Fever Dream by Samanta Shweblin (Week 13)

Overall, I really enjoyed this novel. As a sociology major, many of my classes focus on environmental impacts on foreign communities, so it was interesting to read a fictionalized take on the modern technology intervention of pesticide use in rural communities. However, I really (and perhaps stupidly?) came to this conclusion only after watching the lecture. I was confused about whether the dead bird in the stream or the soybean pesticides caused the sickness. If it was the bird then I would apply the observation that nature and environmental surroundings take away from the protections of the symbolic home as to what initially harmed David, however, if it was the soybeans as stated in the lecture then that definitely speaks to the theme of how genetic modification in food is harming the future generations of Argentina or how globalization is causing the destruction of communities. It was also interesting how she started the novel by having earthworms crawling inside their skin as it seems like a metaphor that Schweblin used to foreshadow how nature (or something intruding on nature) was slowly destroying their bodies. 

After watching the lecture the “dew” (91) that wasn’t really “dew” (91) that Nina came into contact with while sitting in the fields between the soy fields made a lot more sense. I found this interesting because my father runs a natural-chemical-free landscape company to prevent exposure to these harmful chemicals, as to him, this prevention is part of his role in keeping me and others safe. This brings me to the themes of neglect and parenthood in this book. I thought the poisoning at David's age was interesting as it makes a statement to me about how children change and become affected by their surroundings as they get older and are not as susceptible to parental protection. This is also paralleled with Nina as the “rescue barrier” gets wider and wider as she gets older. 

I thought there were several instances throughout the novel that were painted as examples of parental neglect. The first was the contact with the poisoned stream, as she wasn't watching him come into contact with the water. The second is the neglect after David changed as he grew, and the third is the total neglect from his parents. Physical neglect is also mentioned as Carla notes that before David “migrated” was “the last time I held him in my arms” (33). I was curious about how the book compared to the movie so I also checked it out on Netflix and was really surprised at how the character of Carla was portrayed. Reading the novel, I pictured her as a grieving mother who wanted to connect with her child, but in the movie, I didn't really feel that she loved her son at all. I don't know if the role was portrayed that way to add to the eerie effect of the film, or if perhaps I was carrying these biases that mothers must automatically care for and love their children. 

Building on the differences that I noticed in the movie, I also thought there was an interesting connection (possibly coincidence?) that the soy fields were described as “all very green, a perfumed green” (93), while the house that David was treated in was also described as a greenhouse. I know this course is on the book, but as a side note to this, I would definitely say that green was a theme throughout the movie depiction as well. Most of the shots were done outside in very green, lush fields, and the indoor shots often had green objects such as teapots, painted walls, or cut flowers included. Amanda’s new house is even painted green. In fact, in the movie the teacup/teapot that Carla drinks from while David is being “treated” by the elderly women during the “migration” is also green. This may not be a very relevant observation, but I found it an interesting contradiction as to me, green symbolizes calm, health, control and tranquillity in a novel filled with intense confusion, sickness, death, and anxiety.

Question for the class: When reading, did you automatically make the connection between the poisoning and the pesticides or was this something that you realized at the end of the novel (or after the lecture)? Why do you think the author chose to keep this information somewhat vague throughout the novel?