2024 Advent, Day 1: I Fully understand why this book is a classic. It is very well written and the themes remain ever relevant. Would have given 5 stars except that I just simply die not like any of the characters (for example: I get strong #boymom vibes and MC isn't even the mother of a son). It was actually so bad I almost knocked it down to 3. Still, good book, excellent themes, awful people. 4 stars ( )

A richly detailed story about an unhappy woman living in provincial France. Flaubert achieves an impressive balance of making Emma Bovary both despicable and sympathetic. Though Emma's experience is at the heart of this story, the background characters are compelling as are the descriptions of life in provincial France... balls, fairs, public amputations... good times! ( )

February book club: AM
The introduction said it best when it said:
"So, dear reader, if you are a woman, don't expect to see yourself in these pages; if you are a man, don't expect this book to teach you anything about women"

This book was awful. The only reason this book gets a star at all is because a) I have to.... and b) the introduction. She does a better job explaining the character than the author EVER did. she touches on the realities of being a woman in those times.

The part of the book that surprised me, and the introduction doesn't discuss it to much, is the first affair.....that it is almost rape. Let me set this up: He leads her off all on their own by horseback very far into a forest and fields near no one else
then, he leads her away from the horses. Then he makes her walk and walk. She is short of breath and becoming disoriented and she wants him to take her back to the horses because she can't remember how to get back to them.
It's at THIS point that he starts to kiss her hand and cheecks. He starts telling her that he wants her and loves her. She fights him at first and starts begging again to be taken back to the horses.
This is also the male of the story that decided "he would have her". I coudln't help but wonder if any women, in those times or now, would feel like they have the option to say no and go home.....

Needless to say, there are plenty other classics. Skip this one, move on to the better ones!!! ( )

Marvelous as always. This time I sided with Charles. ( )

***NO SPOILERS***

Gustave Flaubert’s beautiful way with words can’t compensate for Madame Bovary’s lackluster tale of Emma Bovary trapped in an unhappy marriage to boring Charles. It sounds like a soap opera--this premise that has been explored before--but unlike a soap opera, Madame Bovary lacks what makes soap operas so watchable for so many: drama and tension. Here the marriage is the focus, yet strangely, Flaubert never honed that focus nor did he keep the focus on the marriage for much of the book. Madame Bovary wanders off on numerous tangents--even opening on a tangent--that have no bearing on the plot. This makes for an uneven reading experience. Just when the main story involving Emma and Charles heats up, it switches gears to focus on an agricultural fair or soporific discussion of club feet.

The story’s biggest offense is its direct telling. The union between Emma and Charles is an unhappy one because Flaubert says it is. Emma falls in love with her lovers and they her just because; the actual falling in love is never shown. Similarly, Emma is unhappy with Charles simply because, according to Flaubert, Charles is dull. This is a story long on exposition and short on showing. Dialogue is scarce. Action is languid, with no urgency. There’s no hook.

At no point does Madame Bovary pull readers into the heart of the story and hold them right there. This is what happens when the couple at the center of the story isn’t well drawn. Flaubert sat down to write a story about a woman in crisis, whose marriage is a failure, whose husband she finds inadequate. This premise has so much potential for drama--but not if the two main characters are mere outlines. Flaubert shined the spotlight on Charles so infrequently that it’s hard to get a sense of him outside of what he does for a living; he interacts little with Emma except to fawn over her. Emma is insipid, self-absorbed, unsatisfied, and depressed, but this is all there is to her. These aren’t characters with life. Put them together, and they simply stand beside each other limply. There’s no being gripped by the mounting tension and drama as husband and wife slowly realize their marriage is disintegrating.

Nevertheless, the story is, at least, a good portrait of depression and despair. This focus may exasperate some readers, but Flaubert depicted the depth and emptiness of loss deftly--and he did so many times throughout. Some may complain this lends a sulky tone to Madame Bovary, and it's true that there are long, angsty (maybe melodramatic) passages; however, because of the care Flaubert took with authenticity, here Madame Bovary is shot through with realism.

The novel is most impressive for its writing, which is straightforward and accessible while also beautiful at times:

. . . the fiery glow that had reddened her pale sky grew gray and gradually vanished. In this growing inner twilight she even mistook her recoil from her husband for an aspiration toward her lover, the searing waves of hatred for a rekindling of love. But the storm kept raging, her passion burned itself to ashes, no help was forthcoming, no new sun rose on the horizon. Night closed completely around her, and she was left alone in a horrible void of piercing cold.

(See also the saved quotation below this review.) This is a review of the Francis Steegmuller translation, an excellent translation (save “innocent of stockings” for “barefoot”) that preserved Flaubert’s mastery of words. This is where Madame Bovary’s verve lies--in the words, not the story.

On the flip side, excessive description loses readers while once again taking the story down an annoyingly tangential path. In particular, Flaubert lovingly described his characters’ clothing and appearance, and landscapes received only slightly less attention. This could be chalked up to scene-setting, but it’s hard to argue how the number of flounces on a dress is relevant (or is even interesting). With the large cast of characters being mostly bland and extraneous, it looks like Flaubert hoped vivid descriptions of appearance could stand in for vivid characterization. In short, Madame Bovary’s artistic writing is what takes the breath away, not the story, which sounds more scandalous than it actually is. ( )