Not So Bad

I don't think it's so much that I don't like this book itself, I think it's more I don't like what the book leaves you with; nothing, questions. The amount of questions I have gained from the spontinuity, randomness, and depth of this story/novel/piece of literature has left me frustrated. They all tie together and what could seem to possibly be the answer feels within my grasp but honestly I dont know what my final question is.
Chapter 14 about the examination leaves me with even more questions but also seems to sum up the book in what is really important. Again, Barnes visits the idea of critics but the ideas seemed concluded, finally stating why Flaubert himself hated critics. Things that are left unfinished in this chapter seem correct in their unfinished ways, like they really dont matter that much. These unfinished ideas and notions seem concluded by the restated fact of Flaubert's suicide. Through out the entire book there was a sort of mystery that was building in the questions and the ideas that were formed, but by the end it seems like it was supposed to be that way, unfinished, still searching, because really we (or Barnes) will never know the whole truth.

Flaubert's Parrot

So out of the books we have read this year is easily the most understandable. When you read it, it is pretty straight forward. I liked how he would talk about Flaubert then randomly go off on some tangent about his life. It is funny because so many people talk and go off on tangents. What I liked most about the book was how he compared Flaubert to a bear. That description was quite interesting and useful. It really conveyed a sense of what he was like. He was very good at critiquing Flaubert. Is it ironic about his views of critics when he is a critic? There is a lot of critiquing in his life, some dealing with Flaubert, some dealing with himself and his past. He dislikes critics for what they say, and maybe he feels that because of himself critiquing others he feels that it is useless. It doesnt serve a purpose?

Flaubert's Parrot

This is by far my favorite book we've read this year.  I think I like it so much because Barnes' train of thought is pretty identical to mine.  He starts with one thing and quickly gets sidetracked from there and continues to get sidetracked time and time again until both the reader and Branes has forgotten what he was talking about.  For some this may seem confusing but for me it keeps the book interesting.  Who knows what tangent Barnes will get onto on the next page.  While Branes does get sidetracked often he still manages to keep the book revolving around Flaubert and his parrot.  Although it's been a while since the parrot came up.  

One thing that Barnes keeps doing that I feel should have some significant meaning is he keeps using numbers.  He uses dates to give us a sense of when Flaubert did something.  He uses numbers to list books that should be banned and I think that there must be some underlying meaning to Barnes' fascination with numbers.  In the past few sections we have encountered numbers in at least two places if not more, so either Barnes is following the perfect outline of postmodernism, he's trying to relay and underlying meaning through his numbers, his so random that he just puts numbers down when they pop into his head or a combination of the three.  Personally I'm leaning to a combination or the last one.  

I have truly enjoyed reading Barnes because nothing is predictable, nothing is sappy and romantic everything is either blunt or so random that you can't help but laugh or rather cackle out loud.  

Biggest Ahhh Moment

Biggest "Ahhhhh" moment is when you've written a blog; push post, and then the screen resets. No. No bueno. No me gusta. But, I guess what that paves way for is a new opportunity to write a better blog. Right? Starting with the Train chapter. So what? It's wierd though, because now that we have this sense of Braithwraite and Barnes (being one in the same), and it almost sounds like a personal bicker between the two authors. Once again, however, we see this in the Case Against champer. This time, the voice is turned towards the audience, (or Braithwraite). This is where I'm slightly confused. First, who is suggesting the questions that prompt the myths of Flaubert. Are these audience questions, in which the dumbness of them gets to Barnes/Braithwraite. As if the questions were just so obviously answerable. Otherwise, it was confusing to see who Barnes was officially directing his claims of ignorance to. I do still like these books, 98-100 is still hilarious beyond all reason. That part made me weep in tears, and while the humor is waning, I'm still enjoying the novel

Self Critic

Barnes/Geoffrey asks so many questions. When we finally find out the truth behind Ellen and her story that was "so hard to tell" Barnes/Geoffrey is never sure. Was it this? or Was it that? Am i STILL wrong about that? Now, I ask a question myself, does Barnes/Geoffrey find such a passion in critiquing the life of Flaubert because there is simply nothing else left to critique. Apparently in his mind he has critisized himself for not making his love Ellen better, not making her love him back. Even though he says they were happy, he then says they were not, proving he has thought about it more than once, obviously critiquing the past...is that why he hates critics so much? Because he himself is such one that has realized it gets you no where?

On page 136 Barnes states that Flaubert "did not believe art had a social purpous." In this I assume he meant a form of propaganda was not needed to be formed in the artwork, or did he simply mean that art can be personal? It can be done within the self, for the self, or possibly for someone close to the self. His relationship with Louise Colet existed with an artistic vibe. Louise herself was aware of the art they shared. Also, in the following chapter the section about louise refers to Flaubert's art for her.
Something else that caught my interest was the use of the word "transvestism" in the dictionary. This strikes me as interesting because of the numerous previous accounts given to the similarities between Flaubert and Emma. Whether he was truly like "a hysterical old woman" or not, Flaubert apparently found within himself something that was easy to relate to that of a woman...or was it more that Emma was similar to him, as a man?

Crooks

When Barnes brought up critics, it made me realize that critics are just people that are insecure about themselves and just have to bring out other peoples flaws. When I look back about thinking about things that critics have said you rarely hear anything good about what they say. Critics just point out things that are just unnecessary such as when a critic found out about how “Piggy is short-sighted; and the spectacles he would have been prescribed for this condition could not possibly have been used as burning glasses.”(77) Barnes makes a good point that most people would not find this flaw in Lord of the Flies and the people that do find this flaw are literature scholars and even then if you know about it doesn’t really ruin the book. The mistake like in Lord of the Flies is an external mistake that didn’t really upset the plot for most. Golding’s error is due to his lack of knowledge of making fires from spectacles. Internal mistakes like Emma’s Eyes being brown, then being blue, are just the author having some “sloppy literary habits”(78) is what Braithwaite thinks about these stupid mistakes. Overall I feel that people make mistakes and critics are the people that just to point them out.