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.

The Actual Chapter 10 Post

When I first read this chapter, and even not until part-way through I could not figure out for the life of me who Banes was taking about. I figured that it was Flaubert but then little sayings would come up just to push my away from that notion once again. I soon realized that yes, Banes was indeed taking about Flaubert. Once I figured that out I found the section much easier to read and understand. This was actually a pretty interesting chapter due to the kind of like past banter that occurs. First, the act of criticism that was said is portrayed and then we are presented with the ideas and thoughts of both Banes and Flaubert regarding that statement. I just thought this was a pretty interesting chapter because usually when you read a critics review you don't get to see the argument back toward it. Seeing both sides really helps you to decide what you think about the issue. Especially when the criticism is toward another person, to see that individual and another person on their side stick up for them is quite intreging. I still don't fully understand why he chooses to listen to some of the nasty advice he achieved but I guess it helps him to become better at his actions and change what he does not like.

oh boy

With the amount of irony and coincidents and hypocriticalness in this book, i am starting to think that that is Bovarys point. I think maybe that he is trying to make fun of our world as it is today, and say that people are so undecisive and do things they saw they hate. I dont know. just a assumtion i gathered.

Point of View

This last chapter is told from the point of view of Louise Colet. I find this very interesting because i have never encountered a book in which the author tells an entire chapter using a different narrator. I really enjoyed seeing her perception of Flaubert. I am still wandering what color the convolvulus was, i guessed blue because Colet was trying to say that she would be patient with Flaubert and simply wait out his insensitivities towards her. I also found it interesting when Colet was speaking of Flaubert's Egyptian romance, and how she need not be jealous because she did not feel anything. (Page 145). This brings us back to the question about mistakes in literature. If a work of literature is flawed, is the meaning lost, does it matter any more? At the end of this same paragraph i liked the metaphor with the coin. That each person has an obverse.... i wonder who my obverse - other side of the coin - is??? On page 147 Colet refers to Flaubert as has having a bearish fashion, then on page 151 she says Flaubert is a "white bear in white gloves? No, no: the parrot, the parrot in gloves." I found this weird because it reffered back to the chapter about animals, and actually compared Flaubert himself to a parrot - which his writing style seems to support. In the last few pages of this chapter Colet quotes Flaubert a number of times, and it appears each quote is a metaphor or a similie about his or her life. Is this saying that Flaubert will be romantic in matters of life, but not in those of literature? At the end of page 150 Colet describes Flaubert's technique for nursing genius also as a way to suffocate talent. Maybe Flaubert writes realist novels simply because he is a mere genius with no actual talent for writing..... probably not, but maybe. This was an intrigueing chapter because it revealed another side of Flaubert.

Non sense

I am really confused and frusterated by the fact that the author decides to write in this fashion. Half the time he is discussing his own life through that of Flaubert, and the other half he is just on some random tangent I don't see any relevance too. For example that donkey and monkey and the ostrich paragraph what was with that. This book goes off on so many wierd tangents it is driving me insane. I wish there were more of a plot to this book. Instead of discussing someone else's life it would be much more entertaining if you would discuss the interesting points in your own life. The author really should stop writing about his obsession with Flaubert and how he hates people who are obsessive because apparently so is he. Why can he not just be satisfied reading Madame Bovary why does he have to write about the author. I think that he is also hypocrital when he criticises critics he is a critic too. This author is driving me crazy.

Flauber most likely lived his life more along the lines of self reliance and being your own person instead of sharing that with others. By staying independent Flaubert syed away from love seperating himself from companions so that he wouldnt break his morals and fall in love. Louise Colet in her chapter remains very negative when talking about Flauber and although she admited to loving him, Flaubert imbeded an impression on her that hurts. At one point he leaves Colet for three months and while gone had affairs. An act like this builds a barrior onto them helping him keep distance from her so that he wont love. He liked women but never wanted to marry them. In the book it hasnt been said but i feel that Flaubert believes your born alone and you die alone and that he rather remain alone being the individual writer that completes and comforts him. He tought friendship, wit, courage ex.. Flaubert probubly wanted to leave an impression spreading through his writing and didnt want love to interfear with his greater picture. The courage, wit, comes in because he always sided with minorities, poets, protestors, people standing up for what they believe in. Since he admired that and believe in going after what you really belive is true makes him an independent in some cases because alot of people are sucked into a common belief. His emphasis of that message probulby made it hard for him at times to love. He said to Colet that the secret of happiness is already being happy. Maybe since he was happy in his current state he didnt want to change because of a possible down fall of happiness. Love could have brought him missurey and because he saw that from a out side view he understood the possiblity and didnt want to risk what he had going for him.

Avoidance and More

First, let me say that ALL of the prompts on this yellow sheet I have before me could be discussed for hours and hours. Since I cannot, in fact, blog about all of them, I am choosing one that can be written about for quite a while; one full of intrigue and mystery. Let's see if you can guess which one I'm answering. I'm not going to blatantly put, write, or even summarize this question: the face value truth is not going to be recorded. Let's first start with this whole big deal about the truth. Again, as I'll probably mention in every single post regarding this book, the indeterminate truth is omnipresent and constantly reappears throughout Barnes' writing. In practically everything he writes, whether it be specifically about Flaubert, himself or even critics, this idea of a truth that can't be labeled or have words slapped on it is the underlying theme. As a post-modern work of "literature/fiction", this is what is to be expected... along with narrator participation, irony, and open writing (thanks to Hassan's Schematic). This isn't making sense. I should just give up.

Getting to the point - if any brand of truth in this book is going to be considered indeterminable and therefore unspeakable, it would be hard to describe Ellen's story. The sad this is, we don't even know that her name is Ellen yet. I don't think, at least. Braithwaite is avoiding talking about his deceased wife, not because it's a "hard subject" like most readers would assume, but because it is the truth, and truth isn't easily discussed in the post-modern frame of mind. Braithwaite, like Barnes, is a post-modernist (I'm assuming? The line between those two is a little blurry in my mind) so it makes much more sense to talk about fact, not truth.

