that's the type of book i hated reading but love having read <3

GUSTAVE FLAUBERT : «Η Μαντάμ Μποβαρύ είμαι εγώ»...


Υπάρχει κάτι το γοητευτικά παράξενο
και αξιοσημείωτο σε αυτό το βιβλίο.
Θεωρώ πως η Έμμα Μποβαρύ,η ηρωίδα με τα μοιραία πάθη και τους πόνους απο τα λάθη,
είναι ένας χαρακτήρας λογοτεχνικά αξέχαστος,
διαχρονικά μισητός και θλιβερά αγαπητός.
Σκανδαλιστικός και μαγικός.

Μια προσωπικότητα την οποία ο καθένας αντιλαμβάνεται και κρίνει τελείως διαφορετικά,σύμφωνα με την ηλικία,το φύλο και οπωσδήποτε τις εμπειρίες του.

Εκεί κρύβεται το μαγικό του χαρακτήρα της μοιραίας πρωταγωνίστριας. Ο συγγραφέας βασανιστικά αργά χτίζει τη μαντάμ Μποβαρύ και μας καλεί όλοι μας να δούμε τον εαυτό μας σε αυτήν. Μέσα απο αυτήν.

Εύκολα και ίσως επιφανειακά κρίνουμε αρνητικά την ηρωίδα και την καίμε στην πυρά με έφλεκτα υλικά τον λυρισμό και την χυδαιότητα. Υλικά που μας προμηθεύει ο συγγραφέας σε μεγάλες ποσότητες.

Αργά και βασανιστικά ο Φλομπέρ παρουσιάζει τον «κακό» χαρακτήρα της ηρωίδας σε πλήρη αντίθεση με τον «καλό» χαρακτήρα του συζύγου της.

Αφενός,η πλοκή σκανδαλιστικά μας φέρνει αντιμέτωπους με μια παθιασμένη και ακόλαστη γυναίκα.

Μια σκιά έντονης προσωπικότητας που παραπαίει ανάμεσα στην κομψότητα,τον ρομαντισμό,την ονειροπόληση-για πολυτέλεια,ηδονές,ανομολόγητους πόθους-και την παράλογη απαιτητικότητα.
Μια γυναίκα ζηλιάρα,επιφανειακή,ματαιόδοξη,αδίστακτη,εμμονική και εγωπαθή. Ψυχρή,οργισμένη,κυκλοθυμική και ανισόρροπη.

Ελπίζει και εκστασιάζεται πριν το γάμο της. Απογοητεύεται και αλλάζει ερωτικές αγκαλιές μετά.
Ο ερχομός του παιδιού της δεν καταφέρνει να την ανταμείψει με το μεγαλείο της μητρότητας.

Η αγάπη του ήπιου,αγαθού και ταπεινού συζύγου της είναι μάλλον πατρική για εκείνη.
Μέσα της παλεύει η θρησκευτική ψευτοηθική της εποχής και η ματαίωση των προσδοκιών της.
Πολύ γρήγορα νικούν οι προσδοκίες και παραδίνεται σε ερωτικούς πειρασμούς.

Αφετέρου,η ίδια αυτή πλοκή μας φέρνει δίπλα και πολύ κοντά σε ένα δυστυχισμένο πλάσμα που αξίζει τη συμπόνοια μας.
Η Έμμα είναι μια ενήλικη που στερείται σχεδόν τα πάντα απο παιδί. Μεγαλώνει και ζει ταπεινά κοντά στον πατέρα της έχοντας περάσει πολλά χρόνια εσώκλειστη σε μοναστήρι. Η θρησκευτική αγωγή της στέρησης δεν ταιριάζει στην ψυχή της.
Δεν πήρε αγάπη ποτέ. Δεν αγαπήθηκε βαθιά και ανιδιοτελώς απο κάποιον,επομένως είναι ανίκανη να αγαπήσει. Η συναισθηματική της νοημοσύνη αρχίζει και τελειώνει σε έναν κόσμο προβολής,εξιδανίκευσης και ατομικών απολαύσεων.

Ζώντας απομονωμένη σε έναν στενόμυαλα ανδρικό κόσμο συμβιβάζεται αρχικά και παντρεύεται για να αποδράσει και να αγαπηθεί.
Απογοητεύεται απο τη νέα κατάσταση και αρχίζουν οι τάσεις φυγής.

Θλίβεται έντονα,αντιδρά,επαναστατεί,πιστεύει πως αξίζει μια ασυμβίβαστη και πολυτελή ζωή.
Αρχίζει να μάχεται για ικανοποίηση παντός είδους και ανεξαρτησία.
Είναι τρυφερή και γενναιόδωρη με τους εραστές της επειδή παλεύει να αγαπηθεί,για να αισθανθεί ασφάλεια καταντάει εμμονική,άρρωστη,κουραστική.
Πνίγεται,ρισκάρει,βασανίζεται,προδίδεται και καταρρέει.
Είναι αφελής και ευάλωτη. Θεωρεί το κύρος και την υψηλή κοινωνία λύτρωση. Διαψεύδεται.
Ενδίδει με περισσή ανωριμότητα σε πειρασμούς για να οδηγηθεί στην ευτυχία.
Η αποτυχία της είναι μεγαλειώδης και επισύρει αισθήματα οίκτου και οργής.

Καταστρέφει τη ζωή της και την οικογένεια της.


«GUSTAVE FLAUBERT» : «Η Μαντάμ Μποβαρί είμαι εγώ»...

Χυδαία μαντάμ Μποβαρύ ή Έμμα σε αέναη αναζήτηση αγάπης;


Καλή ανάγνωση!
Πολλούς ασπασμούς!!

