Big Ideas

Throughout this novel Barnes is continuously analyzing what Flaubert thought people wanted out of writing. Flaubert claimed that "the public wants works which flatter its illusions" and that we are supposed to judge writers on their "positive virtues." Barnes says that he teaches no positive virtues, so then why does he want to make the point that readers should judge on "positive virtues. This again follows Barnes conduct of "virtual hypocrisy" when truly understanding Flaubert. Flaubert seems like the kind of writer who didn't care about public opinion." He dismissed others views and focused solely on what he wanted to write. This is confusing to me because I don't understand why Barnes would spend so much time talking about what Flaubert thought of readers; when essentially Flaubert didn't want any involvement with the "uneducated" opinions of "real" society. Barnes' attempt to make a sufficient point keeps getting jumbled with a jumble of mixed meanings that contradict each other.
However, Barnes' writing is similar to other types of writing that I have personally tried to write. He writes to support three or four big (or huge) ideas that face the essence of humanity. He already has tackled coincidences, why authors write, which writing types should be banned. Among these Barnes' is supposedly trying to understand Flaubert.
So, the next question I pose is that to understand Flaubert, must we first accept the peculiarities of humanity and step aside from the norms while attempting to reconsider big ideas that constantly flux in and out of our minds?