The trouble is... what is the difference between those two? They mean such different things yet they're so closely related. For example, the well-known phrase "fact or fiction?" presents a problem: the opposite of fiction is nonfiction (meaning truth) while the antanym of fact would seem to be a lie or something made up. This simple little phrase seems to be implying that the two terms are opposites so what is the actual difference? The truth, in all honesty, is what I believe to be much deeper than a fact. Just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, all facts are true but hardly no truths are fact. In the end, it all comes back to the fact that words are meaningless. True emotion or feeling can't even begin to be expressed by forcing three, different odd looking figures together to make s-a-d or even multiple groups of those "letters" to create "poignant heart-clenching pain." But then, why would I be writing this post if language had no meaning?

I feel so frustrated when I read this book. A lot of the things that come about in this novel are completely random. I don't really understand, actually I completely don't understand why he decides to write like this. It makes me wonder if he writes just what comes to mind and maybe that's how his brain works but it's confusing to me because I'm on a much different level than he is and obviously we don't have the same thought process. Flaubert's Parrot, to me, is all over the place, although it does make some connections such as those to Madame Bovary but still I feel the same way.

So Far....

Ok so.... does anyone else find this book really confusing yet cool at the same time? When I first started reading this I was expecting the normal type of novel where you read it for the story line and just except the fact that it is a story and there for you to enjoy. I now realize that this book is much more than that. It goes deep into the mind of others, searching for something that you can not just see. Even in Chapter 10, Barnes starts out comparing the differences and similarities between fantasy and reality. It almost seems as if he is trying to have you decide. Everything you believe in has to be either fake or real and depending on the person, even something fake to someone else can be real to another. Julian Barnes also asks many questions throughout the reading where you are left to stop and think. It really makes you see different sides of an issue and opens our eyes to a lot. I really liked the quote that Barnes used on page 127 that read..."But if you love a writer, if you depend upon drip-feed of his intelligence, if you want to pursue him and find him- despite edicts to the contrary- then it's impossible to know too much." I just think that this really shows that too much knowledge is never actually too much. You can always look further into something and learn more. Although I still find this novel confusing, it is starting to grow on me. I am beginning, finally, to understand what the author means by all his rambling. It is a very different form of writing, and it just takes a little bit more to be able to fully comprehend his meanings. He shows so many different points of view in a short period of time it is easy to get confused. The questions and statements he makes go from being very broad to being at the point that is can't get any more specific. I like how Barnes analyses Flaubert's writing and contemplates why each point was made.

Chapter 10: Flaubert's Parrot

Discussion Prompt Response

If "Ellen's story is a true story", then why is Braithwaite telling us Flaubert's story instead? (86)
In my opinion I think that Braithwaite is telling us Flaubert's story vs. Ellen's story because of the emotional connections that he has with both. Flaubert's story is one of interest, however, for Braithwaite it holds little emotional connection. On the other hand, Ellen is someone that he personally has come into contact with, therefore telling her story may be emotionally more difficult. Take a story that you hear on the news, if you hear about a child being kidnapped, you are less emotionally attached, as if it would have been your own child. People find ways of sheltering themselves from emotional turmoil, and as for Braithwaite telling Flaubert's story rather then Ellen's he is saving himself from traveling into a sorrowful state.
In addition to this, Julian Barnes states that readers are always expecting a story out of the writer, like they are supposed to open their story up to the reader. (pg. 86) By telling Flauberts story rather then Ellen's he is keeping his personal secrets concealed. As he is doing by having the character of Braithwaite narrate. If he himself were to narrate then he would have to open himself up to us as an open book, he would be required to state his opinions and personal experiences. However, we (being the reader) are unaware of whether or not he is telling his stories though Braithwaite, which in return makes the reader question the possibilities and desire to continue to read. I may just be confusing myself, and everything that i have just said could prove to be incredibly incorrect. I have found this book to be a tangled web of utter confusion, but that may be the aspect that keeps me reading. Most of the book, I am unaware of what Barnes is trying to tell us, however, here and there he throws in certain analogies that requires you to think, which as a whole are interesting concepts. As of now, I'm not sure of what my opinion of this book is...but it is an interesting read at least. :?

Flaubert

My first thoughts about the book were that Barnes is crazy. He never talks about the same topic for more than a chapter and even if he does it doesn't make sense. Some people may believe that it gets better and he starts to "make more sense" but i would beg to differ. This book is extremely frustrating and I've come to realize that all Barnes is doing is pointing out all of Flaubert's flaws. Who would honestly want to read a whole book about that? The only part i have found some what funny is when it talked about how Flaubert "dined alone with his goldfish". The dark humor really just doesnt do it for me.
Throughout the book we do continue to see more connections to Madame Bovary which is kind of cool i guess, they in some ways parallel each other.
One of the lines that i found interesting was, "If you dont know whats true, or whats meant to be true, then the value of what isnt true, or isnt meant to be true beomes diminished." It makes you stop and think for a second, and then once you do figure it out you realize that its kind of an interesting way of thinking about things.

Braithwaite's story vs. Flaubert's

I'm starting to like this book a lot more. I much prefer when Braithwaite is not talking about Flaubert, I think it's much more interesting. He seems like an interesting character himself, and I am curious about his life (much more than I am about Flaubert). It had seemed to me that he was talking about every little detail of Flaubert to avoid talking about himself (and his wife) and on page 85 my suspicions were confirmed. "Three stories contend within me. One about Flaubert, one about Ellen, one about myself....I find [my own] the hardest to begin....I resist [my wife's] too." In the beginning of The Case Against I was very hopeful that he might finally be talking about Ellen's story, but then he went off into Flaubert land again. All of the minute and inconsequential details of the life of someone I don't even care about anyway are boring me to tears. Perhaps it is because his wife had some sort of affair, and he is like Charles Bovary about it. He loves her so much that he blinds himself to what is right in front of him. Even when Charles finds her love letters, he stands up for her to himself and insists she was a saint. Braithwaite is using Flaubert's story to put off facing the truth, or, as he claims, to prepare himself for it. I hope he gets to it, I'm starting to really hate Flaubert.

