Papi by Rita Indiana (Week 12)

To me, this book seemed to intentionally contain stereotypes on steroids. Through the gangster attitudes of her father, to the parental neglect, to the idea that America is the land of the rich, to the vast number of girlfriends, Indiana got me thinking about how our perceptions on these issues can sometimes be (to put it bluntly) childlike. The narrator’s descriptions and observations were so extreme they couldn’t help but come across as embellished and unreliable. In the age of mass media and extreme politics, I thought this book made a statement on how unreliable perceptions could be when classifying people and their position in society. 

To start off, in a weird way, I thought I was reading a more modern version of Pedro Paramo. The idea that the narrator in Papi is chasing down a metaphorical ghost of a father without truly knowing him and instead relying on the perceptions of others to "discover him" or be connected to him was very similar to me. However, I found Papi to be more compelling to read since it was told from the perspective of a young girl (which was more relatable), it was somewhat more straightforward in narrative, and included more modern references. 

The concept of masculinity was also on my mind while reading this novel. To have a father figure embody the stereotypes of the gangster and maucho man with flashy cars, lots of women, and an access of money, but neglect his children was an interesting scope on what machismo and fatherhood means and how it is evolving. Reading this as an adult is also interesting because never at any point did I think that the narrator thought that her father did anything wrong. Thinking back to how I was at eight and my attitude towards my father, I probably would have felt the same. It made me think about how non-judgemental children can be and it is often through environmental factors and learned experience through age that we learn to hold others accountable. 

So much of the narrator’s perspective is also focused on the vast number of her father’s girlfriends. Perhaps this makes a statement on how she is searching for a maternal role model more than a paternal one, or this symbolizes the beginning of her questioning her father’s values over her own. She often also blames the actions or faults of her father on his girlfriends. 

In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading this book. I also wanted to talk more about the stereotype of money and having the perception of vast wealth upon coming to America as this was also handled in a really interesting way throughout this book, however, I'll save it for when I chat with you all in class.   

Question for the class: How have you noticed the theme of fatherhood evolve or change throughout the readings this semester? Considering this is one of the more modern readings on the list, how do you think it speaks to modern fatherhood and its expectations?

Distant Star by Roberto Bolano (Week 11)

I really enjoyed reading this book by Bolano this week. One of my favourite genres is historical fiction, so this book was right up my alley. I also thought this book moved at a much colder pace than the other readings this term. The other books read with more passion, colour, and flowery language than Bolano so after the readings thus far, this book felt as if I was reading a noir spy thriller that I imagined was in black and white. Another thing that set this book apart from others we read this semester was that it came across as very impersonal. For example, the character of Carl Wieber was very distant and never truly known. The no-name narrator also mirrored this. It was interesting because it gave the effect as if we know everything and nothing of the characters at the same time.  

The character of Carl Wieber was also a stark contrast from the kinds of figures that I imagined to be part of revolutionary challenge or thought. Thinking back to one of the first weeks with the book The Underdogs, the revolutionary depiction of the characters in that novel showed much more opinionated and bloody fervour, whereas Wieber remained a cryptic, mysterious, character who only communicated from the distance in the sky. Even the chapters where he commits murders are written as a cold and emotionless means to an end. This really got me thinking about the questions posed in a previous class: when is a revolution not a revolution? Now I don't know if the historical references in this book would classify as a revolution, but writings about the transition of political power left me questioning. In my group when posed the question about revolution, a few of us mentioned violence and large gatherings of an uprising as vital parts of a revolution, however, this book made me think about the role that art and individuality plays in revolutionary thought, process, and action. From the reading, it seemed like Wieber had arguably more effect on the public through his sky art than through the killings. 

Now to tie into what the lecture was asking on whether or not this could be considered art. To me, it could. My first initial thought was that no, it was an advertisement or simply a message, but then I tried to come up with a definition of what art even is. To me, art is something that people create to express their own emotions and stir up emotions in others. By that definition, I would say this book was a very contrasting read on the typical revolutionary thought by removing the level of violence and showing the public's affliction through art. 

Question for the class: Do you think art should be the primary medium of ensuing cultural change? Would you say that the message in the book agrees or disagrees with your opinion?

  

I, Rigoberta Menchu (Week 10)

To me, this book was one of the harder ones to read. Not for the same reasons as Jorge Luis Borges, but because of how graphic the subject matter was at times. Because of this, I did find it hard to pick up, but I don't know if this was due to the length of the novel during the late-mid semester burnout or the intense, nonfiction subject matter. In particular, the section in the middle of the book where Rigoberta's father went in and out of prison, requiring her to work round the clock to try to help pay for his release was really heartbreaking. It reminded and made me appreciate the little things that we take for granted here like access to legal support and fair trials. We also have the right to fight for our opinions and the ability to form/take part in unions, which is obviously a large part of the struggle in Rigoberta's community in Guatemala. 

What surprised me a lot in the novel was Menchu's discussion of religion and her Christian affiliation. I was surprised at her strong faith in following the bible. This could partly be due to my naivety on the subject of Guatemala's Indigenous religious history, but it was interesting how so much struggle within her community was due to racism and suppression, which I heavily attribute as part of the history of Christianity and Catholicism in Latin America. The line about using the "bible as the main weapon" (158) really stuck out to me, as when I picture the conquistadores of the day, this is something that I also considered them doing by pushing their religious doctrine on the existing communities. The realities of Menchu's life were also very grey and intertwined. Parts of her life show severe struggles from the class and race war, such as the fight for land, whereas others give her more opportunities, like learning Spanish and following a "western" religion. Her life seems to negotiate between the positives and negatives of historical religious suppression in Latin America, which I found really interesting.    

