One man's pulp is another man's literature

When I first enrolled in this class I had no idea what to expect. My initial thoughts were that it would be an interesting, and even easy class. The class was interesting, but it was not easy. To clarify, I am talking about the lectures only, not the literature.

The literature we studied was, on the other hand, mainly, exceptionally easy to read (with the exception of Los Siete Locos), which was different from the "good" literature class I took, Span 365. This has made me think (though perhaps wrongly so), that "bad" literature can distinguish itself from good literature as being easier to read/comprehend. The books as well were, more or less, interesting to a point; however, upon dissecting them in class, they became less and less interesting as it became apparent that there was little to dissect.

This class was interesting because the concepts challenged my ideas of literature, and covered things that I had never thought about before, such as the idea of the culture and financial marketplace. What I found compelling though, was that the books we read were not necessarily "bad" in the usually accepted way. They were not the pulp fiction that one might find in someones garage sale, but more, books that one would find in a decent bookstore, worthy of buyback. They give promise of being good, but don't completely live up to that promise, as opposed to pulp fiction, which doesn't hide the fact that it is trashy and mass marketed. What I found difficult about this course was that concepts were not so cut and dry and, as a whole, we found it difficult to agree on any one idea. What one person thought made a bad book, another thought made worthy of a good book. The lines of objectivity and subjectivity were blurred and I though I have come to a more substantial definition, I still don't think I truly know what constitutes "bad" literature. I think that subjectivity plays too much into the ideas of good and bad, and though worthy of discussion, these concepts are rarely solidly defined.

Reflections on Spanish 365

I found the texts in this class to be rather enjoyable, and thus, the class as a whole to be enjoyable. My favorite part however, was the final half, as we were studying Cien Años. There was so much to discover in this book. I feel, though we examined the themes in this novel extensively, we barely scratched the surface.

Regarding the other texts we studied, I felt that they were interesting to discuss, though not always interesting to read (I am thinking of Cumandá), and I would have liked to have studied Neruda more extensively as we didn't cover much poetry. Although, I know we did not have much time to fit everything in.

What I found most enjoyable was the approach the class took in surveying the texts, finding themes and analyzing them as well looking at certain aspects of human behavior and relationships between the characters and their roles as members in their families as well as the difference in the family units themselves. As well, I thought the blogs were a great part of the course and should be use in more classes. I think this is good way to first, make reflections on the texts we are studying etc, second, be able to go back and reread these reflections as a reminder of the thoughts we had along the way, and the third and most useful reason, to be able to peruse the ideas of your classmates in order to get a more full interpretation of the texts studied. I found this last reason to be most helpful as people brought up things I hadn't thought of, which encouraged me to go further in my analysis and challenged my ideas.

100 years more

warning: contains spoiler

Alas, I have finished, and I didn't want it to end.
I closed the covers of Cien Años and said goodbye to all the characters that I have grown to love. *sigh. I know that I have truly enjoyed a book when I am sad to finish it. Though as well, the ending is sad and tragic, especially the part where the ants carry off the dead newborn baby. Yikes. And those Beundía's, they sure can't stop falling into bed with each other. I wonder if it was a bit of a moral statement that the unbridled passion between Aureliano Babalonia and his aunt, Amaranta Ursula ended in the death of their pig-tailed newborn, not to mention the end of the whole town itself? The significance of Aureliano's last name I think plays into it a bit (as we discussed in class). It is interesting that the town went from it's origins of just a quiet place where the founders lived with hardly any access to the outside world, to a place of wars, commerce, whorehouses and a massacre (though, after writing whorehouses, I questioned whether it really belonged in the list as Marquez doesn't seem to have a real problem with whorehouses and puts them in almost every book; though, I'll leave it in anyways), mimicking Babylon somewhat (thanks to Mikael for filling me in on a more complete version of the story of Babylon). Though are the two punished for incest? They weren't aware that they were related. Maybe were they punished for being so madly in love? It seems to be more the trend in the novel. Those who fall madly in love are somehow punished. Starting with Aureliano and Remedios (who dies), Arcadio is killed after falling in love with Sofia de la Piedad, Meme is sent to a nunnery for falling for Mauricio, Pietro Crespi is punished twice over for his love of Rebeca and then Amaranta. I could go on, but you read the book. Just a thought, but I feel that the Buendía's were never destined for happiness and love, but for loneliness and solitude.

