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. 

"When Hell freezes over..."

One of the most fascinating, yet terrifying aspects of The Inferno, in my opinion, is Dante’s description of the ninth circle of Hell, and his wicked description of Satan, also known as Lucifer. I never truly thought of this until I read The Inferno, but it is interesting to compare how we think of “The Devil” and our conceptions of Hell, and how Dante describes them. No one truly knows what Hell is like (or even if there is one), but for some reason we tend to think of Hell as a fiery, burning place, and we see images of the Devil as being clever, deceitful, cunning and sly in the most evil of ways. It is interesting to see how Dante takes those conceptions (is that what they thought of Hell and the Devil back then too?) and completely twists them. Perhaps this was done to emphasize his theme of reversal and backwardness. There’s a saying my dad uses when he really means something I want to happen never will, and that is: “When Hell freezes over.” Well, Dad, if you read the Inferno, Hell really is frozen over, and Satan isn’t a quick, deceitful,powerful “Prince of Darkness” character at all, he is a drooling, mumbling, soul-less beast. It correlates with Dante’s aim to connect his descriptions to the Catholic teachings. Scholars claim that Satan or Lucifer was once an Angel of Light in Heaven, but was banished to Hell for eternity when he tried to overrule God. God forbade him from Heaven and sent him to the depths of Hell as the ultimate sinner. Satan tried to overrule God; similarly, Judas, Cassius, and Brutus are also guilty of betraying their leaders, and therefore are sent to the last circle of hell as the ultimate sinners. This also correlates with Dante’s work because Satan isn’t some king ruling over all the sinners, he is suffering there with them as well. The images of a frozen Hell are parallel with the idea that Hell is lifeless, dark, and cold, a place where there is no light and the sinners are stuck there forever; “frozen”. The sinners also have no names, which contrasts with the other Cantos in which Dante names some characters. This emphasizes the idea that these sinners have absolutely no identity. 

In Dante’s Hell, sinners receive punishment that is the opposite of what they were trying to gain, and in his last Canto, Satan receives just that, along with all the other sinners in his fantastical yet gruesome poem. 

Hellish Works of Art

When reading The Inferno in high school, I remember being fascinated by the imagery and creativity of Dante’s writing, and how, even though the text is so ancient, it still has the ability to paint a picture in the reader’s mind. Mr. Youngs, my Honors English teacher senior year, showed us these famous engravings by Gustav Dore, which complement Dante’s work beautifully. These works of art are very detailed, and depict scenes, images, and characters directly from passages of Dante’s Inferno. 

Dark Wood

Dark Wood

These are two different images of Dore’s Dark Wood, which we are introduced to in the opening pages of Dante’s poem. 

Dore also depicts his version of the Lion and the She-Wolf. His illustrations of the hellish characters are crazy, and really help bring the text to life. I would post all of them, but I don’t want to give it away for those of you who are first time Inferno readers!

Lion

She Wolf

Here are some of my favorites:

Dante and Vergil Enter the Gates of Hell
(my absolute favorite)

        

Basically, Love Sucks

Basically, love sucks. 

As we discussed in class on Wednesday, Aeneus and Dido’s love story is twisted and confused right from the beginning. Vergil uses this part of the story to expose, perhaps, that love, and maybe even life in general, isn’t happy-go-lucky all the time, and that, yeah, sometimes it does suck. 

Dido is just one of those girls who can’t have her way with love. She is known as an established and confident ruler of Carthage, and rules alongside her husband Sychaeus, until he is murdered by Dido’s own brother, Pygmalion. After leaving, yet still focusing on her political responsibilities, she vows to never marry again in honor of her dead husband.

So before Aeneus even comes into the picture, love is already screwed up for Dido.  And then she falls victim to Cupid’s arrow, and the two become lovers for awhile. Dido explains her “love-sickness” as a flame or inward fire, which, at a first glance, doesn’t mean much, since flames and fire are overly used, almost cheesy (think of every boy-band love song) description of love, but flames are also destructive and dangerous, which is what Dido’s love for Aeneus becomes. 

In my opinion, Dido is kind of a wuss. For someone who founded her own nation and is upheld to be a respected ruler and queen, she sure let herself go when it came to matters of the heart. I understand that she really did not have control over her own feelings, since Cupid’s arrow is what caused them, but I think committing suicide was a little much. 

Perhaps she deserves that ill fated death for totally neglecting her duties as queen and going back on her promise to her late husband, Sychaeus.

Sure, I’ve had my heart broken once or twice, and I’ve experienced love’s ups and downs. But I would never kill myself no matter how bad the pain was, because in a way that’s letting him win. I’ll back Dido on her decision to burn all of Aeneus’ crap, because who wants that stuff laying around as a sore memory? But in her decision to kill herself, she almost, in a way, robs herself of any dignity she ever had as ruler. Her suicide proves her inner weaknesses and the fact that she isn’t strong enough to overcome heartbreak. The pain she feels from Aeneus’ fleeing is described as slowly eating her away from the inside out....

The inward fire eats the soft marrow away,
And the internal wound bleeds on in silence. -Aeneid, 4.94

Her story is the stuff cheesy love songs are made of.