Who's finished L'Education Sentimentale?

How's everyone else doing?

As far as whether the book was attacking or defending libertinage. I didn't really get the feeling that it was doing either. I thought the tone was more like: "This is what it's like - form your own judgments." That sort of reluctance to pass judgment is I think one of the more modern things about the book (among many).

I didn't get the feeling that the book portrayed everything negatively. There many lovely happy scenes, especially when Frederic and Rosanette go away on their little vacation. That seemed to be the closest the book got to pure, unadulterated happiness. But then again, how often do any of us find pure, unadulterated happiness? I didn't find the book overly pessimistic, but then again, maybe I'm just as cynical as Flaubert.

Weren't some of those characters great? I was rooting for Arnoux the whole time. And Pellerin the painter too. And I liked the way Flaubert set the book up, with some of those wonky peripheral characters set against this vast Parisian backdrop just waiting for some Balzacian hero to stride on to the stage and instead we get the mediocre Frederic and his fuck-ups. I just wish that Fred could have had more resonance as a character though.

Did anyone have any real sympathy for Frederic? I can see that Flaubert was wanting us to empathize with him some of the time, but I never really felt like I wanted to be on his side at all. Actually, I was kind of hoping that De Cisy would nail him during their abortive duel... And how about Madame Arnoux? Did anyone warm to her, or was she just a rather prissy portrayal of a dedicated mother? I could never quite fathom why she was such a figure of erotic obsession for dear old Fred.

Ahem.

The Sentimental Education is a negative bildungsroman. With the characters, the education by experience doesn't "take". For readers, the novel is an UNlearning of indefensible sentiments and ideas."

(I was really grateful for the footnotes in my copy too as I am woefully ignorant when it comes to French history.)

I think the novel owed a huge debt to the Comedie Humaine. The sweeping tableaux of characters, the cross-section of the class structure, the intricately elaborate plot all owed a lot to Balzac. Both are keen observers of the Parisian social milieu. Both depict ambitious youth attempting to break into Parisian society through adultery and intrigue. Balzac, like Flaubert, is capable of great pathos and is keenly aware of the sordid underside of Paris. However, after dragging us through the mud, Balzac usually gives us at least the outlines of a happy ending, whereas Flaubert leaves us with something much more ambiguous. Also, Flaubert gets further into the psychology of his main character.

(xpost)

Yeah, that was an interesting aspect of the book. There was obviously a lot going on inside these people's heads, but Flaubert only ever really showed us the surface and maybe hinted at the characters motivation or just let us figure things out for ourselves. There was psychological depth, but he didn't labour it. I liked his touch there.

I think it's true that in Balzac the good tend to get their comeuppance and the wicked tend to suffer in the end. Though the good often suffer considerably along the way, to the extent that their comeuppance may seem somewhat meager compensation for their suffering. With Balzac, I get the feeling that he was paying lip service to the conventional morality of his day but that under the surface his work is very morally ambiguous. As with Flaubert, you usually get the sense that anyone with half a brain is on the make, and the pious have some sort of masochistic martyr complex.

Scott: I'm still pondering that ending! I'll get back to you there...

I used to have a friend who was always quoting someone -- I assumed -- thus: "A cynic is just a disappointed idealist." scott seward

"As far as whether the book was attacking or defending libertinage. I didn't really get the feeling that it was doing either. I thought the tone was more like: "This is what it's like - form your own judgments." That sort of reluctance to pass judgment is I think one of the more modern things about the book (among many)." o. nate

Nate, that's sort of what I meant by "complex"... sort of. It's not like Flaubert lacked a point of view on the subject -- never did get hitched, did the boy? He just had to be honest about things, how libertinage goes down. But hm, prostitution isn't really libertinage, is it? REminds me of the treatment he gave to Frederick's thoughts while wandering Paris after a disappointment: He felt terrible having to look at all those gross people, but made himself feel better with the reminder that he was better than 'em.

La Marechale is a damned complicated character...