What do you think?
Rate this book
שארל בובארי - רופא כפרי
הספר מביא תהליך בדיקה מחדש של ``מאדאם בובארי`` מזווית הראייה של הבעל הנבגד ברומן של פלובר. ז`אן אמארי תוקף את האסתטיקה הבורגנית של פלובר, כאשר הוא מעניק את רשות הדיבור לשארל בובארי. הוא מניח לו לומר את ההספד שלו לאשתו שכל כך אהב. הוא מניח לו להביע את מחאתו כנגד הצגתו כגולם, ואת מחאתו נגד ההתנשאות המיזנטרופית של המספר שיצר אותו. כך מפנה הרומן את תשומת הלב אל שארל בובארי האדם האוהב, הער והמודע של הסיפור מאדאם בובארי באור אחר, מותח המחבר ביקורת חדה ושנונה על החברה הבורגנית.
120 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1978
13 people are currently reading
343 people want to read
About the author
Jean Améry
52 books88 followersJean Améry (October 31, 1912 – October 17, 1978), born Hanns Chaim Mayer, was an Austrian essayist whose work was often informed by his experiences during World War II.
Formerly a philosophy and literature student in Vienna, Améry's participation in organized resistance against the Nazi occupation of Belgium resulted in his detainment and torture by the German Gestapo, and several years of imprisonment in concentration camps. Améry survived internments in Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and was finally liberated at Bergen-Belsen in 1945. After the war he settled in Belgium.
His most celebrated work, At the Mind's Limits: Contemplations by a Survivor on Auschwitz and Its Realities (1966), suggests that torture was "the essence" of the Third Reich. Other notable works included On Aging (1968) and On Suicide: A Discourse on Voluntary Death (1976). Améry killed himself in 1978.
Formerly a philosophy and literature student in Vienna, Améry's participation in organized resistance against the Nazi occupation of Belgium resulted in his detainment and torture by the German Gestapo, and several years of imprisonment in concentration camps. Améry survived internments in Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and was finally liberated at Bergen-Belsen in 1945. After the war he settled in Belgium.
His most celebrated work, At the Mind's Limits: Contemplations by a Survivor on Auschwitz and Its Realities (1966), suggests that torture was "the essence" of the Third Reich. Other notable works included On Aging (1968) and On Suicide: A Discourse on Voluntary Death (1976). Améry killed himself in 1978.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
Read
September 26, 2019this book is tailor made for me. madame bovary is my favorite book of all time and this little book is the 20th century european loser zeitgeist shit i love. 2/3 metatextual narrative from the point of view of charles bovary, mad with grief. 1/3 passionate postmodern critique of flaubert, of bourgeois society, of the limits of "realism" in art. it's clear that amery loves madame bovary--he outright declares it a masterpiece (it is). but his passionate defense of the one-dimensional cuckold charles bovary is as intensely moving as it is convincing. poor charles bovary, poor emma bovary, poor everyone. five stars, emphatically
November 12, 2018
I really enjoyed this book because Jean Amery sticks up for a guy that, even though just a character in a novel, was treated poorly and disparagingly by the novel's author, Gustave Flaubert. I was drawn to this book because in so many ways, we are all fools, and so few of us have an author like Jean Amery to make a case for us, to tell our side of the story.
December 21, 2018
This is a really good look at Madame Bovary.
March 6, 2019
This is an interesting book, an interesting commentary on Flaubert's famous Madame Bovary. I suppose a description could be it's a different approach to the criticism about the novel. And that perhaps it was inevitable that this approach would be attempted. One of the ideas driving the book is that the fate of characters and author and maybe even the novel itself is predetermined by their very nature. What's called a novel-essay is a blend of Gustave Flaubert's biographical details, literary criticism, and an aggrieved meditation by Charles Bovary on the slights inflicted on him by his creator. In fact, Flaubert here is himself a character.
Metatextual riffs in which characters address their author aren't new. But in Amery's characterization of the relationship between Flaubert and Charles, the charge is that the author favored Emma over her husband. The young doctor recognizes this and is busy castigating the writer for abandoning him. He won't let him avenge the seduction of his wife by murdering her 2 lovers, or even, at least, challenging them to duels. He won't allow him the satisfaction of punishing Lheureux for his causing the Bovary financial ruin. Instead, in his and Emma's novel in which he's tormented by the knowledge of her infidelity, his fate is die ignominiously and deeply disillusioned by that knowledge and hopelessly in the debt she left him.
