Flaubert's Parrot by Julian BarnesBy Andrew Himes
Just what sort of book is Flaubert's Parrot, anyway? A literary
biography of 19th-century French novelist, radical, and intellectual
impresario Gustave Flaubert? A meditation on the uses and misuses of
language? A novel of obsession, denial, irritation, and underhanded
connivery? A thriller complete with disguises, sleuthing, mysterious
meetings, and unknowing targets? An extended essay on the nature of
fiction itself?
On the surface, at first, Julian Barnes's book is the tale of an
elderly English doctor's search for some intriguing details of Flaubert's
life. Geoffrey Braithwaite seems to be involved in an attempt to establish
whether a particularly fine, lovely, and ancient stuffed parrot is in fact
one originally "borrowed by G. Flaubert from the Museum of Rouen and
placed on his worktable during the writing of Un coeur simple,
where it is called Loulou, the parrot of Felicité, the principal
character of the tale."
What begins as a droll and intriguing excursion into the minutiae of
Flaubert's life and intellect, along with an attempt to solve the small
puzzle of the parrot--or rather parrots, for there are two competing for
the title of Gustave's avian confrere--soon devolves into something
obscure and worrisome, the exploration of an arcane Braithwaite obsession
that is perhaps even pathological. The first hint we have that all is not
as it seems comes almost halfway into the book, when after a humorously
cantankerous account of the inadequacies of literary critics, Braithwaite
closes a chapter by saying, "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." And from that
point, things just get more and more curious, until they end in the most
unexpected bang.
One passage perhaps best describes the overall effect of this
extraordinary story: "You can define a net in one of two ways,
depending on your point of view. Normally, you would say that it is a
meshed instrument designed to catch fish. But you could, with no great
injury to logic, reverse the image and define the net as a jocular
lexicographer once did: he called it a collection of holes tied together
with string." Julian Barnes demonstrates that it is possible to catch
quite an interesting fish no matter how you define the net. |