Shannon’s review of Madame Bovary > Likes and Comments
131 likes · Like
Totally agree with that! I remember in college I read like 4 of these stories, one right after another, for an English class. I was seriously depressed after that. Give me a break already!
The Awakening does indeed blow hard, and I agree that there are way too many books about the unstable female that does a triple reverse twist (I don't know if that's a type of dive) off the deep end, but Madame Bovary achieves the feet of taking that cliche and played out story and not only making it unique but somehow exciting. It wasn't only an accurate portrayal of the culture and times, but an accurate portrayal of the same characters and dynamics we experience in everyday life. Take the story out of its 19th century setting and you can apply it to almost every time period and culture. I'm guessing you loved (or would love) Atlas Shrugged.
Why aren't there more works about strong women making a difference in their own lives if not those of their families and communities?
Aww, I hate cultural feminism. -_-'
Because Flaubert didn't set out to write a novel about a cliche superwoman, but a really good book. Emma Bovary is one of my favorite characters because she's capable of taking her destiny into her own hands and decide to be the villain, instead of complying with what society expects her to be.
He wrote this TO SHOW that this lifestyle doesn't make one happy. Same with Anna Karenina. They both end up killing themselves because of their own selfish actions.
Shannon,
Your review you wrote is amazing like always you put it like only you can put it! You have come a long way from the high school senior who struggled to write her college entrance essay. Like always you are simply amazing. Keep writing and one day you will write a masterpiece.
Cod Bless,
Cliff
Shannon,
I can understand your desire for other types of heroines but why take it out on Flaubert? He was writing a tragedy which could clearly be interpreted as highlighting the plight of women in his time. He was writing a novel but not fantasy. Many women of his period claimed that they were the model for Emma. Whats that tell you? His novel is a terribly sad and unfortunately, women of the era saw their own lives that way.
Interestingly, Emma is a big fan of romance novels but Flaubert sharply contrasts those stories with Emma's own life because he was underlining some of the harsh realities for women of his age.
How not liking a book is tantamount to a personal affront to the author I’ll never understand. People get much too defensive over books they like just because they like them.
That being said, I agree with you. Maybe Flaubert didn’t set out to write a book with a strong woman protagonist (or is “cliché superwoman” a better description?), but that doesn’t mean I can’t be annoyed at how so many books portray women as weak willed and unable to make choices for themselves (and when they do it must end up being horrible for the woman of course). For me, this book was more of an expression of the dangers of being in love with ideas (like love, hope, wealth) instead of embracing the tangible. By itself the book isn’t too annoying but coupled with others and it’s just freggin irritating IMO.
Why aren't there more works about strong women making a difference in their own lives if not those of their families and communities?
Well I'd argue that these stories, The Awakening, in particular, do include women garnering strength and making a difference in their lives and also those around them--though they are rejected. Obviously they're not bodybuilding or starting an organized protest outside their corporate office demanding for equalized pay, but the actions these women take, moving away from typical bourgeois society and truly expressing themselves passionately and honestly--through painting, living independently, taking control of their sex lives, etc.--are considered powerful in those days.
These novels, though it may not seem like it in modern times, laid the foundations for the heroine who gains political power and takes over a social system or speaks out about being sexually assaulted and whatnot. In Flaubert's time, women writers were still not being taken seriously, and so any overtly feminist themed writing would be rejected outright. Flaubert and Chopin's works were "controversial" enough at the time, Flaubert's more so because of how early his was published. Chopin's still met a hoard of negative criticism.
Even more misogynistic would be the women accepting their conditions and living as a housewife happily ever after or trying to live a man's lifestyle and garner power in politics or business only to be ridiculed and ostracized by society. The female's desperate struggle to be respected, to be acknowledged and to have some shred of power over their own lives leads ultimately to suicide, the one thing they truly did have power over back then. This is not anti-heroic of the women, arguably. Just as in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart, the man Okonkwo's ultimate suicide could be interpreted as the ultimate act of power, the saving of his own pride, these women chose to die with dignity, rather than be forced to live one way or another by the oppressive hand of men. These were the 19th century style heroines.
