Before we pack up Flaubert’s Sentimental Education and put him neatly away in the Realism box, let’s compare him to the “realism” in our world today.
A main criticism of the book was that “nothing happens.” True, it had no grand exciting plot, no heroic rescue, no unforgettable romance; his goal was to portray the morality of his age. Yet, how many people in our culture are obsessed with “reality” TV? Week after week, season after season, we watch hundreds of talented or untalented ordinary people compete for the title of American Idol or Apprentice. We watch them do their thing, get judged and get thrown out. On other shows, we go into “real” people’s homes, see how they treat their kids, spouses, and neighbors, and how messy, disorganized, chaotic their homes are. Then we watch as a wives swap households, a nanny is sent in to give a crash course in child-rearing or a house magician remodels a home. When you write the plot of these popular serials, it sounds a bit dull, doesn’t it?
Yet, as a culture, we enjoy our realism. Perhaps it helps us connect with our society or even analyze or criticize it. Maybe we enjoy rooting for the little guy in the world. Maybe we see ourselves in someone else’s shoes. At any rate, I don’t think it is much different from what Flaubert was trying to do (although I like his vocabulary much better!) If we, as readers of Flaubert, are willing to put ourselves into his world, we would see that it’s not about what happens. It’s about his attempt to bring that world to us so that our realm of experience spans more than our little lives.
Helpful post. The reality TV craze is a mystery to me, but obviously we, as a society, get something out of it. That connection between Flaubert readers and his novel would have had the same appeal. Good analogy.
This provocative contrast between “realisms” is very suggestive. Reality TV’s realism is a commodity, an object of consumption.