A comparative analysis, of sorts...

[Chava]

Just a finger in the ground here... Would it be advisable to compare Madame
Bovary by Gustave Flaubert, with the more modern novel The handmaid's tale by Margaret Atwood?
That is on grounds that they both consider language an important aspect of society?
that is, in Madame Bovary one is directly told that language is inadequate, or people incompetent to express emotion, and in the Tale, those of lower rank are forced into illiteracy.

Opinions much appreciated!

[Virgil]

Just a finger in the ground here... Would it be advisable to compare Madame
Bovary by Gustave Flaubert, with the more modern novel The handmaid's tale by Margaret Atwood?
That is on grounds that they both consider language an important aspect of society?
that is, in Madame Bovary one is directly told that language is inadequate, or people incompetent to express emotion, and in the Tale, those of lower rank are forced into illiteracy.

Opinions much appreciated!
I don't know the Atwood novel, but I don't see why not if you can make the case.

[Chava]

Yes, that's about as excited as i got about it, untill someone mentioned a thesis statement... :) gotta love highschool!

[mono]

Unfortunately, Chava, I apologize, as I have never read anything by Atwood, but would love to help with anything regarding Flaubert's Madame Bovary. :nod:
While reading Madame Bovary, yes, I certainly noticed the element of what remains unsaid, mostly due to the fact that it seems unable to express. Flaubert, I think, seemed of the opinion that some emotions and thoughts appeared perceived, as if outside of the mind, and entirely impossible to express, perhaps related to others' influence on emotion and thought (obvious in the novel). This, of course, created a lot of tension between the characters, but with other, closer characters, I would like to think created a bit of communication without speaking - more like something assumed between characters.

[Chava]

thanks, actually, Flaubert, in the narrative makes a point out of the fact that all the character's are so bad at communicating, i can't remember the quote, but i'll find it asap.
Aside from that, many of his character's often consider the incompetence of their words. For example, the letter's that Rudolphe get's from his many female friends, which he reads vainly, but yet contemplates as highly naive and superficial.
I haven't started work on it yet, since it's still rather arid, any suggestions for specifications would be much appreciated. I'm afraid my opinons of the book are impaired since I read it in Danish.. and the danish vocabulary is not very extensive, (ironic, n'est pas?)

[mono]

thanks, actually, Flaubert, in the narrative makes a point out of the fact that all the character's are so bad at communicating, i can't remember the quote, but i'll find it asap.
Aside from that, many of his character's often consider the incompetence of their words. For example, the letter's that Rudolphe get's from his many female friends, which he reads vainly, but yet contemplates as highly naive and superficial.
Considering the era of Flaubert, at the peak in the philosophy of transcendentalism (Emerson, Thoreau, Kant, etc.), I have sometimes thought that the author may have aimed at the impossibility of expression of some thoughts and emotions, particularly ones that everyone may relate to, such as love, hate, admiration, and the like. I find it admirable, however, as you said, that the characters realize their own verbal limitations for expression, and I think this creates extensive tension in the novel.
As for specific quotations, I have always like this one, expressing much of the skepticism of why a character feels a certain way, despite a different atmosphere (from chapter 6, yet I happened to find it on a google search, having remembered a few words):

The whitish light of the window-panes was softly wavering. The pieces of furniture seemed more frozen in their places, about to lose themselves in the shadow as in an ocean of darkness. The fire was out, the clock went on ticking, and Emma vaguely wondered at this calm of all things while within herself there was such a tumult.

[Chava]

Considering the era of Flaubert, at the peak in the philosophy of transcendentalism (Emerson, Thoreau, Kant, etc.), I have sometimes thought that the author may have aimed at the impossibility of expression of some thoughts and emotions, particularly ones that everyone may relate to, such as love, hate, admiration, and the like. I find it admirable, however, as you said, that the characters realize their own verbal limitations for expression, and I think this creates extensive tension in the novel.


Excellent, exactly what i was wanting to express!
:)

[Chava]

So, I have an idea baout why Flaubert stated the following, "Madame Bovary, c'est moi." I am Madame Bovary, but what do you think he meant by it?