Telenovela

I think that it is too obvious to just say that the telenovela, Corázon Salvaje, is bad media/literature. This is apparent for so many reasons... it's overdone, overdramatized, melodramatic, poorly acted, Juan de Diablo had terrible hair... I could on, but I would rather talk about something else: such as, why are telenovelas so popular?

Though, first of all, I would like to address the issue of whether or not this is literature. I think it's arguable. I don't believe the series could fall into the category of literature if we were to only look at it as visual media, however, I will admit that, in some context, the screenplay could be considered literature as it was written. But we are not reading the screenplay so I would argue that what we are viewing is not literature.

Second, Why are telenovelas so popular? I can't say I didn't enjoy watching it, but only because it made me laugh. I didn't take any of it seriously. Like American soap operas however, the telenovela seems to be addictive and watched religiously. My own mother records her soap opera every day while she is at work. She has been watching it for over 15 years. The few times that I have watched it with her I have had to stifle laughter at how silly the whole thing is. It's so phony and overdone, but she loves it, just like so many other women. (I think that it should be mentioned that this genre is aimed primarily at women, especially housewives). I think that these housewives maybe feel that there lives are mundane and they turn to these shows as a way to escape. The melodrama and the luxuries appeal to them because it is world so far from theirs.

This reminds me... there seems to be a gender issue here that irks me. Why is it that the literature/media that appeals to women that we have studied in class are considered bad, and the one book that appealed to the men in the class was not really bad?

10 años con mafalda??!!!

OK, what's going on Jon? I didn't buy this book at the bookstore originally because I thought, no, this can't be for our literature class (bad or not), there must be some mistake.
But no, this is what we are supposed to be reading.

I don't think the question here should be--is this bad literature or not, but, is this literature at all? This is a comic book. I mean, I'm not complaining, it's easy reading, it's cute. Some comics are funny, some not as much (though I realize this is personal taste), and some I don't understand because of their references to things in Argentina that I am not aware of. Personally, I don't think comic strips are literature, though I do think a graphic novel could be considered literature. However, I wouldn't put 10 Años de Mafalda under the graphic novel category because it doesn't have a plot, though maybe it does have subtext.

Although, I do think that this book can be studied. Like literature it has themes and characters and sometimes even, a political message. Also, I think a lot can be said about a country by it's popular culture so I am interested to discuss this in class, and perhaps, also learn something about Argentina. I think though, when you study popular culture, you are studying the preferences of what Jon would call the "middlebrow", and perhaps that was his intention of choosing this work. I think, especially now, there is a lot of debate as to whether popular culture has cultural merit. Is it "cultured" culture? If it isn't high culture, though it is popular culture, does it have cultural worth and can we say it defines a country or a people because it is popular?

characterization

I have been creating a list of character traits that go along with each character and their namesakes in order to keep them all straight in my head, and to see if certain personality traits are handed down from characters to their namesakes. This what I have come up with:

In the José Arcadio Buendía line:

José Arcadio Buendía is an inventor, careless in his dress, obsesses over his ideas and creations, takes an interest in his sons educations, is a careless dresser, unusually strong, clairvoyant and of course, goes crazy in the end and is tied to a tree in the backyard.

José Arcadio (married to Rebeca) is said to have his father's character (p.14), though, unlike his father, lacks imagination, he enjoys excess (drinks, gambles and sleeps with many women until he marries Rebeca) and is also unusually strong and dies young, shot in his own house.

Arcadio (son of Pilar and José Arcadio and Pilar) does not recieve the full name of his father because he is illegitimite, takes an interest in education like his grandfather, but unlike his father, also has tremendous hereditary strength and dies very young. After impregnating Sofia de la Piedad with the twins, José Arcadio Segundo and Aureliano Segundo and fathering Remedios the beauty, he faces a firing squad, and is killed.

Aureliano Segundo (son of Arcadio). I put him in the José Arcadio line because the wise Ursula suspects that, during their mischievous games of pretending to be the other, they became confused and never changed back to the other. He was also a big, burly and strong man like his grandfather and great grandfather, was excessive, also like his grandfather. He had a good sense of humor and was very lucky. He marries Fernanda and fathers José Arcadio, Ursula Amaranta, and Meme.

