Retraction

Hey, so apparently my ability to read directions is impaired. So in context to the prompt yesterday, my words I'm choosing for the the past three chapters include Antiform, Play and Participation. Here are my motives; antiform (the open writing form) is exactly how Barnes is communicating with us as readers. The past three chapters have really been Barnes plead for us to be his friend, and join in his crazy obsession with Flaubert. We feel empathy for him in Chapter 3, as the priceless letters are burned, via antiform and the communicative style that Barnes uses to reach us. Play, well, this whole thing is play really. It's just Barnes' little game at getting to Flaubert. He's also, slightly, playing with us in the aspect of bringing up personal, dirty secrets of Flaubert (like his sexual tendencies), when we all know Flaubert as a somewhat dry human being (from Madame Bovary). Lastly Participation, which going back to antiform, is Barnes' desire for our realationship. By the time you hit Chapter 3, you are an intrigal part of the novel, you're enjoying every second, you're laughing at the parts Barnes' typed out with a snicker...it's all so beautiful.

Still A Little Iffy

I'm not quite sure what to think of Flaubert's Parrot quite yet....it hasn't grabbed my interest. I do appreciate the sarcastic tone from the author. However, I just don't have that thrill of turing the pages yet. I like how the set up is not a typical novel. Barnes does have a very distinct idiolect in the way that he writes. Hopefully once the novel gets going more, I will have more of an appreciation for the humor and sarcasm presented by Barnes. 

Questionable

The way that Barnes describes Flaubert’s house, makes me think a little. It brings me questions that Barnes only half-asked. Like when Flaubert was writing his novels, was he writing them from his life experience? In his book Un Coeur Simple, was Flaubert the old lady that always lost things, and only had a parrot until even it died? Did he write the rooms in his novels from the rooms in his house? Were all of his novels based around the ways of his life? It kind of made him seem like a man that never left his house, and had no social life. But I like asking myself questions like this.

Obsession

Although with what I have read, I am growing annoyed with all this talk and obsessive-ness over Flaubert, I really like Julian Barnes’ writing tactics. He seems to be one of the few authors who know how to write as though they are talking to you. I have not yet gotten sick of reading this book, as I have the others, though I am sick of reading Flaubert’s name. I feel like Barnes is the kind of obsessed person who would frame a portrait of Flaubert and buy a parrot just to feel as Flaubert felt.
However I am not letting that get to me as I am some of his questions. The questions that Barnes asks are totally legitimate questions that, if you think about a little, will baffle your brain. At least mine anyways.

Struggling Between Realism and Post-Modernism

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?

What's the point?

More than 60 pages into this book I still have no idea what Barnes is talking about or where he's going with the story. Maybe that's the point of post-modernism, but if so I don't get post-modernism. I much prefer romanticism/modernism to realism/post-modernism. What is the point of reading about someone with a mediocre to sucky life? It's fiction, you're not supposed to have to struggle through someone else's troubles when its not even interesting to do so. Why would you bother to make that stuff up? There's plenty of it in the real world. If you're going to make something up, why not make it interesting and relevant, or at least enjoyable for your readers? I don't get why Barnes would bother to write an uninteresting book about an author of uninteresting books. What a waste of ink. For the character, Braithwaite, who is creepily obsessed with Flaubert, maybe going through all the letters he ever wrote looking for random mentions of various animals is thrilling. I don't really think so. Maybe there's something else going on here, that is fascinating and ingenius, but I sure don't see it. I could just be too narrow-minded or something. But so far, Flaubert's Parrot just isn't doing it for me. That came off a little harder than I had intended, but you get the point.

After reading Madame Bovary and seeing the way that Flaubert writes, it is interesting to go into more detail about his life. This book is also opening my eyes to some of the different views that people have of Flaubert. Julian Barns is a man who recognizes Flaubert as being a great author, while during my reading of Madame Bovary I never noticed him as anything else then a man who is aggravated with romanticism. Also, listening in to what the class has to say has also come to interest me. Some find him hilarious while I only view him as slightly funny. It is neat to see the different perspectives. In addition, subsequent to reading the chronologies it gave me a better grasp for Flaubert as a whole. The final chronology allowed us to see Flaubert's life through his eyes. He doesn't view his life as anything extraordinary, rather frustrating. Many of the metaphors that he includes in these pages are expressing his feelings towards his life and literature, which he portrays to be ungraceful in a sense. He views himself as an annoyance, someone who throws up words, while others that have read his pieces find him magnificent. I guess what I am trying to say is that after getting a sense of his writing styles, it is entertaining to see his views towards himself vs. the views of his followers.