[mono]

So, I have an idea baout why Flaubert stated the following, "Madame Bovary, c'est moi." I am Madame Bovary, but what do you think he meant by it?
When and where did Flaubert state this, just out of curiosity? You have certainly stumped me. :p

[Virgil]

I have heard that too. Flaubert, at least in that statement, considered himself Madame Bovary. It's actually a relatively famous statement. I've never quite understood it, except perhaps to say he was a romantic like her.

[Chava]

I'm not sure when he said it, i believe he would have said it sometime during all the media awareness that grew over the book, when it became notorious.
But come mono, what do you think he meant?

[mono]

I did some research, Chava, and found that Gustave Flaubert underwent extensive trials by the French government, who desired to ban his book; at this time, just as now, to say the least, adultery seems slightly frowned upon, and the French government felt that Madame Bovary approved of such conduct, but dismissed the case, since the main character dies in the end.
When asked who inspired the character for Madame Bovary, Flaubert exclaimed "Madame Bovary, c'est moi!" This, I found, he may have said for a variety of reasons. Flaubert, I just read, did not believe in anyone seemingly instrinsically good or bad, and admitted the mix seemingly good or bad motives in each human being, perhaps implying that a "Madame Bovary" exists inside everyone; more accurately, in this case, Flaubert could have said "Madame Bovary, c'est nous!"
Also, researching into some of Flaubert's past, he author once described his mother as a "hopeless romantic," much like Madame Bovary, incessantly unsatisfied with the present state of things, always trying to improve, and disappointed that nothing meets her ideal. Furthermore, Flaubert described his father as a very successful, down-to-earth (so to speak), but simple doctor, much like Charles Bovary, her husband. Taking this into consideration, perhaps Flaubert could have called himself "Madame Bovary" at one time, while gaining so much inspiration from his parents, that he felt much like the spawn of a precise scenario of the novel.
Anyway, I hope I have helped, and, if you would like to discuss this further, I would to, also. :)

[Chava]

Bravo! We come to the same conclusion. And well done with your research!
About sources of inspiration, in my own research, it was found that he once new a young female, by the name of Louise Colet. She was married to a man by the name of Hyppolyte, and it may perhaps be a coincidence, (but wouldn't it be a wonderful one) but i'm sure your sharp mind has already noted that this is the name of the village fool. The Hyppolyte with the malformed foot?

Anyway, the story of Louise colet; she married monsieur Colet to escape from the peripheral farm land, and move into paris.
Once in Paris, she started having affairs with several men, amoungst which we find Gustave Flaubert...

Inspirational?

So what happened to her? well, wether Hyppolite died, or the were divorced i can't recall, but she became a poet, and provided for herself and her only child through her writting. If you look her up you can find her poetry, i think she has won several awards, but has also been accused of interference with those whom supported her. in the sense that most people don't think she wrote as well as she was acclaimed for, merely that she had influential friends.

On another note, when reading her poetry, it's really like seeing ghosts, because it feels like the work of a litterary character, which is rather eerie.

[Psycheinaboat]

Your thesis statement could be something about the quality of language, or lack of, under restraint.

These restraints in Atwood's novel could be the fear that led the characters to avoid certain topics and questions. You could get into the brainwashing elements when the handmaids are sent to the school. I cannot remember the main character's name, but in every place she is sent, from the school where she is indoctrinated to the home where she tries to confide in the man of the house to the friend she makes in the other handmaid to the young man who eventually, possibly impregnates her and helps in her escape she seeks friendship and must be careful of what she says and what feelings she shows.

Mono has done a wonderful job of explaining Madame Bovary's motivation and lack of showing and expressing what she feels. I think that Bovary's need to hide what she feels and oppress her speech is also a matter of imposed restraint.


I feel that I am not being clear enough in this post because of time constraint, and it has been a long time since I have read either of these books.