In the Aureliano line:

Colonel Aureliano Buendía (who marries the young Rebeca) is silent and withdrawn, thinner than the Arcadios, is clairvoyant like his father, very proud, intense, brave and doesn't have the capacity for love (as observed by Ursula). He dies of old age against the tree in the backyard.

Aureliano José follows his father to war and I think he doesn't return? If anyone remembers this, I am missing a characterization of this Aureliano.

The 17 Aurelianos have the same intensity as their father and the same eyes.

José Arcadio Segundo (who was probably born Aureliano Segundo) follows in his Great uncle's footsteps and organizes a strike against the banana company. He is also quiet and reserved like the Colonel and spends his later years locked in a room reading Melquíades writings, similar to the same obsession Aureliano had over his gold fish.

(their are two more Aureliano's but I haven't gotten that far yet. I will fill the rest in perhaps at a later date)

My conclusion then is that, there are definite personality traits that are handed down through the names. The first José Arcadio Buendía seems to hand down traits to both his sons, but then after that, the José Arcadios seem to be strong and burly and drawn to excess. And the Aurelianos are more reserved, thinner and more intense, but are driven to fight (for the war and strike) and are natural leaders. This seems to be the same with the women as well but I will end this here because I could go on for another hour or so I am sure of I wanted.

Gender

(Arlt looks like a pretty intense guy)

I have no idea what else I can say about Los Siete Locos, except maybe that Arlt tried a little too hard to be both high brow and low brow at the same time. Though people's reactions to this book in their blogs and in class has made me think...

One thing that I have noticed about the books that we have studied in this class is how some of the books, namely Como Agua Para Chocolate and Eva Luna, were liked by some of the women in the class, but maybe none of the men. With Los Siete Locos, there seemed to be the opposite reaction. Not that this is a surprising revelation; however, it did make me wonder, especially after reading the Jane Austen article, if this contributes to what makes a book a bad piece of literature. Though, the opposite could be said about The Alchemist.

Take for example, a book that other members of the class and I are studying in Span 365, Cien años de soledad. This book, along with most others that we have been studying, are books readily enjoyed by both genders. Though, the books that we are studying in this class have generally been liked by only one gender. Does the exclusion of half of a potential audience make a book "bad"?

The Alchemist, I am sure you will agree, would be exempt from this list as it is not aimed at any one gender. But it is extremely accessible. As we discussed in class, this book is universal. It doesn't really leave out anyone, from child to elder, Muslim to Christian, man to woman... So, can it also be said that a book that swings too far in the other direction and becomes too universal is also a "bad" book?

Just postulating theories, I am interested in what the rest of you think...

Ancestry

Reading Cien Años de Soledad. I started to wonder what Gabriel Garcia Marquez's family was like. I wondered how much of this book reflected his own ancestry, so I did a little investigating and I found a story of his parents meeting, which started with a beautiful description of his mother, and also gave some insight into the size of his family... "My mother became a woman in a godforsaken hellhole. She had spent an uncertain childhood plagued by malarial fevers, but, once cured, she was cured completely and forever, and with her health as strong as reinforced concrete she was able to celebrate her ninety-fifth birthday with eleven of her own children, and four of her husband's, and sixty-six grandchildren, seventy-three great-grandchildren, and five great-great-grandchildren. Not counting the ones nobody ever knew about" (Serenade: How my Father Won my Mother 2001 The New Yorker ). An impressively large family, I am sure you agree, and I just wanted to share it with everyone.

