this novel that I have no idea what he could be bs-ing and what could be true. Difficult read only because there was no really plot line - just a lot of information
bangel_ds's review against another edition
4.0
ITA-ENG
Peccato sia rimasto incompiuto, anche se l'estratto del piano dell'opera ci racconta come va a finire. E la fine sarebbe stata degna del romanzo. Bouvard e Pécuchet sono sempre alla ricerca del sapere e si gettano in mille avventure ed esperimenti diversi, che li conducono sempre a fallimenti e a fare la figura da idioti.
Il romanzo fa sorridere e spazientire allo stesso tempo. Sapere di non sapere è uno dei tempi centrali e in fin dei conti riflette l'animo umano, le sue domande e contraddizioni, anche se esposti qui agli estremi.
Una piacevolissima lettura.
It's such a shame this book was left unfinished, even if we get to know it would have ended. And it would have been a perfect ending. Bouvard and Pécuchet are always drawn to knowledge in one way or another and they just jump into a thousand different experiments and adventures, always failing and show themselves as idiots. The book makes you smile and infuriate at the same time. Knowing not to know is one of the central themes and in the end it reflect the human soul, its questions and contradictions, even if here it's brought to the extremes. A really pleasant read.
Peccato sia rimasto incompiuto, anche se l'estratto del piano dell'opera ci racconta come va a finire. E la fine sarebbe stata degna del romanzo. Bouvard e Pécuchet sono sempre alla ricerca del sapere e si gettano in mille avventure ed esperimenti diversi, che li conducono sempre a fallimenti e a fare la figura da idioti.
Il romanzo fa sorridere e spazientire allo stesso tempo. Sapere di non sapere è uno dei tempi centrali e in fin dei conti riflette l'animo umano, le sue domande e contraddizioni, anche se esposti qui agli estremi.
Una piacevolissima lettura.
It's such a shame this book was left unfinished, even if we get to know it would have ended. And it would have been a perfect ending. Bouvard and Pécuchet are always drawn to knowledge in one way or another and they just jump into a thousand different experiments and adventures, always failing and show themselves as idiots. The book makes you smile and infuriate at the same time. Knowing not to know is one of the central themes and in the end it reflect the human soul, its questions and contradictions, even if here it's brought to the extremes. A really pleasant read.