Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.51 AVERAGE
3.51 AVERAGE
I read this for a book club - but I feel like I should have read it long ago. After all, it caused quite the hubbub, didn't it?
As I read it, I kept reminding myself WHEN it was written. Almost 200 years ago. I feel it's important to consider that in any discussion of characters, motives and settings. Other book club members? Not so much. All I know FOR SURE is that I would have *hated* living under those same kind of constraints. And we won't even talk about the clothing. :)
If folks read our current literature 200 years from now, what would they think of us? Now THAT'S a great discussion.
As I read it, I kept reminding myself WHEN it was written. Almost 200 years ago. I feel it's important to consider that in any discussion of characters, motives and settings. Other book club members? Not so much. All I know FOR SURE is that I would have *hated* living under those same kind of constraints. And we won't even talk about the clothing. :)
If folks read our current literature 200 years from now, what would they think of us? Now THAT'S a great discussion.
Necesito emborracharme para celebrar que POR FIN lo he acabado.
challenging
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
Content Warnings
Graphic: Infidelity, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide
Moderate: Mental illness
Minor: Racial slurs
Really easy tone for an older book. Quite cynical and all. Might have been taken more by surprise if I hadn't read Flaubert's Parrot first, as that reveals a lot about the author's personal life. Kind of hated some of the characters, which is usually makes a book hard for me to read, but the way that the author doesn't seem to hold much respect for them either makes it a lot more enjoyable.
It had nothing to do with the story itself, it was just too slow. And I felt verily detached from the story and characters, found myself skimming. I just couldn't get into it.
I read this with my mom and sister for our annual "Classics Book Club" and I ended up listening to at least half of it on audio. The writing was fine, even amusing at times, but every time I put the book down I didn't want to pick it up again. I could not muster a bit of caring about the characters or the story. That's why I switched to audio so I could passively consume it while doing other things. Oof.
Emma took longer to die than she took to fall in love either time.
Of all the trash fire men of 19th century literature, Charles is one of the most unthreatening and undeserving of what he had to go through. He had his definite flaws, and being 2/3 of a himbo is not a good look for a doctor (pour one out for Hippolyte), but he drank his “I love my wife” juice even though he should not have married Emma at all.
You have to hand it to Flaubert, that carriage scene WAS pretty horny for 1857.
Of all the trash fire men of 19th century literature, Charles is one of the most unthreatening and undeserving of what he had to go through. He had his definite flaws, and being 2/3 of a himbo is not a good look for a doctor (pour one out for Hippolyte), but he drank his “I love my wife” juice even though he should not have married Emma at all.
You have to hand it to Flaubert, that carriage scene WAS pretty horny for 1857.
Here's the thing: I enjoy knowing about canonical literature and how a text may be a first of its kind or notorious for some reason. I even did some light research about which translation I should read and how various translators had to grapple with the nuances of literal translation, stylistic translation, or general plot translation. Enjoying literary studies about a book, however, does not mean the same thing as really liking the book itself.
Do I appreciate that Flaubert influenced realist literature and also had to defend his novel in literal court for obscenity charges? Sure!
But did I enjoy reading Madame Bovary? Not really, no.
Much like my issue with Wuthering Heights, there aren't really any characters to root for in this book. I know that's to Flaubert's point, that life is full of the mundane (including people) and that there isn't always a clear hero and villain; life just is. Emma had romantic ideals about what love, marriage, and life were supposed to be like, but nothing ever met her expectations. She was unhappy and made some really bad decisions. The differences in her and Charles's selfishness to that of characters like Rodolphe and Lheureux is that the former were ignorant of the long-term consequences of their actions and focused only on their personal desires, while the latter knew how to read others as well as how to manipulate them while still thinking about long-term cause and effect.
I don't feel sorry for Emma. I don't feel much about most of these characters except mild to severe disgust. I do feel badly for the man who had to have his leg amputated because Emma and Homais selfishly wanted more in their own lives, heedless of the costs to others, while dangerously ignorant of their own ignorances. And I feel sorry for Berthe who is stupid and destitute as a child because her parents were selfish and irresponsible.
I think this would be an excellent book for those studying French life in the 1850s or those with deep knowledge of the significance of various errant details Flaubert painstakingly documents about building moldings and village setups. I am not that person, but I did finish the book, foot notes and all, so there's that.
Do I appreciate that Flaubert influenced realist literature and also had to defend his novel in literal court for obscenity charges? Sure!
But did I enjoy reading Madame Bovary? Not really, no.
Much like my issue with Wuthering Heights, there aren't really any characters to root for in this book. I know that's to Flaubert's point, that life is full of the mundane (including people) and that there isn't always a clear hero and villain; life just is. Emma had romantic ideals about what love, marriage, and life were supposed to be like, but nothing ever met her expectations. She was unhappy and made some really bad decisions. The differences in her and Charles's selfishness to that of characters like Rodolphe and Lheureux is that the former were ignorant of the long-term consequences of their actions and focused only on their personal desires, while the latter knew how to read others as well as how to manipulate them while still thinking about long-term cause and effect.