“At the bottom of her heart, however, she was waiting for something to happen. Like shipwrecked sailors, she turned despairing eyes upon the solitude of her life, seeking afar off some white sail in the mists of the horizon."



Emma Bovary is a woman who inspires the passions of others, especially the passion of men who want to possess her. In Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary, it feels like Flaubert has given us the internal conflicts of a real and very complicated person. The work is an engaging read that sometimes feels like a romance, but more often feels like the psychological study of the book's heroine. I'm not sure I liked Emma Bovary, but that's definitely not the point. She exudes a palpable sense of disappointment with life that makes her vulnerable to those who want to control her, either through love or debt. Above all, though, she remains more complicated than the love affairs she engages in, her role as wife or mother or the tragedy that befalls her.

When I was last at Cambridge Public Library, I saw a gentleman reading this book, and I so desperately wanted to talk to him. Instead, I secretly took a picture of the only other person who reads Penguin Classics in public because yes, I am an introverted, socially awkward coward.

Recently, this article popped up on my phone: Flaubert Versus the World.

The article’s author teaches Madame Bovary at a London university, and his students found it boring, hated it, and hated the main character, Emma. They said, “that woman had everything” and found her completely unsympathetic.

So let’s talk…..

Madame Bovary was published in 1857, and it was set in France.

Emma Rouault grows up in a convent, and her mother dies. One day, she meets Charles Bovary, a doctor, who ends up marrying her, ripping her away from her entire network. Emma (now Madame Bovary) is miserable. Her sole companion, a greyhound named Djali runs away.

Emma’s life is devoid of meaning. Her childrearing and domestic duties are outsourced to her staff. Without a vocation or community, Emma’s days are empty.

As if that isn’t bad enough, Emma’s mother-in-law hates her. Instead of kindness and compassion, her mother-in-law lambastes her spending rather than offering any meaningful advice or connection. The poor dear is alone all day, unable to even talk to her maid as socializing with the help wouldn’t be proper according to the rules of society. She doesn’t have email or the telephone to call friends. The only person who consistently shows up for her is Monsieur Lheureux, the draper, who wants to sell various goods.

In desperation, Emma attempts to fill the aching loneliness. She embraces religion, but the clergy can’t be bothered. The townspeople also don’t seem to be bursting with Christian charity or love. Yes, Emma engages in retail therapy (but let the person who has not ordered from Amazon cast the first stone), and she has various love affairs.

Chuckie…I mean Charles, her husband, says how much he loves her. But Chuckie either 1) is blind to her misery or 2) doesn’t know her at all. He couldn’t be bothered to have an honest conversation about what they could afford. He gripes about fate….puh leeze, Chuckles!

Emma certainly doesn’t “have everything.” She lacks a supportive network, a true friend, someone who sees her as she truly is, to be known.

That being said, Flaubert is awful, arrogant, and pompous. He startingly insisted that he could create Emma Bovary because he knew her from the inside out—“Madame Bovary is myself—drawn from life.”

Okay, Captain Cringe.

The book is slow, S-L-O-W, with far too many pointless descriptions. In addition to reeking of ignorant haughtiness, Flaubert decided to experiment with not using quotation marks when a character speaks. This did not enhance the text. And despite Flaubert’s boasts, he doesn’t write Emma convincingly.

He doesn’t mention the persistent dark shadow of loneliness following Emma, that she is lost in the world without a compass, nothing to illuminate her path forward. People don’t find Emma sympathetic because Flaubert didn’t write her well. Such a shame!

And now for the twist ending!

The 2010 Lydia Davis translation was recommended by James Mustich in 1,00 Books to Read Before You Die. Did I listen? No.

My version was translated by Geoffrey Wall.

Big deal. Who cares? Can’t you just drop a text into Google Translate?

Indulge me for a moment, and let’s look at one of the most famous lines in history from The Great Gatsby: “It was an extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness such as I have never found in any other person and which is not likely I shall ever find again.”

But that wasn’t the original line Fitzgerald wrote: “It was an extraordinary aliveness to life, an alert vitality such as I have never found in any human person and which it is not likely I shall ever find again.”

The original isn’t as strong; it is completely forgettable. In part, it is because the famous line makes use of alliteration, “romantic readiness.” This lyrical line stirs the soul. Good translation requires skill beyond Google Translate—the soul is not a robot.

Hesitating to extend the benefit of the doubt to Flaubert, perhaps his prose is better in French, and his artistic brilliance is victim to a bad translation.

As is, this is a repulsive, boring work written by a bizarre, egotist who doesn’t live up to his own hype.

The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Softcover Text (Penguin Classics version)- $11.28 from Blackwell's
Audiobook – 1 Audible Credit (Audible Premium Plus Annual – 24 Credits Membership Plan $229.50 or roughly $9.56 per credit)

2025 Reading Schedule
JantA Town Like Alice
FebtBirdsong
MartCaptain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
AprtWar and Peace
MaytThe Woman in White
JuntAtonement
JultThe Shadow of the Wind
AugtJude the Obscure
SeptUlysses
OcttVanity Fair
NovtA Fine Balance
DectGerminal

Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Insta My Bookstore at Pango

مائة جلدة..و مائة دينار ذهبي هذا هو تقييمي.. بضمير مستريح لجوستاف فلوبير ومدام "زلطة " الشهيرة ببوفاري
الدنانير مكافاة على حذقه ومهارته في رسم لوحات ادبية لا تصدق..و الجلدات او الضربات ..لانه يصرف ذكاءه في ما لا يفيد

لو كان فلوبير يحيا بيننا اليوم لكان طبيبا نفسيا بارعا يتم الحجز عنده قبلها بستة اشهر..انظروا للاقتباس على لسان بوفاري
ا"كان الكذب ضرورة بل هواية..بل لذة يحلو المضي فيها الى درجة انها اذا قالت انها سارت على جانب الطريق الايمن فتاكد انها كانت على الجانب الايسر )

