Victim of greed Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Flaubert, a novelist with a seething contempt for the bourgeois lifestyle, uses his works to illustrate the flaws he sees in society, and more specifically the flaws he sees in this new materialist middle class. In his novel, Madame Bovary, Flaubert follows the life of the eponymous character, Madame Emma Bovary, in her search for romantic and passionate love, with her efforts halted and ultimately made mortal due to an unsatisfactory marriage, female submission dictated by society and the destructive habits of the bourgeois lifestyle. Understanding that these troubling topics are immensely important to the author, many readers assume that Emma herself is the most submissive character in the text; representing a woman oppressed by society and destroyed by the greed that this new middle class perpetuates. This is largely true. By observing the narrator's perspectives and the interactions between the characters, however, it becomes abundantly clear that another figure bears the heaviest burden of manipulation and subjugation: Charles Bovary. Emma's husband, Charles is a lifelong victim of greed (both for wealth and the flesh) on the part of those around him; becoming for Flaubert a means of illustrating how the evils of the bourgeoisie harm everyone. In the following paragraphs I will examine why Charles Bovary is the most oppressed character and how Flaubert uses Charles' subjugation to illustrate the widespread harm that comes from the bourgeois lifestyle. By first looking at the points of view the novel takes, it becomes clear that Charles is a victim of the greed of those around him. Madame Bovary begins with a short and relatively sad account of Charles's upbringing. In initial readings this information dump seems to empower and humanize Charles; analyzing the text more closely, however, illustrates the permanent nature of its manipulation. The Schoolboys' Days, written in the first person plural, illustrates how the schoolboys make Charles seem like a stereotypical peasant to eagerly differentiate "them" from "him"; using the “we” to unify him and calling him, among other things, “a country boy” and “like a village choir boy” (3) to artificially raise their social status – an aspiration and quality that Flaubert often attributes to the average materialist world. class. The flashback then jumps to Charles's anti-school life, taking the third-person omniscient point of view. Examining the heartbroken mother's mind, the narrator proceeds to recount how she manipulates Charles's as well. “Living in such isolation, he has displaced onto this childish head all his scattered and broken vanities. He dreamed of a high position..." (7). Again, both in content and the fact that it is the mother's point of view, Charles is made to be a tool for another's greed rather than an acting body; illustrating the negative effects that bourgeois sensibilities have on individuals and relationships. These narrative suggestions continue into Charles's first romance. Switching briefly to a third-person narrative that includes his thoughts, the reader learns that Charles had sincerely and idealistically believed that love could bring him happiness and a kind of freedom; hoping that marriage would be "the advent of a better life...(where) he would be freer and able to dispose of his own person and his own money." (11) However, as the text immediately denies: «But his wife was the mistress». This sentiment, stark and undeniably true, is mirroredfrom the rapid transition from the brief third-person narration focusing on Charles to the third-person narration focusing on his wife. By keeping the point of view as far away from Charles as possible, Flaubert effectively paints Charles as an object to be manipulated rather than an individual. As we dive deeper into the stories these views tell about Charles's relationship with Emma, ​​this truth becomes even more vivid. When Charles first met Emma, ​​he was struck with a well-controlled but undeniably strong hope for what their potential romance might bring: "a better life...(and) freedom[dom]" (11 ) from the manipulative and greedy women who had ruled his life before. Blinded by his love for her, Charles quickly enters a relationship marked by deceit, greed, and outright manipulation: punishments visited upon him solely for his simplicity. Looking beyond his infidelity, Emma, ​​the facilitator of said manipulation, embodies the flaws of the bourgeois: greedy, materialistic and social climber. As their relationship continues to deteriorate, Emma's actions become increasingly manipulative. When they venture to the ball, an invitation earned through Charles's work, Emma's desire to increase social status - a markedly bourgeois quality - overcomes any loyalty to her husband. Dance? Emma said, "You must be out of your mind!" They would laugh at you. You remain seated. However, it is more appropriate for a doctor, he added. Charles didn't say anything. (46) The degree to which Emma, ​​fueled by a greedy desire for increased social status, controls Charles is astonishing: he says nothing to her biting comments and simply follows her orders into the exile of a poker table . This isolated incident indicates much more than an unlucky evening, it foreshadows the aggravated manipulation to come. As Emma grows in sass thanks to the excitement of extramarital affairs, she becomes increasingly bourgeois in her lifestyle. Obsessed with material goods (yet another bourgeois quality) she develops a dangerous relationship with Lheureux: a local loan shark and missing creditor. Eager to shower herself and her lovers with gifts, she takes over and ultimately bankrupts her husband's estate.“-And your power of attorney? He said. This sentence came to her like a breath of fresh air. -Leave me the bill, said Emma. … (with this news) there was a ringing in his ears as if gold coins, bursting from their pouches, were rattling around his feet. “ (254) Blinded by her bourgeois focus on money and material possessions, Emma willfully and excitedly robs the man who loves her more than life itself; illustrating the point that Charles is the novel's greatest victim and supporting Flaubert's larger claim that the bourgeois lifestyle is detrimental to the well-being of society. These harsh realities and experiences culminate in an incredibly cruel and calculated action: Charles's distortion of reality. Eager for excess, both in terms of the flesh and material possessions, Emma weaves Charles' trust into her web of lies until they are inseparably linked. Eager to escape with Leon, she finds an excuse to visit Rouen every week for "piano lessons". The ruse continues unhindered until, one day, Charles meets his supposed teacher.“-Well, I saw her recently… (and) I mentioned your name; and he's never heard of you. It was like thunder. But she replied in a natural voice: -Oh, I guess you've forgotten who I am... but I have the receipts. I wait. From that moment on his existence was little more than a fabric of lies, in which he wrapped his love... to hide it from sight. (252) Savoring his undeserved confidence, Emma manages to twist.