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?

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?