Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

A Simple Heart by Gustave Flaubert is our December 2020 Short Story/Novella Read. I understand that it is also titled as A Simple Soul.

This discussion will open on December 1

Beware Short Story Discussions will have Spoilers

I really enjoyed this story. It was the first thing I've read by Flaubert. I enjoy the realist style if there is some feeling involved, and when I finished the story I felt like Felicite had been a real person and lived a real life.

I'm tempted to say the story reminds me of how much simpler life was 150 years ago, but I realise it might not have been, or maybe just in different ways. Felicitie lived a relatively simple life, but I wouldn't call it easy, and I have mixed feelings about whether I would choose to live her life given a choice. It was a lot harder than the life I've lived so far, but there are elements of it that surely some of us would like in our own 21st Century lives? Felicite was uneducated, and lived like a slave, or is that servant?, had no husband or children of her own, yet knew what she was and seemed content with her lot.

I am baffled, impressed, and inspired, by her ability to love so much with so little love in return. I need more time to think it through, and maybe to hear what others think to help me along.

Her relationship with the parrot was wonderful. It reminded me of my mother and her cockatiel. The way they would rub heads, talk to each other, the way she put the cage in the garden when it was sunny, and how she hunted all over for it the day it escaped..

I don't rate the translation I had on the kindle. Her first love kisses her "once more", but there's no kiss before that. The parrot's approach to coming downstairs is described in a way that only makes sense if it were going up, and in the midst of some otherwise beautiful, 19th century-sounding prose, the parrot is suddenly referred to as a "blockhead". Hmmm..

"A Simple Heart" is a lovely novella about Felicite, a 19th Century hard-working servant with a kind heart. She had a hard life--losing her parents early, and being jilted by her first love. She worked the rest of her life for a widow, Madame Aubain, who had two children. Her life was one of service, piety, and loss. She never traveled, but learned about the world from her nephew's travels as a cabin boy. She was devoted to the parrot, Loulou. As she became deaf, the talking of the parrot was one of the few things she could hear and their connection became even greater. As old age and confusion set in, she thought of the parrot (stuffed after it died) as an embodiment of the Holy Spirit.

While Felicite did not have an exciting life, she lived through the years with dignity and took joy in simple pleasures like caring for a child, receiving a postcard, or playing with her parrot. The character of Felicite was based on Julie, a servant in the Flaubert household. The moving story acknowledges her goodness, kindness, and loving heart.

I'm so glad this is a group read. I read and enjoyed it, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Perhaps it is just a simple story of a selfless woman, but I keep thinking there might be more. Like ScottOnTheFen said above, I'm going to keep thinking about it and am looking forward to hearing other thoughts.

I loved the writing style, particularly the detailed descriptions. I was taken from the very beginning with how it put me in the scene, with the warped floors and everything.

> I was taken from the very beginning with how it put me in the scene, with the warped floors and everything.

I agree. Especially near the beginning when you are sort of walked around the house by Flaubert. I felt like I was there.

I find it hard to relate to the Madame/servant, relationship. To live your life as servant, is such an "outside context" topic given the life I have lived that I find it hard to understand. Similarly, to have someone in your employ for so many years, taking care of your children, and keep them forever at arm's length as an employee.. it's very difficult to understand or even imagine for me.

This is shaping up to be an enjoyable discussion. I found the story to be excellent.

It's hard with our 21st Century ideas of independence and some leisure time to imagine being a servant on call 24/7 for meager wages. But most people were probably farmers at that time, and they worked countless, backbreaking hours. Big families were crowded into a few rooms. People died at young ages before modern medicine. So Felicite may have felt she was living a normal life for the times. Her kindness made her a special person.

The loss of her hearing was a major plot thread. That Flaubert didn’t allow her mistress to cast her aside as a result made the story more poignant.

I enjoyed this story and the descriptions of Felicite's life and personality. It was interesting how she kept losing parts of her life, and then what seemed to be parts of her body (hearing, sight), and she just kept going on, clinging to life and her beliefs.

There were parts of the writing that I thought kind of jumped around without good flow or explanation, such as Virginia suddenly being sick with no introduction to her illness. Also, the part when the parrot was sent off to be stuffed. The way it was told, I thought it was not going to get done, or it just got lost, never to be seen again. Then -- there it was!

I did enjoy the story, but I thought there were a few parts that were lacking. Thanks for the discussion, I'm enjoying hearing what others thought :)

It's been decades since I read Madame Bovary, so I can't say for sure, but I think his descriptions of Emma Bovary felt more true to me than his description of Felicite. Could just be because Emma's story is longer, but I wonder if Flaubert had a more difficult time getting inside the head of someone with a simple soul. Maybe a bad girl is easier to describe.