As Marquez says, "Serenade" is about of how his parents came to be married and Love in the Times of Cholera is a based on his parents courtship. However, I did notice some similarities between his parents world and the world of the Buendía family:
First of all, like Ursula and José Arcadio Buendía, Marquez's mother's parents also moved away from a town due to her father having killed another man, "her father, had killed Medardo Pacheco in a duel over a point of honor" and "Her family had moved to Aracataca after the killing of Medardo Pacheco".
I thought this quote about his own family was interesting and reflects a little on the Buendía family, "This atavistic prejudice, whose embers still linger, has turned us into a vast family of men with their flies open and unmarried women with numerous children in the street."
I also noticed that, in the Buendía family, most of the women are incredibly strong, especially Ursula and thought that this quote from "Serenade", about his mother, explains his the strength of character his females have in his novels. Here he describes his mothers sudden shift from daughter to a strong and wilfull woman "And she, who had been obedient and submissive, confronted her opponents with the ferocity of a lioness who has just given birth."
This quote reminded me of Amaranta's burnt hand, though it's not the same circumstances, they are very similar, "In the most corrosive of their many domestic disputes, Mina lost her temper and threatened her daughter with the bread knife. An impassive Luisa Santiaga stood her ground. Suddenly aware of the criminal implications of her wrath, Mina dropped the knife and screamed in horror, "Oh, my God!" And placed her hand on the hot coals of the stove in brutal repentance."
Marquez describes his father's mother, Argemira Garcia Paternina, and it reminded me of Pilar, (except for the physical description), "she was a slender white girl with a joyous nature and a free spirit, who went on to have six more children, by three different fathers."
And this quote reflects the politics of Cien Años, "The family's opposition to Gabriel Eligio was even more ferocious because he was an active Conservative, a member of the party against which Colonel Nicolás Márquez had fought his wars." This story can be found on this website, it's very good and if you have read Love in the Times of Cholera, you will probably see similarities between it and his parent's story as well: http://www.themodernword.com/gabo/gabo_serenade.html

Cien Años de Soledad

This is one of my favorite books. I read it a couple of years ago and loved it and I am excited that we get to read it in Spanish. I really enjoyed the storyline about the gypsies who come to town and, though the story isn´t so much about the specific characters, but the several generations of a family and how the actions of one generation affects the younger generations (I think that's why Marquez gave everyone such similar names, making the characters personalities blur into one another, making it difficult to distinguish one character from another), I still enjoyed the stories of specific characters.

What I really appreciate about this epic work of fiction is the contrast of comedy and tragedy, which I think says something very profound about life in general. There is much to analyze here and I think a whole course could be spent on dissecting this novel. I know there are things that I am missing, such as the social/political comment being made by Marquez. I say this because, in my experience of Marquez'z work, there tends to be some sort of criticism of the social and/or political sphere but I would need to read more of the book to get an idea of what that is in Cien años de soledad. I am guessing it's more subtle for some reason or another. Maybe because I truly don't understand the culture because I am not part of it. Gender is another important theme in this novel. I think it would be easy to classify each person into stereotypes associated with their names... but I will think more on that and write on a later week. Though, I think the stereotypes work well in a book like this because it not necessarily about the individual but about the family as a whole.

Los Siete Locos

What I find interesting about Arlt's novel, Los Siete Locos, is that, unlike the other works of fiction, it is not middle brow. I find the language really complex, so much so that I found myself rereading passages in order to understand what he was talking about. I like that he is not polite, nor does he apologize for not being so (for example: "--¿Dónde vas? Echóse a cuestas el sobretodo; después inclinándose sobre la cama de la mujer, exclamó: --¿Sabes adónde voy? A un pro´tibulo, a buscarme una sífilis" [142] ) but, I have to admit, sometimes I wasn't sure that I knew what he was talking about and I had to ask myself if it was maybe because the language was too complex or too colloquial for me to understand, or, maybe, some things didn't really make that much sense. However, I am not sure I have figured out why it is bad literature, but I will try to further on. I am very interested to see what Jon has to say. I googled Arlt and so far all I have gotten is that he is a genius, that Los siete locos is and "extraordinary classic" (Amazon.com). Though, again, I just don't get some of what he is talking about, as if the metaphors are so weird that they don't make any sense. Take, for example, the beginning of "El odio". It starts "Su vida desangraba. Toda su pena descomprimida extendianse hacia el horizonte entrevisto a través de los cables y de los ¨trolleys¨de los travías y súbitamente tuvo la sensación de aue cominaba sobre su angustia convertida en una alfombra¨(38). I understand this part, actually it´s rather poetic. He feels his life being drained from him and can see his anguish run down the cables on the horizon, then he feels like he is treading on his anguish like it is a carpet. Good good, liked that Arlt, do go on... "Así como los caballos que, desventrados por un toro se enredan en sus propias entrañas, cada paso que daba le dejaba sin sangre lo pulmones. Respiraba despacio y desesperaba de llegar jamás. ¿A dónde? Ni lo sabía" (39). What? Disemboweled horses? a bull responsible for the disemboweling? the horses slipping around in their own entrails? Maybe I just have spent too much time in the city because I don't understand what all this had to do with the nice part of the metaphor. Is it me or is this merely gratuitously disgusting, and nothing more. I think, be as disgusting as you like, but at least give it some meaning. It seems that Arlt is beating a dead horse with a metaphor, or a dead metaphor with a horse (wahaha). Anyways, where are you going? I don't know either.

what's the point of studying bad literature?