I've read other novels in which characters have counterfactual lives outside their original work. This may be the most complex in my experience. What's most interesting is the way Amery sees Flaubert. While he doesn't refer directly to the author's well-known claim "Madame Bovary c'est moi," he considers Flaubert imprisoned in the same fatal reality as his heroine. His questions concerning Flaubert's death go back to the idea of fate being predetermined by the woven strands of author, story, and characters. This is supported as well, I thought, by some of the sexually explicit musings of Charles. Today we don't find Madame Bovary the novel that titillating, but Charles Bovary, Country Doctor is lapped by some warm and erotic tides that made me think one of Amery's points is that each man--author and doctor--has a woman he can't forget, and that woman is Emma.
I kinda liked this. I liked the challenge of tasting 2 different dishes--criticism and fiction--thrown together in the same pot.
Metatextual riffs in which characters address their author aren't new. But in Amery's characterization of the relationship between Flaubert and Charles, the charge is that the author favored Emma over her husband. The young doctor recognizes this and is busy castigating the writer for abandoning him. He won't let him avenge the seduction of his wife by murdering her 2 lovers, or even, at least, challenging them to duels. He won't allow him the satisfaction of punishing Lheureux for his causing the Bovary financial ruin. Instead, in his and Emma's novel in which he's tormented by the knowledge of her infidelity, his fate is die ignominiously and deeply disillusioned by that knowledge and hopelessly in the debt she left him.
I've read other novels in which characters have counterfactual lives outside their original work. This may be the most complex in my experience. What's most interesting is the way Amery sees Flaubert. While he doesn't refer directly to the author's well-known claim "Madame Bovary c'est moi," he considers Flaubert imprisoned in the same fatal reality as his heroine. His questions concerning Flaubert's death go back to the idea of fate being predetermined by the woven strands of author, story, and characters. This is supported as well, I thought, by some of the sexually explicit musings of Charles. Today we don't find Madame Bovary the novel that titillating, but Charles Bovary, Country Doctor is lapped by some warm and erotic tides that made me think one of Amery's points is that each man--author and doctor--has a woman he can't forget, and that woman is Emma.
I kinda liked this. I liked the challenge of tasting 2 different dishes--criticism and fiction--thrown together in the same pot.
August 12, 2020
ז'אן אמארי מבצע כאן תעלול מסוג התעלולים האהובים עלי. הוא מציג ביקורת על תפישה מקובלת (לגבי יצירת אומנות נודעת) תוך שהוא "מוכיח" את קריאתו הלא שגרתית מתוך חומרי היצירה עצמה. היצירה היא הרומן "מאדאם בובארי" לפלובר. רומן מפתח בהתפתחות הכתיבה המודרנית והריאליסטית. התפישה "המקובלת" , העומדת למבחן, אינה רק הפרסום לו זכתה במשך השנים כיצירת מופת אלא (בעיקר כנראה) ניתוח היצירה שהעמיד סארטר ושהפך גם הוא לקאנוני (לא קראתי).
תפישתו של אמארי היא הומנית מרקסיסטית. טענתו היא כי פלובר, הבורגני המסתגר, המאוהב בקונסטרוקציות הלשוניות שיצר גורם עוול לבורגנות בת זמנו שבתוכה חי ושממנה בא הונו. למרות שלדעתו ספרות ריאליסטית לחלוטין היא פרדוקס (שהרי יצירה ספרותית היא בהכרח תמיד בדיונית) ולכן אינה אפשרית, ולמרות שלדעתו פלובר כן מצליח לבטא בדיאלוגים ומטאפורות מדוייקות מציאות ריאליסטית, הרי שבתור מספר ריאליסטי הוא כושל. הוא כושל מפני שהוא אינו משכיל לתפוס במלואה את ההוויה הבורגנית שצמחה בצרפת המלוכנית שלאחר המהפכה. עיקרה של בורגנות זו הוא המימוש של ערכי המהפכה – למרות קרתנותם ועליבותם של הבורגנים הרי שהם מגלמים את אפשרות החריגה מהתפקיד שהוקצה להם בחברה, מבטאים את החירות. הדמות היחידה שהיא בעלת נפח ונשמה אמיתיים ברומן היא זאת של אמה בובארי. היא היחידה השואפת לחרוג ממעמדה כבת איכרים בזכות יופיה. לדעתו של אמארי בדמות זו מגלם פלובר את עצמו (וגם לא מעט שנאה עצמית שהרי היא נענשת בסופו של דבר על החריגה שלה). לכל שאר הדמיות ברומן שמורים הבוז והאירוניה שרחש פלובר לחבריו הבורגנים אותם הוא שם ללעג ברומן.