Still, I would have liked to have known a little more about how Felicite really felt about Madame. We did get more of that with Loulou though, which was great. Did anyone feel like he was making fun a little bit here? Was he religious? I don't remember.

Annette wrote: "The loss of her hearing was a major plot thread. That Flaubert didn’t allow her mistress to cast her aside as a result made the story more poignant."

Terris wrote: "I enjoyed this story and the descriptions of Felicite's life and personality. It was interesting how she kept losing parts of her life, and then what seemed to be parts of her body (hearing, sight)..."

I was also struck by Flaubert’s portrayal of Félicité’s hearing loss. My review is here.

I must be the odd man out.

I found this story to be depressing and bleak. I did appreciate the joy that the children and the bird brought to her life and I loved the ending.

This is also my first read of Flaubert's and the writing, to me, was average at best. I don't begrudge the time it took to read this story but I expect more from someone I've heard so much about. I was disappointed.

Hi Gem.

Flaubert was famous for the pains he took to choose “the right word.” But we are not reading Flaubert’s carefully chosen words. We are reading a translator’s words. So it’s possible that it was the translator who disappointed you, not Flaubert.

Susan wrote: "Hi Gem.

Flaubert was famous for the pains he took to choose “the right word.” But we are not reading Flaubert’s carefully chosen words. We are reading a translator’s words. So it’s possible that ..."

I absolutely agree. I may be leading a discussion in another group on Oblomov. I looked at several editions that had varying lengths. Come to find out the first translator lopped off chapters and rewrote sentences using his own words. Not only that but the philosophy of translation has changed over the years.

I might try reading this again using another translation.

When there are several translations of a book, I like to read the first few sentences of each. Then I choose the one I like best.

Susan wrote: "When there are several translations of a book, I like to read the first few sentences of each. Then I choose the one I like best."

I do that too, oftentimes one is far more readable than another. I think a lot gets lost in translation. We the reader have no idea if the author used one particular word over another to emphasize a point, etc.

May I add that with classics there are multiple discount translations, especially in ebooks. For this reread, I plodded my way through two and both were lacking.

One thing that struck me on this read was the impact of Flaubert's style had on modern writers. For example one can see it in Kafka, but recently the group read Flannery O'Connor stories seem heavily influenced as well.

Ultimately, it is all about the parrot, the elephant in the room, when it comes to this story. Rather than debate the symbolism, I'd like to comment on how effective the parrot is as a device for the story teller. It captures the audiece's attention and leaves us wondering. What a bold and clever move Flaubert made when he employed it.

Julian Barnes' Flaubert's Parrot plays on this and makes an interesting supplemental read.

I read Flaubert’s Parrot! But so long ago that I had forgotten all about it. I don’t think it’s on my shelf anymore...

I really enjoyed this story, even though it ended quite tragically. Beautifully told, felt like I went on a little mental journey through time.

I really enjoyed the novel. I tryed several time to read Madame Bovary but I always felt a sort of misogyny that stopped me. The Félicité history is completely different. I asked to myself if Flaubert is not trying to show us the right way: simplicity, faith, devotion et most of all acceptation. Just the opposte of Madame Bovary.
And that make me think about the right balance in my life between acceptation of situations and the envy of going on making everything different.

I've found the language absolutely beautiful (I've read the french version) and when I've finished I felt Félicité as a real person, I was with her in 19th century.

Felicity is quite a contrast to Emma Bovary. I liked her a lot. I also liked the story, it was very sensitive.

I enjoyed this story, it was very skilfully written. Everything is seen from Félicité’s viewpoint so we get very little detail about Virginie’s illness or her nephew’s death, only what Félicité herself hears or reads. It brings us closer to her.

I was also amazed at all the walking she did, trudging miles and miles, as well as her work in the house. It gave an impression of a stoic determination.

I didn't read too much into the parrot. To me, it was a pet Felicite came to have by luck, and her love for it towards the end of her life became tangled up with her faith and imagination as her mind failed through old age and sickness. Am I missing other depths here?

I just finished this wonderful tale.
I read it in french and was first struck with the richness of the vocabulary. Especially in descriptions of objects one is struck how precise images can be conjured. This aspect reminds me of Balzac: the variety of words used, the need for a dictionary to get the full meaning of the description./ image

The second point, and for me the essential part of the tale, which struck me was the transfer of the love of Félicité for one person to another: her lover, her nephew, virginie, her patient and finally here parrot. When the bird dies, there is no living thing anymore to which her love can attach itself and she fades slowly away.