Irony

Geoffrey Braithwaite says that he doesn't like critics, but while he is explaining the reason as to why he doesn't like them he is criticizing himself. Now, his reasons for not liking critics is not the same as everyone else, but it is rather ironic that he becomes hypocritical and criticizes them for doing their job. The fact that Dr. Enid Starkie realized that Flaubert did not give too much attention about what color eyes Emma Bovary had made Geoffrey Braithwaite wonder if there was a perfect reader being as though he did not once realize, out of all the times he read Madame Bovary, that she had been given many different eye colors. Even though he does not enjoy critics, he does not hate on them entirely. He does point out that the reason most people do not like them is most likely false. For instance, when he says that people just say that they are just "failed creators" but in all actuality most of them are very successful. He even says that what they say isn't because they are jealous of that writer, but that what they review and write is probably true. He just defends them, somewhat, before he tears into there jobs and practically their way of life. It does, however, make him laugh a little because they are cursed with the fact they cannot forget and whatever they read becomes like family, and that normal individuals can read a book, forget, and then move on with their lives. Pretty ironic I thought...

Ive really become more open and recessive to the messages that can be tought through this book. The chapter titled the chase again has been my favorite thus far. The biggest truth i took away from it about Flaubert is that he needs truth. More than happiness, love, dispare Flaubert rather obtain truth in things. He talks about if your to involved in life you can never fully understand it. By having a out side view you can anilize and come up with a meaning or truth for it. If your to involved in something you often times get cought up in its small details and miss out on the greater picture. That is why i helps athletes to go back and watch film of them selves play. They are to involved in the moment when playing to view the entire playing field, there focused on their particular assignment. He also relates to this message of truth when he talks about how one can anilise wine, love, women and glory given that your not a drunkard, a husband, a lover. You would imagine that a drunkard or a lover who know more about those subjects than one who steps back and isnt involved. Flauberts thinks those peoples perseptions are squewed because their minds have been corrupted by it. I feel like Flaubert is affraid to endulge himself in some thing to much if he doesnt have a reason or a truth for it. Flaubert wouldnt know why he loves or why one loves so he wouldnt want to love without a truth or reason for it. He stands back and stays a writer, a nutral ground for him to put his thoughts into contex and make reason for things.

Sartre

"No book can be dangerous if it is well written".
What makes a book "dangerous"? To some, a dangerous book is one that exposes different ideas. People say that these "dangerous" ideas or messages are wicked, but it really only comes down to being different. They are afraid that these books will expose some (mostly their children), to things that they or their religion might not agree with. Parents don't want their children reading about sex fantasies or binge drinking because of the fear that their kids will follow down that path. It is a crime for a child to become a drug addict, but I don't believe it is for a child to read about it. Ignorance is a crime, and reading is a very good way for people to be exposed to differences and learn about them. I wouldn't especially want my child to read about sexual escapades, but I'd rather him learn by reading than by practice. There comes a point when people must release their conservative, iron clench. They must spread wide their hands and welcome change. Last night, Barack Obama was elected 44th president of the United States, and to me, that represents a changing ideology in the U.S., a realization for good. If people had stayed conservative, we would be digging our hole even deeper. Without exposure and change, the world can never evolve for the better. We will be stuck in a hole forever if we can't see the light. Without the changes and differences presented in books, many people won't be able to open the minds or see the light. In my opinion, no book can be dangerous whether it is well written or not. A well written book might present the ideas safer, but no one will ever be in danger of a book. That is why Jean-Paul Sarte knows that "[He] shall live them out!"

Oh the Irony!

In Barnes' novel, Flaubert's Parrot, Braithwaite expresses extreme hatred for coincidence in literature. He even goes so far as to say if he were 'dictator of fiction' he would ban all coincidence from books. Yet, Braithwaite is quite the fan of coincidence's more elegant sister, irony. Perhaps what fuels Braithwaite's passion for irony is the impact it had on Flaubert's life and, ultimately, his own opinion (what we see in Barnes’ writing). The cab scene, for example, shared by Emma and Léon directly correlates with Flaubert’s love affair with Louise. However, the irony in this scene is that while Flaubert would ride around in curtained cabs trying to avoid any sexual confrontation with his lover, Emma Bovary finds a safe haven with her lover behind the same curtained cabs. Beyond irony, one cannot help but feel that perhaps Flaubert was not ironically describing his current situation with his own love, but that he was somehow channeling his frustration and longing into Emma and, in specific, this cab ride scene. It would seem much too predictable for Flaubert to simply give us this irony on a silver platter; by presenting us with this clear display of irony, maybe he is actually satirizing the fact that his true feelings of love are, coincidentally, masked by the same curtains that masked his love for Louise.

This in itself could launch into a whole other argument if whether Flaubert was a true realist or simply a bitter romantic—but then, isn’t it ironic that by writing with such detail, which is typical of realism, that he unmasks this bitter romantic that he may have been trying to hide?

Recent Readings

Recently the book has taken on a little more of an approach that seems similar to a novel's style. It still jumps around at a rate and to places that leave the reader a little lost. But it's now much more linked together and makes sense, with some themes carrying over. For instance the critics, especially, DR Enid Starkie, who is now mentioned in more than one chapter. He also adds a little more of Flaubert's opinion. This book is becoming harder to write about as I find myself not developing much of an opinion about it. It's simply this work of fiction on another mans works and life. I guess that's the thing that really catches my attention is that this whole time we're reading this book, we have to consider all the information and think, "is this fact about Flaubert true?" I personally find myself intrigued of this idea of writing lies inside of lies, so to speak, or maybe it is all truth inside of lies, where all the facts of Flaubert's life are true, and just that the storyteller Geoffrey is not real. It makes the story more interesting if your opinion changes page by page, I find Flaubert to be quite amusing, and cynical in a way I strongly relate too. But at the same time I have to wonder if he really was this cynical, or if it's simply Julian Barne's way of presenting him. Either way I enjoy reading this book and especially the debates I have with myself about the validity of the information presented in it.

Anoter Perspective.

