The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

This is for the conclusion of the book.

What do you think about the fast forward jumps to later times? Are the lives of the characters what you would have expected?

In what ways does Eugenie turn out to be her father's daughter after all?

We assume that Balzac wants us to observe Mme Grandet's likeness to Grandet (the stutter). She manages the house and estate as he had, she increases her fortune and she retains the name. But Eugenie is more than those things, she does them through love of the estate and indifference to herself (the result of the loss of those she loved) not for the love of the money.
In other ways Eugenie realises her mother's nature more fully with alms and donations that Grandet would never have countenanced.
I was suprised only by Charles becoming so much the thorough amoral Grandet from the naïve boy, than I was by any other development.

It was interesting that Grandet compared Eugenie to himself in the fact that she made a bargain with her cousin for the box ( she did not really do that, it was her cousins idea). Balzac really fleshes out Grandet's character, we can see what a despicable and sad person he is. The only reason that he cared about his wife in the end was because of the inheritance should would leave to their daughter if she died.

Garndet's death was very sad because of his blind love for money. What a rotten life he had even though he had a lot of wealth.

Balzac writes Eugenie as very submissive and womanly. She is made like an angel because of this. The only time she went against her father was over he love for her cousin. She is no feminist and doesn't try to push boundaries. In the end she still ends up being a hero in her own right. She pays of her cousins/uncle's creditors and saves his marriage. She gives to the community, the church and Nanon, yet she has the same household rules her father did.

The change in character in Charles was not surprising to me. He left for another country to chase after fortune. In the end his fortune was pitiful compared to Eugenie's and he used wrong and disgraceful ways to gain what he had. He lost a great life because if he had chose Eugenie, she would have done everything to make him happy. How heart breaking. If only Eugenie's had kept a more open mind about other possible men to love and if she could have reflected on the youthful actions they made long ago. She was forever stuck as a young girl in premature love.

I was somewhat surprised at how unpleasant the lives of the characters ended up being. Not happily ever after and not pure tragedy - just how life works to Balzac.
I disliked almost all of the characters in this novel, which if accurately portraying the French people of the times, does not endear them to me. I did not even like the supposedly sympathetic characters, Eugenie and Nanon. Nanon is too blindly loyal and Eugenie is too stupidly naive to gain my sympathy.
I read a blurb on this novel that stated it shows Balzac at his most idealistic since three characters, Eugenie, her mom and Nanon are "incorruptable in the face of the greed that surrounds them." I found them more "ignorant" or at best " slavishly obedient" rather than "incorruptable."

To me avarice really was its own character! Charles choices were unsurprising and yet still disappointing - Eugenie was definitely more interesting but I think JJ captured the phrase correctly saying she was stuck in her adolescent idealized love phase.

I must say I was rather happy for Nanon being thought of as a good catch. Overall I liked the book but not sure I would ever reread as I do other classics.

Is Eugenie (Mme Grandet now) really so submissive and pathetic? With 21stC eyes I might think so.
She had the quiet strength to endure and resist. The things that she had to resist where enormous. Ghandi toppled the British Raj with passive resistance.
Mme Grandet brokered her own marriage including ver unusual conditions. She resisted her father's attempt at estrangement. She refused to participate in the greed and manipulations standard in society.
She did not love again but that is too common in 19thC literature to be particularly interesting. It was her agreement to marry and the conditions she set on it that were surprising and powerful. It was an act of destruction, she destroyed her name by refusing to consummate the marriage.
She lost everyone who loved her when she realised her betrothed had abandoned her, worse than mere rejection she realised her betrothed cared for nothing but money like her father and her suitors. I feel that she rejected him when she paid his debts.
She continued the only life she knew and augmented it with actions she cared about (the Church), knowing that only her mother would have approved.
In making her own life, her own way she seems very much a figure of strength and resolve.

I just thought the characters were so extreme. Eugenie was so extreme in her devoted love to one man (who from the beginning showed that he had tenuous ethics and character), just like how her father was so extreme in his devoted love for money and only money. I prefer books that portrays each character with more depth and complexity. What causes characters to be portrayed in such extreme light? I looked up French history during that time, and it may have something to do with the multiple French Revolutions and political upheaval of the time. I guess during time of extreme uncertainty, one becomes extreme??? I like how it was beautifully written...but lacking in others aspects....