"نعم هناك بشر على هذه الشاكلة..و كيف سنتعرف على خلجات نفوس الحمقى و ذوي النفوس الدنيئة؟؟ نعاشرهم او نقرا عنهم لنشعر ان الادباء وهبوا عيونا غير عيونننا..هذه رواية ضد الروايات.. تؤكد طوال الوقت على الاثر السيء للروايات على عقول ونفوس السيدات..نعم هكذا أكد فلوبير على لسان عدة شخصيات في الرواية..وللحق اذا كانت الرواية من عينه بوفاري..فنعم والف نعم

تقييمي بالتفصيل:الاسلوب والوصف:5نجوم..اتقان شخصية البطلة 5 نجوم..باقي الشخصيات 2نجمة..الحبكة :2نجمة...القابلية للقراءة 3 نجوم
الهدف او الرسالة:صفر
النهاية:صيييييفر.. وتحت الصفر

انا ام مسلمة..في العقد الرابع وذات ثقافة اجنبية..و تقييمي خاضع لهذه المعايير شئت ام ابيت
لي اعتراضيين جوهريين على مدام بوفاري..الاول كأم..اقوى الغرائز لدى المرأة على الاطلاق هي "الامومة" هل تساءلت يوما لماذا يوجد عقاب حازم للزنا وللاب الذي يضيع من يعول.. ولكن لا يوجد احكام حازمة ضد اللام المهملة ...لان هذا منافي للطبيعة و ما جُبلت عليه الام
بوفاري كانت ام بشعة والأسوأ على مستوى الأدب العالمي ..حتى عندما رغبت في زيارة ابنتها المبعدة عند المرضعة لاول مرة..اصطحبت حبيبها
بل و في المشهد الادبي الاكثر ازعاجا لي ..نراها تلكزها بعنف عندما تقترب منها..فتقع الرضيعة ذات العام الواحد ويشق خدها!! لان المدام منزعجة من عشيقها

و هكذا فازت من الصديق حسام عادل بلقب مدام زلطةا
كم يوجد من هذه العينة في العالم؟واحدة بين كل الفين أم؟ ..اذن ما الهدف من التعمق في مشاعرها التافهة لأكثر من 400صفحة؟

سبق وقلت ا ن بوفاري مثال لمرض اضطراب ثنائي القطب و هو مرض مميز للشخصية الادمانية..تفتنك ..تسحرك..في البداية ثم تقع فريسة لكل مساوؤها المعروفة..وهي الفريسة المفضلة للنصابين ودائما تجد ساذج يتحمل مسؤلياتها...بوفاري مدمنة للجنس ..و هو المرض الاقل تعاطفا في العالم..زوجها منحها كل ما تبغيه امراة في الوجود..و يكفي انه يحبها بجنون طوال 7 سنوات عجفاء هي عمر هذا البلاء"الزواج"و لكن وجدت كل القطط الفاطسانة فيه لتخونه مرارا
..بل و تضيع ماله و توقعه في ديون اسطورية..و عندما تقترب ابنتها منها يقول ابيها: ابتعدي انت تعلمين ان والدتك لا تحب ان نزعجها! !!ا

السؤال مرة اخرى: كم يوجد من بوفاري في العالم ؟؟.وهل يستحب عرض نموذج شديد الاستثنائية بين النساء..قد يكون موجود بنسبة 10%من الرجال.. اذن المطلوب مني كام وزوجة عندما اتعرض لكل هذا التبجح و التبطر بينما اعاني انا من مشااااكل مادية ومعنوية حقيقية وواقعية..المفروض اقول انا ملاك كدة .. و لماذا اتحمل كل هذا..؟
هناك حرق قادم للاحداث
و عندما تاتي نهايتها هزيلة ..فلا يفتضح امرها....بل تقرر الخلاص من حياتها في نفس اليوم الذي سيباع فيه اثاثها في المزاد..و هكذا تحقق الجملة الشهيرة"عاش خاين ومات كافر" بل و زوجها بعد معرفته بأنها سبب إفلاسه .بل وتشريد ابنته.. و بخيانتها بعد وفاتها بعامين يظل يحبها بل يموت حبا(او جوعا )!!هنا سئمت انا حياتي كلها حقا

وهنا ياتي اعتراضي ال��اني: هناك سخرية مستترة من الإيمان عموما ...فالخطيئة الثانية تبدا في الكاتدرائية ..و الشخصيات المؤمنة يتم اقصائها وتهميشها....وشخصية الصيدلي الملحد من اخبث الشخصيات الادبية..و هو الشخصية الوحيدة التي فازت بكل شيء في انتصار كامل غير مبرر للشر

لقد احترت حقا في تقييم الرواية فهناك روايات تخرج منها باحساس بغيض يملاك ضيقا و حقدا. هل هناك رسالة خفية ؟ لم افهمها..و اعتذر عن الاسهاب الشديد