OK, so here we go. I am getting so sick of the way that Barnes keeps talking about Flaubert. I feel like he should just marry him. I mean you can talk about someone to a point, but to this extent... I am sensing obsession.
In the chapter Louise Colet's Version, I was getting so confused. You see, I forgot to read the title, so as I was reading this, I took it as Barnes telling us that he was a woman that had a love affair with Flaubert. I got kind of grossed out thinking that he was some cross dresser who may have been a prostitute at one point, and then fell in love with Gustave. In fact, I thought that this was his idea of coming out of the closet, or telling us about the fantasys that he may have had about Gustave. But little did I know, it was actually in the perspevtive of Louise. I had to ask Alexis, and once I did, i felt like a idiot. Now that i know it wasnt him that he was talking about, I am a little happier. In fact looking back at that chapter I kind of liked it. I liked how in the beginning of the chapter, she made the person she was talking to find her pulse on her forearm, and then did so again in the end of the chapter to show that she was in no mood to fight with anyone. I thought that that was kind of cool....
I, however, did not like that Barnes deciede to just change perspectives of who was talking to us, cause it confused the crap out of me. You can't just be one person at one point and another personn at another. UGH

I cant wait to be done with this book

New Outlook

While I still feel this book is fairly dry and incoherent when it comes to storyline (seeing as there is none). I found that while we were discussing this book in class, I started remembering a post where the person was talking about how this was similar to a "mystery." During the discussion I started realizing that the way Geoffrey Braithwaite talks is almost like those scenes where the pyschopath is being interrogated and says almost nothing in his defense. It seems reminiscent of these because there is a story that he could be talking about, but he constantly puts it off and goes off on another random-seeming tangent about Flaubert. If this IS the case which I start to feel that it more and more is, this book's intellectual quality is the fact that mayber there are clues about this Braithwaite within his reasoning for being obsessed with Flaubert and particularly which parts of Flaubert fascinates him. This also lends a possible explanation to the three chronologies (even though it could just be that this is a "postmodern" novel and indeterminancy is the main point) because it might show the obsession that he went and found ALL these "facts" out, or could just be making them up to fit his picture of Flaubert.

Progress and Adultery

Ha! Trains as a symbol of progression also creating a substantially EASY excuse to participate in adultery.... Sounds like we should stop ALL modern technology! NOW! If trains were so bad, imagine Flaubert's reaction to e-mail communications. I'm not sure how Gustave hated the train. My small, unexplored, theory is that he hated it because it made Louis closer by quicker means, and he's just demented, so that would cause him to hate this.
But I don’t actually want to talk about trains. Braithewaite already did that. So did Flaubert. I want to talk about something that has been mentioned briefly in the book and constantly in life. Yeah, I want to talk about that little word called Truth. Because “What happened to the truth is not recorded,” (65) but Barnes seems pretty intent on focusing in on specific truths.
Let me tell you about authors and truths. The truth is whatever the writer writes. Now, we may not like it, agree with it, or find it true in our own lives, but it was definitely true for the author. The only truth is that life is what you make of it. Yep, that’s right…. We are all authors of our own stories, and nobody else can tell the truth. Authors are perhaps the most deceptive artists there are. Why else would people have to say “you can’t believe everything you read.”? See, we substitute whatever may be generalized as a ‘true’ reality with our own, and we claim it to be true. (Yes, if you’re wondering, that is a Calvin and Hobbes comic.) So, why is Barnes sooo infatuated with every truth and detail from Flaubert’s life? I certainly am not. I take his critical views of the world, which G. Flaubert claims to be true, that progression is just a sign of our moral digression, with many grains of salt. Because trains, well, they’re just trains. They didn’t cause every married man and woman to go about town and sleep with some other lover.

Barnes's Criticism

This book is extremely critical. A few chapters have been lists of complaints about Flaubert and either explanations of them or proofs of them. At first I thought that Barnes was a Flaubert fanatic, just in love with him. But the more I read, the more it appears that he likes to pick out Flaubert's flaws. Along with those flaws, he describes his ingenious works of art (books). But his flawed lifestyle is explained in depth in addition to the deaths around him and the nonexistence of his marriage. He goes on and on about how women were attracted to him and how he had flings but no, Flaubert would never want to marry one of them. This again is another flaw he is quick to point out while mentioning his wife and their love. Furthermore, we as the reader seem to know very well by this point that Flaubert hated trains. Even though before trains were established, the trip to see his mistress was long and miserable, he still seemed to greatly dislike them.

The Spirit of Homais

"The spirit of Homais: progress, rationalism, science, fraud." Homais epitomizes everything Flaubert abhors about the bourgeois. While I agree with Flaubert on some levels here, I disagree with him on most. I don't fully understand Flaubert's distaste for progress. The way he presents Homais' enthusiasm for scientific progress makes Homais look foolish and rash. For example, he takes many jabs at Homais' hopeful belief in an operation to liberate those with club's foot from their disability. Honestly I think human pretentions are in part what separate us from every other specie on Earth. It doesn't make sense to dismiss our ambition, because ambition is what gives us purpose (or at least a sense of purpose). It's the reason we don't live in caves, the reason we have heated shelters, the reason women can vote. Perhaps Flaubert foresaw that these so called "luxuries" would eventually lead us into self destruction. This may indeed be true, and that's how it currently looks to me. But as far as I can see, they are now our only salvation. In order to pull ourselves out of this pit of self destruction, we need our ambition, our pretentious nature. We need to move past everything we've ruined, and invent a way to fix it. It is ironic, that while societies ‘progress’ has led us into a near state of peril, it is now the only thing that can save us. In the end, progress wins. Or does it?

responce

My first reaction to the last bit of reading is that i simply don;t understand were Barnes is going. He flips around, changes point of view, changes time but then i realize Barnes is accomplishing what he set out to do. He's giving me a complete knowledge of Flaubert, form many different point of views and people. You begin to understand just exactly why Flaubert uses such dark humor. He was a bitter guy, and seemed to lash out at people around him, never sugar coating things or putting anything but a realistic, maybe even pessimistic view on things. With his negative review of Louise Colet's writing, and his over all rudeness to her just reflects that he no longer really cares for relationships as all his have ended in death. I still find this book to be quite dull, apart from the occasional dark humor that makes me laugh. I truly understand Madame Bovary much more now, the tone, the theme, the characters, etc. I wish we had read this before Madame Bovary.