Try Virginia Woolf, Elizabeth Gaskell, Thomas Hardy (except for Tess), "Middlemarch". The Vicotrian-era authors took what they knew as realistic and did what they could. A little historical perspective can be useful in considering literature.
I suppose that at that time (mid 19'th century and all the centuries before) there wasn't much strong women. Or ok, there must have been. But not in the litterature. Not much of them at least.
I shred with whoever suggested Middlemarch, by George Eliot. Yes, the women in the novel are struggling with the misogyny of the era, but Dorothea is one strong woman!
You entire review is precisely my same frustration with such female heroines and supposedly feminist literature. I think the whole entire concept of portraying females as requiring "sexual" freedom in order to be considered "free" is utterly ironic.
Anyways, I also third the suggestion of Middlemarch. Dorothea has become my almost ultimate favorite heroine. Jane Eyre also defies this sexual standard. I also suggest Mary E. Wilkins Freeman's "The Revolt of Mother" (unfortunately it is simply a short story rather than the level of a classic novel...since the heroine does not achieve her freedom/independence through exploring her sexuality, of course its not considered a classic).
This rating should take into account the work given the social context it was written in. Dismissing this book, because it doesn't satisfy The female heroine present 150 years later just doesn't seem right to me. It took 150 years to get here, acknowledge and appreciate Madame B, that restlessness is what helped fuel change. It was a journey to get the modern heroine. Appreciate her path here. NOT to be dismissed readers.
Pride and Prejudice. That's all I got to say.
Try Thomas Hardy, The Hand of Ethelberta.
I will never understand people who would expect "feminist-friendly" literature in the 19th Century. Furthermore, whenever these authors showed the difficulties that women had to go through and how unhappy their lives were, instead of appreciating how they tried to open the eyes of their society, they just rant about the fact that these women were unhappy! Curiously, someone recommended you Hardy, but not Tess of the D'Urbervilles. I happen to think that Tess is a wonderful example of an author who tries to be the equivalent of a Victorian feminist, pointing an accusing finger at society and how unfair it is to women... and gets called misogynist for it.
Nothing wrong with Tess. Hardy has his fair share of strong women; I just think Ethelberta is the queen of them all.
No matter the era, strong women survive in abundance. When it comes to writing a great female charachter, why let any author off the hook?
Marilyn wrote: "No matter the era, strong women survive in abundance. When it comes to writing a great female charachter, why let any author off the hook?"
Oh, I agree with constructing a good character. I just disagree that the content is misogynistic because the character suffers or is unhappy. I think it's the exact opposite. If these authors showed us women in such difficult situations, then presented them as happy and contented, where is the message to society? Keep going this way, our women are satisfied? No, they are unhappy and in danger, and it's our fault, that's the message that I see.
That was exactly my response when I first read this book. But then I realized we need this type of book as well. I can't articulate why we need this and why it's classic. But I realized how I stupid was first I didn't see it
Dude, it was written centuries ago, what were you expecting? It is a GREAT BOOK.
Historically a liberated sexual environment is a 20th century development. Prior to that women and their role in popular culture was always supressed. You will find that very few women authors/ novelists are even recorded. The morality lecture is therefore only a reflection of the conventional thinking of the time.
it's a very valid question, where are the strong women in lit? it looks like realistically speaking, at the time of Flaubert it would've been hard to write a reaslitic book about such a woman. there werent many in real life at the time. married off at a early age, not working and therefore not having a say in financial matters except by trying to influence her husband (not always possible and also a passive appoach), living with societal pressures/expectations of a good wife, etc, thats how it was. I think strong heroines came later in lit, when women's position in society changed.
There are classic books that are proto-feminist. Read any Bronte novel, for instance. The ones written by dry, cynical men are not it :)
There are definitely classic books with female heroines who were too busy being awesome to get all caught up starting petty adulterous romance drama. Marian Halcombe from "The Woman in White" is an absolute icon, and definitely worth reading about. Other famous titles with capable dignified female characters are: "Little Women," "Around the World in 72 Days," "The Secret Garden," "The Grand Sophy," "Buried Alive," "Merton of the Movies," the Anne of Green Gables series, and of course, you can't forget all the fabulous Miss Marple books.