کتاب سوزی

من یک وقتی توی گوگل پلاس، مجموعه پست هایی میذاشتم با تگ #کتاب_سوزی، و هر چی از نویسنده ها و فلاسفه در نفی کتابخوانی پیدا می کردم ذیل این تگ منتشر می کردم. عده ای پای پست ها علیه این نگرش اعتراض می کردن و ازم می پرسیدن: مقصودم از انتشار این پست ها چیه؟ چرا کتابخوانی رو مذمت می کنم؟
و من هر بار جواب متفاوتی می دادم. چون هر کدوم از نویسندگان و فلاسفه هم دلیل متفاوتی برای نفی کتاب داشتن. یکی می گفت: کتاب نخونید، بلکه به جاش خودتون مستقل بیندیشید. کتاب خوندن موجب میشه در اندیشیدن وابسته بار بیاید.
یکی می گفت: کتاب نخونید، بلکه به جاش زندگی کنید. در خیالات رنگارنگ داستان نویسان و استدلال های پر پیچ و خم فلاسفه گم نشید، زندگی واقعی این ها نیست، زندگی واقعی اون بیرونه.
یکی دانش بدون بینش عمیق رو نفی می کرد، یکی از کتاب بد خوندن ایراد می گرفت، و یکی به تمام وقت کتاب خوندن می تاخت.
چرا این ها رو گفتم؟
اگه بخوام مضمون رمان مادام بوواری رو در یک کلمه خلاصه کنم، "کتابسوزی" از بهترین گزینه هاست. زنی که نوجوانی ش رو با خیالات و رؤیاهای رمانتیک کتاب ها و قصه ها پر کرده، و حال با سیلی واقعیت رو به رو شده: زندگی روزمره، با شوهری که مثل تمام آدم ها کمی شریفه و کمی سخت کوش و کمی بی دست و پا، با درآمدی متوسط، بدون زرق و برق های آن چنانی، بدون عشق های آن چنانی، بدون ماجراهای آن چنانی. اما مادام بوواری نمی خواد این ها رو بپذیره، نمی خواد قبول کنه که کتاب هاش و قصرهای جادوییش فقط سرابی از زندگی واقعی بوده ن، در نتیجه، به دنبال دست یافتن به ماه توی مرداب، پیوسته بیشتر فرو میره و فرو میره و فرو میره.

آلن دوباتن (نویسنده تسلی بخشی های فلسفه و کتب دیگر) مقاله ای حول مادام بوواری نوشته که خوندنش رو توصیه می کنم. مخصوصاً برای ما که خودمون رو عضو دایره کتابخونا می شمریم، ضروریه که کتابخوانی «انتقادی» رو یاد بگیریم. منظورم از کتابخوانی «انتقادی» اینه که مدام از ذهن خودمون و آموخته‌های خودمون فاصله بگیریم و حلاجیشون کنیم و به بوتۀ نقد بذاریمشون.

لینک مقاله آلن دوباتن


مادام بوواری و آنا کارنینا

مادام بوواری به سال ۱۸۵۶ نوشته شده، و آنا کارنینا به سال ۱۸۷۷. شباهت زیاد ایده ها به هم (زنی که خسته از زندگی زناشویی، به آغوش عاشقان دیگر پناه می بره اما به زودی از اون ها هم سرخورده میشه، و در نهایت خودکشی می کنه) و قضاوت منفی دو نویسنده نسبت به شخصیت زن قصه هاشون، آدم رو مشکوک می کنه که نکنه تولستوی حال و هوای کلی اثرش رو از فلوبر گرفته باشه. البته این از ارزش آنا کارنینا کم نمی کنه، روانشناسی و شخصیت پردازی قدرتمند تولستوی دوست داشتنی، داستان های فرعی ش، اخلاقیات و فلسفه ای که در صفحه صفحه کتابش جا داده، باعث میشه که اگه قرار بر انتخاب بین یکی از دو رمان باشه، من بدون معطلی آنا کارنینای شکوهمند رو انتخاب کنم.

"Di dove le veniva quell'insufficienza della vita, quella putrefazione istantanea di tutte le cose su cui s'appoggiava?"

Ho iniziato la lettura di Madame Bovary senza conoscerne la storia, nonostante il libro sia famosissimo; mi aspettavo onestamente un contenuto completamente diverso da quello che ho incontrato.

Forse perché non avevo grandi aspettative o forse semplicemente per il suo valore intrinseco, fatto sta che il romanzo di Flaubert mi ha entusiasmato.

Mi ha entusiasmato per l'efficacia della scrittura; non ricordo noia, non ricordo episodi ridondanti, non ricordo difficoltà di lettura. Ricordo solamente la nitidezza delle situazioni, la definizione accurata dell'ambiente sociale della provincia francese, la meravigliosa caratterizzazione dei personaggi, la struttura lineare del romanzo.

E mi ha entusiasmato il modo in cui viene trattato il soggetto. Emma, forse a causa delle letture romantiche e sentimentali fatte in gioventù, si crea grandi aspettative dalle relazioni sentimentali e dalla vita in genere. E queste aspettative si scontrano irrimediabilmente con l’esistenza mediocre e provinciale in cui le tocca barcamenarsi al fianco di un marito buono e onesto, ma anche poco intelligente e di scarsa ambizione. Emma sfoga la sua passione verso due amanti e si dedica all'acquisto di oggetti superflui ed inutili, che le servono per tentare di salire nella scala sociale. Ma nulla la soddisfa, nulla la appaga, nulla le dà motivazione.

Emma si sposa sperando di poter vivere i suoi sogni e i suoi smisurati desideri. Quello che però ottiene invece è la monotonia del matrimonio, la mediocrità del marito, la razionalità calcolata dei suoi amanti di fronte alla sua smisurata passione, nemmeno un barlume di affermazione sociale e neppure il figlio maschio che avrebbe desiderato, unica via di uscita per riscattarsi.

"Ma per lei, ecco, l'esistenza era fredda come un solaio esposto a settentrione, il silenzioso ragno della noia tesseva e ritesseva la tela nell'ombra, in ogni cantuccio del suo animo"

Un'anima in pena, Emma. Non c'è tregua per lei, non c'è soddisfazione, non c'è pace, nemmeno dopo la sua morte, quando viene vestita, quasi a sfregio, col vestito bianco da sposa.

