Rating: 
Summary: A superb translation of a perfect novel
Review: This is simply one of the most satisfying novels I have ever read. And the Parmee translation is excellent - there is not an awkward word or phrase anywhere in the text. Flaubert loved to write fiction which captured the pettiness, baseness, and stupidity of human relations. Misanthrope might be too harsh a word for Flaubert, but he certainly didn't have much patience for the sort of crass greed and shallow, unquestioning conformity he witnessed as a young man in Paris in the Revolution of 1848. I understand that Flaubert started working on this novel very early in his career, but abandoned it several times before finally bringing it to pres in 1869. The care and time Flaubert took in writing this novel shows, especially when you compare it to Madame Bovary, Flaubert's famous book. Bovary is an easier book to "understand". Flaubert may have felt misunderstood. Bovary can be read as an attack on the bourgeoisie, their dull, conformist lives, and the stupid and ultimately self-defeating passions they indulge in an effort to escape from the suffocating monotony of their existence. Or it can be read, as most readers tend to read, as a morality tale about the tragic consequences of adultery. The Sentimental Education sets the record straight, however. Flaubert was not a moralist preaching on the sins of adultery in Bovary. This novel makes that obvious. Here Flaubert again takes up an attack on the bourgeoisie, this time leaving no room for misunderstanding.I once met someone (a literature student specializing in 19th century fiction, no less!) who complained to me how boring she thought the Sentimental Education was. So boring that she never bothered to finish it. To this day I believe she approached the book in the wrong frame of mind. She may have been expecting some Balzac-ish bildungsroman, about the provincial who comes to Paris and grows into a society man. Instead, she discovered a novel about a dull provincial who comes to Paris thinking he is going to grow into a society man, but is such a poor judge of human character and relations that he meets defeat at every corner. But it is one thing to say the book is dull. It is another to point out that Frederic Moreau is a very dull human being. But then, we remember... we know people like Moreau. At some point or another, we all may have even behaved like Moreau. And we know and live in a society composed of people like the rest of the characters. Moreau's world is the world of bourgeoisie. 150 years later, in another language on another continent, I am surprised to see how little some things have changed. Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist, has analyzed this novel extensively (see "The Rules of Art" and "The Field of Cultural Production") because he finds the document perfect for sociological analysis of the bourgeoisie and the intellectual communities that developed in Paris in 1848. Flaubert had a brutally frank eye and pen, quick to capture the most subtle social implications in a single gesture. After reading Flaubert and Bourdieu, I am haunted by how persistent and relevent Flaubert's vision of society and human relations continues to be.
Rating:
Summary: A superb translation of a perfect novel
Review: This is simply one of the most satisfying novels I have ever read. And the Parmee translation is excellent - there is not an awkward word or phrase anywhere in the text. Flaubert loved to write fiction which captured the pettiness, baseness, and stupidity of human relations. Misanthrope might be too harsh a word for Flaubert, but he certainly didn't have much patience for the sort of crass greed and shallow, unquestioning conformity he witnessed as a young man in Paris in the Revolution of 1848. I understand that Flaubert started working on this novel very early in his career, but abandoned it several times before finally bringing it to pres in 1869. The care and time Flaubert took in writing this novel shows, especially when you compare it to Madame Bovary, Flaubert's famous book. Bovary is an easier book to "understand". Flaubert may have felt misunderstood. Bovary can be read as an attack on the bourgeoisie, their dull, conformist lives, and the stupid and ultimately self-defeating passions they indulge in an effort to escape from the suffocating monotony of their existence. Or it can be read, as most readers tend to read, as a morality tale about the tragic consequences of adultery. The Sentimental Education sets the record straight, however. Flaubert was not a moralist preaching on the sins of adultery in Bovary. This novel makes that obvious. Here Flaubert again takes up an attack on the bourgeoisie, this time leaving no room for misunderstanding. I once met someone (a literature student specializing in 19th century fiction, no less!) who complained to me how boring she thought the Sentimental Education was. So boring that she never bothered to finish it. To this day I believe she approached the book in the wrong frame of mind. She may have been expecting some Balzac-ish bildungsroman, about the provincial who comes to Paris and grows into a society man. Instead, she discovered a novel about a dull provincial who comes to Paris thinking he is going to grow into a society man, but is such a poor judge of human character and relations that he meets defeat at every corner. But it is one thing to say the book is dull. It is another to point out that Frederic Moreau is a very dull human being. But then, we remember... we know people like Moreau. At some point or another, we all may have even behaved like Moreau. And we know and live in a society composed of people like the rest of the characters. Moreau's world is the world of bourgeoisie. 150 years later, in another language on another continent, I am surprised to see how little some things have changed. Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist, has analyzed this novel extensively (see "The Rules of Art" and "The Field of Cultural Production") because he finds the document perfect for sociological analysis of the bourgeoisie and the intellectual communities that developed in Paris in 1848. Flaubert had a brutally frank eye and pen, quick to capture the most subtle social implications in a single gesture. After reading Flaubert and Bourdieu, I am haunted by how persistent and relevent Flaubert's vision of society and human relations continues to be.
Rating:
Summary: The masterpiece everyone hated
Review: When Flaubert published "Madame Bovary," it was a runaway
success -- the Parisian sophisticates enjoyed Flaubert's
devastating portrait of French provincial life -- cramped,
stupid, poor and miserable. But when Flaubert turned his satirical eye on Paris
itself, in "Sentimental Education," the good times
abruptly stopped rolling. Nobody liked this book when
it first appeared; the few reviews it got were
deadly. Which may tell you something about human nature, always
enjoying the laugh when it's on someone else! It is said that Ford Madox Ford claimed that he had
to read "Sentimental Education" a dozen times before he
finally understood every detail of this marvellous work
of art. Every detail is considered, every word is weighed.
The plot is wonderful and extremely complex. There are
about seventeen major characters (!) brought successfully
to life. The young may misunderstand this book. I did. When I was
younger, it seemed to be just a tale of two loyal
friends trying to make their way in the hostile world of
Paris, and suffering a great number of misfortunes. Going back, and re-reading this great novel when I was
older, I blushed again and again over the stupidity of
the main character, Frederic Moreau. It is delineated in
a brilliant miniature, right in Chapter One. Frederic
is on a boat home to the provinces, and he meets and
falls in love with Madame Arnoux. A harpist appears to
play music, and Frederic enjoys the music hugely
because he's in love. When the harpist passes the hat,
Frederic drops in a gold louis because his mood is so
happy. A few moments later, he "realizes" that this was
all the money he had; he's hungry for lunch and doesn't
have a sou to his name. Now, while we may want to pardon the sentimental
excesses of youth, it is also brilliantly clear that
Frederic had better outgrow this habit of giving
away his last franc for no reason at all, especially
when he needs it to eat! Well, he doesn't outgrow the habit, to put it briefly.
There is an entire subplot involving Frederic's
idiotic mishandling of money. But that's not all:
Frederic graduated at the head of
his class in high school, and apparently has a brilliant
legal career ahead of him. So -- does he study hard?
Does he persevere? A better question would be: why does
Frederic just stop going to his university law classes,
and sink into idleness? But there is more -- much, much more -- in this wonderful
book. I'll give you one small example which I finally
noticed myself. In Chapter One, Frederic meets Madame
Arnoux, and hears that her first name is "Marie." (He
shouts it out loud, later on, walking down a lonely
country road.) Many chapters later, someone apparently insults the
reputation of his "true love," saying that all Paris
knows about "Sophie Arnoux." But that's not her right
name! Frederic could easily (and devastatingly reply),
"You can't know much about that lady if you don't even
know her name," but he misses this chance, goes on to
become furious, and winds up forced to fight a duel! This may be the best book Flaubert ever wrote, and it
is certainly one of the best novels ever written. Highest possible recommendation!!
| 