As I reach 30 something, I now realized why Anna Karenina and Madam Bovary are classics. They are not weak woman, particularly Anna Karenina. She is indeed was a very strong character and strong woman who did not want to obey stupid rules and play in a stupid role, society gave to her. She wanted to be herself and wanted to follow her heart, instead of playing nice and get along with others as other women and men did at that time. We might think that she should have divorced and led her own life. Probably, there were such women in the history and nowadays. Like the Queen Elizabeth who were told she should have married and got protection but refused to follow these advices and society norm as well. The Queen Mandukhai, a Mongolian queen who rebuilt the nation at crazy time. No other men before her and after her succeeded that task. Indeed they all ruined the nation. Unlike Queen Elizabeth, she married with 7 years old boy, who is a direct descendant of kingdom, to protect the throne although she was young and in love with another Lord. There are plenty of stories like that. As of today, many of us, including men, could not resist stupid roles and rules, play nice and get along. And we call it success or career. The authors could have written something about a normal woman rebels against stupid norm, and got divorced and built own life instead of sinking into the bottom. But then the spotlight would have shifted from societal stupid rules to woman power. I am not sure how that kind of story would have played out. Sure, that is another type of story one would like to read.
Anarmaa wrote: "As I reach 30 something, I now realized why Anna Karenina and Madam Bovary are classics. They are not weak woman, particularly Anna Karenina. She is indeed was a very strong character and strong wo..."
Divorce was difficult at that time, and Anna Karenina had no proof that Karenin was not a fit husband. In fact, he was a good man, way better than her; all the junk about him was thought up by her to justify her affair. She didn't have to marry him in the first place knowing that he was much older and plain looking but she did, most likely for his money. Then she met a younger and more handsome man and decided to run off w/him leaving behind her child. What's so heroic about that? Cheating spouses abound, she was nothing new. Emma Bovary is much the same. Her husband didn't give her fun in bed, well, let's go get another one who would. Why not address it w/her husband first? Why bankrupt her husband who worked hard to provide for her? She didn't make any money at all.
Well, my point is not about the husband and wife characters. It is one point of both novels. But my point was about why these two novels are classics. My points were more about societal norm/roles we play. They are sometimes very hard engraved and ingrained within us too hard to shake or even realize them. Like Elsa in Frozen, we were told to hide and “be good girl/boy.” We tell our girls that “ women should behave like” that or to our boys “men don’t cry” etc. All sorts of bullshits. At work, the same thing. If you are woman, you should be nice and get along etc etc. Those were times, those norms were too high. Anna Karenina had a choice. She could have continued the affair as if nothing had happened, and have a good life like others. But she didn’t choose that. That was her mistake that she paid with her life. About Madam Bovary, I am still not sure about what made it to be. Probably, it was the first novel looking into emotion and human realism vs. dream that we put into our kids head.
Anarmaa wrote: "Well, my point is not about the husband and wife characters. It is one point of both novels. But my point was about why these two novels are classics. My points were more about societal norm/roles ..."
There is another book much like these two, called The Awakening by Kate Chopin, also about a cheating wife who ended up killing herself. it's basically a rewrite of these two, very similar only set in the USA around the turn of the 19th century.
My take on all of them is that if writers purported to show a woman refusing to abide by the societal norms of her time, they should've done more than just write a scandalous sex novel but attempted to present a woman fighting for social changes, such as de facto equality of women and men, allowing women access to education and entry into professions, making their own money rather than depending on their husbands for support, which is a big part of the problem, reforming the old educational system where boys were taught sciences and girls how to wear fashions and please their future husbands. There aren't many books about those women although they existed in history, I guess it's not as profitable as writing a salacious sex story. Just my opinion.
LB, I completely agree with you. Calling a woman like Bovary “empowering,” is like calling The Joker “a role model for underdogs.” At least there are some titles from the 19th and early 20th centuries, by both male and female authors, featuring strong, capable, honorable women who made a difference. I treasure the ones I’ve read, and heard of. :)
Mika wrote: "LB, I completely agree with you. Calling a woman like Bovary “empowering,” is like calling The Joker “a role model for underdogs.” At least there are some titles from the 19th and early 20th centur..."
Mika, thanks a lot for your message. Could you please recommend any of those? Thank you!
