Jackie led our rather large group of 20 on Monday (April 14, 2008) for our discussion of MADAME BOVARY at Houston Central Market. I was surprised since I knew we were competing with Bruce Springsteen's concert on the same night. But I'm beginning to see a trend. Seems like the "tried and true" classics really bring out the crowds.
I found the discussion very interesting for several reasons, one being that we all definitely did not agree. It seems that part of Flaubert's genius was the ambiguity he presented regarding the motivations of his characters. Though from what I heard at the discussion, not everyone would agree with my phrase "Flaubert's genius".
I think the majority at the discussion were not sympathetic with Emma (a.k.a. the third Madame Bovary). Her constant search for happiness via external sources such as a new geographical location to live or new lover or new dress demonstrated some type of psychosis which we couldn't agree on. Was she sociopathic, or did she have a personality disorder or was she just narcisistic? Seem to me that Flaubert may be the originator of the concept of "geographical cure" that Emma seemed to constantly be in search of.
But I found somewhat surprising how many were critical of her poor, honest, ignorant, loving, sweet husband, Charles Bovary. Please add to your comments below any adjectives I've forgotten. Stupid?
Whether one could interpret Flaubert's intent to include issues that were feminist was very debatable and therefore didn't generate too much discussion. Feel free to debate this question also below with your comments.
Flaubert seemed to present a sort of debate of science vs. religion but then proceeded to criticize both and present neither as the winner. His main point may have been to illustrate hypocrisy in both camps which he did to the point the story was rather unpleasant to read with so few characters (were there any?) that had redeeming qualities.
One thing we know for sure, provincial life was described by Flaubert at its worse regarding the characters who lived in the small towns he writes about. His nature scenes indicated there was considerable loveliness in the countryside but not in those people who LIVED in the countryside setting of his novel.
I enjoyed the book, mainly because I like books that are not "black and white". Seems to me that Flaubert doesn't give the reader a place to "settle" for some comfortable reading. That the book is basically a well crafted "soap opera" (as someone at the discussion described it) where there were no admirable characters. One keeps looking and hoping to see admirable behaviour but there doesn't seem to be any that I could find.
One participant of the discussion thought Homais, the pharmacist was worthy of some respect because he helped people and was not like Emma who only thought of herself. But his treatment of Hypolite and near the end of the book, the blind man seemed to me to show a very petty man, even if he did win the Legend of Honour, an honor that I think Flaubert intended to be ironic.
These comments of mine are not intended to even try to do justice as a review of a novel with the credentials of MADAME BOVARY. They are mainly intended to illustrate to some degree how interesting our discussion was. Sorry if you missed it. More details about our book club at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket.
Looking forward to our next discussion of DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP by Willa Cather on May 12th, 7pm in the Houston Central Market Community room.
I found the discussion very interesting for several reasons, one being that we all definitely did not agree. It seems that part of Flaubert's genius was the ambiguity he presented regarding the motivations of his characters. Though from what I heard at the discussion, not everyone would agree with my phrase "Flaubert's genius".
I think the majority at the discussion were not sympathetic with Emma (a.k.a. the third Madame Bovary). Her constant search for happiness via external sources such as a new geographical location to live or new lover or new dress demonstrated some type of psychosis which we couldn't agree on. Was she sociopathic, or did she have a personality disorder or was she just narcisistic? Seem to me that Flaubert may be the originator of the concept of "geographical cure" that Emma seemed to constantly be in search of.
But I found somewhat surprising how many were critical of her poor, honest, ignorant, loving, sweet husband, Charles Bovary. Please add to your comments below any adjectives I've forgotten. Stupid?
Whether one could interpret Flaubert's intent to include issues that were feminist was very debatable and therefore didn't generate too much discussion. Feel free to debate this question also below with your comments.
Flaubert seemed to present a sort of debate of science vs. religion but then proceeded to criticize both and present neither as the winner. His main point may have been to illustrate hypocrisy in both camps which he did to the point the story was rather unpleasant to read with so few characters (were there any?) that had redeeming qualities.
One thing we know for sure, provincial life was described by Flaubert at its worse regarding the characters who lived in the small towns he writes about. His nature scenes indicated there was considerable loveliness in the countryside but not in those people who LIVED in the countryside setting of his novel.