במיוחד מתרעם אמארי על עיצוב דמותו ברומן של בעלה של אמה – שארל בובארי, אותו גולם לא יוצלח ותמים לחלוטין, שמהווה למעשה את הציר עליו בנוי הרומן – מתחילתו המגוחכת ועד לסופו העלוב והסתמי. אמארי מציג את טענותיו בשתי צורות – כתיבה מסאית (שני פרקים בלב הספר); והעמדת חלופה ספרותית לרומן של פלובר, מונולוג הכתוב כזרם תודעתו של שארל בוברי המתרעם על בוראו ועל העוול שנגרם לו, תוך שימוש בחומרי הרומן המקורי.
אז כל הרעיון יפה ולאמארי יש מה לומר בכל הנושאים הללו. למרות זאת המימוש מוצלח פחות. שני הפרקים הראשונים (המונולוג) טוחנים עד דק את אותן נקודות, ולמרות השימוש בחומרי הרומן עצמו, אינם מעניינים. שתי המסות שבלב הספר מעניינות אבל כתובות בצורה קצת "גבוהה" ומאוהבת בעצמה ובטיעוניה ושוב אמארי נוטה לחזור על עצמו. יכול היה לתמצת את כל הרעיון לחצי עמוד מנוסח היטב ובפשטות. שאר פרקי המונולוג משתפרים והופכים מעניינים יותר מאחר והם מציגים חלופות למסופר ברומן.
בכל זאת מצאתי בקריאתו של הספר גם נחמה מסויימת. נאלצתי להוריד את "מאדם בובארי" מן המדף ולעיין בו לעיתים תכופות. קראתי מחדש חלקים שלמים ברומן של פלובר בכדי להתחקות אחר השימוש שעושה בהם אמארי. כך נזכרתי ברומן המופתי ונוכחתי לדעת עד כמה הוא מהנה ומבדר (לא באמת משנה שלדעת אמארי פלובר חוטא באירוניה שלו כרשע, בכל זאת היא מענגת).
תפישתו של אמארי היא הומנית מרקסיסטית. טענתו היא כי פלובר, הבורגני המסתגר, המאוהב בקונסטרוקציות הלשוניות שיצר גורם עוול לבורגנות בת זמנו שבתוכה חי ושממנה בא הונו. למרות שלדעתו ספרות ריאליסטית לחלוטין היא פרדוקס (שהרי יצירה ספרותית היא בהכרח תמיד בדיונית) ולכן אינה אפשרית, ולמרות שלדעתו פלובר כן מצליח לבטא בדיאלוגים ומטאפורות מדוייקות מציאות ריאליסטית, הרי שבתור מספר ריאליסטי הוא כושל. הוא כושל מפני שהוא אינו משכיל לתפוס במלואה את ההוויה הבורגנית שצמחה בצרפת המלוכנית שלאחר המהפכה. עיקרה של בורגנות זו הוא המימוש של ערכי המהפכה – למרות קרתנותם ועליבותם של הבורגנים הרי שהם מגלמים את אפשרות החריגה מהתפקיד שהוקצה להם בחברה, מבטאים את החירות. הדמות היחידה שהיא בעלת נפח ונשמה אמיתיים ברומן היא זאת של אמה בובארי. היא היחידה השואפת לחרוג ממעמדה כבת איכרים בזכות יופיה. לדעתו של אמארי בדמות זו מגלם פלובר את עצמו (וגם לא מעט שנאה עצמית שהרי היא נענשת בסופו של דבר על החריגה שלה). לכל שאר הדמיות ברומן שמורים הבוז והאירוניה שרחש פלובר לחבריו הבורגנים אותם הוא שם ללעג ברומן.
במיוחד מתרעם אמארי על עיצוב דמותו ברומן של בעלה של אמה – שארל בובארי, אותו גולם לא יוצלח ותמים לחלוטין, שמהווה למעשה את הציר עליו בנוי הרומן – מתחילתו המגוחכת ועד לסופו העלוב והסתמי. אמארי מציג את טענותיו בשתי צורות – כתיבה מסאית (שני פרקים בלב הספר); והעמדת חלופה ספרותית לרומן של פלובר, מונולוג הכתוב כזרם תודעתו של שארל בוברי המתרעם על בוראו ועל העוול שנגרם לו, תוך שימוש בחומרי הרומן המקורי.