I have actually enjoyed reading all three texts that we have studied in class, perhaps that's just because I like to read, good book or not; however, I have not enjoyed dissecting them. I imagine this is because there is very little to dissect in bad literature. I think that is, in part, my discovery regarding what makes a book "bad". Though, I find it necessary to point out that the adjective "bad" is vague, and fits in the category of adjectives to use when one is just to lazy to find a more suitable one. No offense of course, the title of the class is enticing and sold me, I mean, I am enrolled in it; though, when we are discussing a particular book, it isn't enough to say that it's just "bad", really what does that mean? What this point has lead me to is that we are often quick to judge something by adding an ambiguous, thoughtless adjective when there are many more appropriate words that could be used, and I have come to understand this more thoroughly in this course. I find it useful to study bad literature partly to learn how to talk about literature that we are not normally exposed to in university. Most of us can express why a book is well written, but not why it is poorly written.

Another reason that I find this class useful is that we are to become adept at critical analysis of bad literature, which translates into the ability to critically analyze "bad" media of all sorts. We are surrounded by trashy pop culture that so many of us guiltily indulge in, but it is useful to have the tools to at least observe with awareness. Sometimes we are not even willing participants in our exposure to media, billboards, ads in newspapers, the radio in a coffee shop... I prefer to be at least able to take a more active role in my media exposure, both intentional and unintentional exposure, in that I can be aware of what I am being fed instead of being a passive watcher/listener/reader and just taking everything in. Critical analysis is an important tool to acquire in order to be prepared for what we are exposed to in our daily lives.

More along the lines of what we are supposed to be discussing, themes that we have encountered in this course...
One interesting point that Jon has mentioned several times is the market place of literature. I had never put into terms before the idea of what audience the author is trying to reach: the mass market, from were he gets financial gain, or the cultural market from where he earns a higher status and notability in the academic community.
Also interesting, are the very different styles we have so far encountered in these three books. I think that, despite their obvious faults, and though I agree that they are all not such great works of literature, they at least have their own styles. Granted, nothing' s original, they are better than some really trashy pulp out there like Dan Brown's sad attempt at a writing career or, ugh, Danielle Steel. So I guess that perhaps these books are kind of a middle ground between good and bad literature (ah, middle-brow, I get that now). Now, I do realize that Coelho has a format that he probably follows in all of his books and this has worked for him and made him wealthy, but at least he puts forth a book with a moral in the form of a fable that you can read to children (I mean, I think The Alchemist would make a decent kids book). And Esquivel made an attempt at developing her own style, but, did you notice that almost every chapter is exactly fifteen pages long (I like to count, what can i say). This leads me to believe that she is following a format for each chapter, begins with a recipe, ends in a disaster, usually includes crying. But nonetheless, she has some sort of style of her own that would make a pretty good short story. And Allende's story had a style of her own, what made that book disappointing was the rushed and contrived ending. (like this one)

retrospection

Looking back through the texts that we have studied in the first half of the course I see several reoccurring themes: affection, desire, the indigenous perspective, modernism and genre are among those we discussed. The unifying thread between the works that we have been surveying is, mainly, families (with perhaps the exception of Neruda).

We have encountered several different types of families. In Cumandá, Mera focused on themes including the indigenous perspective, affection, poets, customs, death, desire, nature etc. Though I would say that the theme of the family was constant throughout his story. In Cumandá, the colonist family was broken; separated by tragedy, leaving only son and father. There was also an inspection of the Native family, their customs and their close connection with nature. Within these families there was a bond so strong that it brought both Cumandá and Carlos together and inexplicably drawn to each other, which resulted in the altruistic act of Cumandá's self-sacrifice in order to safe her lover/brother.

Neruda's poetry doesn't necessarily touch on the theme of family, but we still encountered some of the reoccurring themes of desire, affection, the poet, and invention/creation. Though they are different genre's there is still these common threads between Mera's work and Neruda's (also, though Mera's work was a novella, it did contain poetry).

