The Bowie Book Club discussion

Please mind the book part you are commenting on in order to avoid spoilers.

Since the Madame Bovary discussion will happen in just one topic, please be extra careful with spoilers.

Here it is an explanation on how to hide spoilers on your comment: https://www.goodreads.com/blog/show/2...

I also suggest you give some general hints to the other members regarding the part you will be mentioning, so everyone is able to decide if they want to view the spoiler or not yet...

How is your reading going?

I haven't started yet... Plan to start next week... I only have the digital edition, which is not very motivating for me...

I am halfway through, and I have to confess.. It's been a bit disappointing for me. I've never read it before, and the way people aways spoke about it, I thought I was going to find some essay on society and feminism in the middle of a novel, but it is all so subtle (for a nowadays reading, of course) that it let me down a little.
Of course, for when it was publish was truly challenging and revealing, so we must have that in mind when reading it, but to what the discussion on feminism has evolved nowadays.. As for example, it is hard to find two female characters in a conversation about something other than men, and maybe I was expecting some more from a classic so acclaimed.

Pedro, think of irony. Actually put your irony glasses on for reading Madame Bovary. Some passages are so hilarious in depicting the petitesse d'esprit of the French bourgeoisie in 1850 (I give as example the ball in Part I having read Part I). Times have changed but people haven't (just think about of those boasting about what they eat or where they go on social media).

Madame Bovary is a fierce piece of criticism of the (little) bourgeoisie.

Actually, Flaubert did not write Madame Bovary as a pamphlet for women's rights. It was only considered as a piece of feminism after its publication as a result of the Madame Bovary trial for insulting public morals and offending decent manners.
There resides the real genius of Flaubert.

Some articles of interest : http://the-artifice.com/madame-bovary...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...

I read it for the first time, too, and I found it quite amusing.

I loved some of the descriptions of Emma, especially in the beginning you could see how one would fall in love with her just by the way Flaubert is describing the light playing in her hair.

But what will stay with me is the sudden changes of the speed of the story and the changes of point of view. Like there is a dialogue and suddenly Flaubert gets bored with it and just summarizes the second part of it in two ironic sentences. So the irony is really subtle most of the time: it seems for long times that he takes his characters seriously and then comes a reveal of a sentence when you can see that he finds them ridiculous.

Also, Madame Bovary, what a bitch:) I thought, like Pedro, that she is a symbol of poor women who were not allowed to follow their hearts - but she is basically a mean and stupid woman who cares about nothing and nobody else but her "deserved" happiness. An eternal character, one we can also find today if we look really hard:)

I'm enjoying it. It's so clearly and beautifully written that its a pleasure to read and I don't mind that the main character is unlikeable (although I'm only half way through so may get too frustrated with her!).
Did anyone else pick up on the description of what men wore to the wedding at the beginning - "very short-skirted jackets with, at the back, two buttons close together like a pair of eyes". ?

@Peter: yes, Emma turns out to be a very unlikeable character. The book is really about the sense of mediocrity affecting the "petite bourgeoisie".
The irony is mostly very subtle, I agree with you. But, at times, Flaubert mocks the commonplaceness of his characters more openly but still in subtlety. For instance, on Charles Bovary's quality as a physician:
"He was well, looked well; his reputation was firmly established.
The country-folk loved him because he was not proud. He petted the children, never went to the public house, and, moreover, his morals inspired confidence. He was specially successful with catarrhs and chest complaints. Being much afraid of killing his patients, Charles, in fact only prescribed sedatives, from time to time and emetic, a footbath, or leeches. It was not that he was afraid of surgery; he bled people copiously like horses, and for the taking out of teeth he had the "devil's own wrist.""

@Rachel: glad you're enjoying it! Flaubert's descriptive narration is incredible. He was obsessed with choosing the right word.

"Flaubert famously avoided the inexact, the abstract, the vaguely inapt expression, and scrupulously eschewed the cliché. In a letter to George Sand he said that he spends his time 'trying to write harmonious sentences, avoiding assonances.'
Flaubert believed in, and pursued, the principle of finding 'le mot juste' ('the right word'), which he considered as the key means to achieve quality in literary art. He worked in sullen solitude—sometimes occupying a week in the completion of one page—never satisfied with what he had composed. In Flaubert's correspondence he intimates this, explaining correct prose did not flow out of him and that his style was achieved through work and revision.
This painstaking style of writing is also evident when one compares Flaubert’s output over a lifetime to that of his peers (for example Balzac or Zola). Flaubert published much less prolifically than was the norm for his time and never got near the pace of a novel a year, as his peers often achieved during their peaks of activity. Walter Pater famously called Flaubert the 'martyr of style.'" (from Wikipedia)

How is your reading going? Any thoughts you'd like to share with us?

Unfortunately, haven't started it yet. I was on vacation for the first half of the month, and my edition was just to big an heavy to put in my bag. I hope to start reading it next week.

