Henry James once said, "Madame Bovary has a perfection that not only stamps it, but that makes it stand almost alone; it holds itself with such a supreme unapproachable assurance as both excites and defies judgment."

That's right. Defies judgment.


I don't know... he looks kind of judgy to me...

Unfortunately, I had to read a translation as my French is nowhere near good enough to read the original. Though I am assured that the prose in the original French are amazing and inspiring.

I can certainly appreciate the characterization and story-telling ability but I personally struggled with the story as I reconciled what Flaubert seemed to be saying about society, women, women who had affairs, men and romance.

Now, I would like to take a moment to quote Manny's Review, since he is the one who convinced me to read this book in the first place.

"Flaubert makes no obvious attempt to judge Emma..."

No, Flaubert doesn't break up his beautiful prose at any point with, "So whilst that is a very nice tree, I would like to intrude and mention that Emma is, like, a total ho! So, now back to the tree..."

I feel he doesn't do this because that would be superfluous. In fact, it seems to me that he doesn't stop judging through this entire book.


The judgement is like looking at vacation photos of a ninja family. You can't see it but you know it's there.

Why else would Flaubert so meticulously describe and relish in Emma's fall from grace? Every little detail is mentioned with the same eagerness as a kid dobbing in their little brother. He puts together a file of evidence for her complicity, a smoking gun as you'd say, and leaves it up to us to point the finger.

-She immediately decides after her wedding night that she doesn't love Charles.
-She then sets about creating her own misery by obsessing and romanticizing this unhappiness until it consumes her.
-She goes from a productive and proficient housewife to a morose, unrelenting mess.
-She quickly begins despising Charles and blaming him for everything while he dotes on her and grows increasingly content.
-Her home quickly falls into a state of shabbiness.
-Her daughter goes neglected.
-Her first romance uses her unforgivably but is eventually driven away by her incessant neediness and demands.
-Her second romance, whilst more earnest in his affections, is also driven away by her incessant neediness, deteriorating mental health and demands.
-She drives her husband into bankruptcy.
-Commits suicide to escape it all.
-Her husband falls into despair, neglects their child and quickly dies.
-The child ends up working in a cotton factory.

What would a child do working in a cotton factory, you ask?

Oh, just a little mill-scavenging. Their job was to crawl under the huge, spinning WHEELS OF DEATH to pick up the spare bits of cotton. They were not allowed to sit, rest, or take a break while the mill ran - which was always except for Sunday when they cleaned the huge, spinning WHEELS OF DEATH that caused these children to live in a constant state of grief and terror

Well, doesn't that just cheer you up!

The entire story arc and every unnecessary tidbit condemns Emma like one more nail in the coffin. Society is condemned, men are condemned, romantic idealism is condemned. Really, this novel thinks everyone is to blame. What is this novel's answer to it? It seems to be saying, "Well, that silly woman had so much and she threw it all away and look at her now, kids. She's dead! And poor, which is really much worse."

The novel seems to step back and tsk at Emma, saying that she had so much. A safe and comfortable home, a good husband who doted on her and she just couldn't be happy with that.

Then it looks at society and says, "Well, you created this and now you've helped destroy her too, you assholes!"

It shakes its head at Charles and says, "You weren't strong enough to keep her in line and then you pined over this worthless woman to the ruinment of your only child."

But I wonder what this book would have been if Emma hadn't been a victim to everyone and every circumstance except for Charles. I wonder what this book would have been like if it displayed a far more realistic approach to a woman having an affair and her reasons. Because, let's face it, this book's depiction of a woman and why she has extra-marital relations is very obtuse. Emma's life and situation is hardly the common for women who seek more out of life. This book makes her quest for more seem silly, unneccessary and ungrateful.

Most of all, I wonder what this novel would have been like if it had dealt with Emma as a real character. One who didn't need to be mostly insane to justify having an affair. One who wasn't both stupid and entitled and didn't lose all her money through a lack of self-control and ability to take five seconds to do the math. One who was capable of growing and learning from life.

Unfortunately all that is lost. Even in the end, Emma learnt nothing. All sound and fury. Signifying nothing.

Much like this novel.

My final criticism about this book...

This was a book about people gettin' it on...

AND THERE WAS NO SEX!


Curse you, Flaubert! Curse you!