I enjoyed the book, mainly because I like books that are not "black and white". Seems to me that Flaubert doesn't give the reader a place to "settle" for some comfortable reading. That the book is basically a well crafted "soap opera" (as someone at the discussion described it) where there were no admirable characters. One keeps looking and hoping to see admirable behaviour but there doesn't seem to be any that I could find.
One participant of the discussion thought Homais, the pharmacist was worthy of some respect because he helped people and was not like Emma who only thought of herself. But his treatment of Hypolite and near the end of the book, the blind man seemed to me to show a very petty man, even if he did win the Legend of Honour, an honor that I think Flaubert intended to be ironic.
These comments of mine are not intended to even try to do justice as a review of a novel with the credentials of MADAME BOVARY. They are mainly intended to illustrate to some degree how interesting our discussion was. Sorry if you missed it. More details about our book club at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket.
Looking forward to our next discussion of DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP by Willa Cather on May 12th, 7pm in the Houston Central Market Community room.
Thanks Alice, for the nice summary of our discussion. Flaubert's genius is not immediately apparent to those of us born in the 20th Century, but he's credited with many of the aspects of a modern novel - e.g., shifting points of view, an "objective" (!)narrator, colloquial dialogue that reflects the personality (read: class) of the character - that we now take for granted. Joyce, Faulkner, and Hemingway - just to name three - all credit Flaubert for influencing their writing.
But what about the story? And the characters? Even Flaubert was ambivalent about Emma. It's difficult for a reader to sympathize with a narcissist who seems intent on a path of destruction. I had to keep reminding myself how limited Emma's options were in France at the time, and what an intelligent, emotionally sensitive young woman she was. Even then, I really wanted Emma to redeem herself at the end - perhaps through a rapprochment with Charles (something sappy - where she tells him she loves him - like Scarlett to Rhett at the end of Gone with the Wind). But Flaubert gave me no such comfort.
Jackie, your comments on Falubert’s accomplishments certainly help me to understand why Madame Bovary is a “Great Book.” I would really like to see the group focus on what makes the books we are reading, “Great.”
Kay, your question is certainly a good one and one that I have heard many times. You are right, we don't bring up that question every time and not recently either though I have heard this question by moderators many times.
Often I make a comment when we go around the circle at the end of our discussion, whether it was a Great Book for me but not always. Sometimes it takes a while for me to decide, and often it is after the discussion when I come to a conclusion.
The fact is that not all the books we read are Great Books. And also what is a Great Book for one person may not be a Great Book for another (but Mortimer Adler would vehemently disagree with this last statement, LOL).
I can say that I have tried to set this up so that we have a good chance at raising the probability that what we read and discuss will be a Great Book to most of us but it is not always successful.
Please note the upper case "G" and uppercase "B" on the phrase "Great Book". That is because this phrase in this context has a history starting with Mortimer Adler.
"He says unequivocally that a Great Book
1. Is contemporary in any time and place because it deals with human nature.
2. Is Indefinitely re-readable because we can always learn more from it.
3. Is most strongly connected to the Great Ideas and thereby to all the other Great Books. "
An essay I find interesting on this topic is at:
http://imtis.pair.com/hgbweb/whatisgreat.html
(please ignore the old links on this page, it is not an active website but the content by Dorothy Ohlhaver and Esther is still relevant, I believe.)
Specifically regarding MADAME BOVARY, my opinion at this time is that it is a Great Book for me because I would like to read it a second time since I know I would get more out of it and learn more and enjoy it more the second time. It didn't provide me with any "lightbulb moments", (another topic for another post) but not every book is everything to everyone.
asd [url=http://www.asd.net]asd[/url] asd asd http://www.asd.net
countries that do need lots of financial aids are those coming from Africa. i could only wish that their lives would become better.
http://www.layboots.net/ugg-ultra-short-boots.html
When one views issue at hand, I have to believe in your conclusions. You understandably display knowledge about this subject and i have much to discover looking at your post. Many salutations and that i arrive back for any further updates.
http://www.boycosplay.net/Cosplay-Uniform.html