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.
No comments:
Post a Comment