Animals

It is interesting to convey Flaubert as an animal. It really gives a greater understanding of how he functions and what he does. "He works like a mule, he lives a life which would kill three rhinos." That observation makes it seem like his life must be very intense. Lots of stress, overtake him and put a lot of pressure on him. Flaubert is described as a bear, and he "takes" flies off the hermit's face while he sleeps. "One day, a fly landed on the tip of the man's nose, and declined to be driven away. The bear became extremely angry with the fly, and eventually seized a huge stone and succeeded in killing it. Unfortunately, in the process he beat the gardener's brains out. I find this to be really funny. There is an interesting statement about how parrots relate to humans. "Parrots are human to begin with... parrot comes from pierre." This statement could be why the story is titled with a parrot in it.

Parrot

Flaubert's Parrot is a rather interesting book which seems to have random points of interest among a lot of pointless crap. For instance, what kind of novel has chronologies in between two chapters? It makes me wonder if Julian Barnes was on something when he was writing this fictional novel or if he has some sort of purpose behind this crazy, random placement. I find it somewhat interesting that Geoffrey Braithwaite, the narrator, has some aspects of his life mirroring the lives of characters in Madame Bovary. His wife dies, he is a doctor, and he seems to lead a rather boring life with his huge obsession of Flaubert. I guess I'll have to read and see if there is a real purpose, or if it was just a novel written to pass his time about an author that he adored.

Flaubert's Parrot

Postmodernism has often been associated with anarchy, meaning the book is chaotic, all over the place, and usually has no rules, Flaubert's Parrot is no eexception to the rule. Barnes opens the book in a normal way, he intorduces his subject, the contorversy over which parrot is the Flaubert's real parrot, however as soon as he's intorduced his subject he begins writting in a chaotic non-discript way. Chronologies, definitions, random tangents about nets, make up the first two chapters of Flaubert's Parrot. All these things combine to make an interesting and somewhat confusing "novel."

The beauty of this novel lies in it's chaos. While Barnes goes off on random and confusing tangents he always manages to bring them back to Flaubert and thus Flaubert's parrot. To me this is the most appealing part of the book, the anarchy. While Barnes' style of writing is confusing at best, it's also enthralling. You never know where Barnes might take us too next, Flaubert's association with animals, his love affairs, the narrators love for Flaubert, or even the narrators personal life. The book goes everywhere, nothing is off limits. To me this creates a sense of freedom and Independence. Not to mention the fact that the places Barnes takes us too are funny, they're random and pointless but funny. For me this novel has three very important things, no boundries, a sense of humor, and it keeps you on your toes. I think if Flaubert were alive today I would want to be his friend.

My Feelings In Blog Form

I still feel this chapter is a bit weird or different because of Jeffrey's outlook on things such as the net at the beginning of chapter three, along with the first two chapters...especially the chronologies, they were a little whacky as well. In the reading for chapter three we find out that Jeffrey is our narrator and that he has kids who's mother died. Knowing this I'm trying to figure out if he might be gay or not. But I liked the fact that this is strting to be more like an actual novel compared to what the first couple chapters were like.

This is a very different book from what im used to reading. Its interesting how each chapter is particularly different and brings its own aspect to the book. I like the title Flauberts parrot which relates to lulu and his short story. I think its funny how the narrator is traveling and goes to the musium and acualy veiws a parrot. Then he finds the other one in the house not knowing which one was acually Flauberts. This book is fairly funny i think. The three chronologies in chapter 2 is pritty cool because it gives us alot of insite about Flaubert that i wouldnt other wise know much about him. Im curious to see where the book goes from here considering that it brings so many twists.

Parrot=Humor

Flaubert's Parrot illustrates Flaubert as a much more vibrant person than we've actually seen though his literary work, Madame Bovary. In contrast to Madame Bovary, a book that follows all the rules and barely steps out of line for a moment, even when depicting a dirty adultress scene, Flaubert's Parrot goes as far as to talk about Flaubert's sexual compentency, which, if he doesn't say so himself, is quite impressive. There is a point in which Flaubert (or at least this point is recalled) bashes his novel and wishes for all copies to be burned and never seen again. Agreed Mister Flaubert, agreed. Julian Barnes, although I am slightly skeptical of his motives for writing such an in depth piece on Flaubert, is a very talented author. Talented, not by ways of magical descriptions, but just because of the realationship he demands from his readers. In the begining, he bores us ever so gently with blah-blah nonsense realating to Mr. F and parrots and what have you, then switches the song mid-way-through to some amazing beat we've never heard before, with cronology antics. Beauty. The third chapter, utterly marvelous, is just more comedy in informational form, although I have no clue where he's headed, it's beautiful. Now, fellow bloggers, the bell has rung, and my Pavlonian response urges me to run for the door! Until I can get to my laptop, sincerely yours, Lindsey

Dry Mystery?

