First LoT book club discussion: Madame Bovary

[tracilicious]

I didn't make it past page 50 of this book, sorry. I had a few other books to finish and I just couldn't seem to fit it in. I may never finish it. I found it quite boring.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yay, I'm done!

A lot's been said, don't know if I can cover all the ground I want to, but I'll give it a stab.

The short response is, I didn't like it. I appreciated it, but didn't like it. I enjoyed the style of the prose, and as a reactionary piece to the romanticism of the time, it's highly successful. But as entertainment, not for me.

I'd argue against labling it a "realistic" reaction to romanticism. To me, equally unrealistic as flowery romantic notions and perfect heroines overcome by the power of love is a town full of characters without a single redeeming quality. I find an entire population characters with no humanity or sympathy as uninteresting and unbelievable as characters with no flaws. It was clearly Flaubert's purpose to go to extremes in sending up the trappings of romanticism, and I was never one for extremes. So it's no surprise that I didn't enjoy it.

Like I said, I liked the writing, it was just the subjects and the characters that I disliked. It's been mentioned here how often the characters were bored through the first 3rd of the book. My dad's aunt has a saying, "Only boring people get bored." So to me, all that boredom was the result of boring characters. So it was no surprise to me that, even when stuff did start happening, stuff that should have resulted in excitement and intrigue, it remained boring, because it was happening to boring people.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm wondering, given Emma's situation, what any of you thought she should have done?

Early on I was hoping for her to take a lover, and kind of liked her fling with Randolphe. I wonder if she would have been happier learning to be the player that he was, understanding that it was all fun and games, and would some day come to an end.

I was hopeful when she hooked up with Leon, but her dissaisfaction marred that relationship - do you suppose that was inevitable? Tha t Emma was destined to never be satisfied? In which case perhaps the suicide made for a fitting finish - to at least end in drama when none was to be had?

[Ghoulish Delight]

The way she was written, happiness wasn't an option. No reallity could ever live up to her fantasy. I'll never find it, but there was a line early on that said as much. Something about "she was mistaking romance for happiness" (it was thousands of times more inciteful than that, I should have written it down).

I'm wondering, given Emma's situation, what any of you thought she should have done?

Her "situation" was of her own making. She was too busy being lost in her unrealistic notions to figure out that she had as close to those notions as she'd ever get,a should ever need. A husband who doted on her, social status and a reasonable financial situation. All the relationship needed was for her to take a bit of responsibility for its health and communicate her needs to Charles, let him know that he was becoming a bit too predictable. She never made the effort. Not that he's off the hook for being a freaking door mat, but in the early stages of the marriage, he certainly couldn't be accused of not putting the effort in. If anyone one was in a "what else could they have done" situation, it was him, seeing as she made sure to pretend everything was just fine when in fact she was unhappy. She had all the input she needed to adjust her behavior for her own happiness. Not Charles, she was witholding what he needed to know from him.

[katiesue]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

I may never finish it. I found it quite boring.

Whew - I thought it was just me. I made to to halfway through book three.

[wendybeth]

I don't think Emma was bored- she was more depressed than anything. Charles was boring, but quite happy with his lot in life, and why shouldn't he be? Beautiful wife, respect of the town that he really didn't deserve, and a mommy who loved her boy to the point of suffocation. Early on Flaubert illustrates the expectations a girl had in life, particularily one who reads, and Emma was disappointed with reality. The provincial life and attitude has been portrayed many times in print and on film, and it is boring- so much so that people create their own drama just to escape the damned ennui. I think perhaps we're so jaded by soap operas and action flicks that we loose the value of subtlety and equate it with boredom. There is a reason this book is often at the top of 'best ever' lists- because it's beautifully written and to many the finest example of the novel form.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I think perhaps we're so jaded by soap operas and action flicks that we loose the value of subtlety and equate it with boredom. There is a reason this book is often at the top of 'best ever' lists- because it's beautifully written and to many the finest example of the novel form.

I agree with you there. I find that there are many things that are of a different time aren't paced for today's audience just as I find it difficult to keep up with many contemporary forms of entertainment simply because I'm not used to the pace.

[Prudence]

I thought Emma was a very interesting character. I didn't "like" her, but how could I hate her? She had ambition past her station, and that's not something a woman really had the ability to do anything about then. Heck, just marrying the doctor would have been a coup. She wanted a different life, but all she could get was tastes - through books, a chance invitation to a ball, a wealthy lover, an up-and-coming young lover - but she couldn't ever really HAVE them.

She tried to act like she had them. She imagined dalliances with the viscount from the ball. She planned to run away with what's his name. She acted like she and Leon were married with their "home" in the hotel. All she could have were facsimiles. And they weren't real so they were never enough. She always needed more to maintain the illusion.

And it's different today - but not entirely. I have a lot more flexibility and social mobility than Emma did, but there are limits. No old money family would have tolerated me marrying into the family. There's still classism and men and women still take lovers from opposite sides, but haves are still not going to really run away with the have nots.

There's the obvious message of warning - be careful about wanting too much and not being contented with your lot in life. But it's matched with a situation in which one is particularly ill-suited to one's lot.

[wendybeth]

Great points, Prudence.

A lot of negative observations about Emma, but I felt a bit sorry for her. She was used by everyone to fulfill their own fantasies and desires, yet she is the one who is most criticised. I find that interesting.

[€uroMeinke]

I certainly started being sympathetic to emma - I mean she was trying in every way she knew how to "live a better life." And I undestand in it's time many women identified with her "trapped" situation. Which is why I asked the question above - what could she have done? I think GD pretty much described a contemporary approach, but I don't get the sense that such a thing was even in the mind of a 19th Century provincial French woman.

I think the notion of her being used is a great observation. The townfolks had no qualms indulging Emma's fantasies - as long as there was something in it for them. Cynical to be sure - but it does make Emma a bit more of a tragic character.