Next, we read Las Memoria's de Mama Blanca, by de la Parra. Again, we see the importance of the theme of families in Latin American literature. This family though, differs greatly from the family in Cumandá. Blanca Nieves family was, through the eyes of Blanca, dominated by the feminine and the only male member of the family took a diminutive role, barking from his office window or scolding the workers from his symbolically higher position on the balcony. What I found interesting was this untouchability of what was masculine; the admiration and respect for male role models. Even Violeta, the "boyish" one of the sisters, was respected and admired, almost feared, by Blanca. As well, both Vicente Cochocho and cousin Juancho were revered by the girls. Their mother, the embodiment of femininity, appeared almost silly at times, especially when she was mocked by her husband for her attention to detail before her parties. Evelyn, the other important female role in the girls lives, was not revered, she was rather disliked and only listened too by the girls because she used force and harsh punishment (not such a feminine model but she was a women all the same). In sum, though the importance of the female role in this family was important, I found the male one equally as important through the admiration shown by the main narrator.

The family in Piedra Callada was again, a different family from the other books we discussed. This family was, at first, lacking a man, and when one was added, this male role model was an unfortunate addition who, in the end, was killed off by the grandmother. There were no characters to really sympathize with in this book, and as I said before, the picture painted of family life here was a bleak one. The children could have been sympathized with but their characters were, I am sure purposefully, rather undeveloped and mainly described as "los niños".

Lastly, we read Las Hortensias, a really odd book about a man who replaces his affection for his wife with his dolls. Main themes here are desire, industrialization, the artificial etc. The theme of family is an interesting one in this book because it is of an unconventional family. Maria can't have children (and it's probably good that she doesn't because her husband has an obvious mental imbalance) and she places her nurturing instinct on the doll. Her husband on the other hand, through his fear of losing his wife, focuses his desire less and less on his wife and more on the dolls, in the end replacing his affection for his wife with an affection for the artificial. What also makes them strange is their excessive lifestyle. I think excess could also be a theme of this book. For example, I am quite sure that it is extremely unusual in a country like Uruguay to have the means to hire a piano player to block out unwanted noise and to reconstruct a life size doll to make it feel warmer and more life-like.

Out of all the works we have studied my favorites are tied between Neruda's poetry and Mama Blanca's Memoirs. Las Hortensias is a close third. I think that is the use of imagery that I appreciate the most in these texts.

Piedra Callada

Marta Brunet´s story, ¨Piedra Callada¨, is a rather bleak view of life. From the first page there is conflict between Esperanza and Eufrasia about Esperanza´s desire to marry Bernabé, a large, ugly beast of a man. When Esperanza marries Bernabé she is disowned by her mother, "Te podís casar cuando se te antoje: pero desde ese día no tenís más madre", and years pass when mother and daughter are estranged until she hears the terrible news that her daughter is ill. Another conflict ensues when Eufrasia arrives at her daughter´s home to care for the little ones and shortly after, Esperanza dies. There seems to be no actual reconciliation between the two and it seems, though Eufrasia has left her residence to care for Esperanza´s children, there is no verbal renege of the disownership and Esperanza dies, motherless, leaving her children in a similar state. Perhaps Esperanza´s death symbolizes the loss of hope.

The conflict becomes even bleaker when Bernabé beats both his children and their grandmother. Nature symbolizes the state of the family and the torment they suffer. Winter sets in, the grey clouds close in on the valley and it rains relentlessly, leaving the family isolated and trapped indoors. The sky clears when an argument is won by Eufrasia, and Bernabé leaves the house; but this is only temporary. He returns and the beatings continue. The sad story ends with a fishing excursion where Bernabé is hit in the head with a stone (the "silent stone" perhaps?) and the children return home without him. It is clearly stated what really happens to Bernabé after and there is a false sense of happiness; though it is false because there is no clear resolution and the grandmother leaves the door open for when Bernabé comes home, "abierta, porque para los otros el hombre todavía podía volver", which could be read as the foretelling of his return; though as Jon suggests, may tell us that the grandmother knows that he is not returning as she is the one who kills him, which then would make the story a little less than I had originally presumed and gives it a little bit of a happy(ish) ending.