E' disdicevole o immorale la sua condotta? Sicuramente sì, secondo i canoni dell'epoca e direi anche secondo i nostri. Ma tutto a questo mondo è relativo e la sua figura, comparata con la mediocrità, meschinità e perbenismo dei personaggi che la circondano è rivalutata, nonostante tutto.

Disdicevole e immorale, Emma, ma commovente per la sua situazione di profondo disagio, anche dello stesso esser donna:

"Una donna ha continui impedimenti. A un tempo inerte e cedevole, ha contro di sé le debolezze della carne e la sottomissione alle leggi. La sua volontà, come il velo del suo cappello tenuto da un cordoncino, palpita a tutti i venti, c’è sempre un desiderio che trascina, e una convenienza che trattiene".

Un personaggio, Emma, che non dimenticherò facilmente.

Excelentă și la a treia lectură.

Why was her life so inadequate? Why did everything she leaned on instantly crumble into dust? These were the questions tormenting Emma (Madame Bovary) in her solitude that she never expected to exist in her nuptial life of which she dreamed. Yet, the gaps widened. The barriers grew stronger.

"A man, at least is free; he can explore the whole range of the passions, go wherever he likes, overcome obstacles, savor the most exotic pleasures. But a woman is constantly thwarted. Inert and pliable, she is restricted by her physical weakness and her legal subjection. Her will, like the veil tied to her hat with a cord, quivers with every wind; there is always some desire urging her forward, always some convention holding her back."

The solitude, she was forced to invent for her, had soon become unbearable. Is it the city life she was longing for? There are traces to positively acknowledge this question. But this is not the reason for the entirety of her distress. There must be something or someone she is really longing for.

"Don’t you know there are some souls that are constantly tormented? They need dreams and action, one after the other, the purest passions, the most frenzied pleasures, and it leads them to throw themselves into all sorts of fantasies and follies."

Was she a sacrifice to her marriage? A woman who had imposed such great sacrifices on herself certainly had a right to indulge in a few whims. She remembered the adulterous women from novels she read and their amorous adventures, imagining herself to be the heroine of her romantic adultery and victimizing herself to "Women like that ought to be horsewhipped!". But fantasies fooled her. Follies tormented her. Alas! Heroes left her, once they grew tired of her feminine refinements.

"Would this misery last forever? Was there no escape from it? And yet she was certainly just as good as all those other women whose lives were happy! She had seen duchesses at * who had dumpier figures and cruder manners than she, and she cursed God’s injustice..."

Is she to be blamed for her distress? Are not those princely guys who entered her life, uninvited, and ravished her dreams, even distantly responsible for her self-torment? or Can we just call it as an ill-fate of a wretched soul?

The author strictly prohibits you from drawing any conclusion or even making any inference from this story brimming with sad tears which touch the nuptial rings on the delicate fingers of the fragile beings. This is just the account of Madame Bovary. The ordeals of poor Monsieur Bovary are inexpressibly sad. Hence, better not expressed in words or emotions or any form. God save their daughter Berthe! Period!


Movie - Warning:
Please don't see the movie and underrate this excellent book. It is really disgusting how someone can badly mess up a story like this one. I just don't get it. You have a written script and why can't you make a movie as it is? or If you want to change the story totally or make it meaningless, why to use the title? Meh! I would happily call this movie as "Confessions of a shopaholic - 2" or something like that, given a chance.

Notes on translation
I didn't find any major difference between the translation of Geoffrey Wall (Penguin Classics) and Lydia Davis (Penguin Deluxe). However, Davis' translation is found to be easier to read and have better words at certain important places. But, when it comes to the question of paying more (Deluxe Editions are expensive. At least, here in my country, they are!) for a better widely acclaimed translation, I have to say that I am little disappointed. Neverthless, it is a keeper!

.

جنون امر کلی

ما امر کلی را در فلسفه پی گرفته‌ایم و معمولاً از منظر عقل و منطق، به آن نگریسته‌ایم. چه در جریان ترجمه قرن دوم هجری به بعد که با یونان آشنا شدیم، و چه در دوره معاصر، تنها از همین زاویه به آن خیره شده‌ایم و نمودهای محدودی از آن را دیده‌ایم. ما حتی دریچه علم را هم برای نگریستن به امر کلی چندان معتبر ندانسته‌ایم و هنگام رفتن سراغ آن، بیشتر به دنبال قدرت و کارآمدی بوده‌ایم. در حالی که پس از مواجهه ما با دنیای جدید و به ویژه پس از تشکیل حکومت پهلوی، ما در همه شئون زندگی با امر کلی روبه‌رو هستیم؛ البته بدون آن که ببینیمش. ما توانِ باز کردن دریچه‌های مختلف به آن را نداریم درحالی که متأثر از آن زندگی می‌کنیم. «رمان» یکی از مهمترین نمودهای امر کلی در دنیای حاضر، بوده و هست اما ما رد پای «کلی» را در آثار نویسندگان خارجی ندیده‌ایم. این ندیدن‌ها باعث شده دچار تحلیل‌های اشتباه شویم و در فهم مقولات مدرن دچار توهم بشویم. به خصوص در جایی که با مفاهیم سابقه‌دار روبه‌رو بوده‌ایم، بسیار به بیراهه رفته‌ایم. یکی از مهمترین این مفاهیم گمراه‌کننده در رمان؛ «عشق» بوده و هست.

