A solid portion of our class disucssion has been centered around Gustave Flaubert's us of Madame Bovary as social commentary. It seems to be generally accepted that Flaubert's main objective was to comment on the desparity between the lack of opportunity for the middle class to move upward, and their insatiable need/attempt to. We've also spent time disucussing the 'like-ability' of the characters, and struggling to define what approach we are to take in regards to interpreting the characters actions and motives through Flaubert's eyes. And, after finishing the novel I truly believe that Flaubert meant to put a majority of the characters in as poor a light as possible.
Emma spends nearly the entire novel in and out of various affairs, continually misleading her husband, and neglecting her dedication to marriage and parenthood. At times, the novel almost lures you into fealing sorry for Emma by presenting her as this terribly tragic character, who's simply the unfortunate product of the wrong time period. But, in the end Flaubert puts that to rest, and has Emma poisin herself. Charels on the other hand is painted as a loser from the start. He honestly and graciously trudges down his sad, pathetic path the entire novel, and you cannot help but feel sorry for him. Regardless, in the end Flaubert has him meet a similarly sad ending - dying of grief, discuss, and betrayel after uncovering all of his wife's adulteries.
I feel like when we read a work like Madame Bovary - with such realistically grim plot - we as sensible human beings, search for redeeming characteristics within the characters and stories. But the truth is, when you read this novel cover to cover - at least to me - it comes off as Flaubert just trashing the middle class. I think he truly believes everyone outside his tax bracket is somehow less significant. Every character that did not possess some kind of great wealth, knowledge, or prestige suffered an equally dreary and disappointing fate.
No comments:
Post a Comment