I totally agree with you. We need more novels and role models of women who is fighting for societal change. I didn’t call Madam Bovary a role model. I was just writing my feelings about why these two novels are classics. As I read them when I was teenager, I thought they were garbage. But, as I grew older I started to appreciate the nuances they present, societal double standards (like Anna could not mix with the society but Vronsky did, although both are two parties committed the same action), the lies we tell, emotional turmoil, our ever shifting culture vs. our old way of upbringing etc. etc. There are so many little details that can be separate topics/issues to discuss. Generally, they portrayed our flawed societies/norms. They are not about the role models but rather the situation they lived. It is actually sad that things still more or less the same as these novels can be related to today’s societal norms. For instance, when my friend broke up with her boyfriend, her friend told her that he didn’t expect her such a “bad” girl. Come on really… When I was a student, there were rumors about some girls like they had many boyfriends etc. But nothing about boys… At work, when woman is pushy enough to stand up for herself then she is labeled bossy (a good one), a bitch etc. or people will talk she is having PMS or she didn’t have enough sex etc. etc. But when it comes to guys, nothing. It is just one aspect. Also, there are parts about what is right and wrong (Levin I think), cultural differences between fast paced city and its corrupting effect vs. a life style of having tranquility etc. I don’t advocate that we all should be peasants. I am just trying to convince that those novels contain more than just scandalous sex and “weak” females
Anarmaa, double standards are definitely terrible. That’s one of the reasons I like Jane Austin so much. Her world really frowns on men who play fast and loose with women’s feelings.
LB, sure thing. Here’s a quick list. There’s probably more, but this is what I can think of right off the bat: :)
The Woman in White (1859) by Wilkie Collins (Marian Halcombe is one strong lady of honor, a tough cookie, and was so popular in Victorian England, that the author was actually sent marriage proposals addressed to her).
Around the World in Seventy-Two Days (1890) by journalist Nellie Bly (this one’s an epic true story).
A Lady of Quality (1896) by Frances Hodgson Burnett (basically if Luisa from “Encanto” was the heroine of a gothic novel).
Buried Alive (1908) by Arnold Bennett (A heartwarming romance where the lady is a confident, independent, go-getter. This one was made into an equally heartwarming film).
Anne of the Island (1915) by Lucy Maud Montgomery. (Anne of Green Gables goes to college!)
Merton of the Movies (1919) by Harry Leon Wilson (The protagonist is adorable, and the whole plot is driven by a tough young stunt woman with a heart of gold. Also, this book is amazing zeitgeist for the silent film era, and was made into a sweet film in the 30s).
Anarmaa, My pleasure. I’m glad to have an opportunity to share some of my favorites. :)
Mika wrote: "LB, sure thing. Here’s a quick list. There’s probably more, but this is what I can think of right off the bat: :)
The Woman in White (1859) by Wilkie Collins (Marian Halcombe is one strong lady o..."
Thanks so much for posting these! I haven't read most of them though heard about some. I'll look into them.
There is another female character that I like a lot even though she's not a reformer, more like the opposite, but she refuses to sell herself into a profitable marriage and doesn't mind getting a job when the chips are down even though in her milieu a working woman is a shame. It's The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton, one of my favorite books and female characters. Best wishes!
LB, You are very welcome. :) I haven't read The House of Mirth. I like that the main character chooses a life where she still has autonomy and is in charge of herself, even if it means losing class status. I will definitely have to check it out. Thank you, so much, and best wishes too.
By the way, if you are interested in ladies making change, you might also like Nellie Bly's other work: "Ten Days in a Madhouse." It showcases her incredible bravery, and made a huge impact when it was published, inspiring real reforms that helped many people. I was on the edge of my seat while reading it.
Because the book was a deconstruction on romantic books and what would happen if someone actually tried to live their lives that narcissistic way. It was a sly "kids, don't try this in reality" read.
Answer: because those heroines are written by (egotistical) men.
"Why aren't there more works about strong women making a difference in their own lives if not those of their families and communities?" That would truly be fiction!