Written as a postmodern novel, Flaubert's Parrot is greatly diverse and seems somewhat unfocused. The desire of the narrator, Jeffery, to know more and more about Flaubert as an author, a person, a historical figure almost seems to drive the reader crazy. You want to know what happens and so does Jeremy, making the desire and suspense almost unbearable. This absence of information and lack of focus on a certain point or question challenges the reader to look more in depth at the writing of the novel. Although, the text itself does not offer incredible depth and this is what makes the absence of the novel frustrating. The desire to find what Jeffrey is looking for AND the point of the book makes the novel dry, and almost like a mystery.

First-Class Literature/Fiction

Well this book is Crazy, it jumps all over the place with its crazy metaphors, to the bits of knowledge about Flaubert’s Life. So far in this “ Postmodern” novel we have read about Flaubert’s life from three different points of view and we are just now starting to read some dialogue about Geoffrey Braithwaite’s life. I kind of feel some irony going on about Flaubert’s life and how he might have connected his life to Madame Bovary’s life. This is because Flaubert had a mistress supposable according to the letters that were supposed to be burnt by the mistress, and then Ed burnt them. Maybe he had this affair when he was writing Madame Bovary. Overall I feel this book is enjoying to read because the way Barnes writes it makes you want to read more!

Flaubert's Parrot, postmodernism?

My overall interpretationg of Hassan's Schematic is that Modernism has purpose/structure, while postmodernism is whimsical and lacks any sense of purpose or direction. So far i definately get a feel for the antiform of postmodernism, with Barnes' chronologies, and story that provides us with no useful information. This seems to emobdy the term pastiche, in which everything is pasted together with no direction. Barnes seems to "play" with us when he makes us think we are going to get the all the fascinating details of Juliet and Flaubert's relationship, when in the end the letters were burned. Not only is Winterton teasing Braithwaite, but Barnes is teasing us the reader. Silence might be reffering to the lack of information or context gained from the chapters in postmodernism novels. I think process simply means that all these random bits of information in each chapter will come together in the end. Participation perhaps applies to the reader, meaning it is his or her responsibility to have all the background knowledge and apply it to understanding the novel. Antithesis confuses me because there isn't really a strong thesis in most fiction novels. Rhetoric could mean the author references several pieces of literature to support his or her arguement. Rhizome is any interesting word, and is paired with surface. Does this suggest that postmodernist novels state their purpose on the surface rather than throughout the story? For example we know that Flaubert's Parrot is going to be an investigation of the Parrot from A Simple Heart, but we wouldn't be able to determine that from the text thus far. Scriptable probably means if the author wanted to they could change the narration into dialogue or a script. Idiolect could be a loose account of dialogue - he said this and then she said that. Desire, from the reader to know the intentions of the odd stories? Schizophrenia seems weird to describe a style of writing, but i can see how it explains that postmodernism does not take one direct stance, or is indeterminate. The word imminence makes me think that in postmodernism the reader never knows what is about to come next. I don't really know about the other words, very confusing.

i dont know where to even start.... The chronologies were crazy but i understand that the first is positive, the second is negative and the third is just quotes. When the actuall book starts its pretty cool. I relly like that it has no order or anything its just so intense. FOr some reason this crazy book makes me keep reading. I want to keep reading to see if there is any good point to this book... i think anyway. if not then it wont be any worse then madame bovarey which pissed me off. This guy must have been trippin on acid or something when he wrote this. so to sum it up all i really have to say is WOW!!!!!1

The Parrot

Flaubert's Parrot is actually a very interesting read so far. The experience of reading this book, and probably for other postmodern books, is very different from almost any other style of writing. It is almost like reading a magazine or a book of short stories, yet with a semi-coherent story that seems to run through the whole novel. A good way to think about it, with all of the post modernism I've ever read( which is not very much), is there is a back bone , the story, and then there are various ribs, which are the random stories and chapters, that are sometimes based off the story. Sometimes these off shoots are based off of and consistent with the main story. This style is very fun to read and I enjoy it, for its simplistic material that is explained through a highly complex method.