Good luck with your paper. When I return later maybe we can discuss this some more. I do hope I have been of some help to you. :)

[mono]

Wow - I never found anything regarding that, but beautifully explained, Chava! :nod:
No doubt, such a genius mind as Flaubert's had inspiration coming from multiple aspects, and this probably played some kind of role in thinking of himself as a pseudo-"Madame Bovary." Especially about a real-life Hyppolite - how fascinating! I have read some work by Colet, but never knew a great amount about her life; somehow, however, a lot of this makes sense. Thank you for posting this - very infomative.
With this, however, I only wonder why Flaubert chose a woman as his main character - perhaps because, statistically (even today), adultery seems more common among men than women? Maybe this seemed an attempt at emphasizing the possible deviance of stating no existence of instrinstic good or bad? Do you have any opinions?
The more and more I think of it, the more I find similarities between Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, and, oddly, The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. :D

[Chava]

I think she is a woman because women ar so easy to victimize. It would seem very strange for a man to react to life the way that she does. The closest is her lover, Leon, but even he abondones the romance for realism.
Men are stereotypically more sensible, pas vrai?
I think it's the reason, but i need to think it through more before i can formulate a reason...
May i compliment, what an excellent question. It hadn't occured to me at all!

Now, since the theme for the discussion is the language and communication, may i ask, what do you think about the three men, who are obviously examples of different types of communication. What do they resemble? Again, i have my own opinion, but i'm curious of your interpretation.

[mono]

With the "three men" I presume you mean Charles Bovary, Rodolphe, and Leon, n'est pas?
I would love to discuss them, regardless, especially their various motives in communication, even if you do not intend them. :D
Charles, to me, seems a real boring, black-and-white, logical, analytical person; at the same time, he never seems oblivious of things (except Madame's affairs, which he discovers later), but merely ignores everything. He leads a simple lifestyle in a career that seemed more handed to him than worked for diligently, particularly by the elder Madame Bovary, Charles' mother. I think because of his mother, this influences Charles' behavior and personality, nearly desiring his passive lifestyle, and wanting someone to dominate, make decisions (such as giving power of attorney to Emma Bovary), and he never quite states anything remarkable, but more relies on others to speak on his behalf.
Rodolphe, Madame's Bovary's first affair, I think, seems very cunning, willful, and really only desires to benefit himself. Most of his communication strategies appear much more aggressive, in opposition to Charles, and he attempts at any option to gain the "upper hand" in any situation. Whether Madame Bovary noticed this from the beginning, I feel skeptical, as, in my opinion, I think she may have strove in such desperation to escape from Charles, literally, she would have taken anything! :p
Leon seems the absolute opposite from Charles, too, yet more of a mirror to Emma Bovary; he appears just as optimistic, idealistic, utopian, romantic, yet just as fickle as Madame Bovary, hence he feels no problem with traveling abroad to study law. At times, Leon does seem slightly boastful and immodest, but I think this further reflects Madame Bovary, and, with this reflection, this may also explain her nearly obsessive attraction to him; unfortunate to observe, however, Leon mirrors her so much that his fickle emotions and desires burn out as quickly as they appeared. Through his communication, he has a great amount of assertive charm, compassion, and emotion, yet he seems slightly confused with himself as well - perhaps in a state of transition with studying abroad, and the like, hence making his abandoning from Emma (slightly more stabilized with a husband and children) easier.

[Chava]

More research, or perhaps thought... on the topic of "Madame Bovary, c'est moi"
Emma Bovary is feeble, as a consequence of her naivity about the world, and her lack of self-understanding; or ability to empathize.
Her illusion of her self is amoungst other things founded in her beauty. Think, in the 19th centuary, it was very much the woman's role to be attractive so that she might attract a good mate.

So perhaps Emma's naivity is really a criticism of the society of the time; a lack of education and nurture. The children of the age simply aren't equipped for life. they haven't the necessary social skills; since they are brought up in an ideological world, and thus have a hard time adjusting to reality.

According to Flaubert this makes people neurotic, for example Emma Bovary, neurotic? I would say so. In any case, research shows, and i could if desired go into more detail, that Flaubert was very neurotic, "Madame Bovary, c'est moi".

[mono]

More research, or perhaps thought... on the topic of "Madame Bovary, c'est moi"
Emma Bovary is feeble, as a consequence of her naivity about the world, and her lack of self-understanding; or ability to empathize.
Her illusion of her self is amoungst other things founded in her beauty. Think, in the 19th centuary, it was very much the woman's role to be attractive so that she might attract a good mate.

