I really enjoyed reading The Underdogs by Mariano Azuela. Having read many and written a few papers on the Mexican revolution from a historical perspective, it was really enjoyable to put on a creative hat and read about such a significant time in history through an imaginary lens. I thought Azuela did a really good job of combining the historical reality of the Revolution by referencing Diaz and Madero through the admiration or disdain of the characters, while also bringing in fictional storytelling elements through the romance (or lack thereof) of Camilla and Luis. Even that relationship could be viewed as symbolic or metaphorical to the historical narratives of the Revolution. Young and innocent Camilla desires an older, arguably more practical man in Luis who uses her attention to get ahead while only caring about how he is perceived by those within his social class. To me, this presented parallels between the young generations of Mexico (often similarly described as rural and social separate by some historical researchers I have previously read) asking for favour from the more "urban" and educated man in Luis who politicizes her attention to get ahead amongst his group. Having just read the female focused narrative of Mama Blanca's Memoirs, I found it interesting how differently the female characters in Underdogs are represented.
Firstly, when I open a book on the Mexican Revolution, I am not expecting it to include a female perspective. I don't know if Azuela includes a feminine perspective exactly, but he definitely includes a perspective on how women are viewed in his written society. Considering that most stories surrounding the Mexican revolution are often centred around men, I found myself wondering the motive behind the inclusion of Camilla. The descriptive language between how female and male characters are described also makes me wonder if it is a statement on the differences in how gender is/was perceived. For example, Luis describes his new wife as having "skin as fresh and soft as a rose petal" (50), whereas the features of men are often described in brutal, bloody, and grotesque detail in reference to the violence of the Revolution. Demetrio further establishes that women have no place in the fight by not believing women capable of owning weapons where a female responds "weapons? what weapons do you expect lone, decent women to have?" (56). To me the naivety and objectification of women in this society is a very stark difference from the place that women held in De la Parra's writings. While I acknowledge the differences in time and gender of the authors, it really shows the diversity of gender perception in Latin American literature.
Question for the class: Do you think the objectification of the women in this novel adds to the narrative or plot of this story or does it just serve as an example of how women's role in society has changed (or not?) since the Revolution?
Hey! Good question. I think it contributes to the work by highlighting the hyper-masculinity that drives a lot of the action in the work. It also, even if unintentionally, exemplifies women's limited but different survival strategies. Although the depictions are inaccurate and inevitably all the women are obsessed with men and their fates are determined by men, they do contribute to the narrative.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, Julia, it's a complicated question in the novel: what image does it give us of women within the Revolution? Kara expresses it in terms of survival strategies. We can clearly see levels of violence against women because of their gender, which are complicated by racism, classism, ageism and the affects that are at stake. Your previous knowledge of the subject has allowed you to make a comment that goes directly to one of the problematic cores of the text.
ReplyDelete