Like Water for Chocolate

I am sure that many of you will agree with me when I say that the film Like Water for Chocolate manages to outdo the novel it is based on, which is unusual because, generally, films are often disappointing in comparison to the books. I imagine that this is because of how difficult it must be to transform a 250+ page novel into an eighty minute movie. However, since Like Water for Chocolate is long-winded and contains many pages of unnecessary recipes and over-simplified explanations for things rather outlandish and dramatic, I am guessing that the screen-writer had an easy time editing out large portions of the novel.

Initially, I had assumed that the recipes would be symbolic for something further on in the text, but to my disappointment they were only recipes interlaced with plot, which, despite my love for cooking, did not interest me. I can see how this might have seemed like a creative idea to the author, but in my opinion, it didn't work. In fact, Esquivel seemed to be missing a lot of things in her novel, such as a connection between the chapter titles and the plot. It seemed that there was no reason for the chapters to be consecutively named after each month of the year, seeing as the plot, though linear, did not happen in one year, and each chapter did not happen in the month it was titled, in fact, the events mainly happened over longer periods of time than only one month.

Also, I found this book to be the easiest novel I have ever read in Spanish, the language was so simple and void of any clever metaphors or imagery. I would compare the reading level to that of secondary school readers. Though, the story could be interesting at times and the idea of emotions being transferred into food is somewhat imaginative. Perhaps this book would have made a better short story. Maybe if was cut down from 267 pages to between 20-40 pages it could be a descent short story. The ideas weren’t bad, just the execution of the ideas. The author may have a plentiful imagination but she isn’t a very talented writer.

Memorías de Mamá Blanca

Me gusta como de la Parra describe sus caracteres en su novela Memorias de Mamá Blanca por que usa muchos imágenes que son muy únicos; por ejemplo, cuando describiendo Vicente Cochocho escribe "Siendo casi del mundo de los vegetales, aceptaba sin quejarse las iniquidades de los hombres y las injucitias de la naturaleza. Hundido en la acequia o adherido a las lajas, zaheriéranlo o no, sequía como buen vegetal dando impasible sus frutas o sus flores" (145) o de Evelyn, dice “dentro de su corsé, bajo su rebelde pelo lanudo, algo reluciente y lo más liso posible, Evelyn exhalaba a todas horas orden, simetría, don de mando, y un tímido olor a aceite de coco. Sus pasos iban siempre escoltados o precedidos por unos suaves chss,chss, chss, que proclamaban en todos lados su amor al almidón su espíritu positiva adherido continuamente a la realidad como la ostra está adherida a la concha" (78). Pero, no entiendo por qué hay un narrador diferente al principio, no creo que era necesario para las historias de Mamá Blanca y siempre quería saber que paso al carácter que empiece el libro. También, los descripciones son muy complicados, a mí, me gusta buenos imágenes, pero en español hallía serlo muy difícil a leer y entender; a veces, no podía entender un entero frase. Aunque, disfrutí el libro.

close reading

What more can we say about The Alchemist? It is not a book that was written for close analysis. An afternoon read in a hammock perhaps, but really-- I hate to admit it but, Jon is right. *sigh -- this book is really awful. Though, that said, does that mean I have awful taste in literature? I don't often enjoy such trash, why was I drawn to this book? I knew when I was reading it that it was not well written but I enjoyed it anyway-- twice! Why does this book sell so many copies? Are we really that desperate for inspiration that we let these glaring inadequacies go? Obviously there is little analysis done of the books people choose to read on their spare time, but isn't it better that they are reading books than voting for the next American Idol? Is it so bad that people enjoy reading trash if they have turned off their TV’s to do so?

However, this is a book being discussed in a university setting, which means that we must do a close reading of it, so if I must, I must:

• First of all, there is nothing deep or profound about the message within. What is said is meant literally. For example, Santiago’s treasure turns out to be just that, a treasure, gold treasure in fact. It is disappointing that his treasure didn’t turn out to be something more symbolic.

• Second, there is little variation in sentence structure (the first page contains three simple sentences, four compound sentences, one complex-compound sentence and no complex sentences), and also little variation in vocabulary (on page 116, starting at the star, until the end of page 117, “boy” is mentioned twelve times, “alchemist”, eleven times and “desert” seven times—this would seem like a lot if you were to actually count the number of words in that section, there aren’t many as the print is large and double spaced).