אז כל הרעיון יפה ולאמארי יש מה לומר בכל הנושאים הללו. למרות זאת המימוש מוצלח פחות. שני הפרקים הראשונים (המונולוג) טוחנים עד דק את אותן נקודות, ולמרות השימוש בחומרי הרומן עצמו, אינם מעניינים. שתי המסות שבלב הספר מעניינות אבל כתובות בצורה קצת "גבוהה" ומאוהבת בעצמה ובטיעוניה ושוב אמארי נוטה לחזור על עצמו. יכול היה לתמצת את כל הרעיון לחצי עמוד מנוסח היטב ובפשטות. שאר פרקי המונולוג משתפרים והופכים מעניינים יותר מאחר והם מציגים חלופות למסופר ברומן.
בכל זאת מצאתי בקריאתו של הספר גם נחמה מסויימת. נאלצתי להוריד את "מאדם בובארי" מן המדף ולעיין בו לעיתים תכופות. קראתי מחדש חלקים שלמים ברומן של פלובר בכדי להתחקות אחר השימוש שעושה בהם אמארי. כך נזכרתי ברומן המופתי ונוכחתי לדעת עד כמה הוא מהנה ומבדר (לא באמת משנה שלדעת אמארי פלובר חוטא באירוניה שלו כרשע, בכל זאת היא מענגת).
July 13, 2019
I think I would bump this up half a star. The ending was particularly strong. Amery alternates between giving voice to Charles Bovary and literary criticism of Madame Bovary and Flaubert in general. I thought the premise was very cool to have a character critique his representation by his creator. Charles Bovary completely blasts Flaubert in the last chapter telling him he didn’t understand him at all and resents being painted as such loser for all time just because he couldn’t take the time to try to get to know him since he was so infatuated with his wife. Funny stuff. Seriocomic I guess more accurately. I had read a couple of biographies of Flaubert in the past which helped me understand Amery’s thought process a bit here, but it had been eons since I read Madame Bovary itself. Definitely time for a reread because with most classics I have found you get so much more out of them when you read them after you have lived a bit of your life than when you are younger and have limited experience to draw from.
December 10, 2018
It's a funny concept: Write a book chastising Flaubert for how unsympathetically and often absurdly he portrays beautiful Emma's long-suffering husband. A lot of the book is in essay-form but sometimes we get to read the Doctor's inner thoughts which are much richer and fleshed out than what Flaubert created. Charles might not be the smartest or most handsome guy, but he's a normal man of at least average intelligence and intuition that is more than capable of understanding his existence in his world. For instance, he knows that his wife is cheating on him. Of course, he does. Who wouldn't in his situation? It's Flaubert himself who is preventing Charles on acting like a normal, jealous, man. Through a clever device, the Doctor is able to defend himself and attack Flaubert as a bourgeois snot who uses Charles as a foil for his own class insecurities. This is all fun and interesting. But unfortunately, the book is plodding and ultimately not especially fun to read.
September 15, 2020
A strange book, in which the author castigates Flaubert’s treatment of Charles Bovary in fictional memoir, the language of which spills across the page heatedly, and essay. They are interspersed with each other, fiction and essay, such that one piece nonfiction follows a section in which, in narrative, Charles Bovary speaks before the justices and accused at his own court: Emma’s lovers, a legacy of readers, Flaubert himself, and History. Améry’s is an outrage in defense of the resentful, the petty and mistreated; it is also a profoundly existential account, in which the character of a novel rails against the perpetuity and ignominy of his existence, bound, as he is, to the pages of the novel and the conditions the author has infused into and imposed upon him. I think Nietzsche would be disgusted by this work, but Camus and Sartre might find it a worthwhile exercise in probing at existence. Very curious, imaginative, and thought-provoking.
April 26, 2019
An interesting idea, a great form; I remember being bored by long stretches of it, but I also remember being really taken by the first few sections, in particular.
March 30, 2024
If this was targeted as an academic essay I'd give it a 4 star, but it's not. To call this a novel is just not true, it's literally just an essay about another novel. I didn't even realize these were real people, and that it was analyzing a different book, until I googled it. This feels like something I would've read back in university English. It's also so wordy-like get to the point, we get it!