So perhaps Emma's naivity is really a criticism of the society of the time; a lack of education and nurture. The children of the age simply aren't equipped for life. they haven't the necessary social skills; since they are brought up in an ideological world, and thus have a hard time adjusting to reality.

According to Flaubert this makes people neurotic, for example Emma Bovary, neurotic? I would say so. In any case, research shows, and i could if desired go into more detail, that Flaubert was very neurotic, "Madame Bovary, c'est moi".
I entirely see what you mean here, Chava - well done, and I cannot agree more! :nod: Perhaps, too, this could give rise for the upcoming era of women's rights, particularly in the U.S. and parts of Europe, during Flaubert's era - just a thought.
Again, very well done with the research!

[Chava]

Back to your comment mono.
I agree though i would also have included Justin, the boy who admires her from a distance. why? because in this context, he is another example of someone who never manages to express his emotions, the romantic boy, who never gets any recognition, and whom is always lost for words. (ssems fairly obvious doesn't it?)

And then about leon... Though i agree with everything you say, i could perhaps again lead it onto the following.
The relationship they have is like candyfloss dipped in sirup and sprinkled with sugar. It's mouth-dryingly-sweet. And that's the problem, it's all very well that they have this flirt and pretentious love at first, but without further dynamics within the relationship it's bound to end. They're relation never develops beyond that suggary dribble, and that's why they both get fed up with each other - Flaubert is again showing the lack of communication. If they had been able to express themselves completely, and talk sensibly, they would have a reasonable idea about who they were, and where they were going.
Does that make any sense?

[mono]

I agree though i would also have included Justin, the boy who admires her from a distance. why? because in this context, he is another example of someone who never manages to express his emotions, the romantic boy, who never gets any recognition, and whom is always lost for words. (ssems fairly obvious doesn't it?)
Oops, I probably would have included him, too! :p
In a rather odd way, Justin always reminded me much of what Charles Bovary must have seemed like as a boy - perhaps romantic, but not expressive, and through this absence of expression, he no longer felt romantic (in essence, for Justin, I always feared the worst for his future). Perhaps Emma Bovary observes this, too, though Justin speaks almost nothing of his infatuation; he remained very romantic, yet only to himself, giving out a rather aloof manner to everyone else.

And then about leon... Though i agree with everything you say, i could perhaps again lead it onto the following.
The relationship they have is like candyfloss dipped in sirup and sprinkled with sugar. It's mouth-dryingly-sweet. And that's the problem, it's all very well that they have this flirt and pretentious love at first, but without further dynamics within the relationship it's bound to end. They're relation never develops beyond that suggary dribble, and that's why they both get fed up with each other - Flaubert is again showing the lack of communication. If they had been able to express themselves completely, and talk sensibly, they would have a reasonable idea about who they were, and where they were going.
Precisely my interpretation, I could not agree more, and I like your analogy.
The brief relationship did seem rather rudimentary in a way of feeling fickle of each other, but I think Madame Bovary desired this most to, perhaps, escape the boring, structured life she experienced at home with her husband and child, who she neglected frequently. Leon and Emma, I think, experience a lot together, but much dwells unsaid - more assumed that both of them know, especially Leon, that a relationship would never ideally form - the thought seemed more fantasy-like.
As you said with your analogy, their relationship seems very sugar-coated, and, when the sugar gets consumed, there remains much of a dull emptiness.

[Virgil]

at this time, just as now, to say the least, adultery seems slightly frowned upon,

:lol: Well, if you look at it from the point of view of the cheated upon, I would think it's not a good thing. Adultery, whether accepted or not, whether frowned upon by gov't or not, is not a noble endeavor.

[Virgil]

The more and more I think of it, the more I find similarities between Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, and, oddly, The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. :D
This seems to have been a passion of 19th century male novelists. Don't forget Henry James, Portrait of a Lady, Daisy Miller, and others, and Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Ubervilles, and I bet there are others I can't think of. It seemed that male writers wanted to try to understand women, and interestingly each had their own perspective. Also intersting is that the novels centered around adultery.

