Talk:Madame Bovary
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Madame Bovary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | France Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Novels: 19th century B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
i need more in formation
I'd like to add some more information on the summary. Any suggestions? Ilexia 11:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
--
Why is Don Quixote a 'related topic?' >_< SirMaur 8:59 AM EST
- Well, IMHO :) Two similarities:
- - The effect of the fictional books in the main character
- - The ambivalence of the feelings that the narrator trasmits about the main character
- (Sorry for my english)--Mig21bp 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree -- it's one thing to make a case for the link (could be that there's a good one), but an unadorned reference doesn't make much sense. Molly Bloom's soliloquy, likewise. (Anna Karenina I can see.)
I wonder if anyone has a strong opinion about the best translation of M. Bovary?
No strong opinions.
I like the Steegmuller translation. I read a different translation the first time (and hated the book), but rereading it with Francis Steegmuller's translation, I really enjoyed it.
What's with the undergraduate essay under "themes"? Reminds me of that "social issues in Buffy" essay that stayed on Wikipedia for months until it was AfDed. 203.173.12.40 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The article states that the book was based on the story of a childhood friend - I'm not sure if this is true, but I know it is based (also) on a news article of a woman who took a lover, killed her husband, and eventually killed herself. Does anyone know more about this? - K.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.148.51 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Time Top Ten
Hmm. It seems that someone has added a reference to every book on the top ten list at http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html as being "named by Time as one of the top ten books of all time." This statement isn't really accurate; the online Time article is actually about a recent book (The Top Ten) which is just a compilation of various contemporary authors' personal top ten lists. To say that Time named any of these books as the "ten greatest of all time" is basically just incorrect.
Yes, Contributor-Without-a-Signature, you are absolutely right. From the best I can tell, there was no one user who inserted these references - they seem to have been added by lots of different people to different articles independently - but for my part, I am responsible for the reference on this particular page, and so I will fix it immediately. Still, anyone whose top ten list doesn't include Madame Bovary . . . Hubacelgrand 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Themes section removed
I've removed the themes section because it was just copied and pasted from Sparknotes (nearly seven months ago, nonetheless!) FYI. Gershwinrb 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
An observation about the patterns of this novel
According to the article, the art of this novel lies in its "hidden patterns", and the article expertly shows all the hidden patterns, that the writers of the secondary and the tertiary literature have moved into the light. It would be nice, if some of the same energy could now be invested into also writing a few words about the unhidden patterns, the patterns, that can clearly be seen in the book itself.
One unhidden pattern to note is, that Emma does not have the same position value in the book as in the literature about the book. She does not figure in the beginning or the end, and also not in the center, and her name is not even in the title, which is very unusual and certainly no coincidence with a writer of Flaubert's class. The book begins with the youth of Charles Bovary (charbovari) and ends with the total triumph of M. Homais (receiving the croix d'honneur). And the center - both in reality and as an image - is occupied by Flaubert's brilliant description of the ingenious scientifical measures, that these two pillars of society set in motion to heal Hippolyte's club foot.
An article, that fails to mention well visible patterns like these, cannot yet be called complete. -- Hanno Kuntze (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Trivia Section
Can the trivia section be removed? The passages cited are so minute in the context of the overall novel that I don't think that they can be integrated into the article which concerns itself with broad, overarching themes and plot points. Portia1780 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Chapter by chapter summaries
Since there is a plot summary of the novel, I think that the chapter summary is redundant and unnecessary. I'm considering reorganizing this article per the novel template at the Novel Wikiproject, and if I do this, this section will probably be gone. Portia1780 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The cab ride
In the plot synopsis, we read that the infamous cab-ride is a synecdoche. Please explain in what way the cab scene is a synecdoche. Is there some sexual joke that I'm missing here?--199.3.8.109 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"Deluded"
Under the section style, its final paragraph contains…
a commentary on the entire self-satisfied, deluded, bourgeois culture…
The word 'deluded' overreaches here, a value-loaded judgment that wants to sell us on a POV. I believe I know what the editor wants to say, that Flaubert's socialist views saw the bourgeoisie as deluded, but that's not the ultimate meaning. This one word needs to be reworded or deleted.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind: Resolved the problem with a simple shift of words, reflecting Flaubert's view.
Wikibooks
This article could mostly be transwiki'd to Wikibooks, it's essentially structured as a Sparknotes style study book. It's a shame because it's one of the most important novels ever written we don't have something better. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Character Summaries
There are a few things in the character summaries section that seem to assume very particular ways of reading the text, such as the following:
"So the question is hardly whether we "like" or "dislike" this character. She is who she is - and was who she was. The question we should be asking instead is what social, sexual, and/or economic conditions drove her to such madness."
This sort of prescriptive declaration about what questions we should or should not ask about the novel seems wrong for wikipedia. I'm going to delete it if there's no opposition. Honestly, I'd prefer that the whole paragraph go; it's essentially opinion and not at all factual, and if it is factual, it isn't sourced. Silverchris9 (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)