Critics

I would have to agree with every thing that is mentioned critics. I really don't unederstand why any one would take a critics word of advice. Every single time I have read a critics review on a book or movie it always turn out that his or her opinion is different than mine. A critics opinion is just one persons perspective, I would imagin that some people would agree with them but there is no way that the majority of people will be on there side. Also, I think that in (some) cases a critics opinion could be completely Biased. Since there is no factual information behind there information then they could sway their opinions from side to side.

The Case Against

What's the point of this chapter? Rather than praising Flaubert like we would expect Barnes to do, this entire chapter is about his flaws. This entire book seems to be more about his flaws. Flaubert hating humanity, democracy, not involving himself in life, and many other things arent supprising characteristics. Some parts, though, seem to have absolutely no relevance. Why should we care that he shot wild-life in the desert? So much of this book seems to include completely pointless parts that I find more of a waste of time to read than anything. I guess the fact that people "want to know the worst" could be why Barnes chose to include this chapter. If we know the worst about Flauber will we appreciate more? Does his work become of a greater value if we all realize that he's just a completely pessimistic, cynical loner? I think it's sad if this is the case. Either way, the last thing I want to do with my life is read a book about an author who just hated everything about life.

Louise Colet

"But women scheme when they are weak, they lie out of fear. Men scheme when they are strong, they lie out of arrogance."(137) This quote doesnt quite make a lot of sense. Women lie when they are weak which is pretty understandable whereas men lie when they are strong. It is pretty interesting that on the next page 138 she says that she did not need Gustave, because she was "beautiful and "renowned." I like how she says " I know how they talk, out in the provinces, with that mixture of fake self-confidence and real fear." The way she says this it really shows that she was not interested in Gustave at all. But what is really interesting is that she talks of how she chose Gustave. "If I had been looking for a lover-I admit my husband's fortunes were not at their brightest, and my friendship with the Philosopher was a little turbulent at that time-then I should not have chosen Gustave. But I have no stomach for fat bankers."(138) So she chose him because she did not like all the other men around. After she says this, she says "You men are so conformist in love..." I really like this quote. The truth is most people care what others think of them so they date according to societies rules and regulations. It is neat that Louise dates a man so much younger than she is.

this book is amazing!

Flaubert's Parrot has been a fun read so far. I enjoy hearing about the obsession that Geoffrey has over Flaubert. Its rather creepy to hear about a mans love for another. The part in which i have enjoyed the most is the whole book actually. I enjoy how Barnes conveys all ideas that a person may endure, at times you are sad and others happy. This book covers all ends of the spectrum and that is what makes it such a fun read. It seems as if you have a deep understanding of Flaubert to really grasp the full potential of this book and all it has to offer but it is nice to read. This book uses many different points of view and i think this just adds to the excitement of it. You are not constantly in one persons head, you get to experience everyones feelings and thoughts.

everybody was KUNG FU PHIGHTING

I would like to take a moment to be more or less erious here. On page 91, my most favorite part of any book I have read in my short high school career Mirabuea shows up, if only for a brief paragraph, but suddenly made this book worth reading for me. Who has ever heard of a caffine addicted necropheliac that funks out when the female is decapitated, genius. Barnes is truly sick in the head, but he presents his sanity is such a humorous way, maybe even coming close to master Flauberts sick and twisted humor. Barnes also has a way of being serious, like he is trying to be sarcastic all the time. It is hard however to know what tone i should be reading in my head. Sometimes Barnes gives me no direction to go and I feel like a trucker who has lost his map.

Louise Colet's Version

yeah i liked this chapter. It was interesting to me how women and men were compared, " women scheme when they are weak, they lie out of fear. Men scheme when they are strong, they lie out of arrogance" haha i like that. The author also says that women focus on signs from a man that shows them character, men however, are more focused on physical characteristics which i find to be true in a sense as well. Then it goes on to tell how Flaubert would describe his time with his prostitutes, "I fired five shots into her," this explains what was earlier said about men talk about such things with little contempt and eagerness, as if we were describing the last meal we had, course by course.

I thought the part where Barnes critizises critics was interesting. He was being ironic in that he was being a hypocrit of critics. He meant to do this to show what critizising others peoples work does. He also did it just to show how easy it is to be a critic. I liked the way Barnes mocks critics and their meaningless profession. I thought this section of the book was interesting as well as amusing.

Barnes Can't Provide an interesting Philosophy

Don't get me wrong, I love Barnes' writing, but his intellectual philosophy lacks thoughtful insight and is not very stimulating. I love the "straight-up" nature of his syntax but all too often the reader finds Barnes to be anazlyzing Flaubert or some critic rather than elaborating on ideas of his own. I find this to be a serious flaw. In my opinion, in order for a book to be considered a novel the author must, at one point or another, convey his or her intellect through philosophical thoughts. Barnes either skips that step, and simply delves into some else's life or provides the reader with an irrelevant idea.

In no way do I dislike Flaubert's Parrot, as the organization of Flaubert's genius thoughts, through masterfully strung together sentences, is impeccablly interesting. But in no way does this make Barnes a great writer or an interesting one. Its nice to read strong sentences but without interesting philosophies there is no stimulus and a novel becomes ineffective.

JZ's post

Although we probably all discussed the topics explored in Flaubert's Parrot in our respective classes, I feel that I expound on some of the topics we discussed in period 2. Although our conversation evolved from coincidence to interstices and finally to what constitutes the difference between humans and other mammals, I found the most interesting topic to be the relationship between absence and existence. I came to realize that these two are much more congruous than I once believed. Truly, you cannot have one without the other. If you only have absence, what do you have absence from, if there is no existence? On the contrary, what constitutes existence if there is no absence to base that existence off of? I have begun to like this book a lot more, because Barnes explores these issues as they relate to literature. Truly, this realtes back to the original question: why are we randy for relics? Why do we dwell on the books authors don't write? I say, we shouldn't.