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Cindy
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:39PM)
(new)
Sep 22, 2007 09:20PM
Totally agree with that! I remember in college I read like 4 of these stories, one right after another, for an English class. I was seriously depressed after that. Give me a break already!
reply
|
flag
The Awakening does indeed blow hard, and I agree that there are way too many books about the unstable female that does a triple reverse twist (I don't know if that's a type of dive) off the deep end, but Madame Bovary achieves the feet of taking that cliche and played out story and not only making it unique but somehow exciting. It wasn't only an accurate portrayal of the culture and times, but an accurate portrayal of the same characters and dynamics we experience in everyday life. Take the story out of its 19th century setting and you can apply it to almost every time period and culture. I'm guessing you loved (or would love) Atlas Shrugged.
Why aren't there more works about strong women making a difference in their own lives if not those of their families and communities?Aww, I hate cultural feminism. -_-'
Because Flaubert didn't set out to write a novel about a cliche superwoman, but a really good book. Emma Bovary is one of my favorite characters because she's capable of taking her destiny into her own hands and decide to be the villain, instead of complying with what society expects her to be.
He wrote this TO SHOW that this lifestyle doesn't make one happy. Same with Anna Karenina. They both end up killing themselves because of their own selfish actions.
Shannon, Your review you wrote is amazing like always you put it like only you can put it! You have come a long way from the high school senior who struggled to write her college entrance essay. Like always you are simply amazing. Keep writing and one day you will write a masterpiece.
Cod Bless,
Cliff
Shannon,I can understand your desire for other types of heroines but why take it out on Flaubert? He was writing a tragedy which could clearly be interpreted as highlighting the plight of women in his time. He was writing a novel but not fantasy. Many women of his period claimed that they were the model for Emma. Whats that tell you? His novel is a terribly sad and unfortunately, women of the era saw their own lives that way.
Interestingly, Emma is a big fan of romance novels but Flaubert sharply contrasts those stories with Emma's own life because he was underlining some of the harsh realities for women of his age.
How not liking a book is tantamount to a personal affront to the author I’ll never understand. People get much too defensive over books they like just because they like them. That being said, I agree with you. Maybe Flaubert didn’t set out to write a book with a strong woman protagonist (or is “cliché superwoman” a better description?), but that doesn’t mean I can’t be annoyed at how so many books portray women as weak willed and unable to make choices for themselves (and when they do it must end up being horrible for the woman of course). For me, this book was more of an expression of the dangers of being in love with ideas (like love, hope, wealth) instead of embracing the tangible. By itself the book isn’t too annoying but coupled with others and it’s just freggin irritating IMO.
Why aren't there more works about strong women making a difference in their own lives if not those of their families and communities?Well I'd argue that these stories, The Awakening, in particular, do include women garnering strength and making a difference in their lives and also those around them--though they are rejected. Obviously they're not bodybuilding or starting an organized protest outside their corporate office demanding for equalized pay, but the actions these women take, moving away from typical bourgeois society and truly expressing themselves passionately and honestly--through painting, living independently, taking control of their sex lives, etc.--are considered powerful in those days.
These novels, though it may not seem like it in modern times, laid the foundations for the heroine who gains political power and takes over a social system or speaks out about being sexually assaulted and whatnot. In Flaubert's time, women writers were still not being taken seriously, and so any overtly feminist themed writing would be rejected outright. Flaubert and Chopin's works were "controversial" enough at the time, Flaubert's more so because of how early his was published. Chopin's still met a hoard of negative criticism.
Even more misogynistic would be the women accepting their conditions and living as a housewife happily ever after or trying to live a man's lifestyle and garner power in politics or business only to be ridiculed and ostracized by society. The female's desperate struggle to be respected, to be acknowledged and to have some shred of power over their own lives leads ultimately to suicide, the one thing they truly did have power over back then. This is not anti-heroic of the women, arguably. Just as in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart, the man Okonkwo's ultimate suicide could be interpreted as the ultimate act of power, the saving of his own pride, these women chose to die with dignity, rather than be forced to live one way or another by the oppressive hand of men. These were the 19th century style heroines.
Try Virginia Woolf, Elizabeth Gaskell, Thomas Hardy (except for Tess), "Middlemarch". The Vicotrian-era authors took what they knew as realistic and did what they could. A little historical perspective can be useful in considering literature.
