Mary McCarthy on Madame Bovary as Neurotic

Among the most famous descriptions of Emma Bovary are Mary McCarthy‘s cutting lines:

[She] is a very ordinary middle-class woman, with banal expectations of life and an urge to dominate her surroundings. Her character is remarkable only for an unusual deficiency of natural feeling.

Ouch.

But what follows these lines is a perhaps more interesting set of observations:

Emma is trite; what happens to her is trite.  Her story does not hold a single surprise for the reader, who can say at every stage, ‘I felt it coming.’ Her end is inevitable, but not as a classic doom, which is perceived as inexorable only when it is complete. It is inevitable because it is ordinary. Anyone could have prophesied what would become of Emma–her mother-in-law for instance. It did not need a Tiresias. If you compare her story with that of Anna Karenina, you are aware of the pathos of Emma’s. Anna is never pathetic; she is tragic, and what happens to her, up to the very end, is always surprising, for real passions and moral strivings are at work, which have the power of ‘making it new.’ In this her story is distinct from an ordinary society scandal of the period. Nor could any ordinary society prophet have forecast Anna’s fate. ‘He will get tired her and leave her,’ they would have said of Vronsky. He did not. But Rodolphe could have been counted on to drop Emma, and Leon to grow frightened of her and bored.

Where destiny is no more than average probability, it appears inescapable in a particularly depressing way. This is because any element in it can be replaced by a substitute without changing the outcome; e.g., if Rodolphe had not materialized, Emma would have found someone else. But if Anna had not met Vronsky on the train, she would still be married to Karenin. Vronsky is necessary, whereas Rodolphe and Leon are interchangeable parts in a machine that is engaged in mass production of human fates.

This is certainly an acute way to capture the contrast between a tragic fate and a merely pathetic one. It also, quite perspicuously, makes us cast Anna Karenina as the heroine of an existential drama, one not driven to her destiny, but one who remains in command till her tragic end. Societal compulsions may seem to have exerted inexorable pressure on her life, and made it hew to a precise trajectory, but as McCarthy notes, there remains a great deal of surprise to be found in each fork of the path she traveled. This sense of surprise ensures Anna Karenina works as a suspenseful novel; we are aware of tragedy looming, but still unclear about its exact contours. Of course, even in Emma’s case, her ‘end’ is not precisely determined, but that she would be forever condemned to her relentless, misery-making dissatisfaction seems preordained. In so doing, Emma resembles nothing as much as Freud‘s neurotics, destined to endlessly, helplessly, repeat a recurring pattern, and indeed, finding their only comfort in its reenactments.

Note: Excerpts from the 1964 Signet Classic edition of Madame Bovary featuring a translation by Mildred Marmur, a foreword by Mary McCarthy and excerpts from Gustave Flaubert‘s trial on obscenity charges in 1857.

6 comments on “Mary McCarthy on Madame Bovary as Neurotic

  1. Indeed. Perhaps if there can be flaw identified in AK, it’s that Anna and Vronsky are an ‘unlikely’ couple for a work of realism. The banality and superficiality of Emma Bovary is thoroughly believable – and something Flaubert laboured over – whereas the intertwined and eventual complex of attraction/repulsion of the noble characters of Vronsky and Anna is something far less everyday. In short, we recognise a pathetic character as belonging to our shared reality far more easily than a tragic character. Tolstoy’s mastery is that he manages to make a tragedy entirely believable, and even allows us to empathise with the best and worst traits of otherwise other-worldly characters.

  2. Yes, Marshall hits it right on the head. Anna is a literary character, one we’d be unlikely to meet. Emma could live next door.

  3. Samir Chopra says:

    Marshall: Good stuff, especially in pointing out Tolstoy’s ability to make this tragedy ‘entirely believable.’ One small defense I’d mount of the realist aspect: I think the breakdown of a relationship as captured by Tolstoy is very acute psychologically – the disastrous decline downwards of former lovers who try and rescue, vainly, a sinking ship, who start a conversation wanting to salvage the affair but find themselves scuppering it instead rings very true.

    • Agree completely; I’d never suggest that AK isn’t realism (at least, not without rereading it specifically with that aim in mind!). It’s the insight into the psychology that makes us able to empathise – because Tolstoy gets it so bang on, in so many places.

  4. Samir Chopra says:

    Peter: Thanks for the comment. I too, am particularly struck by how realistic Emma seems, especially in her affectations and disregard for what is close at hand.

  5. […] Mary McCarthy on Madame Bovary as Neurotic […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s