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?

Coincidence

"I don't care much for coincidences. There's something spooky about them: you sense momentarily what it must be like to live in an ordered, God-run universe, with Himself looking over your shoulder and helpfully dropping coarse hints about a cosmic plan."
We talked alot about how people think of coincidences. Should we take time in trying to find a reason why things happen in that way? Or should we just brush these instances off and forget about them? Barnes doesn't believe in coincidences. He prefers to think that things are not planned and are just random and chaotic. I personally love coincidences! Whenever I encounter one, I always try and find a reason why it might have happened that way. Part of me still thinks that it might just be completely random, but I still try to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

Chapter 11: a Woman's Perspective (forgive the randomness...o, and no offense to the men who read this)

Chapter 11 cracked me up...sadly, it also made me feel almost ashamed to be of the same gender as this woman.
The way Barnes depicts Louise Colet is just...wow. What a bitch! She is so arrogant and rude. On page 148, she says Flaubert called her the "third sex, with the flesh of a woman and the mind of a man". The way she talks, I don't doubt it. So selfish and vain. It's like talking to a peacock, fanning out his magnificant plumage and strutting every feather. She speaks of her capture of Flaubert with no humitly (although she reminds the reader that she was his catch-she still speaks of it as if he should be so lucky). She brags about the outrageous affair between the two of them as I imagining men sitting at a bar late at night would compare their one-night stands with random woman, or as Barnes puts it: "...Men, I know, speak of such things with eagerness, with a little contempt; it is as if they were describing the last meal they had, course by course" (139). She is obviously a critic of the male, desribing on pg.140 that men classify how good of a lover they are by how often the love-making is renewed in one night. She detests this, as do I: does nothing else matter???? But I digress...
No matter her proud plumage, the preening of her feathers, this peacock is a smart, if not scathing and decietful one. She describes showing her anger at him at some small, hardly relevant thing by not answering any of his letters. And as the days turned to weeks, she made him come crawling back. Good God; this is a human being! Men are not as needy and weak as we women assume them to be....okay I actually take that back, but still. They deserve to be treated with as much respect as they should treat us.
I disagree strongly with her image of men. She sees them as nothing more than play things, a one night pleasure that can be renewed every so often...wow; that sounds exactly like a stereotypical, manly trait.
Scary.
Flaubert wasn't exactly good to her: she says he humiliated her often, but with one with such a giant ego, I'm not surprised. But that doesn't make her treatment any better.
But as Madame Boylen once said, "Show that you are strong by giving support and steering your man in the direction by showing them that they are worthy, not stamping their little feet. That is the art of being a woman." Obviously, Louise Colet needs some lessons.

The God Irony

What is irony? Is it a simple "coincidence," or objective take on a daily reality? Beyond this, does irony actually exist, or is is something that the human conscience has invented to try to spin a web of deluded meaning in our largely insignificant lives? I am partial to the second theory. The largest excuse for meaning in the world is Religion. Religion is a spin off of irony. "Miracles", the largest justification of a higher power are in themselves ironic moments. I believe that this search for meaning is fruitless, and Julian Barnes, and Geoffrey Braithwaite understand this. Their "randy for relics" search is not one that they have tied in with anything more important that a hobby. Not a passion, not a belief, a hobby. Any irony in Flaubert's life they do not see as a divine light shining on a prophet of literature. It is purely irony, and nothing more. I believe that mankind would be better off without an endless search for a higher meaning, but am not naive enough to foresee such an abandoning of ingrained tradition in the future. What is most important, I think, is that we learn to remark on irony without attribution it to something else, and see it for what it is, the inevitable coincidence. Monkeys typing Shakespeare.

"You can have your cake and eat it; the only trouble is, you get fat"

If there were one thing that jumped out at me the most in the last reading was the quote on pg 87 where Barnes says "You can have your cake and eat it; the only trouble is, you get fat". I literally burst out laughing at the truth behind it. This is one point in which Flaubert's voice is clearly projected through Barnes narrative. This is a very realistic quote in which we get a new twist on a classic quote, of you can't have your cake and eat it too. What Barnes is doing is taking a Flaubertian (?) take on it saying yes you can have both but it becomes a double edged sword. That either way in the end something bad is bound happen and life isn't always going to be "peechy". It takes such a realistic approach, in which we finally see Flaubert's voice come in clear and strong. This is almost refreshing for it is considered a type of biography on Flaubert but Barnes and his character Geoffrey Braithwaite seemed to counteract and go against all the Flaubert's idea, so to finally see a realistic take was a relief.

Poor Louise Colet

Let me start by saying that I do not understand Barnes's motives or ideas. He jumps around and I can't tell whether he's praising Flaubert or not. In the last chapter, "Louise Colet's Version," he seems to be bashing Flaubert to the utmost. I want to know why he included this chapter. He portrays Louise's side of the story and she talks of how Flaubert was a liar who humiliated her. He shut down her writing, was untrue, and was overall demeaning towards her. Does not this portray Flaubert in a poor, almost disgusting light? I feel that it does. It makes Flaubert seem insincere and makes you almost want to discredit the truth of his novels. However, perhaps Barnes is only trying to say that it is a waste of time to look at the author of novels. Flaubert may not have been an excellent individual, but he was able to write incredible works of literature.
What confuses me the most is the fact that the chapter right before this one defends Flaubert. Barnes offers complaints about him yet defends him to the utmost and shows Flaubert out to be an exemplary person. He seems to be contradicitng himself. Once again, the only explanation that I can find is that Barnes is trying to discredit looking at authors. Maybe he's saying that readers only need to look at the book instead of the writer behind it. Author's lives have so many different interpretations from other people. There's not just one way to look at Flaubert's life. Similarly, there's not only one way to look at a book. This seems to be a connection perhaps. However, I dont' understand how any of this fits into the larger picture of the book. In fact, I'm not even finding a larger picture in this book. I do enjoy this novel, however, I'm not finding a very prominent meaning. Maybe it'll all be wrapped up at the end.

