Scan barcode
A review by twilliamson
Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
1.0
Let the record show that I do not doubt this book's artistic or historical significance; my low rating is entirely subjective based in what I tend to find interesting in a novel and is in no way intended to be taken as anything close to an objective appreciation of the book's artistic value.
Let it also be said that Lydia Davis, whose translation I read, is probably the best of the multiple translations I perused while reading this book. Her sense for prose was distinct, and I think her particular sense of Flaubert's voice was the most detailed of any I read. While I wouldn't call Flaubert's book beautiful, I do think Davis made the book as beautiful as she could manage while imaginably being true to the original French.
On the whole, then, I really liked what Davis managed with the book. I just happened to hate everything else about it.
Is there any character less sympathetic than Emma Bovary? The woman's craving for excess and desire to live beyond her means destroys the lives of her husband and daughter, alongside her own. She acts selfishly, foolishly, and her choices become thoroughly ruinous. I recognize that Flaubert used new philosophies of the world as it transitioned from antiquity to modernity--especially exhibited in the scenes involving members of the French government--to inform his story's conflicts, but the historical significance of his novel cannot outweigh how absolutely mind-numbing the book feels. What should be riveting drama set in a post-Reign of Terror France is instead one of the most boring pieces of literature I've had the displeasure of reading.
Perhaps that's the point--Flaubert definitely relies on the premise of a bored housewife to create his conflict, but I cannot help but feel that the quotidian nature of his plot bogs down the pacing excruciatingly, and that his protagonist is so thoroughly unlikeable doesn't help anything. I want to dig into the politics of possession here, especially as it compares to the philosophies developing through the 18th and 19th centuries, but I'd honestly prefer to just stop thinking about the book altogether. I'm just too damn fed up with it.
But whatever. Whether "great classic" or "total bore," the book clearly has its enthusiasts and admirers. I don't think anyone's going to be hurt when I say that I'm clearly not one of them.
Let it also be said that Lydia Davis, whose translation I read, is probably the best of the multiple translations I perused while reading this book. Her sense for prose was distinct, and I think her particular sense of Flaubert's voice was the most detailed of any I read. While I wouldn't call Flaubert's book beautiful, I do think Davis made the book as beautiful as she could manage while imaginably being true to the original French.
On the whole, then, I really liked what Davis managed with the book. I just happened to hate everything else about it.
Is there any character less sympathetic than Emma Bovary? The woman's craving for excess and desire to live beyond her means destroys the lives of her husband and daughter, alongside her own. She acts selfishly, foolishly, and her choices become thoroughly ruinous. I recognize that Flaubert used new philosophies of the world as it transitioned from antiquity to modernity--especially exhibited in the scenes involving members of the French government--to inform his story's conflicts, but the historical significance of his novel cannot outweigh how absolutely mind-numbing the book feels. What should be riveting drama set in a post-Reign of Terror France is instead one of the most boring pieces of literature I've had the displeasure of reading.
Perhaps that's the point--Flaubert definitely relies on the premise of a bored housewife to create his conflict, but I cannot help but feel that the quotidian nature of his plot bogs down the pacing excruciatingly, and that his protagonist is so thoroughly unlikeable doesn't help anything. I want to dig into the politics of possession here, especially as it compares to the philosophies developing through the 18th and 19th centuries, but I'd honestly prefer to just stop thinking about the book altogether. I'm just too damn fed up with it.
But whatever. Whether "great classic" or "total bore," the book clearly has its enthusiasts and admirers. I don't think anyone's going to be hurt when I say that I'm clearly not one of them.