ما درک نمی‌کردیم و نمی‌کنیم که وقتی نویسنده‌ای خارجی از «عشق» می نویسد، با آن به مثابه امر کلی درگیر است. برعکس، ما عشق را به مثابه امری یکتا خوانده‌ایم و می‌خوانیم همان گونه که در سنت ادبی ما بالیده و شاخ و برگ پیدا کرده. ما دلیل خودکشی «آناکارنینا» را نمی‌فهمیم چون صحنه‌های پرشکوه همراهی او و ورونسکی را نوعی رستگاری یا لااقل زمینه آن می‌پنداریم. ذهن ما به «اتحاد عاشق و معشوق زیر سایه عشق» تکیه دارد و خیال ما از فریب عشق در خفاست. مگر عشق هم فریب می‌دهد؟ عشقی که ما در سنت ادبی‌مان می‌شناسیم، نه. نزد ما عشق و صدق همزادند و حتی از یک جوهرند. ما متوجه نمی‌شویم که چطور «عشق به مثابه امر کلی» فریب می‌دهد، زیرا هیچ مصداقی توان حمل همه سنگینی امر کلی را ندارد. رابطه کلی و جزئی لغزنده است. جزئی از آنجا که نمودِ کلی است آن را باز می‌تاباند، و از آنجا که همه آن نیست (چون تنها سایه‌ای از آن است) آن را پوشیده نگه می‌دارد. به همین دلیل کلی در هر مصداق طلوعی دارد و غروبی. خودکشیِ زنی اخلاق‌مدار چون آنا یک ضرورت است برای غروب «عشق به مثابه امر کلی»، همچون خیانت او که یک ضرورت بود برای طلوع «عشق به مثابه امر کلی»؛ هیچ‌کدام در حوزه انتخاب او نبود.

یکی از بهترین رمان‌هایی که این طلوع و غروب را در برابر ما به نمایش می‌گذارد، «مادام بوورای» فلوبر است. داستان این زن به گونه‌ای نیست که ذهن ایرانی ما بتواند آن را به راحتی چونان «عشق به مثابه امر یکتا» بخواند. او سه معشوق دارد و در هر رابطه نیز به‌تمامه معشوق است. روایت فلوبر به ما اجازه نمی‌دهد یکی از آن مصداق‌ها را اصل در نظر بگیریم و دو تای دیگر را مجازی بدانیم. فلوبر ما را با سه مصداق از عشق در «یک زندگی» روبه‌رو کرده است تا «عشق به مثابه امر کلی» را واضح و عیان ببینیم. روایت فلوبر از هر سه عشق چنان پرشور و در عین حال همسطح است که برای فهم قصه، ما چاره‌ای جز کنار گذاشتن فهم کهن‌مان از عشق و نزدیک شدن به دیدگاه غربی نداریم. شخصیت‌پردازی اِما چنان خوب انجام شده که ما به عینه متوجه می‌شویم او در پیِ «عشق» است و هربار نزد کسی می‌جویدش، اما به چنگش نمی‌آورد. چرا به چنگ نمی‌آورد؟ چون اساساً امر کلی در زندگی زمان‌مند دنیوی در دسترس نیست. عشق نیز چونان مفاهیم کلی دیگر، در هر مصداق طلوعی دارد و غروبی. برای همین وقتی در پایان داستان، زمانی که بوواری برای تن‌فروشی سراغ رودولف می‌رود، از او پاسخ منفی می شنود. آن دو زمانی «چیزی» به حساب می‌آمدند که برای طلوع عشق برگزیده شده بودند ولی حالا هیچ نیستند.

«هرچه بود خوشبخت نبود، هرگز احساس خوشبختی نکرده بود. این نابسندگی زندگی از چه بود، از چه ناشی می‌شد این که به هرچه تکیه می‌کرد درجا می‌گندید؟... اگر به راستی در جایی انسانی نیرومند و زیبا وجود داشت، انسانی نستوه، سرشار از شور و در عین حال طرافت، با قلب یک شاعر و چهره یک فرشته، که چنگ به دست داشت و رو به آسمان مدیحه‌های نکاحی می‌خواند، اگر وجود داشت چرا اِما اتفاقی به او برنمی‌خورد؟ آه! چه خیال محال! به راستی که هیچ چیز ارزش جست‌وجو نداشت؛ همه چیز دروغ بود! هر لبخندی خمیازه‌ای از ملال را پنهان می‌کرد و هر شادی‌ای لعنتی را، هر لذتی چندشش را، و از بهترین بوسه‌ها چیزی جز میل تحقق‌ناپذیرِ خوشیِ بزرگتری روی لب‌ها نمی‌ماند.»

فهم خودکشی مادام بوواری تنها از مسیر درک این تکرار قابل فهم است، تکراری که زندگی را به بیهودگی می‌کشاند. مادام بوواری نمی‌تواند چونان سیزیف بار حکمِ تکرار را به دوش بکشد، همچون همه انسان‌های مادی که چنین توانی ندارند. پذیرش تکرار تنها در افسانه‌ها ممکن است، جایی که امر کلی صورت ذهنی دارد نه مادی. نگاهِ سنتی ما به امر کلی، که آن را فقط در عالم ذهن می‌جسته، امکانِ درک این تکرار را از ما گرفته است. ما تکرار این جهانی را و اساساً زندگی را، در نسبت با اراده‌ای یکتا و به مثابه تجلی می‌فهمیم به همین دلیل درکی از «جنونِ امر کلی» نداریم. عقل نزد ما رو سوی عالمِ بالا دارد و امر کلی را آنجا در می‌یابد. ما مصداق‌ها را با «میل و عشق» درک می‌کنیم که فرای عقل و جنون، ضد و ند را در خود جمع می‌کند.

در این دنیا، جایی که ظرفیت و قواعدش دائرمدار ماده تعین پیدا کرده، هیچ چاره‌ای از طلوع و غروب نیست. مرگ و زندگی همزاد هم‌اند. «عشق به مثابه امر کلی» نمی‌تواند تولد و مرگ را با هم نشان ندهد. دست شستن از یکی، روگرداندن از دیگری است. به خلافِ «عشق به مثابه امر یکتا» که متحد جاودانگی است و از صداقت و رستگاری جدایی‌ناپدیر است.