All Just a Fantasy

I believe that the coincidence that the character of the parrot is referred to by so many different people in so many different ways makes the story seem unrealistic. On page 126 Barnes referes to living in a fantasy. This is a way to experience a life that you want, something that may not fully exist but is truly idealistic and may capture pieces of what is honestly going on. I believe that Barnes is writing this novel this way, capturing reality and truths from Flaubert's life and stories and throwing them into a melting pot of ideas that seems to be a fantasy of what he really was. Using the character of Geoffrey, Barnes can "blame" his "errors" or this "fantasy" on this character. What he is writing is percieved by Geoffery, not by himself. Is it simply that Barnes is truly unsure?

I think that it is easier to enjoy this book if you accept the high intellectual ideas. The book, the author, and the fictional narrator all reflect upon and speak about how they relate to each other and the world. The instances at which the author seems to be hypocritical and arrogant are all intended. The many layers of meaning is what makes this book so interesting.

Seizing the Past by Analyzing the Future

"So how do we seize the past? As it recedes, does it come into focus?"(100). When Barnes poses this question in the chapter Cross Channel I can't help think how much we analyze our futures in order to "seize the past." If the past is a "distant, receding, coastline, and we are all in the same boat" (101) who is the captain? Don't we all look to the future in order to understand our past and vice versa. We are constantly revisiting what we have done in order to decide what we will do. This viscous cycle whirls us round and round, leading me to my ultimate question of Why question the past or future, why can't we live in the now? Barnes argues against critics and but in a sense he is creating his own hypocritical debacle. This entire book consumes the past of Flaubert. Who was he really and what did he mean by this piece of writing. In a sense Barnes is anylazing Flaubert on such a personal level that he makes assumptions based on what he has discovered: thus following the vicious cycle and looking to the past to anylaze the now.
At first all of these hypocricies were an annoyance. Now the book seems to flow on some inner debate or purpose that Barnes is trying to relay between his writing and the rest of the writing norm. For me Barnes writes in a way where I can accept these "ironies" and enjoy the sarcasm and comical aspects of his writing.

Well...

Crap. I was logged in as Sarah apparently. Regard the post "Full Body Guffawing" by Lindsey Bosse. Or laugh, because I mention kinky sex and I don't think Sarah would mention that in an AP class....

Full Body Guffawing

Page 98-100. If you haven't read the book or got there, just skip ahead and read those pages, shampoo-style, read, enjoy, repeat as needed. For the first time, in a remarkably long time, I actually found myself out-loud laughing at the list of banned literature types. Besides the humor, and slight irony of how many of the literature types match those of Flaubert's Parrot AND Madame Bovary, he actually has a valid point. He begins his list with a little diddy on stories where the characters get crooned in sticky situations: life is tough, they eat bugs and twigs, there is a ring leader and a fire revelation. His final comments are "You see how easy it is to write, how much fun it is? That's why I'd ban the genre." Funnily enough, a majority of remarkable literature follow this plot pattern, including Lord of the Flies. For some odd reason we all see this as some masterpiece, when really, any of us could whip up a cannibalistic teen novel set on an island within seconds. Shake in some sarcasm and dry humor about the fat kid dying first, and oi la, you've got yourself a best seller. From there he does take some of his ideas towards ridiculous, funny zone. He touches on incest, and it's annoyance in literature, even in bad taste. He gives us a glimpse of animal-human sex lives, and then kinky sex positions, particularly ones in showers, that could possible break neck bones. These really have no real connections with literature, well at least that I've read, none that has made any impact, and as of this moment Chuck Pahlinuk has yet to write a great novel that's been oohed and ahead over such as Madame Bovary (keep in mind Fight Club was not jumped over until Brad Pitt was spotlighted slugging Edward Norton (((cause really who the hell likes him))) and also Fight Club is one of the cleanest novels of Pahlinuk in terms of dangerous sex scenes). Above all in these two pages, the voice is incredible. I really feel like Barnes and I are having an afternoon coffee rant, and finally after hours of blah-blah-blahing he's finally caught on to a decent idea, and I'm spewing out tears of laughter, trying to keep my chai in my mouth, and not on his shirt. Best part of the book. If you have time, go back and brush over this. Also, a few pages before this, he mentions something about a blister and a foot-fetish, and really the three sentences of the wife in the pharmacy are so brilliant, it makes you grotesquely fond of feet and bubbling blisters.

Unavoidable Progress

Contradictions and coincidences in this novel are nothing rare. Geoffrey, our narrator, chooses to address Flaubert in a very personal matter, allowing the reader to see the complete truth about the author. One truth we find out in chapter 8 is Flaubert's hate for progress. The train, though mentioned in many of his novels is seen in his mind as the worse source of progress. This pure hatred of something so natural seems completely contradicting to the next chapter in the novel. Barnes writes about Flaubert's life in a sequence, progressing timeline of years. Flaubert seems to progress as a person as the ideas and realities of life start to impact him. This idea of progress is unescapable. Life is a progression in itself. Everything that happens thickens the progression of life. Although Flaubert avoided the direct idea of progress and democracy there was no way he could avoid it.

Chapter 9

I find the very beginning of chapter 9 to be quite interesting, in that, the statements made are so negative. "It is not what they built. It is what they knocked down. It is not the houses. It is the spaces between the houses. It is not the streets that exist. It is the streets that no longer exist." Why is this negativity to the start of the chapter? It shows that everything can be thought off and dreamed of but cannot be made a reality without that actual step of creating it. "...Perhaps the sweetest moment in writing is the arrival of that idea for a book which never has to be written, which is never sullied with a definite shape, which never needs to be exposed to a less loving gaze than that of the author." Why is this such a sweet feeling? I dont quite understand this statement, it doesn't make sense to me. The ideas and analogies used in this chapter are very enticing. For example, "If you cut a flatworm in half, the head will grow a new tail; more surprisingly, the tail will grow a new head." This is a pretty neat way of saying something simple to contrast something else. He uses this analogy to talk about the "regretted ending of L'Education sentimentale..." The way things are discussed in this chapter is overall pretty cool.

Those Controversial Eyes...

