Take a photo of a barcode or cover
While I can appreciate how this work caused a stir when it was first published in the 1850's it sadly didn't have quite the same impact for me. Not to say that this wasn't a good read, it was. It was surprisingly readable and I found the prose flowed well, even at those points where Flaubert felt the need to over-detailed some of the scenes and the characters were well written and sympathetically handled. However I found Emma (Madame Bovary) hugely irritating and I struggled to sympathise with her as all of her problems were of her own making. But I did find Charles strangely endearing and the type of character you feel the need to mother slighty and shelter from the world he is in but blatantly doesn't understand. A good book that is worth having a go at but don't expect to be as shocked as the public were when it was first published.
***NO SPOILERS***
Gustave Flaubert’s beautiful way with words can’t compensate for Madame Bovary’s lackluster tale of Emma Bovary trapped in an unhappy marriage to boring Charles. It sounds like a soap opera--this premise that has been explored before--but unlike a soap opera, Madame Bovary lacks what makes soap operas so watchable for so many: drama and tension. Here the marriage is the focus, yet strangely, Flaubert never honed that focus nor did he keep the focus on the marriage for much of the book. Madame Bovary wanders off on numerous tangents--even opening on a tangent--that have no bearing on the plot. This makes for an uneven reading experience. Just when the main story involving Emma and Charles heats up, it switches gears to focus on an agricultural fair or soporific discussion of club feet.
The story’s biggest offense is its direct telling. The union between Emma and Charles is an unhappy one because Flaubert says it is. Emma falls in love with her lovers and they her just because; the actual falling in love is never shown. Similarly, Emma is unhappy with Charles simply because, according to Flaubert, Charles is dull. This is a story long on exposition and short on showing. Dialogue is scarce. Action is languid, with no urgency. There’s no hook.
At no point does Madame Bovary pull readers into the heart of the story and hold them right there. This is what happens when the couple at the center of the story isn’t well drawn. Flaubert sat down to write a story about a woman in crisis, whose marriage is a failure, whose husband she finds inadequate. This premise has so much potential for drama--but not if the two main characters are mere outlines. Flaubert shined the spotlight on Charles so infrequently that it’s hard to get a sense of him outside of what he does for a living; he interacts little with Emma except to fawn over her. Emma is insipid, self-absorbed, unsatisfied, and depressed, but this is all there is to her. These aren’t characters with life. Put them together, and they simply stand beside each other limply. There’s no being gripped by the mounting tension and drama as husband and wife slowly realize their marriage is disintegrating.
Nevertheless, the story is, at least, a good portrait of depression and despair. This focus may exasperate some readers, but Flaubert depicted the depth and emptiness of loss deftly--and he did so many times throughout. Some may complain this lends a sulky tone to Madame Bovary, and it's true that there are long, angsty (maybe melodramatic) passages; however, because of the care Flaubert took with authenticity, here Madame Bovary is shot through with realism.
The novel is most impressive for its writing, which is straightforward and accessible while also beautiful at times:
On the flip side, excessive description loses readers while once again taking the story down an annoyingly tangential path. In particular, Flaubert lovingly described his characters’ clothing and appearance, and landscapes received only slightly less attention. This could be chalked up to scene-setting, but it’s hard to argue how the number of flounces on a dress is relevant (or is even interesting). With the large cast of characters being mostly bland and extraneous, it looks like Flaubert hoped vivid descriptions of appearance could stand in for vivid characterization. In short, Madame Bovary’s artistic writing is what takes the breath away, not the story, which sounds more scandalous than it actually is.
Gustave Flaubert’s beautiful way with words can’t compensate for Madame Bovary’s lackluster tale of Emma Bovary trapped in an unhappy marriage to boring Charles. It sounds like a soap opera--this premise that has been explored before--but unlike a soap opera, Madame Bovary lacks what makes soap operas so watchable for so many: drama and tension. Here the marriage is the focus, yet strangely, Flaubert never honed that focus nor did he keep the focus on the marriage for much of the book. Madame Bovary wanders off on numerous tangents--even opening on a tangent--that have no bearing on the plot. This makes for an uneven reading experience. Just when the main story involving Emma and Charles heats up, it switches gears to focus on an agricultural fair or soporific discussion of club feet.
The story’s biggest offense is its direct telling. The union between Emma and Charles is an unhappy one because Flaubert says it is. Emma falls in love with her lovers and they her just because; the actual falling in love is never shown. Similarly, Emma is unhappy with Charles simply because, according to Flaubert, Charles is dull. This is a story long on exposition and short on showing. Dialogue is scarce. Action is languid, with no urgency. There’s no hook.
At no point does Madame Bovary pull readers into the heart of the story and hold them right there. This is what happens when the couple at the center of the story isn’t well drawn. Flaubert sat down to write a story about a woman in crisis, whose marriage is a failure, whose husband she finds inadequate. This premise has so much potential for drama--but not if the two main characters are mere outlines. Flaubert shined the spotlight on Charles so infrequently that it’s hard to get a sense of him outside of what he does for a living; he interacts little with Emma except to fawn over her. Emma is insipid, self-absorbed, unsatisfied, and depressed, but this is all there is to her. These aren’t characters with life. Put them together, and they simply stand beside each other limply. There’s no being gripped by the mounting tension and drama as husband and wife slowly realize their marriage is disintegrating.