Overall, I don't have much to say about this novel and writing this post was a bit of a struggle. Given the subject matter and its shocking nature, I couldn't find much to "critique" or "analyze" about this novel, it was more about just sitting and learning.

Question for the class: What did you think about Menchu's relationship with religion? Did it surprise you? How do you think this impacted her outlook and struggles throughout her life experiences dictated in the novel?

The Hour of the Star by Clarice Lispector (Week 9)

This book begins with one of the best opening lines I have read: "all the world began with a yes" (1). With this first line, Lispector introduces the perspectives of open-mindness, macro-thinking, and positivity required to read this novel. I also think this makes an important statement about how the world approaches love. Today, love can be broken down into a transactional exchange of sorts with one person needing to make the leap of faith required to ask the question, with the other (hopefully) answering "yes". This is what makes the narrator of this story so polarizing because he (or she?) never dares to ask the question in the first place. This reluctance from the narrator leaves me with two questions: who is the narrator and who is Macabea?

While reading the beginning of this book, I had an image of a stalker-like figure from the narrator. As if we are experiencing the perspective of someone that is peaking through a window. Upon continuing to read and having the character of the narrator more fleshed out, I began to question how we define and pursue love as I definitely related to the narrator during the beginning pages as he or she experienced an adoration that deemed themselves unfit or unworthy for Macabea's attention. This made me examine how we can create our own narratives when we are in love. We may create an idealized version of people and place them above ourselves. 

As I continued to read further, I then began thinking that the narrator is a metaphorical author and Macabea is their metaphorical character. What I first took as creating independent narratives of others within ourselves, eventually led me to think that it was an author trying to create a real and complicated character in Macabea. Another thought I had, was perhaps Macabea was Lispector in fictional form. In her bio, she states that she was a wife of a diplomat which parallels the relationship between Macabea and Olimpico. The written relationship between Macabea and Olimpico shows a clash between the artist and the practical. The artist is consistently being minisculed by someone who holds more "practical" or "worldly" ideas. This portrays an important narrative that the reader is left to sympathize with the artist, showing the importance of the perspectives coming from artistic creatives.

By the end of the novel, my answers to the questions above had yet again changed. I now think that Macabea is a symbol of women in the world today. The examples of being constantly questioned and compared over her looks and her virginity, along with her hidden inner desire to not comply with the norms that those around her are placing, made me believe that this is more than a statement about love, it is a statement on feminism and the quest that women face trying to place themselves into a society that they did not form.    

If poetry was written like a novel, this book would be the result of this experimentation. Lispector's prose is so imaginative and descriptive, all while maintaining a flow that is incredibly impactful. The sentence "she didn't know that she herself was a suicide although it had never crossed her mind to kill herself" (50) made me close the book and just sit there to ponder for ages. The Hour of the Star says everything and nothing all at the same time, which is all part of its magic.

Question for the class: Did you see parts of yourself in the narrator (or Macabea)? If so, what? What do you think Lispector was trying to represent through the narrator?

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez (Week 8)

Wow, what a novel. I'm so happy we read this in class because I have been wanting to read it for ages. The second half of the book really went in a direction I wasn't expecting with the political tensions, introduction of the modern labour workforces, and discussions of agrarian reforms. The continuation of the Buendia family line also provided a really thought provoking reading experience.  

The farther and father I got into the book, as more characters got introduced it became harder to keep them all straight because of their identical names. This gave me a lot of confusion and made all of the characters mesh into one large confusing character for me, with different plot points and personality traits of some characters getting carried over to others amongst the confusion. The intentionality of this has been making me really ponder the message behind Garcia Marquez's rationale in writing this way. Is it to show how much our family impacts ourselves? Does it show our lack on individuality in society or our families? Building on the messages with the banana tres, does it comment to how outsiders view those in rural foreign communities as all the same and without individuality or differing features? Or does it illustrate the time loop of Macondo and it’s slow process of development?

I also found it interesting how the Aureliano and Arcardio names kept constantly repeating throughout the family history, but Ursula's didn't (other than Amarantha Ursuala...I believe?). Considering she was one of the few characters that expanded the entire novel I thought it odd that her name wasn't carried more from generation to generation. 

Moving onto the next thing that really surprised me was the banana company. This was by far my favourite aspect of the novel. I remember reading about the banana massacre of 1928 and the soft power exploits of the United Fruit Company, so I was super intrigued about why Garcia Marquez chose to include parallel problems in this book. Saying that the workers were coming "because everyone was coming" (229) and calling it "the banana plague" (229) was really making a statement on the destruction that colonization and foreign intervention causes to a community in the fight for it's resources. To see this plot point get introduced right at the shifting point into modernity in the novel was telling timing. To me, it also made a statement about who was in control of the town's future. The inhabitants that have been controlling Macondo since it's creation or those who come in uninvited and disrupt the lives of those in the community? It also seemed to kind of break the endless time loop within the town with the introduction of war, conflict, and death suffered by the young. Not to mention all the labour issues that those who worked with the banana company experienced. 

I understand why this novel is considered to be one that everyone should read. It really makes you think about the role that family plays in shaping us, how we shape societies outside our own, and how societies have changed over time with the introduction of modern invention and technology. Even though it was published in 1967, the magical and relevant aspects of it makes it seem as applicable now as it was upon it's first publication. 

Question for the class: What do you think the reason of repetitive and similar names was in the novel? What point was Garcia Marquez trying to make?