I suppose that at that time (mid 19'th century and all the centuries before) there wasn't much strong women. Or ok, there must have been. But not in the litterature. Not much of them at least.
It is an extremly well written book with great characters (not that you have to like them).
You are from the US, right? Don't you have a comic called Wonder Woman? Maybe that's something for you.
Cheers!
You are from the US, right? Don't you have a comic called Wonder Woman? Maybe that's something for you.
Cheers!
I shred with whoever suggested Middlemarch, by George Eliot. Yes, the women in the novel are struggling with the misogyny of the era, but Dorothea is one strong woman!
You entire review is precisely my same frustration with such female heroines and supposedly feminist literature. I think the whole entire concept of portraying females as requiring "sexual" freedom in order to be considered "free" is utterly ironic. Anyways, I also third the suggestion of Middlemarch. Dorothea has become my almost ultimate favorite heroine. Jane Eyre also defies this sexual standard. I also suggest Mary E. Wilkins Freeman's "The Revolt of Mother" (unfortunately it is simply a short story rather than the level of a classic novel...since the heroine does not achieve her freedom/independence through exploring her sexuality, of course its not considered a classic).
This rating should take into account the work given the social context it was written in. Dismissing this book, because it doesn't satisfy The female heroine present 150 years later just doesn't seem right to me. It took 150 years to get here, acknowledge and appreciate Madame B, that restlessness is what helped fuel change. It was a journey to get the modern heroine. Appreciate her path here. NOT to be dismissed readers.
Pride and Prejudice. That's all I got to say.
Try Thomas Hardy, The Hand of Ethelberta.
I will never understand people who would expect "feminist-friendly" literature in the 19th Century. Furthermore, whenever these authors showed the difficulties that women had to go through and how unhappy their lives were, instead of appreciating how they tried to open the eyes of their society, they just rant about the fact that these women were unhappy! Curiously, someone recommended you Hardy, but not Tess of the D'Urbervilles. I happen to think that Tess is a wonderful example of an author who tries to be the equivalent of a Victorian feminist, pointing an accusing finger at society and how unfair it is to women... and gets called misogynist for it.
Nothing wrong with Tess. Hardy has his fair share of strong women; I just think Ethelberta is the queen of them all.
No matter the era, strong women survive in abundance. When it comes to writing a great female charachter, why let any author off the hook?
Marilyn wrote: "No matter the era, strong women survive in abundance. When it comes to writing a great female charachter, why let any author off the hook?"Oh, I agree with constructing a good character. I just disagree that the content is misogynistic because the character suffers or is unhappy. I think it's the exact opposite. If these authors showed us women in such difficult situations, then presented them as happy and contented, where is the message to society? Keep going this way, our women are satisfied? No, they are unhappy and in danger, and it's our fault, that's the message that I see.
That was exactly my response when I first read this book. But then I realized we need this type of book as well. I can't articulate why we need this and why it's classic. But I realized how I stupid was first I didn't see it
Dude, it was written centuries ago, what were you expecting? It is a GREAT BOOK.
Historically a liberated sexual environment is a 20th century development. Prior to that women and their role in popular culture was always supressed. You will find that very few women authors/ novelists are even recorded. The morality lecture is therefore only a reflection of the conventional thinking of the time.
it's a very valid question, where are the strong women in lit? it looks like realistically speaking, at the time of Flaubert it would've been hard to write a reaslitic book about such a woman. there werent many in real life at the time. married off at a early age, not working and therefore not having a say in financial matters except by trying to influence her husband (not always possible and also a passive appoach), living with societal pressures/expectations of a good wife, etc, thats how it was. I think strong heroines came later in lit, when women's position in society changed.
There are classic books that are proto-feminist. Read any Bronte novel, for instance. The ones written by dry, cynical men are not it :)
There are definitely classic books with female heroines who were too busy being awesome to get all caught up starting petty adulterous romance drama. Marian Halcombe from "The Woman in White" is an absolute icon, and definitely worth reading about. Other famous titles with capable dignified female characters are: "Little Women," "Around the World in 72 Days," "The Secret Garden," "The Grand Sophy," "Buried Alive," "Merton of the Movies," the Anne of Green Gables series, and of course, you can't forget all the fabulous Miss Marple books.