August 26, 2020
An impassioned book, but not one I would recommend to anyone who doesn't know Madame Bovary. I appreciated Amery's approach. Madame Bovary is certainly a great novel, one that is as relevant now as if it was just published. But for all this novel did to jumpstart modern realism, my second reading of it revealed just how much the novel privileges Emma at the expense of her husband, whom Flaubert seems to find uninteresting. Or rather, he constructs him to be uninteresting to deny the possibility and the force of goodness. Amery's project is to rescue Charles Bovary from his creator and thereby redeem him. A novel way to read a novel--Amery presages reader response theory and new historicism, while laying his passions on the line.
February 8, 2019
Interesting approach to critiquing Madame Bovary by berating Flaubert for his unfair treatment of her seemingly utterly clueless and consummate victim, husband Charles. Amery takes Charles' viewpoint and argues that the "realism" of the novel falls very short in plausibly portraying one of the world's most famous literary cuckolds. Dr. Bovary's blithe acceptance of the most outrageous and transparent lies in Emma's cover stories lacks believability for Amery. He offers a well told extension and elaboration of things left unsaid in the novel and some alternate endings imagined wherein Charles exacts revenge. Enjoyable.
July 16, 2023
One of the stranger books I've read--but then again, so is Madame Bovary--stranger every time I read it. Amery takes issue with Flaubert's portrayal of Charles as a complete clod, anatomizes what he sees as the self-hatred and the snobbery and lack of empathy that motivated it, and resurrects CB as a man perfectly aware of his wife's infidelities, indeed titillated by them. He makes sexual subtexts explicit, as after Emma's death when Flaubert suggests that Charles is erotically aroused by her memory.
Worth reading as an adjunct to MB, but only if you are very curious, or also felt the portrayal of CB was unrealistic and/or unfair.
Worth reading as an adjunct to MB, but only if you are very curious, or also felt the portrayal of CB was unrealistic and/or unfair.
March 23, 2019
The author alternates chapter with Charles Bovary doing first person, stream-of-consciousness posterizing and third person commentary on Flaubert. Finally Bovary brings Flaubert to trial for depicting he and his wife negatively. Not my favorite style (first person, stream-of-consciousness) or my favorite story. Disliked the book greatly.
December 21, 2018
Not so good as expected, below my expectations at least.
May 31, 2024
Gustave Flaubert’s realist masterpiece, Madame Bovary, has continued to inspire writers up to the present era. Perhaps because it was published in 1856, the enduring secondhand literature is still a delight to read; literature programs had not yet degenerated and been polluted with theories du jour. Francis Steegmuller’s Flaubert and Madame Bovary: A Double Portrait is in print and worth a look. Even better than academic sources are the fiction the book inspires. While Julian Barnes’s 1984 novel Flaubert’s Parrot immediately comes to mind—and is eminently enjoyable both as a novel and as a source of Bovary arcana and critique—Jean Améry’s Charles Bovary, Country Doctor: Portrait of a Simple Man is an eloquent accusation in thinly-veiled novel format, a bizarre mix of literary criticism and aggrieved rant that is a must read for fans of Madame Bovary.
I tagged Améry’s pithy tract for a reread after streaming Claude Chabrol’s 1991 adaption of the book last week. Madame Bovary is so ubiquitous, even in modern culture, that watching one of the film adaptations (I highly recommend Chabrol’s which is stringently faithful to the novel) can trigger memories of Flaubert’s descriptive eloquence. One need not have been raised in Normandy in the 1850’s* to glean that the attention to detail is both damning to the characters and society Flaubert describes and so extensive as to act as the protype of realist novels for the next century and a half. However, very few works that Madame Bovary has inspired attempt to give a voice to the ridiculous cuckold Charles Bovary. Holocaust survivor** Jean Améry grants Charles Bovary a voice, a voice that recounts Flaubert’s attention to detail evoking a scathing indictment of the author, his contempt for the Bourgeoise, and his dismissal of Charles Bovary as an oafish simpleton. Améry’s tone does not quite reach that of a rant, but conveys a sagacious bitterness of one who realizes how unfair life is, or as Flaubert’s oblivious puppet cuckold recites mantra-like: C’est la faute de la fatalité.
____________________________
*As a substitute for being of age in 1850’s provincial Normandy, one can read Lydia Davis’s translation of Madame Bovary which is the best available in English and which has a glossary of untranslatable words and expressions.
**Arguably, as a Holocaust survivor Jean Améry had an ingrained sense of injustice. Furthermore, it may be stated that he was not a “Holocaust survivor,” since he, unsurprisingly, succumbed to suicide shortly after completing his J’Accuse against Flaubert.