[Chava]

I'vew just read through the discussion, and thought about making a twist, something to do with language as a definition of your identity? or perhaps more with communication? What do you think?

[mono]

I'vew just read through the discussion, and thought about making a twist, something to do with language as a definition of your identity? or perhaps more with communication? What do you think?
A very good idea, Chava.
I just reviewed the thread, too, including parts of my critiquing opinions of Charles Bovary, Leon, and Rodolphe, and feel that you really have some good ideas on adding a "twist" to the discussion.
Anyone, including in actual life and well-formed fictional characters, will communicate how they feel, even if not verbalized entirely. Though, of course, we can only read non-verbal communication (such as body language) through Flaubert's narratives, each character, I believe, distinguishes themselves especially with interactions with others. Leon and Emma Bovary have a much more clear communication strategy, but I think this seems due to such similar feelings, obsessions, passions, idealism, etc.; regardless, as I posted previously, Leon relates so well with Emma's nature that he shows little trouble in breaking off their weakly-declared relationship, reflecting well her finicky nature.
Though this sounds vague, Emma Bovary's connections with everyone else seem rather vague, aloof, and non-intimate. The affair with Rodolphe seemed more an act of desperation to escape the overwhelmingly-organized and boring structure with Charles Bovary and their child; this occurrence strongly emphasizes her determined desire to escape in any way possible, and subsequently shows the greedy, selfish manner of Rodolphe, whom I nearly detest more than Charles.
With Charles, his nature seems most obvious among all of the characters, particularly through his communication; he seems a dull, rather pampered, and oblivious individual who practically "earned" his position in life mainly through his parents. His passive nature toward Emma, I think, makes obvious an insecurity and lack of self-confidence within himself that requires a more dominating figure, even though she nearly ruins his financial life; without her, after her death, I truly wish Flaubert would have further described his life following the death.

[Chava]

Yes, i agree with your analysis, and i think i will take that approach.
However, you mentioned the child, la petite Berthe....
What is she? she is such an anonymous character, what is her purpose? Again i have an idea, but what do you think?

[mono]

However, you mentioned the child, la petite Berthe....
What is she? she is such an anonymous character, what is her purpose? Again i have an idea, but what do you think?
I had always thought that Berthe played a very neutral role in the novel, mostly representing inevitable responsibility that Emma Bovary disliked and the required structural-functionalist lifestyle she desired to avoid. Mainly because of Emma, however, and her financial woes, I think Berthe will live a life unlike any other Bovary, from the sound of their family - a life of poverty, struggle, and feeling non-pampered.

[Chava]

True, Berthe also shows the mood swings that Emma undergoes, one day she hits her, because she is a distraction, the next she wants to dress and cuddle her.
But i think the essence of Berthe is summed up when Emma is pregnant and wishes desperately for the birth of a boy, so that he might be free (and she could have been a part of that freedom) but when she has a girl, it functions like a seal on her fate. In any case, i think Berthe is very symbolic towards the fate of Madame Bovary.

[Chava]

I know it's a long time since it was relevant, but I finally found the quote i was looking for. It goes as follows:

"...exaggerated turns of speech conceal mediocre affections: as if the fulness of the soul might not sometimes overflow in the emptiest of metaphors, since no one, ever, can give the exact measurements of his needs, nor of his conceptions, nor of his sufferings, and the human word is like a cracked cauldron upon which we beat out melodies fit for making bears dance when we are trying to move the stars to pity. " Madame Bovary

[mono]

...exaggerated turns of speech conceal mediocre affections: as if the fulness of the soul might not sometimes overflow in the emptiest of metaphors, since no one, ever, can give the exact measurements of his needs, nor of his conceptions, nor of his sufferings, and the human word is like a cracked cauldron upon which we beat out melodies fit for making bears dance when we are trying to move the stars to pity.
Wow, good quote, Chava! :nod:
This quote very well demonstrates what we outlined - what we outlined and discussed in a wonderful depth, if I may say. :D No one could have quite stated it better of the things unspoken, but rather felt, thought, and imagined. Well done!