The Vague "She"

“She was the amoreuse in every novel, the heroine of every drama, the vague “she” of every book of poetry” (Flaubert, 251).

As I brought up in class on Wednesday, the first thing that jumps out in my mind when I read this passage is the use of the phrase, “the vague she”. Romance novel writers use techniques in their writing in which the main, heroine, female character, is not described in full detail. In Twilight, for instance, no exact description of Bella is given. This is so that the readers, who are primarily female, can picture themselves as Bella, being swooned by the love interest of the novel, Edward. The women who read the novels, dramas, and poetry, read the to escape, and like to picture themselves as the characters. Stephanie Myers has obviously picked up on this, as many girls and women all over the globe have become “Twi-hard” falling in love with a fictional character in a book.

The interesting thing about this passage, however, is that the description is not Emma’s, it is Leon’s. Emma is not talking about herself here, Leon is thinking about her in ways relating to fictitious stories, dramas, and poems he has read. Here, he is idealizing her to the fullest, but in a way that is different than she would idealize herself. He objectifies her with the pronoun “she”, proving a point that it does not matter who “she” is, as long as he can pretend she is a heroic figure from a romantic story. He becomes excited about the idea of having “A real mistress!” Exploiting a fantasy he has gained from the things he is reading. 

This quote speaks volumes not only about how Leon views Emma, but also how Emma has been regarding and respecting herself. By idealizing herself, she is almost allowing Leon and the other men she has had relationships with to objectify her in a romantic, fictitious way. 

PS-- "amoreuse" is the French equivalent of the English adjective amorous and is also the feminine form of the French noun meaning lover. 

Oh, and one more thing......

This line from 500 Days of Summer popped into my mind as we discussed and read about the "relationship" between Emma and Leon, as they discussed their affinities and felt such a deep connection based on superficial things they had in common. As I read about their encounter, I wanted to shout this at Emma, much like the main character's little sister shouts at him, trying to get him to snap out of this fantasy he thinks is true love:

Let's Get Real: Flaubert's shift away from Romanticism into Realism

It Is What It Is, Nothing More, Nothing Less... 

One of the aspects of Flaubert’s story that I find most fascinating is his use of what we discussed in class to be free-indirect discourse, a form of narrative in which no true distinction is made when shifts of point of view, thought processes, or character perspective, are revealed. I enjoy reading this style, although it is challenging, because it reminds me of Virginia Woolf’s stream of consciousness style, in which sometimes readers must back track and say, “Wait, who is talking or thinking that?”

This style works so well with the story because Flaubert isn’t directly saying: Charles says this, Emma thinks this, and so on. So it makes it interesting to analyze how the story changes as point of view changes.

As the story begins, Flaubert is writing in the voice of “we” as if the readers are a part of the story as well, acting as members of the class observing Charles from afar. I enjoy how Flaubert makes readers wait a while before exposing them to a first person point of view from the character, almost allowing us to form our own thoughts and opinions about the characters before we see what’s going on inside their heads. Perhaps this was his way of making judgements and then having to say, well, no that I see his/her perspective, I feel differently. I find that the more I read, the ore my opinions change, perhaps an emotion Flaubert wanted to evoke in his audience. 

As we read about Charles, before we are even introduced to Emma, the way the story is presented to us, we are questioning whether he is the protagonist or not. However, when we meet Emma, we are viewing her from Charles’ and other perspectives first, as suspense builds before we get to see inside her crazy mind. Although the third person perspective displays most of her thoughts and actions, readers definitely become aware as tone changes and point of view is shifting. He shifts between the subjective and objective, a tactic I was not used to at first, but then as I continued reading began to enjoy more. 

His shift to Emma’s sole perspective after the wedding is in my opinion very effective, because it is emphasizing the fact that she now has control over the story, and eventually is going to try to have control over her life. And even though the story is painted with detailed, at times boring descriptions of her daily routine and the things she is observing, it is Flaubert’s way of showing us how menial all these things she’s romanticizing really are, and the detailed, not romanticized atmosphere around them is his way of showing us that, well, it is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. 

His style of writing is a great display of not only shifts from one point of view or character to the next, but also of one style of writing-- Romanticism, to a completely different one-- Realism. 

Not So Foreign Affairs

In my dramaturgy class I have just finished reading the Russian play “The Three Sisters” by Anton Chekhov, which follows the lives of three sisters after their father’s death. Throughout the play, the audience gets to know the sisters and other people that interact with them, including love interests. The sisters long for love, happiness, and wish to leave their small town and flee to Moscow, which is where they loftily believe all their dreams will come true. The middle sister, Masha, is dark, quick witted, and artistic. She ends up having an affair with the deeply romantic Vershinin, after becoming bored and uninterested  with her current husband, Kulygin.

As I read Flaubert’s “Madame Bovary”, I find many similarities between the pathetic Kulygin and the unremarkable Charles Bovary. In both men’s eyes, their wives can do no wrong regardless of the fact that their wives are having affairs. Throughout the play, Kulygin repeats, “I am content, I am content”, as he is in complete denial, or perhaps even oblivious, that his wonderful Masha would ever have wandering eyes let alone be having a promiscuous affair. In addition, as we discussed in class, because of his allowing the women in his life to control him, we get the idea that Charles is complacent, oblivious, and emotionless. 

I also find it interesting that there are similarities between Masha and Madame Bovary. Masha is very artistic and romantic; this is where she gets most of her lofty visions of both a better life and lover. Even though she does not run of to Moscow with Vershinin as she hopes, while the two are together they have a deep, intellectual connection as well as a romantic one. Emma Bovary also finds emptiness in her own life, and fills that void with adulterous affairs. Along with love, she also craves wealth. 

I find it intriguing that both these women find their lives to be miserable and lacking, and their only evidence for this is the disparity they find between romantic ideals present in art and literature, and the simple life they lead in the country. 

Although there is about a fifty year difference between the publication of these two works in addition to one being French and the other Russian, I can’t help but wonder of the idea of romantic, exciting affairs became more common in these times, as a way to escape the boring, monotonous burden of married life. It is an idea that we in today’s society come across in television shows, movies, and literature, which perhaps is why Flaubert’s novel is so capturing; because even readers today, in a different country, can relate. These ideas which inspired Russian plays and French novels, are in fact no so foreign to us Americans after all.