I tagged Améry’s pithy tract for a reread after streaming Claude Chabrol’s 1991 adaption of the book last week. Madame Bovary is so ubiquitous, even in modern culture, that watching one of the film adaptations (I highly recommend Chabrol’s which is stringently faithful to the novel) can trigger memories of Flaubert’s descriptive eloquence. One need not have been raised in Normandy in the 1850’s* to glean that the attention to detail is both damning to the characters and society Flaubert describes and so extensive as to act as the protype of realist novels for the next century and a half. However, very few works that Madame Bovary has inspired attempt to give a voice to the ridiculous cuckold Charles Bovary. Holocaust survivor** Jean Améry grants Charles Bovary a voice, a voice that recounts Flaubert’s attention to detail evoking a scathing indictment of the author, his contempt for the Bourgeoise, and his dismissal of Charles Bovary as an oafish simpleton. Améry’s tone does not quite reach that of a rant, but conveys a sagacious bitterness of one who realizes how unfair life is, or as Flaubert’s oblivious puppet cuckold recites mantra-like: C’est la faute de la fatalité.
____________________________
*As a substitute for being of age in 1850’s provincial Normandy, one can read Lydia Davis’s translation of Madame Bovary which is the best available in English and which has a glossary of untranslatable words and expressions.
**Arguably, as a Holocaust survivor Jean Améry had an ingrained sense of injustice. Furthermore, it may be stated that he was not a “Holocaust survivor,” since he, unsurprisingly, succumbed to suicide shortly after completing his J’Accuse against Flaubert.
March 14, 2024
Jean Amery’s novel-essay attempts to humanize Charles Bovary, the cuckolded husband from Madame Bovary. Alternately first-person narrative and literary critique, Amery posits that Charles’s unrealistic flatness as a character results from Flaubert’s prejudice towards the bourgeoisie, and rails against the writer’s prestige as a realist.
Unfortunately, Amery’s arguments fall flat. Sure, Charles was a bourgeoisie, but (at least on him) it only mattered to the extent that he was neither rich nor cultured, but part of the society to which Emma was chained and against which she struggled as a beautiful and whimsical woman unwilling to accept her mediocre destiny.
Using Charles’s voice, Amery complains that Flaubert had made him ugly, dull and spineless for being bourgeoisie. While it is true that Flaubert criticized the bourgeoisie in general, it was not the reason behind Charles’s unseemliness. For Leon, Emma’s handsome office clerk of a lover, was also a bourgeoisie.
Rather, Charles was MEANT to be unloveable. His physical unattractiveness had not prevented Emma from dreaming of love when they married; it was his inability to understand her sentimentality that repelled her. While Amery might argue that Rudolphe, an aristocrat and Emma’s first lover, seduced her with his status, I would argue that Leon was Emma’s one true love, as she loved him even when he had neither wealth nor sophistication. Yet they bonded over music, literature, and feelings. Charles was not unlovable because he was a bourgeoisie; he was simply unlovable AND a bourgeoisie.
Therefore, it is unfair for Amery to claim that Flaubert was not a realist because Charles was unrealistic. Flaubert’s task was not to make each and every character multifaceted; his goal was to create a character, put her in a demanding environment, and watch her writhe. Flaubert did an excellent job given the goal; Charles’s mere status as Emma’s husband did not entitle him to better treatment than any of her other jailers.
If Amery wanted to fight for the dignity of the bourgeoisie, he should have taken offense on behalf of Homais (the didactic, self-complacent apothecary) or Lheureux (the greedy merchant who lured Emma to financial ruin). But for some reason, it was Charles with whom Amery chose to sympathize.
Unfortunately, Amery’s arguments fall flat. Sure, Charles was a bourgeoisie, but (at least on him) it only mattered to the extent that he was neither rich nor cultured, but part of the society to which Emma was chained and against which she struggled as a beautiful and whimsical woman unwilling to accept her mediocre destiny.
Using Charles’s voice, Amery complains that Flaubert had made him ugly, dull and spineless for being bourgeoisie. While it is true that Flaubert criticized the bourgeoisie in general, it was not the reason behind Charles’s unseemliness. For Leon, Emma’s handsome office clerk of a lover, was also a bourgeoisie.