Through the chronologies what I was thinking

In Flaughbert's Parrot I thought the chronologies were full of such wierd little comparisons and quotes. I thought it was really funny in the first chronology in 1836 he talked about the sexual initiation like it was his entrance into high school. For the second chronology erin and I were laughing about the quote where it says a shattering first attack of epilepsy. Erin was quite amused. In chronology three I liked how he described boredom as everything but what it is, radical, intimate, bitter and incessant. I thought that was an interesting way to describe it. It seemed almost painful. In the first part of the book, I thought it was interesting how he described the parrot as the pure world. This made a lot of sense to me, because it meant that it is the clever sayings that the parrot vocalizes that any normal person would think twice before saying. I thought it was funny how the narrator described the part of human nature where people are not satisfied with just the legacy of their favorite author but have to capture the essence of them almost to the point of obsession. I find this funny because he seems almost as obsessed with Flaubert as much as he criticizes everyone else for doing the same thing.

im exited to discover why i think the author wrote this book. even a book with such a desire to not have a finite meaning, i cant believe he just sat down and wrote this wit out a reason i do believe however that he will keep it vague and up to individual interpretation, im also glad we have met some characters besides Flaubert. keep the dialog goin and the humor up and i will continue to enjoy this read.

The 3rd chapter

The 3rd chapter of this book once again takes on the form of a narrative, and it's amusing as well as the Chronologies. It reveals a little more about the personality of the author, and the character he represents, Geoffrey. It also introduces his strange eccentric moralistic friend, Ed, who has burnt the letters Flaubert has written to his mistress. It's hard to take each of these chapters as a single thing, as this book takes on a real postmodernism form and never follows the "conventions" as they're normally thought of it. It really is just a pasting of random articles and bits of stories that the author has just stuck in seemingly random places. There really is no general consensus from each chapter, and it seems more that each chapter must be taken as a bit in itself. The story really does seem to be playing with us, as it reveals tantalizing facts and tidbits and then immediately jumps to a new subject, such as what animal best represents Flaubert. It's really interesting to read, and even if the book was not that amazing, the simple fact that it teases you and drags you along, forcing you to either, continue reading in order and hope for the next chapter to come up soon, or to simply skip around until you find the next section based on the same idea. If there are not any more sections about the certain topic, than you will be dragged on by some other interesting tidbit. Postmodernism really has the ability to just throw things in wherever whenever and call it writing. And the fact is, the tease and laughs it brings keep you addicted and reading.

Lobo and flaubert's parrot

This is a very interesting "novel". I love how it jumps around, and is almost illogical so far. It's almost a game the author is playing, trying to jump around and keep the reader off balance. It helps to make your own decisions about the novel instead of the set definitive views of more linear novels, like Jane Eyre and Madame Bovary. In those novels the author has a viewpoint that comes through in their writing, but this one keeps you from getting into the novel. One of my favorite parts of this novel is the chronolagy, especially the third one. Many of the quotes were very funny, in a dry ironic way. I think that so far this has been a halarious read. Another of the funniest parts of the story is how random and senseless it is. The whole idea of the parrots makes almost no sense, why would the discrepancy between which parrot was Flaubert used matter in the least to anything, ever? I find the irony of this book so far being pointless to be very funny. Personally i hope the rest of the novel remains this funny and non-linear, if so it might turn out to be our first thouroughly enjoyable read this year.

The Parrot

This book i find particularly hilarious. Unfortunately there isn't enough story to hold the humor in my opinion. We keep getting closer to a story, and then it all falls apart, and this aggravates me because I really like the humor and tenseness that is created during these story portions. Were this to be less of a reference type book and more of a story I'd probably already be done with it. If Barnes is writing it this way to make it a playfull it isn't working. Instead it is making me frustrated.

GUSTAVE

Flaubert's Parrot is a lot easier to digest than Flaubert's actual book. I liked the chronology chapter, especially the III one. All of Flaubert's metaphors and descriptions are comical and interesting. The cigar and book ones were two of my favorites.
When I started to read the first chronology, is was a little confused and thrown off. Why were there these dates and descriptions of Flaubert's life? The farther I got into the chronology, the more I got into the flow. The style kind of released in my brain, I could read and understand it easily. I wasn't sure where it was headed, but I continued. Looking back, I think Barnes is just trying to give us some background of Flaubert. The main character, Geoffry, already knows all of this about Flaubert, so I think that Barnes is just trying to bring us up to speed with the main character. If we didn't know Flaubert, we would be completely lost by now.
Flaubert's actual life is sickly joyful as his book was. He is an epileptic whose mom try so hard to care for him that she dies before he does. He is a traveler that loves sleeping with women only to catch syphilis. All of his friends die and most of Flaubert's characters die. Flaubert seems like a character in one of his own books, possibly because he is trying to base them on what he knows or simply does so unconsciously. I like reading about Flaubert, than actually struggling through his works.

This book thus far isn't very interesting. I'm not sure what is going on and where the author plans on taking it. The whole chronology thing was weird and i just don't really like how the book is written. I guess it kind of gets interesting when he starts talking about the letters that were written between Juliet and Flaubert, it shows some what of a connection with Madame Bovary. I wonder what conncetion Ed is going to have in the whole bigger picture of the book, or if any. Chronology III was some what useful because you are able to better understand who Flaubert is and what his life was like but still I don't really know where this book is going. I hope something interesting happens soon because if not i don't know how much more I can read.