Agreed that Emma was not at all likable. But she was in an untenable situation. If she remained unmarried, she would be scorned and/or pitied by society for being a spinster. And unfortunately, while living with her father, she had no other prospects. She had to marry Charles. And this is why I feel this is such an important novel. It brought to light how even a woman with a good husband can be imprisoned by marriage.

This is a first-time read for me too.....and I'm thoroughly enjoying Madame Bovary. The gentle pace is quite refreshing after our last outing of A Clockwork Orange. Flaubert writes beautifully and his cast of characters is both amusing and tragic..... you can't help but feel involved in their trials and tribulations.

Adriana wrote: "Agreed that Emma was not at all likable. But she was in an untenable situation. If she remained unmarried, she would be scorned and/or pitied by society for being a spinster. And unfortunately, whi..."

Adriana, you're totally right. (SPOILER ahead) (view spoiler)[In the light of your reflection, I was wondering why the birth of Berthe did not deter Emma from seeking romance and passion (well, at least in the first years of Berthe's life) and I remembered the passage in the book on her visit to the nurse. It was painful reading this chapter because it showed Emma's been bereft of her right to mothering her newborn child. Just because of society's standards at the time. And, worse, it did not deter Leon to continue his courtship of Emma even though she was in postpartum. Pretty much scandalous and sad. (hide spoiler)]

Jenny wrote: "This is a first-time read for me too.....and I'm thoroughly enjoying Madame Bovary. The gentle pace is quite refreshing after our last outing of A Clockwork Orange. Flaubert writes beautifully and ..."

Yes, it is quite a change. But, what a fierce criticism of society :-) Even though Flaubert was totally apolitical.

I've finally started reading and I hope to finish it by Sunday. I found the story reads very easily, it just flows. The first thing that caught my attention (and an issue I'm really sensitive about) is the cruelty of children. I always thought children to be very cruel and I always pondered the reason behind that kind of behaviour.

I'm not very impressed with the main characters so far. Charles is sharing traits from both his parents, and is, I think, constantly struggling between the two very different and warring sides of his character. I do think, though, that that indolent, "I don't really want to do much in my life" side, that came from his father, is constantly lurking just below the surface. I already find him a bit weak as a person. Being a very passionate person, I do not like bland people. This trait of his character makes it more evident that Emma chose to marry him to better her position in life. And that is why I already don't like Emma that much.

Samanta wrote: "I've finally started reading and I hope to finish it by Sunday. I found the story reads very easily, it just flows. The first thing that caught my attention (and an issue I'm really sensitive about..."

Yes, the characters are not very likeable.
That's the genius of Flaubert: take bland characters and create a masterpiece solely based on style. Flaubert used to complain about the quality of prose in literature: everything was about the story and the intrigue and not much the beauty of style. Take for instance Alexandre Dumas' novels: great characters but the writing was well behind Flaubert's level of writing.
Furthermore, the more you advance in the story, the more you will realise how much this book is a fierce depiction of the society at Flaubert's time. Don't forget to put your irony glasses on :-)

Cynthia wrote: "Don't forget to put your irony glasses on :-) "


Already have them. :D

Has anyone notices that short, but strong outburst of indignation towards organized religion:

(view spoiler)[“I believe in the Supreme Being, in a Creator, whatever he may be. I care little who has placed us here below to fulfil our duties as citizens and fathers of families; but I don't need to go to church to kiss silver plates, and fatten, out of my pocket, a lot of good-for-nothings who live better than we do. For one can know him as well in a wood, in a field, or even contemplating the eternal vault like the ancients. My God! mine is the God of Socrates, of Franklin, of Voltaire, and of Beranger! I am for the profession of faith of the 'Savoyard Vicar,' and the immortal principles of '89! And I can't admit of an old boy of a God who takes walks in his garden with a cane in his hand, who lodges his friends in the belly of whales, dies uttering a cry, and rises again at the end of three days; things absurd in themselves, and completely opposed, moreover, to all physical laws, which proves to us, by the way, that priests have always wallowed in turpid ignorance, in which they would fain engulf the people with them.” (hide spoiler)]

I was quite surprised to find something like that in a book of that time. Many people today, including myself, think like that, but to have thoughts like that back then....no wonder the book ended in court. I do wonder if this is Flaubert's personal opinion, or did he take it from someone and used it in his story?

Samanta wrote: "Has anyone notices that short, but strong outburst of indignation towards organized religion:"

I'm not sure about his faith (did he believe in God or not, he did write a book in his youth about religious mysticism, La Tentation de saint Antoine) but he was strongly opposed to the Church and the clergy.

Cynthia wrote: "Samanta wrote: "Has anyone notices that short, but strong outburst of indignation towards organized religion:"

I'm not sure about his faith (did he believe in God or not, he did write a book in hi..."

Then this is definitely him expressing his views on religion through a side character.