Rather, Charles was MEANT to be unloveable. His physical unattractiveness had not prevented Emma from dreaming of love when they married; it was his inability to understand her sentimentality that repelled her. While Amery might argue that Rudolphe, an aristocrat and Emma’s first lover, seduced her with his status, I would argue that Leon was Emma’s one true love, as she loved him even when he had neither wealth nor sophistication. Yet they bonded over music, literature, and feelings. Charles was not unlovable because he was a bourgeoisie; he was simply unlovable AND a bourgeoisie.
Therefore, it is unfair for Amery to claim that Flaubert was not a realist because Charles was unrealistic. Flaubert’s task was not to make each and every character multifaceted; his goal was to create a character, put her in a demanding environment, and watch her writhe. Flaubert did an excellent job given the goal; Charles’s mere status as Emma’s husband did not entitle him to better treatment than any of her other jailers.
If Amery wanted to fight for the dignity of the bourgeoisie, he should have taken offense on behalf of Homais (the didactic, self-complacent apothecary) or Lheureux (the greedy merchant who lured Emma to financial ruin). But for some reason, it was Charles with whom Amery chose to sympathize.
January 18, 2025
As much as I love Flaubert I cannot help being fascinated by Améry´s prose and ideas.
You do not have to agree with Amery´s pessimist and strong opinions to like him. He is a free writer, a one who is less interested in flattering great "thinkers" and "writers" thann actually saying what he thinks about their books. However, just to make clear, he is not interesting in bigotry and ego stuff. He is far from that.
And, yes, he even mocks about what aesthets think when they think about "good writing". He even (in part here, but more in his survival memories at the german camp) questions commonplace good intention ideas or words, in order to expand our vision of suffering and sadness, and art.
This is not Charles Bovary´s point of view (what a regular best selling or academic writer would have intented to write about). This is Améry´s critique of Flaubert´s commonplace criticism of bourgeoisie.
You do not have to agree with Amery´s pessimist and strong opinions to like him. He is a free writer, a one who is less interested in flattering great "thinkers" and "writers" thann actually saying what he thinks about their books. However, just to make clear, he is not interesting in bigotry and ego stuff. He is far from that.
And, yes, he even mocks about what aesthets think when they think about "good writing". He even (in part here, but more in his survival memories at the german camp) questions commonplace good intention ideas or words, in order to expand our vision of suffering and sadness, and art.
This is not Charles Bovary´s point of view (what a regular best selling or academic writer would have intented to write about). This is Améry´s critique of Flaubert´s commonplace criticism of bourgeoisie.
May 19, 2024
Javel, er det noen "Madame Bovary"-nøøørds der ute? Jean Améry skrev på 1970-tallet boka "Charles Bovary, country doctor". Det er ei bok som forutsetter at du a) er god i engelsk og b) har "Madame Bovary" (1857-klassiker) friskt i minne.
Jeg kjøpte boka da jeg var inne i en tung MB-fase for noen år siden, men har ikke lest MB på ca. tre år. Forfatterens detaljerte meninger om romanfigurene gikk derfor litt over hodet på meg. Og jeg er ikke god nok i engelsk til å få med meg alle poengene.
Hovedhensikten til Améry er uansett at MB-forfatter Gustave Flauberts framstilling av Charles (som er gift med madamen - jeg skjønner godt at det blir mange navn for dere som ikke har lest boka) er skjematisk og svak. Og han har noen interessante teorier om hvorfor Flaubert skriver som han gjør.
Som sagt: For MB-menigheten. Som nettopp har lest boka. Og er gode i engelsk.
Jeg kjøpte boka da jeg var inne i en tung MB-fase for noen år siden, men har ikke lest MB på ca. tre år. Forfatterens detaljerte meninger om romanfigurene gikk derfor litt over hodet på meg. Og jeg er ikke god nok i engelsk til å få med meg alle poengene.
Hovedhensikten til Améry er uansett at MB-forfatter Gustave Flauberts framstilling av Charles (som er gift med madamen - jeg skjønner godt at det blir mange navn for dere som ikke har lest boka) er skjematisk og svak. Og han har noen interessante teorier om hvorfor Flaubert skriver som han gjør.
Som sagt: For MB-menigheten. Som nettopp har lest boka. Og er gode i engelsk.
