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?

The Underdogs by Mariano Azuela (Week 3)

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?