Flaubert

by Michel Winock, Nicholas Elliott (Translator)

Michel Winock’s biography situates Gustave Flaubert’s life and work in France’s century of great democratic transition. Flaubert did not welcome the egalitarian society predicted by Tocqueville. Wary of the masses, he rejected the universal male suffrage hard won by the Revolution of 1848, and he was exasperated by the nascent socialism that promoted the collective to the detriment of the individual. But above all, he hated the bourgeoisie. Vulgar, ignorant, obsessed with material comforts, impervious to beauty, the French middle class embodied for Flaubert every vice of the democratic age. His loathing became a fixation―and a source of literary inspiration.

Flaubert depicts a man whose personality, habits, and thought are a stew of paradoxes. The author of Madame Bovary and Sentimental Education spent his life inseparably bound to solitude and melancholy, yet he enjoyed periodic escapes from his “hole” in Croisset to pursue a variety of pleasures: fervent friendships, society soirées, and a whirlwind of literary and romantic encounters. He prided himself on the impersonality of his writing, but he did not hesitate to use material from his own life in his fiction. Nowhere are Flaubert’s contradictions more evident than in his politics. An enemy of power who held no nostalgia for the monarchy or the church, he was nonetheless hostile to collectivist utopias.

Despite declarations of the timelessness and sacredness of Art, Flaubert could not transcend the era he abominated. Rejecting the modern world, he paradoxically became its celebrated chronicler and the most modern writer of his time.

Genres: Biography, France, Nonfiction

560 pages, Hardcover

First published March 7, 2013

Reviews

[Camille · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michel Winock est l'historien qui m'a rendu l'histoire accessible, intéressante, voire passionnante. Cela fait des années que je m'intéresse à son travail, mais c'est la première fois que je lis l'une de ses biographies.
Et quelle biographie ! Ce n'est pas la première fois que je lis une biographie de Flaubert, et j'aurais pu m'ennuyer, mais Winock trouve toujours l'angle pour rendre les parcours intellectuels du passé si intéressants.
J'ai encore appris, et j'ai même beaucoup appris.

Pour les flaubertistes, novices ou aguerris.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nach der Lektüre dieser großartigen Flaubert Biografie überkommt mich eine große Leere: Wie gerne hätte ich so einen wunderbaren Freund wie es Gustave für seine Freunde gewesen ist. Er war ein verlässlicher Gefährte. Nicht nur im Umgang mit Männern, auch mit Frauen, wie zum Beispiel George Sand, pflegte er langjährige tiefgründige Freundschaften.
Mit vielen Frauen teilte er auch das Bett. Er war ein begeisteter Kurtisanenbeiwohner und in Freudenhäusern fühlte er sich daheim. Die bekannten Bilder lassen es nicht vermuten, Flaubert war in jungen Jahren ein ausgesprochen hübscher junger Mann und erst mit den gesundheitlichen Problemen zum Beispiel Geschlechtskrankheiten und deren unsäglichen Behandlungen ließen ihm die Haare ausgehen und an Gewicht zulegen.

Politisch war Frankreich in sehr unruhigen Fahrwassern und Flaubert dachte sehr konservativ, antiklerikal und misanthropisch. Davon erzählt Winock in dieser Biographie ebenso wie von seinem hohen Kunstideal und dass er in seinem ganzen Leben nicht für seinen Lebensunterhalt gearbeitet hat. Dabei bleibt Winock immer ein wenig auf Distanz zu seinem „Objekt“ und das macht dieses Buch, dem in seinen eigenen Werken nach seinem Kunstverständnis immer „abwesenden“ Autor Flaubert, würdig.
Mit welchen Zeitgenossen er Umgang pflegte, wer seine Freunde waren und wer zu seinen schärfsten Kritikern zählte fand ich ebenso interessant.
Besonders hat mir gefallen, dass auf die Entstehungsgeschichte der wichtigsten Werke intensiv eingegangen wird und die damaligen Reaktionen, die waren nicht immer positiv, umfangreich wiedergegeben werden. Übrigens wird diese kurze Besprechung dem Buch in keiner Weise gerecht - bitte machen Sie sich selbst ein Lesebild davon.

[Tomislav · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great, extensive biography that pretty much covers every aspect of Flaubert’s life: historical context, family background, personal life, intellectual development, origin of his novels, critical reception and influence. Winock is a prolific historian but he doesn’t drift too much into general history; he actually has a deep interest in Flaubert and wrote his dissertation on him. The book seem fairly objective although it occasionally becomes somewhat apologetic, trying to make his political ideas seem more moderate, romanticizing his sexual behavior etc. In unsolved and controversial questions about Flaubert’s life the author usually presents opinions of previous biographers and then concludes what seems to be the most probable version.

As it is well known, the Hermit of Croisset didn’t have an especially interesting life. Besides writing, it was mostly partying, prostitutes, pointless love affairs, health issues and later financial troubles. Also, besides his extraordinary devotion to writing, he wasn’t an especially impressive person or a great, deep thinker; he had a lot contradictory, half-baked opinions, and was willing to ignore his convictions when it suited him. Most interesting parts of the book are descriptions of Flaubert’s writing habits, reception of his novels, and the depiction of French society and intellectual establishment of the time. Some parts read like a dark comedy with pretentious artists proclaiming their devotion to some pure, noble ideals and then shamelessly using all kinds of personal connections, intrigue and flattery to gain positions, money and popularity. It is well worth reading if you’re interested in Flaubert, cultural history or 19th century France.

[Dionysius the Areopagite · Rating 5 out of 5]

This one was brought to my attention by the New York Review of Books newspaper. For a friend interested in an excellent book on Flaubert in a casual sense, I'd recommend him Steegmuller's Flaubert & Madame Bovary. For the serious reader with a strong capacity for historical literary examination, I'd reccomend Mr. Winock's book, just recently translated into English. In a sense, this book reminds me of the book I read on Ulysses S. Grant earlier this year: a good, serious book without all that much new information. Both books are recent examples of a fresh take on subjects extensively covered and go to show how well a fresh take on a subject and its place in history can turn out. In short, this is the sort of book whereby should you come across a person who loathed it, this person is one any self-respecting lady or germ would be justifiably suspicious of. How can one not laugh out loud, underline, and nod in constant approval and epiphany whilst reading excerpts from Flaubert's letters? If books and writing are not just things you merely enjoy, or find particularly interesting, but instead are your life itself, Mr. Wincock will not dissapoint you. I am always amazed upon revisiting Flaubert's life and work. It is like a glorious, thrice-over ideological, linguistic, and prosaic feast. My mind is filled with ideas that make my day to day life less complex, soothing even in occasional chaos, to laugh hysterically at this churlish world in recreating one's own, ala Rabelais, dissecting; then, for dessert, Isaac Babel's Maupassant. Today is Ash Wednesday. This is the first and last Review I ever put forth by thumb. If this book is too expensive for yoh, consult Interlibrary Loan. Fare thee well.

[Wendy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I got so upset with what I learned about Flaubert in this book that I threw it down in disgust. It goes to show that is often better not to know too much about a writer you revere. Flaubert had a niece whom he regarded as his own child. After writing Madame Bovary, which convinced everyone who read it of the perils of "safe" marriage entered into without love, Flaubert persuaded his niece to give up the man she loved for a "sensible" bourgeois marriage. Predictably, the marriage ruined the young woman's life... while Flaubert was penning his satires of the bourgeoisie. Sexism was to be expected of men at this time, even the most enlightened ones, but this degree of hypocrisy from Flaubert has made me rethink him. I do think character and one's writing are deeply intertwined, so I'll have to see where my next reread of his work leads me.