August 13, 2024
“Mais moi? For her, my life was that of an ugly and risible man, and you saw me only through her eyes, those deep blue, deep brown, black eyes that you made reflect the world to me; and when it came to my death, Monsieur Flaubert, suddenly you were in a rush; you, who tinkered around with us for some five years, bellowing out phrases in your workroom, so that the people outside shook their heads sensibly at the poor fool and scribbler. Five years, you buffoon, for a job Monsieur Balzac and your apprentice and heir Maupassant would have dashed off in a matter of months! And yet, no time for the poor man's death. The story of Emma had been told: once it was over and done with, the other one was extraneous, unwanted, so insignificant he was left to croak from a dull, broken, petit bourgeois heart, like a horse it was high time to slaughter.” (144-45)
January 14, 2025
Das war nun eher eine Enttäuschung.. sieht man auch daran, dass ich für den schmalen Band Monate gebraucht habe.
Nun ist Madame Bovary eines meiner Lieblingsbücher und die Idee, die Geschichte aus Charles' Perspekktive zu erzählen, gefiel mir sehr. Ich las davon in der Spiegel "Die 100 besten Deutschen Bücher der letzten 100 Jahre"-Liste. Das weckt Erwartungen. Die ersten 80 Seiten haben mich auch noch nicht enttäuscht. Die Dinge aus Charles Sicht - wirklich raffiniert und traurig. Was dem folgte, war aber unendlich langweilig und nichtssagend... denn Charles Erinnerungen brechen ab und dem folgt eine Flaubert-Analyse des Autors. Eine Textsammlung, kein Roman. Hätte er die Erinnerungen Charles' fortgesetzt, hätte ich es vielleicht sogar auch in so eine Liste wie der Spiegel aufgenommen, aber so...
Nun ist Madame Bovary eines meiner Lieblingsbücher und die Idee, die Geschichte aus Charles' Perspekktive zu erzählen, gefiel mir sehr. Ich las davon in der Spiegel "Die 100 besten Deutschen Bücher der letzten 100 Jahre"-Liste. Das weckt Erwartungen. Die ersten 80 Seiten haben mich auch noch nicht enttäuscht. Die Dinge aus Charles Sicht - wirklich raffiniert und traurig. Was dem folgte, war aber unendlich langweilig und nichtssagend... denn Charles Erinnerungen brechen ab und dem folgt eine Flaubert-Analyse des Autors. Eine Textsammlung, kein Roman. Hätte er die Erinnerungen Charles' fortgesetzt, hätte ich es vielleicht sogar auch in so eine Liste wie der Spiegel aufgenommen, aber so...
December 7, 2023
This was what the blurb called an "essay-novel" - a mix of fiction and non. It had been a couple years since I read Madame Bovary, but the story came back quickly. In the fiction part of the book, the author uses Charles (the cuckolded widow) as a narrator and character after his wife's suicide. The essay part was a bit too academic for me (meaning I struggled with it!). It was an enjoyable, if not challenging book, but ultimately satisfying and piqued my interest in reading more Flaubert and even re-visiting Madame Bovary.
July 7, 2024
En el libro se da voz a Charles Bovary, el marido de Emma Bovary y explica su vida y su comportamiento y su visión decla historia. El personaje ultrajado, humillado, que queda como un tonto, gris, apocado, manipulable carga duramente contra el escritor (Flaubert) y le culpa de no haberle dejado actuar en resumidas cuentas de no haber tratado muy bien la construcción de su personaje y denuncia la injusticia que le ha hecho pasar a la historia de esa manera.
Aunque la historia es interesante está escrita entre novela-ensayo y a mi en particular me ha resultado muy difícil de leer.
Aunque la historia es interesante está escrita entre novela-ensayo y a mi en particular me ha resultado muy difícil de leer.
January 10, 2021
It was beautiful account of the man that was left behind. The intimate thoughts that was left lingering while his late wife passed. The subtle details of the piano lesson receipts and more created a beautiful imagery of the emptiness inside. I also really enjoyed the essay towards the end. Overall I enjoyed this book. Light read and pleasant
February 26, 2022
An exploration of the travail and tribulations of the bourgeoisie (author) where the uneven distribution of order, prosperity, opportunities and love is deferred for the individual's "previously inconceivable path upwards" to a hollow enrichissez-vous destination with payment due.
October 1, 2017
"Il linguaggio è al contempo un ponte e un insuperabile abisso." (p. 110)
December 27, 2018
Charming.
abandoned
July 31, 2019This "novel-essay" format is just not for me. I couldn't get through it.
December 20, 2021
I don't like Charles Bovary more now, after reading this book, but I do Jean Amery. And I understand how Emma Bovary can be loved. And I have sympathy for the kind of people who can love Emma.
May 23, 2022
v bernhardy but more political, enjoyed the interstitial essay narrative a lot
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews