Madame Bovary- Yea or Nay?

[piquant]

I recently read Madame Bovary, and found it absolutely wretched! The story was slightly amusing, but the character of Madame Bovary was disappointing. She just seemed flat and unrealistic. I heard somewhere that Flaubert was obsessed with finding the perfect word for whatever he was describing, so maybe the story just lost something in the translation. I guess I'll just have to read it in French...If I was fluent in french .

What do you all think?

[Zeno]

haven't read it :\

[den]

Yeah I read it many years ago, and probably picked it up because it was so sensationalised. (oooh a once-banned book! ) I do remember it being a very tedious slow-moving read. Didn't like Flaubert's contrived style. Maybe it is something lost in the translation. Maybe they should have named it Madame Bovine, you know that awfully dull and vacant stare a cow gives you as it ruminates? :o

[Kahll]

According to Truman Capote Flaubert vomited as he wrote of Bovary's suicide.

[piquant]

Wow, that's really crazy about the vomit. Did anyone say why he vomited? Maybe he had to much to drink (haha), I heard he was mysogynist, a partyer, and an alcoholic. Actually, the vomit sounds more like one of those creative, incredibly poetic, things artists do that somehow produce the stereotype we have of artists, where we forget the meaning of the act, and just remember the act, which we pass on as an example of artistic insanity. It is interesting though, and next time someone is chatting with me about Madame Bovary, I'll say to them- "Did you know that he vomited as he wrote about Bovary's suicide."

As to the Madame Bovine line, I'm with you on that Den. I read the book because of my more shallow female friends suggested it (I should have considered the source). It even says in the intro. to my edition that if you're a female you can't expect to find yourself within the pages. I should have read that warning and ran. But if you were in it for a tragic romance, then you probably weren't disappointed.

[den]

piquant wrote: "it even says in the intro. to my edition that if you're a female you can't expect to find yourself within the pages. I should have read that warning and ran. But if you were in it for a tragic romance, then you probably weren't disappointed.

I'm laughing at that. Sorry, not at *you* for wasting your time reading it, but this stereotype of what women are supposed to like to read. I can't stand presumptions like that.

[piquant]

For instance, as a female I am supposed to enjoy, Jane Austin, the Brontes, Emily dickenson, etc. I did find all these authors enjoyable, but I would hardly describe them as influential to my life. That spot is reserved for Dostevsky, Tolstoy, Hesse, Vonnegut, and the like. The only female author who has been at all influential to me is Sylvia Plath. I think it is a shame that because I am female it is immediately assumed that Gothic Romance, and other similar genres are necessarily my favorite. What is even more anerving is that these are the types of classics that are often recommended to young females. I feel like we are telling young women "Here is a nice fluffy romance for you, let the men handle the philosophy."

Well, I suppose that is enough femministic raving for the day...

[den]

Oh I hear you piquant, I'm not one to go for a lot of romance and fluffy sentimental stuff either. Of course I enjoy all those you mention, the Brontes, Austen and also Anais Nin, and I love some of Plaths' poetry. She has a special place for me too. Have you read any of Ted Hughes' (her husbands') work?

I loved Shelley's Frankenstein, and I've read some of Jean Rhys books, I especially love `Wide Sargasso Sea.'

Did you read `Possession' by A.S. Byatt? Ok that was fairly romantic, but what a lovely convoluted plot intertwining different centuries and history.

[den]

Oops, didn't mean to hijack the thread there... :oops: