In reading Flaubert’s Parrot, I can’t help but think of Fight Club. Perhaps it’s the subtle, dark humor that Julian Barnes slips in but there seem to be distinct similarities between the two novels. Both do have that air of “schizophrenia” in that they seem to be all over the place. One minute we’re reading about World War II memories, the next we’re loathing Ed Winterton for burning Flaubert’s letters. Yet, as post-modernism suggests, the pastiche of the novel does give it an overall theme: why is that Flaubert was so secretive about his life?
The author invents stories (like the one with Ed Winterton and Geoffrey Braithwaite) to find reasons why little is know of Flaubert. From the three chronologies we are show how diverse the writer’s life was from various perspectives. It seems as though by advocating so strongly the distinction between author and novel, Flaubert has ironically set himself up for further curiosity—because he is so distant, we want to get closer. With his irony (both in life and in his novels) plus his playful yet bitter disposition on romanticism, it’s as though Flaubert is almost transitioning himself into post-modernism. Could it be that Flaubert is the father of realism and the oblivious founder of post-modernism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Great post! I love how you manage to pack so much insight into so few words. You're right to suspect that Fight Club has postmodern tendencies (though I wonder if these have more to do with narrative form than with 'content'--Palanuhick (sp?)seems pretty confident in his message--his 'truth'--of social decline). As for Flaubert being the indirect founder of postmodernism, I think you might be on to something there (do I sense an essay topic in the offing?).
Post a Comment