As I reach 30 something, I now realized why Anna Karenina and Madam Bovary are classics. They are not weak woman, particularly Anna Karenina. She is indeed was a very strong character and strong woman who did not want to obey stupid rules and play in a stupid role, society gave to her. She wanted to be herself and wanted to follow her heart, instead of playing nice and get along with others as other women and men did at that time. We might think that she should have divorced and led her own life. Probably, there were such women in the history and nowadays. Like the Queen Elizabeth who were told she should have married and got protection but refused to follow these advices and society norm as well. The Queen Mandukhai, a Mongolian queen who rebuilt the nation at crazy time. No other men before her and after her succeeded that task. Indeed they all ruined the nation. Unlike Queen Elizabeth, she married with 7 years old boy, who is a direct descendant of kingdom, to protect the throne although she was young and in love with another Lord. There are plenty of stories like that. As of today, many of us, including men, could not resist stupid roles and rules, play nice and get along. And we call it success or career. The authors could have written something about a normal woman rebels against stupid norm, and got divorced and built own life instead of sinking into the bottom. But then the spotlight would have shifted from societal stupid rules to woman power. I am not sure how that kind of story would have played out. Sure, that is another type of story one would like to read.
Anarmaa wrote: "As I reach 30 something, I now realized why Anna Karenina and Madam Bovary are classics. They are not weak woman, particularly Anna Karenina. She is indeed was a very strong character and strong wo..."Divorce was difficult at that time, and Anna Karenina had no proof that Karenin was not a fit husband. In fact, he was a good man, way better than her; all the junk about him was thought up by her to justify her affair. She didn't have to marry him in the first place knowing that he was much older and plain looking but she did, most likely for his money. Then she met a younger and more handsome man and decided to run off w/him leaving behind her child. What's so heroic about that? Cheating spouses abound, she was nothing new. Emma Bovary is much the same. Her husband didn't give her fun in bed, well, let's go get another one who would. Why not address it w/her husband first? Why bankrupt her husband who worked hard to provide for her? She didn't make any money at all.
Well, my point is not about the husband and wife characters. It is one point of both novels. But my point was about why these two novels are classics. My points were more about societal norm/roles we play. They are sometimes very hard engraved and ingrained within us too hard to shake or even realize them. Like Elsa in Frozen, we were told to hide and “be good girl/boy.” We tell our girls that “ women should behave like” that or to our boys “men don’t cry” etc. All sorts of bullshits. At work, the same thing. If you are woman, you should be nice and get along etc etc. Those were times, those norms were too high. Anna Karenina had a choice. She could have continued the affair as if nothing had happened, and have a good life like others. But she didn’t choose that. That was her mistake that she paid with her life. About Madam Bovary, I am still not sure about what made it to be. Probably, it was the first novel looking into emotion and human realism vs. dream that we put into our kids head.
Anarmaa wrote: "Well, my point is not about the husband and wife characters. It is one point of both novels. But my point was about why these two novels are classics. My points were more about societal norm/roles ..."There is another book much like these two, called The Awakening by Kate Chopin, also about a cheating wife who ended up killing herself. it's basically a rewrite of these two, very similar only set in the USA around the turn of the 19th century.
My take on all of them is that if writers purported to show a woman refusing to abide by the societal norms of her time, they should've done more than just write a scandalous sex novel but attempted to present a woman fighting for social changes, such as de facto equality of women and men, allowing women access to education and entry into professions, making their own money rather than depending on their husbands for support, which is a big part of the problem, reforming the old educational system where boys were taught sciences and girls how to wear fashions and please their future husbands. There aren't many books about those women although they existed in history, I guess it's not as profitable as writing a salacious sex story. Just my opinion.
LB, I completely agree with you. Calling a woman like Bovary “empowering,” is like calling The Joker “a role model for underdogs.” At least there are some titles from the 19th and early 20th centuries, by both male and female authors, featuring strong, capable, honorable women who made a difference. I treasure the ones I’ve read, and heard of. :)
Mika wrote: "LB, I completely agree with you. Calling a woman like Bovary “empowering,” is like calling The Joker “a role model for underdogs.” At least there are some titles from the 19th and early 20th centur..."Mika, thanks a lot for your message. Could you please recommend any of those? Thank you!