Her too-lofty dreams, her too-narrow house.

We meet and greet different sorts of people; we greet and read different sorts of books. Last year, I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Jane Eyre. With her modest dreams and dignified living, it was easy to accept and love her. She was far from perfect but there was hardly a thing I would have changed about her. A fictional character of literature exemplifying the virtuous side of real life but she was not alone. There were some other characters surrounding Jane who certainly struck a chord with me but the music thus created was not a soothing melody. The arrogant ways of Reed cousins and the vindictive streak in Bertha Mason’s love symbolized an unpleasant world which held within it afflictive but relevant stories. In one such story this year, I met Emma.

n   But shouldn’t a man know everything, excel at a host of different activities, initiate you into the intensities of passion, the refinements of life, all its mysteries? Yet this man taught her nothing, knew nothing, wished for nothing. He thought she was happy; and she resented him for that settled calm, that ponderous serenity, that very happiness which she herself brought him. n

The Bored and Beautiful, Madame Bovary. We all probably know her. That naive little girl who doesn’t appreciate the toy in her hands because another child owns an artificial but glittering tiara. That reckless young woman who jots down a list of inordinate whims which could culminate into a glorious Happily Ever After when time comes. That unfortunate mature lady who finally realizes the vacuity of her air castles when it’s too late. Emma while single had imagination and anticipation; Ms. Bovary while married had perversity and passion. It was difficult to love and accept her but that’s precisely what I did- with a little help from Flaubert’s terrific writing and a little help from the world around me.

Love and its vicious pleasures don’t spare anyone. Those pleasures when turned inside out, sometimes take the shape of eternal sufferings too. The difference possibly lies in the vacuum created out of being in love and the idea of being in love. Both can be fatal but I would like to believe that the latter is something that is bound to make a person delusional about oneself and everyone around. Emma tried to form a derisory bridge from her idea too, in a hope to reach an unknown destination she usually read in her books but eventually she suffered too.

Where could she have learned this depravity, so deep and so dissembled that it was almost incorporeal?

Why, from this society only. A society which thrives upon displaying its pretentious happiness and insists on concealing the perpetual sadness. A society which constantly invent ways of piling up the debt upon another person while wearing the sham of welfare. A society where another Madame Bovary, Emma’s mother-in-law, silently accepts her fateful marriage. Amidst all these lies, it’s no wonder that Emma learned something which was not worth learning at all. Flaubert, through his omniscience narration hasn’t passed any judgment or jumped to futile conclusions here. He has simply stated how people conduct their lives when materialism comes to the forefront of one’s mind. Love goes to hell in such cases.

She was the beloved of every novel, the heroine of every drama, the vague she of every volume of poetry.

Ah! The irony.

The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classics" for the first time, then determine whether or not they deserve the label. Madame Bovary is book #26 of the series.

The story in a nutshell:
Considered by nearly everyone to be one of the best novels ever written, French cynic Gustave Flaubert's 1857 Madame Bovary (originally published serially in 1856) is one of the first fiction projects in history to be as much a deep "character study" as a vehicle for simply propelling an exciting plot; it is an ultra-detailed look at an ultra-complex person, the Emma Bovary (nee Rouault) of the book's title, where the whole point is not just to learn what happens to her but what makes her tick in general. Because make no mistake, Bovary is one of the most complicated characters in the history of literature too, still able to ignite passionate arguments among fans to this day: some see her as a clearly sympathetic and very typical woman, forced into a whole series of awkward situations by a whole series of incompetent men in her life, just like such dunderheads have been doing to smart females for centuries; while others see her more like an unmedicated sufferer of bipolar disorder, constantly flip-flopping on what she wants out of life depending on what in particular she doesn't happen to have that particular moment, constantly adding unneeded drama to her life when bored and treating pretty much every single person around her like complete crap.

Raised in a convent, a lover of erotica, desirous of an expensive urban lifestyle yet not very smart about money, it is this dichotomy of traits that keeps Bovary careening from one radically different situation to the next: first falling hard for her father's roving rural doctor (full-time "good guy" and hence impotent cuckold Charles Bovary), thinking that their marriage will finally bring her the sophisticated Paris life she's always dreamed of; then trying and failing at a domestic life as a small-town wife and mother, after it becomes clear that Charles prefers the dowdy provincial life of the northern French farmlands, leading to a hot-and-cold emotional affair with a young law student there named Leon; then a move to essentially one of the first large "suburbs" in France's history (the fictional mid-sized Yonville, not too far from Paris by carriage or rail, based on the real-life suburb of Ry), where she embarks on a much more serious affair with a major hater-playah named Rodolph; then an unceremonial dumping by Rodolph, after she offers to leave her husband for him and bring the kid along, leading to a short period again in her life as a pious born-again Christian; with all of that followed believe it or not by a reacquaintance with the now successful young urban lawyer Leon, leading to a sexually explicit "hotel afternoons in the big city" affair (the part of the book that led to its infamous obscenity trial when it first came out); which then finally leads to an ending whose details I'll leave a surprise, but let's just say results in ruin and/or death for nearly every freaking person involved. Oh, those French and their happy endings!