But the most beautiful image for me is related to the diminishing of her senses; when she becomes deaf she so misses the sound of bells; with the loss of sight there is the confusion of the image of the parrot with the Holy Ghost. And finally before she dies there is the last smell: the odour of wafts of incense coming from the procession just outside the house. Faith was always in her life and in the end it was present in her last moments.

What you say about the object of Felicite's love moving from one to another is interesting. It never went to her 'employer'. I wonder why? Later in life, they were in the same house quite alone. Why did Felicite bond with the parrot rather than Madame?

Yes, I was wondering about this too. My understanding is following:

Felicite is very religious and also she has a very strong sense of duty and obligation.

Mrs Aubain is her employer and Felicite is the ideal servant completely loyal to her Master. Love is a feeling in another dimension.

After Felicite has loved several persons, she is left only with her religious feelings similar to Love. For me the comparison she makes in her attic room between her parrot and the picture of the holy spirit is this transition/ similitude between her love and religioous feelings

At what times do you think Felicite was ever lonely? I remember one scene where she ushers guests out the door, and we are told this happens regularly. What did you take from this? I wasn't sure what to make out of it. I took it to be down to their behaviour and the household having higher standards to what these guests could meet, but I wasn't sure.

I think Félicité’s love is purified over the course of the story:

Her love of Théodore is romantic love.
Her love of Victor and Virginie is maternal love.
Her love of Loulou is spiritual love.

I read this story a couple years ago, it's in an anthology I have. The style is very straightforward, clear and evocative. I enjoyed it and rated it a four-star.

I just finished this, really enjoyed it. love the discussion points above

Oh my, I will be the contrarian here and say “meh.” The story left me flat. The best part for me was when her mistress and Felicite were finally able to console each other. I imagine that Dickens could take this same story and make it much more engaging.

I listened to the Libre Vox version. Maybe not the best format?

I may come back in your direction a little, Terry! The story left a good impression on me at the time and I enjoyed reading it. Felicite seemed very real and evoked some feelings of sympathy, but.. I've just read King Lear in about the same amount of time, and just started A Christmas Carol and have been gripped within the first few pages to find out what happens next.. Two weeks in from the first reading, A Simple Heart is fading fast for me.. I would think twice before reading something novel length by Flaubert, unless someone could assure me more happens in his novels than his short stories. Perhaps in the original French the language itself is such an aesthetic achievement that it contributes much of the value to the story, in which I will have missed out on a lot (I lost all confidence when someone referred to the parrot as a 'blockhead'. Bad translation perhaps?).

Annette wrote: "The loss of her hearing was a major plot thread. That Flaubert didn’t allow her mistress to cast her aside as a result made the story more poignant."

I like your train of thought about the hearing loss.

ScottOnTheFen wrote: "I didn't read too much into the parrot. To me, it was a pet Felicite came to have by luck, and her love for it towards the end of her life became tangled up with her faith and imagination as her mi..."

I think that the parrot is the one thing that is truly hers.

I looked at the parrot as a clever symbol that Flaubert chose, distinct for its memorability. The parrot, colorful and exotic for the time, dies, is stuffed, and starts deteriorating thus becoming a wonderful image of the humorous grotesque, but Flaubert takes this a bit further equating that image with that of the Holy Ghost, both as subjects of Félicité' s love. However, there is an incongruity of deteriorating stuffed parrot compared to Holy Ghost that sets that image in my mind forever, and serves as an unintentional link for the present day reader to Modern and Postmodern literature.

I read this a month later than the group. I bought the lovely New Directions Biblelot edition with Arthur McDowell translator. Flaubert is a familiar name to most readers, yet I had not read anything by him yet. My experience in reading this novelette is exactly why I joined this group. I wanted to read classic authors I had heard of before, and see why others have thought of them as "great". I completely enjoyed this book. The understated realism is beautiful. I love that style of writing. This can easily be read in one sitting and is well worth the time. I also own this title in a much older anthology. The pages on that book are liable to fall out at any moment and the print is too small for my old eyes. In that older edition it is called "A Simple Soul". Buying a new version was well worth the small investment.

Susan wrote: "I think Félicité’s love is purified over the course of the story:

Her love of Théodore is romantic love.
Her love of Victor and Virginie is maternal love.
Her love of Loulou is spiritual love."

What an astute perception. Well said.

Thanks Lynn.