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.