F's P

I feel like if I had read even just the chronologies first, I wouldn't have despised Madame Bovary as much as I did. Chronology II gives the reader a better understanding of where Flaubert is coming from and perhaps why he is so against the romanticism style of writing. All of the deaths, failing relationships, and other issues that he has to deal with lets me see perhaps where Flaubert is coming from and why he writes in such a dry, bitter style. I enjoyed reading Chronology III because I was able to hear Flaubert's true voice (comical and cynical), that which you don't get from reading Madame Bovary. With the chronologies next to eachother, I can relate his quotes to what was going on in his life. I think my attention span will last longer than it did in Madame Bovary.

Ah Flaubert's Parrot, what an enticing read. As perused the novel, the pages seemed to fly by (much like a parrot), never failing to captivate my mind. I like how I, as a reader, was granted the opportunity to make my own decisions while reading the text. I was able to draw my own conclusions, stay true to my own interpretations! What a beautiful thing indeed. I now realize that Flaubert is a rather hillarious individual, something I regrett not understanding while I read Madame Bovary.

1.2.3 Flaubert

The first three chapters of this book are so funky. I don't really understand how it is called novel. With novels you need characters, plot, setting and more. The first two chapters in here don't really give us this. The chronology is strange, it doesn't really fit into a novel. The writing in this book is interesting and i'm glad the third chapter is actually getting into novel form. So far this book seems pretty interesting with the different styles of writing and I can't wait to see how he continues on in the book. This book doesn't seem like a novel and so I hope it becomes more of one soon.

letters

There was some confusing elements about the letters that I did not understand. The first is that in the letters Flaubert told his mistriss that if he died she was to lie all about his life and burn all of the letters. Why on earth would he want her to lie about his life, he had a really interesting life in which he accomplished many things. So why would he just disregard all of this stuff and lie aobut his life. Would he want her to lie to make his life sound more interesting or would he want her to degrade him. So is all of the information that we know about flaubert a lie or is the whole truth. Also, how did these letters escape the fire that was supposed to be put upon them. Maybe the letters are just all lies that Flaubert had previously written to give false information about his life. Or maybe the letters don't even exist at all and Ed Winterton just made them up completely to get some attention from another human being.

This book, hmmm

I'm not entirely sure what I feel about this book. There are times when the such blatant humor make me laugh and I'm thankful we have started to read a a very entertaining book. Then there are other times when I realize I dont even remember what happened on the last page and have to go back to re-read it. I do admit, although, that I enjoy Realism so much more than romanticism. It doesnt sugar coat things with romantic tales that revolve around depressed people incapable of ever being happy. Realism tells it how it is, and in Flaubert's case, it becomes quite funny and humorous. Wether or not Flaubert meant it to be funny or not, he defiantly left it up to interpretation. When reading through the chronologies of this book it defiantly helps to understand his style of writing. To be very blunt he has a load of shit in his life, but has been givin some air fresheners to reduce the stench.

Flaubert

The novel starts with two chronologies that really displays the bitterness of Flaubert. The chronological approach to starting this novel begins with telling the reader of Flaubert's life and the different dates of happenings in his life. The first chronology tells of Flaubert's success and accomplishments he has accumulated and the second chronology tells dates of his deaths and failures and this shows that he is sensitive to the different things in his life, therefore creating a bitter personality. It is a half and half split between the two chronologies and the different accomplishments and failures and this makes him bitter. So far this book is not in novel form but I think it will make a turn in the direction of a novel shortly, Julian Barnes first part of the book were very necessary to show the personality of Mr. Flaubert.

Barnes' Revenge

Flaubert clearly did not want anyone to know anything about him. He wanted his literature to speak for itself, not for himself. However, I wonder how successful he has actually been. Was it possible for Flaubert to write without inserting a little bit of himself into his stories? It seems to me that even though Flaubert was a writer, and obviously enjoyed, to some degree, his work, he struggled with his writing. As Barnes says on Page 26: "He might agonise over the word, the phrase, the assonance, but her never endures a writer's block." I have this idea that he would write and re-write to attain perfection, but it was never perfect enough for him. Personally, I think I would just give up if I had to constantly pay enough attention to detail as to be like a mirror, but completely disregard emotion. I really don't understand his contradictory style.
Perhaps Barnes truly did do Flaubert a disservice by giving us all of this information to contemplate. I really wish the letters were non-fictional. I mean, it's just sooo funny, thinking about this bald, American sitting across from Barnes and confessing he simply burned the letters. THE LETTERS! that gave insight to Flaubert's soul and his passions and his love! A true Flaubertian spirit must have been reincarnated to posses Ed's soul for a moment as he contemplated taking the letters to England and selling them to Barnes so he could wriggle out of debt. The author must have re-possessed at least his hands as he lit the fire in Ed's house and tossed them in, laughing outwardly, but secretly cursing Juliet's folly.