Nevertheless, the story is, at least, a good portrait of depression and despair. This focus may exasperate some readers, but Flaubert depicted the depth and emptiness of loss deftly--and he did so many times throughout. Some may complain this lends a sulky tone to Madame Bovary, and it's true that there are long, angsty (maybe melodramatic) passages; however, because of the care Flaubert took with authenticity, here Madame Bovary is shot through with realism.
The novel is most impressive for its writing, which is straightforward and accessible while also beautiful at times:
. . . the fiery glow that had reddened her pale sky grew gray and gradually vanished. In this growing inner twilight she even mistook her recoil from her husband for an aspiration toward her lover, the searing waves of hatred for a rekindling of love. But the storm kept raging, her passion burned itself to ashes, no help was forthcoming, no new sun rose on the horizon. Night closed completely around her, and she was left alone in a horrible void of piercing cold.(See also the saved quotation below this review.) This is a review of the Francis Steegmuller translation, an excellent translation (save “innocent of stockings” for “barefoot”) that preserved Flaubert’s mastery of words. This is where Madame Bovary’s verve lies--in the words, not the story.
On the flip side, excessive description loses readers while once again taking the story down an annoyingly tangential path. In particular, Flaubert lovingly described his characters’ clothing and appearance, and landscapes received only slightly less attention. This could be chalked up to scene-setting, but it’s hard to argue how the number of flounces on a dress is relevant (or is even interesting). With the large cast of characters being mostly bland and extraneous, it looks like Flaubert hoped vivid descriptions of appearance could stand in for vivid characterization. In short, Madame Bovary’s artistic writing is what takes the breath away, not the story, which sounds more scandalous than it actually is.
emotional
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
funny
sad
medium-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 read the translation by Lydia Davis. I believe it must be a good translation; often, I felt like I could see through it to the outline of the original. Even so, I think Madame Bovary belongs --perhaps even heads--the list of books that you have to read in the original language, because the prose itself is as important as the story or the characters, perhaps the most important aspect of the entire novel. Fortunately I was still able to get the sense, as in passing impressions of light and shadow, of just how beautiful and controlled Flaubert's prose must be in French. His sentences capture moments and hold them suspended for you to examine, as if caught in amber.
Aside from the pleasure of reading prose crafted with infinite care and precision, I can say I also liked the plot and rendering of characters. I can relate to the girlish romanticism that Madame Bovary is driven by (having felt it too and having outgrown it somewhat by now, thankfully), and the listlessness, as well. And though Madame Bovary can be cruel, shallow, and selfish, I didn't dislike her. I kind of want to marvel at the skillfulness of which Flaubert inverts her character; starting off as someone angling towards refinement, beauty, she ends up following the opposite trajectory: she plummets. It's a beautiful and distasteful fall and Flaubert, as ever, describes it with his customary meticulousness and ability to impart life and vividness to every scene. The minor characters also receive careful attention: for what wasn't painstakingly labored over in this book? Flaubert was probably one of the most exacting and dedicated of writers ever, and for that alone Madame Bovary is impressive.
Really, it's a shame I can't read French.
Aside from the pleasure of reading prose crafted with infinite care and precision, I can say I also liked the plot and rendering of characters. I can relate to the girlish romanticism that Madame Bovary is driven by (having felt it too and having outgrown it somewhat by now, thankfully), and the listlessness, as well. And though Madame Bovary can be cruel, shallow, and selfish, I didn't dislike her. I kind of want to marvel at the skillfulness of which Flaubert inverts her character; starting off as someone angling towards refinement, beauty, she ends up following the opposite trajectory: she plummets. It's a beautiful and distasteful fall and Flaubert, as ever, describes it with his customary meticulousness and ability to impart life and vividness to every scene. The minor characters also receive careful attention: for what wasn't painstakingly labored over in this book? Flaubert was probably one of the most exacting and dedicated of writers ever, and for that alone Madame Bovary is impressive.
Really, it's a shame I can't read French.
This book is both very dated and very timely. There are certainly some themes that, while very different in execution, are just as topical now: the fight between the secular and the religious, the yearning for the superficial comforts in life, etc. I think everyone knows the story, so I haven't much to add other than its a beautifully constructed book with an utterly detestable set of characters. Poor Berthe, she has a nineteenth century wanna-be Kardashian for a mother.
fuck rodolphe boulanger de la huchette all my homies hate rodolphe boulanger de la huchette
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This book is so fascinating. I'm glad I finally got round to reading it. It also feels ahead of it's time in terms of almost the comedic moments around a woman's purpose and that she should be happy simply looking after the household. I was in awe of how Flaubert writes a funny and yet tragic book. The reader can preempt something as the extravagence continues to build but also a sympathy for the ideals of dreaming what one's life will be like vs the reality.
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