I totally agree with you. We need more novels and role models of women who is fighting for societal change. I didn’t call Madam Bovary a role model. I was just writing my feelings about why these two novels are classics. As I read them when I was teenager, I thought they were garbage. But, as I grew older I started to appreciate the nuances they present, societal double standards (like Anna could not mix with the society but Vronsky did, although both are two parties committed the same action), the lies we tell, emotional turmoil, our ever shifting culture vs. our old way of upbringing etc. etc. There are so many little details that can be separate topics/issues to discuss. Generally, they portrayed our flawed societies/norms. They are not about the role models but rather the situation they lived. It is actually sad that things still more or less the same as these novels can be related to today’s societal norms. For instance, when my friend broke up with her boyfriend, her friend told her that he didn’t expect her such a “bad” girl. Come on really… When I was a student, there were rumors about some girls like they had many boyfriends etc. But nothing about boys… At work, when woman is pushy enough to stand up for herself then she is labeled bossy (a good one), a bitch etc. or people will talk she is having PMS or she didn’t have enough sex etc. etc. But when it comes to guys, nothing. It is just one aspect. Also, there are parts about what is right and wrong (Levin I think), cultural differences between fast paced city and its corrupting effect vs. a life style of having tranquility etc. I don’t advocate that we all should be peasants. I am just trying to convince that those novels contain more than just scandalous sex and “weak” females
Anarmaa, double standards are definitely terrible. That’s one of the reasons I like Jane Austin so much. Her world really frowns on men who play fast and loose with women’s feelings.
LB, sure thing. Here’s a quick list. There’s probably more, but this is what I can think of right off the bat: :) The Woman in White (1859) by Wilkie Collins (Marian Halcombe is one strong lady of honor, a tough cookie, and was so popular in Victorian England, that the author was actually sent marriage proposals addressed to her).
Around the World in Seventy-Two Days (1890) by journalist Nellie Bly (this one’s an epic true story).
A Lady of Quality (1896) by Frances Hodgson Burnett (basically if Luisa from “Encanto” was the heroine of a gothic novel).
Buried Alive (1908) by Arnold Bennett (A heartwarming romance where the lady is a confident, independent, go-getter. This one was made into an equally heartwarming film).
Anne of the Island (1915) by Lucy Maud Montgomery. (Anne of Green Gables goes to college!)
Merton of the Movies (1919) by Harry Leon Wilson (The protagonist is adorable, and the whole plot is driven by a tough young stunt woman with a heart of gold. Also, this book is amazing zeitgeist for the silent film era, and was made into a sweet film in the 30s).
Anarmaa, My pleasure. I’m glad to have an opportunity to share some of my favorites. :)
Mika wrote: "LB, sure thing. Here’s a quick list. There’s probably more, but this is what I can think of right off the bat: :) The Woman in White (1859) by Wilkie Collins (Marian Halcombe is one strong lady o..."
Thanks so much for posting these! I haven't read most of them though heard about some. I'll look into them.
There is another female character that I like a lot even though she's not a reformer, more like the opposite, but she refuses to sell herself into a profitable marriage and doesn't mind getting a job when the chips are down even though in her milieu a working woman is a shame. It's The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton, one of my favorite books and female characters. Best wishes!
LB, You are very welcome. :) I haven't read The House of Mirth. I like that the main character chooses a life where she still has autonomy and is in charge of herself, even if it means losing class status. I will definitely have to check it out. Thank you, so much, and best wishes too.By the way, if you are interested in ladies making change, you might also like Nellie Bly's other work: "Ten Days in a Madhouse." It showcases her incredible bravery, and made a huge impact when it was published, inspiring real reforms that helped many people. I was on the edge of my seat while reading it.
Because the book was a deconstruction on romantic books and what would happen if someone actually tried to live their lives that narcissistic way. It was a sly "kids, don't try this in reality" read.
Answer: because those heroines are written by (egotistical) men.
"Why aren't there more works about strong women making a difference in their own lives if not those of their families and communities?" That would truly be fiction!