Da Funny Stuff...

The book Flaubert's Parrot so far is hilarious. The chronologies were especially the best, number 2 was my favorite just because Julian Barnes explains how Flaubert is such a cynical and bitter man. He goes through a lot during his life, loosing just about everyone, getting syphilis, and getting treatment for it sounds gnarly, but also kind of funny, he also ends up loosing his hair. The one quote that I really enjoyed was when he was saying his heart was becoming a necropolis, a place for the dead, a resting place.

FLOWBEARS parROT

The chronology really gives us insight into why flaubert is such a bitter person. His life seems depressing and dull, filled with drinking and syphilis. This may explain his distaste for everything. As for chapter 3, Barnes, I feel, has made this whole account up out of thin air. After all this book is fiction, right? There isnt any symbolic meaning for anything in this chapter, Barnes was maybe just bored. At this point in the book I am still very confused, where the hell is this going? I guess I'll have to read on to see.

FLOWBEARS PAR ROT

Chronology

The second chapter of Flaubert's Parrot was unusual for a novel. This chapter consisted of a chronology. I thought that it was useful to see Flaubert's background and get a better understanding of why he was so bitter. However, I did find it a little confusing that Barnes used this form of writing in the middle of the novel.

Disjointed Chapters

The chapters of Flaubert's Parrot are incredibly disjointed. They do not relate to one another except with, Flaubert, but non of the stories relate. Maybe later on like in the movie Crash, all the stories from the chapter will come together. This idea relates to post-modernism because the author is not directing the reader nor swaying them to one side. Barnes does not convince us which chronology is correct or state by fact that Juliet and Flaubert's letters are true. I feel that as a reader, when he leaves the text up for me interpretation, this book can be taken many ways. It's almost like when there is a cliff hanger at the end of movie or book and you have to wait for the next one in the series. But Barnes does not conclude the idea. In the most recent chapter, 3, I think that Barnes is just giving you a fun and interesting story to read. Even though, it may not be true, it entertains the reader as if you are reading a typical fiction story. Almost a romance novel, but not quite the genre of romance.

Ohhhhhhh Yeeeaaahhhh

I'm diggin' this book. I think it's totally bitchin' how the author just flows. But, I get the impression that Flaubert wasn't a very happy person and this saddens me.

Flauberts Parrot

This book seems to drag me in right when I pick it up. It has a very distinct style to it which sucks me in to the reading and makes me want to read more. Unlike the other two books which we have read in the past, I actually find many things in this book amusing and interesting. It is very playful and kind of drifts around instead of having a distinct purpose. Somtimes I get lost in what the author is talking about but overall it's a very interesting book.

Flaubert's Parrot

Not sure what I think about this book yet, but the chronologies were interesting to read. I liked how they separated the positive things from the bad things, then had Flaubert's personal accounts as a separate section as well. The first section shows life and the positive beginnings of things, while the second shows death and the end of things. I liked the way things were phrased in the third; "I am only a literary lizard basking the day away beneath the great sun of Beauty. Thats all." and "People are like food..." are my two favorites. Chapter 3 was full of metaphors, therefore I'm not so sure it could be considered most accurate. The first two chapters are probably more accurate because they are factual. It was interesting how it started off as a fiction, then broke that theme, and became a biography, and now in chapter 3, is back to being fiction.

Purpose and Play!! Why I read.

I personally am for play over purpose. I can allready see in Flauberts Parrot that the essance of play is all around me when I crack open the book for a late night reading sesh. It is not formed as Madame Bovary and Jane Erye are its a much better read and the way the author throws the book at you makes you only want to read more. Jane Erye and Madame Bovary are, I have to say, made me want to burn the book right in front of me but Flauberts Parrot has a certain silliness to it that makes me keep reading. The sexual jokes and blacken humor displayed by the author only makes the book that much better than Flauberts actual writting.