What I've found after reading through chapter six is that I really like Barnes' writing when he's specifically NOT solely writing about Flaubert. For analyzing purposes, obviously all the book written in purely biographer mode is important, but for the more casual-reading, enjoyable side of me I like when Barnes' voice really shines through and the tone is more light and personal. For example, in Emma Bovary's Eyes, his dislike for critics which is incorporated with elements of Flaubert is quite ideal. While still quoting Flaubert and other authors many times, Barnes' voice shines through and his (or Braithwaite's technically) opinions are made about a topic. I really like the way he analyzes many aspects of Dr. Enid Starkie's statement about Emma's changing eye color by providing alternate examples and how an argument is made before you know it. Even though Braithwaite/Barnes states his opinion and position on the topic right off the bat, the development of the argument comes together at the very end of the chapter, unlike a lot of assertions that authors make. The last lines of the chapter exemplify my point: "Now do you understand why I hate critics? I could try and describe to you the expression in my eyes at this moment; but they are far too discoloured with rage." There is a definite voice and tone that comes through, the final opinion is alluded to and the subject of the entire chapter is summed up with a somewhat ironic (?) witty statement. Basically - I like Barnes.... but not so much as a biographer.

Last Minute Blogging

I found Chapter 4 really interesting—and rather odd. Aside from the graphic images of a monkey 'wanking off' a donkey, I think I've come to enjoy this chapter the most (although, Snap! is equally eye-opening). The one aspect that I could not understand was Flaubert's decision (or perhaps Barnes') to replace the parrot with the dog. Naturally Flaubert must have felt some stronger connection to man's best friend but with the two comparisons between man and parrot and Flaubert and his lover's dog, I cannot help but feel that Flaubert holds both animals in the same regard. While a parrot imitates man's speech, a dog 'listens' and 'reacts' to it. Parrot:phenomenon::Dog:companion. But then why would Flaubert place a stuffed parrot on his desk and not a stuffed dog?

Alright...

Well my initial reaction to this book is... it's decently ok - surprisingly. As a fan of repetition, I like the way Barnes (or should I say Braithwaite?) uses the chronologies and different animal descriptions to help readers get a better understanding of Flaubert. By providing offbeat, not very "orthodox" ways to convey Flaubert's essence to readers, Barnes makes reading the biography of Gustave interesting-apparently the trademark of post-modernism. Although at first it seems to odd and wrong to include these changes of pace in literature, I've come to appreciate them for what they are. The thing about this book is not to compare it with others because it's not very comparable. By trying to analyze the similarities or differences that this book has with any other works we've read in class, it seems the negatives of Flaubert's Parrot shine through more than the ups.

One of my favorite things Barnes did in the first four chapters is the dog section in the The Flaubert Bestiary. The way Barnes (again, I guess Braithwaite) chooses to break down the different ways to reference Flaubert's connection to dogs is definitely appealing to me. I especially like the way he states at the end of each description, "what happened to the dog is not recorded", or something close to it. At the very end of the chapter, after explaining Flaubert's alternate version of Du Camp's description, Barnes writes, "what happens to the truth is not recorded." I really like the way this ties into what we learned about post-modernism and that omnipresent "indeterminate truth." Again, a big fan of repetition, this is what connects with me the most.

Geoffrey Braithwaite

I just finished chapter seven, and i am beginning to really feel a connection with Geoffrey Braithwaite. In these past couple chapters he seems to ask my opinion quite frequently. He asks questions, addresses me as if if im right next to him, and overall makes me "participate" in the novel. I like this style because it allows the book to hold different meaning for each individual reader. When he was talking about the critic who thought Flaubert was careless because he depicted Emma Bovary's eyes various colors throughout the novel, i couldn't help but feel like i was having a conversation with Geoffrey Braithwaite. I find myself actually providing an answer to the questions he poses; it's quite strange to interact this much in a novel. At the end of chapter six i realized that Barnes wants the reader to understand Geoffrey's hatred towards critics, because often the critics do not do their homework. Flaubert's error in eye color of Emma Bovary was not at all carelessness, it was the fact that the person Emma was based off of had varying eye color. This also makes me despise critics because when they create their critiques they often don't fully comprehend the motives of the author, therefore their critques are inaccurate. As we move on to chapter seven, the first thing i noticed was the pharmacy, and i immediately thought of Homais, then later in the paragraph Barnes actually brings up Homais. I really liked the quote "Religion and Science Watching Together over the Body of Sin." pg. 85- sin being Emma. I don't know why, but this struck me as very powerful. Then on page 85 his take on the cliche "you can have your cake and eat it to" made me laugh. On the next page Barnes goes on to describe the omnicient author in realist novels - that he must be everywhere present and nowhere visible. In a way i agree with this, because if the author is taking part in the story, then you no longer get the whole view, you just get the author's character's perception. When they were talking about the mad man who would copulate with a corpse for a cup of coffee i was quite disturbed - who does that? Geoffrey's list of rules for novels is quite hysterical, and i think it pokes fun at those critics whom he despises. When Geoffrey was speaking about cheese and how soft cheese will collapse, hard cheese with indurate, but they both will mold, i couldn't help thinking he was comparing cheese to people - are some soft and some hard, but all destined to the same fate? I think the most confusing question Geoffrey asked was "Does the world progress?" pg. 105. Most people would assume yes because look at all our technology and new knowledge and bla bla bla, but in reality doesn't everyone say history repeats itself, therefore how do we know if we are actually progressing...

Pharmacie

It is interesting how the Pharmacie is helpful. In ordinary life, you go to a pharmacie to get prescription medications to heal you. In Flaubert's parrot, the people at the pharmacie actually help you. Him and his wife Ellen go into a pharmacie in hopes of finding a packet of bandages to repair Ellen's blister on the back of her heel. A pharmacien comes out to take a look at it. He looks at it "with a tenderness of a foot-fetishist." I think that is a funny line. In ordinary life at most places no one knows what is going on. For example, if you go to a Home Depot in search of a certain light bulb, half the staff there could not be able to tell you where they are or where to find them. In Madame Bovary, there are two people who look after Emma when she dies, which are the priest and Homais the pharmacien. The pharmacien is seen as the person who helps.