I don't feel sorry for Emma. I don't feel much about most of these characters except mild to severe disgust. I do feel badly for the man who had to have his leg amputated because Emma and Homais selfishly wanted more in their own lives, heedless of the costs to others, while dangerously ignorant of their own ignorances. And I feel sorry for Berthe who is stupid and destitute as a child because her parents were selfish and irresponsible.
I think this would be an excellent book for those studying French life in the 1850s or those with deep knowledge of the significance of various errant details Flaubert painstakingly documents about building moldings and village setups. I am not that person, but I did finish the book, foot notes and all, so there's that.
95th book of 2021.
3.5. So glad I finally read this even though I failed to find the apparently superior translation by Lydia Davis. That being said, Wall's translation is still stunning and is a testament to the stories about Flaubert labouring every single phrasing in his work. My main problem with it is that as a 19thC novel it is fairly predictable in its plot. In fact, most of the time you can guess how novels of this period wrap-up. The ending did carry some emotional weight though, helped by Flaubert's prose. I suppose contextually this novel becomes more powerful by Emma Bovary's actions/thoughts as a woman of the time and being written by a man no less. Nowadays adultery doesn't raise the eyebrows like it used to, of course, but it's easy to imagine what this was like at its publication. I almost gave this book 4-stars for the prose alone but honestly I was rather bored reading it at times and read it very slowly, only stomaching so many pages at once before having to put it down. I underlined a fair bit, good quotes such as, 'Love was gradually dimmed by absence, regrets were smothered by habit', and countless longer descriptions of setting, which Flaubert does quite a lot; they are beautiful but sometimes get in the way of the plot. But can you really complain about paragraphs like this?:
So paragraphs like that almost beg for a higher rating and they deserve it. But I couldn't help but feel the elegant prose was stifled a little by everything mentioned above. Emma is a selfish and sometimes irritating character but she had my respect at the same time (or rather Flaubert did) when she thought things like, 'She wanted to do battle with men, spit in their faces, crush them all'. And yet despite this I found the novel lacking in some sort of depth. It reminded me ever so slightly of Middlemarch, though Eliot's novel is as well written if not better and brimming with philosophical depth and emotion. The more I read around the 19thC the more I realise how utterly brilliant Middlemarch was and how it is perhaps deserving of the 5-stars I failed to give it.
3.5. So glad I finally read this even though I failed to find the apparently superior translation by Lydia Davis. That being said, Wall's translation is still stunning and is a testament to the stories about Flaubert labouring every single phrasing in his work. My main problem with it is that as a 19thC novel it is fairly predictable in its plot. In fact, most of the time you can guess how novels of this period wrap-up. The ending did carry some emotional weight though, helped by Flaubert's prose. I suppose contextually this novel becomes more powerful by Emma Bovary's actions/thoughts as a woman of the time and being written by a man no less. Nowadays adultery doesn't raise the eyebrows like it used to, of course, but it's easy to imagine what this was like at its publication. I almost gave this book 4-stars for the prose alone but honestly I was rather bored reading it at times and read it very slowly, only stomaching so many pages at once before having to put it down. I underlined a fair bit, good quotes such as, 'Love was gradually dimmed by absence, regrets were smothered by habit', and countless longer descriptions of setting, which Flaubert does quite a lot; they are beautiful but sometimes get in the way of the plot. But can you really complain about paragraphs like this?:
In the summer heat, more of the bank was above water, exposing the garden walls to their base, with their little flights of steps going down to the river. It was flowing silently, swift and cold to the eye: tall clustering grasses arched over it, bending to the current, and, like cast-off green hair, uncoiled their fronds in the limpid depths. Now and then, on the tips of the reeds or the leaves of the water lilies, some slender-legged insect crawled or came to rest. Sunbeams pierced the tiny blue bubbles in the waves as they rippled and died away; the old lopped willows gazed in the water at their grey bark; out beyond, all around, the meadows looked empty.
So paragraphs like that almost beg for a higher rating and they deserve it. But I couldn't help but feel the elegant prose was stifled a little by everything mentioned above. Emma is a selfish and sometimes irritating character but she had my respect at the same time (or rather Flaubert did) when she thought things like, 'She wanted to do battle with men, spit in their faces, crush them all'. And yet despite this I found the novel lacking in some sort of depth. It reminded me ever so slightly of Middlemarch, though Eliot's novel is as well written if not better and brimming with philosophical depth and emotion. The more I read around the 19thC the more I realise how utterly brilliant Middlemarch was and how it is perhaps deserving of the 5-stars I failed to give it.
I was suprised at how much I enjoyed this book. Having seen the movie in the early 90's I knew the story already, but still enjoyed this book. The translation I read was by Francis Steegmuller so I would recommend this version.