The argument for it being a classic:
Madame Bovary established so many firsts, its fans will argue, it's sometimes scary: not just the first novel ever to be written in the modern, pared-down "conversational tone" we know today, not just one of the first novels to complexly combine both character and plot development equally in one manuscript, but also one of the very first novels in history to establish the "Realist" school of thought, a set of conventions which now guide almost all contemporary novels being written (but more on that in a bit), all while ironically being a perfect example of a Victorian-Age Romantic novel as well, and of containing all the hallmarks that fans of Romanticism look for even while making vicious fun of them too. In fact, this book is almost like a freaky artifact from a future time that shouldn't actually exist, if you want to get technical about it; a book that reads exactly like a contemporary mainstream-lit character study, but published at the same time as the severely overwritten, overwrought, epistolary-style adventure tales and pseudo-science babble much more typical of the mid-1800s. It's not just important as a historical artifact (but more on that in a bit too), not just seminal to the arts in about a half-dozen different ways, but is still a surprisingly great read even 152 years later; nearly every novel being written today owes one aspect of its form or another to this ultra-important precedent, fans argue, making it the very definition of a literary "classic" that should still be picked up by every lover of great books out there.

The argument against:
Ironically, the only criticisms of Madame Bovary I could find seemed to argue that the book is just too well-written; that Flaubert created such a hyper-realistic emotional trainwreck, they ended up disgusted by her and couldn't even finish. "Ugh, that Emma, I can't stand her, she's so despicable," I saw one online critique after another say, none of these people apparently realizing that that's the whole point; that the entire purpose of this book existing is to present this ultra-flawed, many times legitimately despicable character, to examine what motivates her and how she can be so sympathetic at times too, to understand ourselves better and especially those parts of our own personalities we share with her.

My verdict:
So how exactly should we feel about Emma Bovary, anyway? Well, to ponder that question is to avoid the much more remarkable point -- that Flaubert managed to create such a magnificently complicated creature to begin with, one who can still inspire such enflamed debates about her character a full century and a half later. (And by the way, how dispiriting to finally learn that Tom Perrotta's novel Little Children, which I highly favorably reviewed here in 2007, owes much of its success to a rather literal rip-off of many of Madame Bovary's key points, all the way down to sometimes stealing entire scenes beat-for-beat. Sheesh, no wonder Perrotta's follow-up The Abstinence Teacher was such a miserable stinker; he had no seminal semi-forgotten public-domain classic to lean on that time.) Not to mention, concentrating on Bovary's sometimes abhorrent behavior ignores a much more important point -- that every single character in this novel is abhorrent, done so by Flaubert very deliberately. Let's not forget, the book is set in the years of France's so-called "July Monarchy," which in a simplified nutshell saw the creation for the first time in history of middle-class suburbanites; and like every other bitter artist in history, Flaubert despised middle-class suburbanites with every fiber of his being, and meant in many ways for Madame Bovary to be a devastating indictment of them all -- from the schizophrenic Emma to the facile Charles, from the jealous village pharmacist Homais to the weasely neighborhood merchant Lheureux. Let's always remember that Flaubert worked for decades on an epic called Bouvard and Pecuchet, which he always considered his perpetually-unfinished masterpiece; but that when it was finally released to the public posthumously in 1881, it turned out to be not much more than a massive unfocused rant, a grand satire concerning the utterly pathetic mediocrity of most human beings and the utter folly of ever thinking we will learn anything by studying history. Now that's a bitter French artist, my friend.

But if this weren't enough, there's also the matter of the utterly remarkable language and structure used, which I now know for a personal fact because of doing this CCLaP 100 series is just so profoundly unlike any of the other novels that were being published at the same time; it really does feel like some freaky anomaly that shouldn't actually exist, snatched from the 1930s during the height of Early Modernism and somehow by time-machine accidentally left behind in the middle of the Victorian Age. (And even more remarkably, Flaubert himself wasn't particularly prolific or well-known, only finishing three other novels besides Bovary and all of them obscure even during his own lifetime.) This is why you hear so many people rave about this book's style, because it really is a perfect example of what the French call seeking le mot juste ("just the right word"); there are passages on display here that can instantly transport you in just a few paragraphs to a misty early evening in 19th-century northern rural France, before you even realize what's going on or that you'd left in the first place. And all of a sudden you've missed your bus, and you're standing on the streetcorner cursing Flaubert for being such an astounding writer in the first place.

It's remarkable, I think, that this book lays the entire groundwork for the Realist school of literary thought, a full 50 years before Henry James and others even first came up with the English version of the term, and like I said nearly every mainstream-lit novel written today gets at least some of its cues from it; because much like the "Socratic method," Realism has become so permeated in our culture that we don't even realize anymore that that's what it is when we see it, with the entire thing essentially boiling down to the idea of writing stories in a "realistic" fashion, as if we were invisible ghosts hovering over the shoulders of the characters and quietly observing the events of the story as they actually happen (now known as "omniscient narration," and the basis behind 95 percent of all novels written). But it's also true what its fans say, that it doubles as a perfect Romantic novel too, a different school of literary thought with goals that sometimes clash with those of Realism; like the best of Victorian-Age literature, Madame Bovary too places great emphasis on emotions, feelings, passion, madness, and all the other great hallmarks of being an alive human being, and also like all great Victorian novels it too features as a character a buffoonish adherent of rationalism (in this case, the constantly pontificating pharmacist Homais), a holdover "true believer" from the 1700s Enlightenment who both the Romantics and Realists could agree on regarding their mutual hatred. (Stupid fun-hating scientists!)

Although I'm only about a quarter of the way through the CCLaP 100 as of the writing of this particular review, I think it's safe to say that this is going to turn out to be one of my absolute favorites of the entire series, and it's simply astonishing in my opinion how well it's held up now over the last 150-odd years. It's a standard-bearer for sure of this entire series, one of only a handful of books in existence that nearly everyone agrees is a classic, which then helps us make the relative determination as well for much more troublesome candidates. If you're to read only a handful of books in the CCLaP 100 series, do make sure to make Madame Bovary one of them.