Why I Like Post-Medernism

There is no event in a story that is so significant as to allow it to defy the writers tone. For example, In the Romantic tone of Jane Eyre no event was able to escape that dramatic, romantic frame. By contrast, the Realist tone of Madame Bovary was able to make even the most dramatic and humorous death scene dreadfully dull. I believe that the Post-Modern tone is wonderfully funny and on point. Lines like "I wanted to tell Winterton how really pleased I was the British had burnt the White House to the ground" (p. 47) perfectly exploit the dryness and simplicity of the tone's emotional side. Simple, dry, to the point. It is quite a British sense of humor, often reminding me of irreverent Monty Python skits. I am enjoying this book much more then either of the other two we have read this year. I even found the chronologies, which many students found odd and pointless, a treat that fit wonderfully into the book.

Flaubert's Parrot

I'm not really sure what to think of this book yet, I do however enjoy this novel much more than Madame Bovary. It's an interesting take on a biography, even though we can't classify as such. Having it be pastiche, i think makes it a more readable book, compared to a straight forward novel or biography. I enjoy Barnes style of going from a strictly fiction opening where we get a strong sense of presence, then he leaps to the three chronologies of Flaubert's life. By intertwining the two literary styles of both a biography and that of fiction it makes the book more engaging to the reader. Many straight biography's can become boring after only a few chapters, but by interjecting the fictitious scenes with Geoffrey Braithwaite it breaks up the boring biographical jargon and makes the novel more enjoyable to read. Excited to see what else the books hold....

JZ's post

After reviewing Hassan's schematic differences between modernism and postmodernism, I can already tell that Flaubert's Parrot is the quintessence of postmodernism. As I'm sure we've all discussed in our respective classes, this novel (?) incorporates many of the elements that Hassan might consider postmodern. For example, this book is schizophrenic, polymorphous, contains combination, is antiformal, and contains playfulness. Thus far, I suppose that I like this book. This is the first time I have encountered postmodernism, as far as I can recall. This book also gives rise to some interesting questions. For example, why are books not enough? Why do we endeavor to write biographies and relics, so that we can have a deeper understanding of WHY the author might have written what he did. My answer to those who complain of this phenomenon (if anybody does) is that you don't need to read the biographies and relics.

Funny Times

This book is much more to my liking as compared to the previous two books. It is funny, and to be honest, I think I enjoy and understand post-modernism much better. The two most prominent post-modern traits that I have noticed so far are that of playfulness and indeterminacy. The chronology sequence is a perfect example of indeterminacy. The reader is not sure which chronology scene to believe the most. Three examples are given, yet they are three completely different tones/viewpoints. One being from Flaubert himself and the other two being pessimistic and optimistic. I like this style because it gives the reader several outlets from which he can chose. He is more in charge of his opinion and thoughts about the book instead of being led around by, par say, Jane Eyre's thoughts. You get to decide what to think about the text instead of being guided.
Now for the second trait; playfulness. This is very present in Barnes's novel. His style is not romantic and not realistic, it's fun and humorous. It's a much lighter tone that enlivens the reader. One gets excited and actually laughs outloud due to the humor that is always there. It's a much more fun style to read and you can tell that Barnes himself is having a fun time. He is somewhat teasing the reader and seeing how far he can push the limit. Perhaps Barnes wishes to confuse the reader to a point where it is up to the reader to decide what is the best way to look at this book. As I said before, I like this style much more because it makes you feel like a much more independent reader. You make your own decisions and laugh whole-heartedly at the hilarity of the style.
Whether or not this book is a novel, I'm not completely sure. I feel that it is leaning much more towards a novel as compared to a biography. Once again, perhaps Barnes is trying to confuse the reader for fun. The fact that there have been three chronologies and multiple different viewpoints makes me think that it is a novel. Also the way it is written is much more in the form of a story rather than information about Flaubert.

= P

Ed Winterton's deceitful hope is like telling a man starving to death that a 5 course meal is ready for him when in reality the food had already been devoured. I would have punched Wintertons spectacles straight back into his brain without hesitation.



Julian Barnes threads fiction and fact together like one confusing ugly sweater with colors randomly scattered throughout the fabric. He doesn't hesitate to quickly dart from introducing Flaubert's life with facts to a fictional story in which fact and fiction blend. This can be quite confusing but makes for quite an entertaining novel.



