‘Madame Bovary’ in Pie Chart Form

Gabe Habash -- May 1st, 2012

Do you hear that? That bubbling sound? That’s just the row of many beakers bubbling that PWxyz uses to break down and calculate the exact component parts of famous literary works, which we in turn share with you in the form of a pie chart. Think of them as a much cleaner version of a cow’s stomach. That produces pie. Anyway, today’s pie breakdown is Madame Bovary (aka Madame Bovary: A Tale of Provincial Life, Provincial Manners, Provincial Lives, Patterns of Provincial Life, and Provincial Manners of a Patterned Life), not to be confused with Madman Bovary. Interesting fact: if Madame Bovary were a real pie, it’d be strawberry rhubarb pie. It’s true.

Previously we pie-charted Don DeLillo’s Underworld, which was sort of a shepherd’s pie.


5 thoughts on “‘Madame Bovary’ in Pie Chart Form

  1. gonefiction

    This is a funny idea, and well executed, but I hope nobody takes it too seriously because although interesting it’s unfair to quantify art this way, as in the line I once read, “Statistics are like a girl in a bikini: they show you a lot, but they don’t show you everything.”

    Can you imagine the Pie Chart for Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself”? Two slices: Walt celebrates himself, Walt celebrates life in America.

  2. Suzanne Fass

    More books, please. These are great! Maybe “Moby Dick” or “A Tale of Two Cities” or “War and Peace”? Or is anyone there up to tackling “Ulysses”? That might be the ultimate in bravery.

    1. Gabe Habash Post author

      Don’t worry, Suzanne. These posts have been getting a great response and we plan on making it a regular feature!

  3. Kevin A. Lewis

    You could do this with a number of old standards; try “Mysteries Of Updolpho” by Anne Radcliffe-by my calculation, Emily St. Aubert spends approximately 57% of the novel weeping in one form or other (reasons such as awe over natural beauties or wringing her hankie over her feckless boyfriend Valancourt require a piechart of their own) and although the 18th century soppiness requires a lifeboat, it’s still an atmospheric treat. I think both books were writtten (albeit half a century apart) by people who spent way too much time sipping absinthe at the opera… Even laudanum can’t explain the unreadability of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, though.

  4. Donna

    Well, this may explain why I have such a difficult time, each time I read this book. Too much “Emma unhappy” and poor “Charles being ineffectual”. Interesting analysis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>