I’m not going to lie, this book was one of the most confusing, yet compelling books I’ve read. Out of all the books I’ve read so far this semester, I found this one to be the most mentally challenging (yes, even more than Borges). A lot of energy was spent trying to piece together and separate between Juan and Pedro’s narratives while also deducing between the relevant side characters. Maybe I’m dumb, but the intentional difference between the first and second person narratives didn’t hit me until halfway through. I read through this book in two sittings and when I went to pick it up the next day I felt like I hadn’t read anything up to that point and it took me a long time to understand and get back into the headspace of the narrative again. Overall, I found this book to be very disorienting, however, part of me wonders if that was intentional. Pedro Paramo is also my first introduction into (or what would eventually be called) magical realism. The whimsical, yet intentional absurdity really made me think about some of the deeper themes that these characters represented. There were several themes that stuck out to me while reading this book. The most prominent ones to me were parenthood/family, judgement, and male power.
Firstly, I needed to state the obvious that this book centred a lot around the idea of family and fatherhood. To me, Juan's (perceived impossible) mission to find his father symbolized the struggle that children face in connecting with their parents and how parental abandonment could lead to children facing a long road of confusion and dangerous uncertainty. Jumping off from this, I thought the idea of the "classic" caudillo figure or strongman was represented in the character of Pedro. The hold that Pedro had on Comala seemed almost dictatorial in comparison and representative of many of the machismo, strongman figures often associated with Latin American history and fiction. The generational cycle and inheritance of the male figurehead is also referenced by Pedro's relationship with his own father, Miguel. Even the fact that Miguel died by his own horse seems like a wink towards the image of the caudillo age to me. While I know this isn't an Argentinian novel, the image I had my head of these characters is reminiscent of a gaucho which serves as a traditional symbol of masculinity. To me, the death of Pedro and Juan symbolized the death of the strongman and the shift to populism or communal power. This was even foreshadowed when Juan was asked "when will you rest" (20) at the beginning of the novel. This also brings up the age old question of should sons be judged based on the previous expectations, experience or biases of the father.
I wanted to go further about how this town seemed to be like a symbol of purgatory where our peers ultimately judge us for our actions, but it appears I'm hitting the maximum word count. So I'll save it for the class discussion.
Question for the class: How important does family connection play into who we are as individuals? Is it ethical to be compared to long lost family members that we've never even known?
"A lot of energy was spent trying to piece together and separate between Juan and Pedro’s narratives while also deducing between the relevant side characters."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think it was written this way?
Meanwhile, I'd like also to hear what you have to say about purgatory... perhaps we'll get to that on Thursday!
Hey Julia! Thanks for sharing your thoughts :) I especially appreciated your points re themes of fatherhood; it's especially interesting when considering that Juan was sent to Comala by his mother. In response to your question, I don't necessarily think it's right to compare someone to a family member they've never met, but maybe it depends on the context? Certainly if it's a good legacy, then that can't be a bad thing? I'd say the stronger the connection to family, the more we're shaped by it. I'm definitely a product of every family member I've shared space with, and perhaps some I haven't?
ReplyDeleteHey Julia!
ReplyDeleteI didn't read this novel, though reading some of the blog posts I wish I had. It seems so interesting and complexity is something I gravitate towards to anyways (I'm in Philosophy and I loved Borges).
As for your question, I think it really depends. Of course, parents have a huge impact on you given that they are who you mainly interact with during your early childhood. Though once we do develop, I feel like we have some agency in choosing who we are, what we value, and even if we want to reject certain notions that were taught to us growing up - though that last part seems to be a very challenging feat.
- Nandita
Hi Julia, I really enjoyed reading your blog post! In response to your question, I think family connection plays into who we are as individuals. Growing up, whether you come from a large or small family, the people you interact with often shape who you are whether you like it or not. Even if you don't copy the people around you, I think that still shapes you because you are learning from them. For example, an alcoholic Uncle makes you want to steer clear from alcohol for the rest of your life. In response to the second part, I don't think it is necessarily ethical to be compared to long lost family members that we've never even known because although our family shapes us, we can take their good habits and distance ourselves form their bad habits. It is challenging to to establish the parameters within what constitutes a comparison between us and our long lost family members.
ReplyDelete