As usual with Balzac, we enjoy wonderful
descriptions of the outside world, such as the Loire Valley, and equally
wonderful descriptions of the naivety, misfortunes and sufferings of the main
character. However, these are constantly spoiled by layer upon layer of his preaching
on all sorts of subjects : the condition of women, separations, village
life, Parisian life, fashion, military mentality, etc. His analysis is often correct
and subtle, but remains irrelevant to the plot. We know how that woman feels :
he’s described it masterfully. We are not dim-witted children. So, why does he persist
in explaining what happened and then, just in case we hadn’t got it, explaining
it again ?
In the days when the Reader’s Digest published shortened versions of classic novels and
modern best-sellers, I had mixed feelings about that kind of approach. For
Balzac, it would be entirely justified, and would bring stunning results.