I'm not sure exactly what it is but I'm enjoying this book a lot more than Jane Eyre or Madame Bovary. Maybe because it wasn't translated,

Hassan's Schematic

Flaubert's Parrot is definitely creating a new perspective on Flaubert. Julian Barnes is witty and writes to keep readers on their toes. So far I have really enjoyed his book, but I think there is much more to be discovered in the depths of the real story.
Barnes writes fiction with non-fiction and throughout some of the chapters it is hard to distinguish between who is actually narrating the story. This is a new type of writing and perhaps because I have never read any postmodernism books this is why I am feeling like this is an unusual, but interesting read. The anti-narrative demonstrates a new type mood throughout the book and gives the novel a different kind of flow. Geoffrey Braithwaite is credited as the "main character" who tells the tale of the mini-stories, but continuously throughout the beginning of the book I keep thinking that this is a personal journal from Julian Barnes. In a sense Geoffrey Braithwaite is just Barne’s mouthpiece, but stuck in the story so that Flaubet’s Parrot can be viewed as a novel.
Also, the reader is left to choose amongst certain topics and decided what they mean to them. Barne's uses parataxis to relay the biographical information to the reader through three separate chronologies. The reader is then left to choose which one makes the most sense to them and in the end can make an accumulation of all three creating a specific image of Flaubert personal to them. For me this section left a kind of schizophrenia tone and the facts were jumbled all over the place. Little stories and snippets seem to be thrown in at random times during the chapters. For instance we learn about Geoffrey through past recollections like when he discusses he feelings compared to what it may have been like for his wife to open the engagement ring case.
Hassan’s schematic views on postmodernism create distinctions that are relevant in Flaubert’s Parrot. I look forward to discovering more of the postmodernism devices that will hopefully be thrown into the rest of the story.

Flaubert's Parrot: Post-Modernism vs. Modernism

Flaubert's Parrot is a very interesting book. It's a little confusing, though, because it's almost impossible to catagorize it. It is said to be a biography of Flaubert, and yet it's more novel-like. Yet it isn't novel like...and it just goes around and around and around in circles.
Based upon Hassan's Schematic, we can compare a bit of this book, defined as post-modernism, to a modern book, like Jane Eyre. Modern books tend to be more romantically based. The author's presence is evident and is noticed, perhaps, above all else because it is the voice that gives the story. In Jane Eyre, it was Jane's voice who told the story. It was based from her perspective. It seems that, in a postmondern book, the presence is there, but only as a suggestion of notice. It's like the voice is a mere observer, while the true speaker is some greater power, like a "God". Hassan uses the words "root" and "depth" to describe a mondern book, which is true. The voice of a character adds that depth with the inflections of emotions and personal thoughts. He uses the words "rhizome" and "surface" to describe a postmodern book. This does make sense; in Flaubert's Parrot, there is very little depth because the voice is one of little importance. No revealing of thoughts or emotions, or at least not deep, heart-cracking ones.........
It's hard to write about such a thing at this point, because we have barely begun. This post will be continued once I am farther along.

Funny Times

Too Much Detail

Like some I believe that this book was overly detailed. Although Flaubert's style is unique to a certain extent, he wastes too much time filling the pages with unnecessary detail. What is unfortunate is that I originally thought Flaubert's sarcastic wit would play off nicely in Madame Bovary. However, he continuously takes three pages of description to relay one humorous line. By the time I make it to the funny part, I am already bored out of my mind. This is not the only problem I had with this book. The protagonist Emma came off as a snobby, wannabe elitist. Just because as a child she read a few fairy tales doesn’t mean that she should base her life around finding this “passionate love.” This is completely opposite of the feeling I derived from Jane Eyre. At least Jane was an independent, strong woman who didn’t need to depend on men for happiness. I feel like Jane Eyre flowed better. In Madame Bovary time was a huge obstacle for me; everything took forever to happen and my eyes would close as soon as I opened the book. Take the death scene for instance. It takes at least twenty-five pages for Emma to die. After the first two pages I understood the tragic, romantic illusion. Twenty pages later I felt like praising Shakespeare, (and I can barley understand his language) because it only took like five pages for Romeo and Juliette to die. By the time Emma died I was thankful because my brain was so exhausted by description. I felt no attachment to Emma and was almost angry because of how she so irresponsibly drove her legacy into debt.
The ending pushed this book over the edge and just made me want to put it down and never pick it up again. Between the long drawn out scenes and the dry, detailed passages I was ready for this book to be over.

Flaubert's Parrot

So far Flaubert's Parrot is a hit or miss with me. I like some things and greatly dislike others. For example, in the second chapter it goes into a chronology of Flaubert's life, and describes very boring parts about it. Parts that you don't really want to hear, because they are kind of sad. Flaubert was one child out of five that actually survived. No one thought he would survive. His father didn't even have faith at all, so he ended up digging a grave in anticipation of Flaubert's death. Flaubert survives out of sheer luck. He lives to be known as the "family idiot." Julian Barnes puts together this chronology which really is not as great as he would have wanted. It switches off too much to really understand what is going on with it. It starts out as a narration of Flaubert's amazing life then develops into Flaubert actually talking about himself and how he feels. He talks about certain topics and questions about them, but there really is no identifiable person that he is talking to. This kind of adds to his overall personality. Maybe he is really mentally sick and "slow" leading to his general life.