• Third, the “Personal Legend” description, as we discussed in class, is faulty. It’s vague and doesn’t take into consideration that a) life is complicated, and b) “dreams” are complicated. Not everyone has one sole dream or purpose. What happens when that dream is fulfilled? Just stop dreaming? And to say that one’s life has one purpose is oversimplifying things. Furthermore, it gives the impression that everyone has one great and amazing reason for being on the planet, but let’s face it, we’re not all Owen Meanie. If there was one simple reason for us all hanging out down here together on Earth, would there be so much violent disagreements over religion? Life’s just not that simple.

I like it when you shut up???

Mi favorito poema de Neruda de nuestro libro está “Me gustas cuando callas porque estás como ausente” porque cuando lo leí en español, creí que era sobre una situación muy común pero él diseca la situación en algo más sencillo. Pensí que cuando dice “Me gustas cuando callas porque estás como ausente” la mujer (quizá una novia) no está hablando a él problamente porque ella está enojado y por un momento es mejor que gritando. Pero al fin, dice que “distante y dolorosa como si hubieras muerto”, entonces la situación hace incómodo y lo ve la silencia como está mala; después dice “una palabra entonces, una sonrisa bastan” porque se gustaría que ella hable, casi negociando con ella por solo una palabra y una sonrisa. El último frase “Y estoy alegre, alegre de que no sea cierto” significa que el está alegre que ella no es muerte.

Pero a mí, es interesante que en inglés, lo leyera diferentemente. I read “I like you when you are silent because you are as though absent”, and I saw different images of what Neruda was trying to convey. I saw someone who was sad and wasn’t speaking because they were unable, choked up perhaps. “and you are like the word melancholy” stands out to me more in the English version. Of course, I understand English better than Spanish (though I enjoyed the poem better in Spanish than in English) and I imagine that because of this my interpretation of the Spanish version was probably wrong. My point being though, that translated, the poems meaning changes and certain things that are more significant in Spanish can sound less in English and vise-versa. What threw me off initially was the word “callas” in comparison to “silent”. I read callas to be something a little more malicious, like “I like it when you shut up because it’s like you’re absent” (haha, not quite as poetic as the translation). As you may well see, from that starting point, the poem takes on a whole new meaning.

I would like to know more about how other people interpreted this poem. Please share…

International best selling phenomenon!!!

So… what to say about The Alchemist…

I am not sure whether I should just like this book, or admit its obvious faults.

I have read this book two times already (side note to Jon—I have also read, and own: One Hundred Years of Solitude, Love in the Times of Cholera, Collected Stories , Chronicle of a Love Foretold and Of Love and Other Demons [response to your quote = “I'd wager that the market for Coelho and the market for García Márquez, vast as they both are, are also almost entirely distinct: i.e. that those who read the former hardly ever read the latter, or vice versa.”]), though to be fair, it is the only Coelho I have read. The first time I read it was in a hammock, in the rainforest in Guatemala with an overfed Spider monkey in my lap (long story but I assure you its true) and the second time while backpacking through Cambodia so, maybe it was due to context, or maybe I am just as cheezy as the book, but I really loved it. Ok, it’s not the most complicated read, but I don’t always have the mental energy to tackle a Pynchon and decipher between 600 or so characters. And no, Coelho’s no García Márquez, nor is he a Rushdie, but The Alchemist is an inspirational story that even an educated person can enjoy— despite eye-rolling lines like “a mysterious force begins to convince them that it will be impossible to realize their Personal Legend” (21).

Hard core lit-snobs can call me silly and throw books at me, but I think I am going to have the courage of my convictions and continue to enjoy this simple piece of literature that takes itself too seriously, just because it brings me joy. And because of that, I will not call it bad literature. It’s hard to remain objective when something is personal, and I am not ready to become cynical enough to dismiss the messages within the text. I may be too idealistic but I think that because of its inspirational quality, it has cultural worth. However, I am not ready to jump up and join Coelho’s nutty fan club, nor become some deranged Warrior of Light.
Also, it may be possible that the Portuguese version sounds more poetic and thus not as cheezy.

The END of Cumanda

(It's all English today folks, broken pc, using roomies laptop—which does not have a Spanish keyboard installed... excuses, excuses)

I must admit that the second half of Cumanda was easier to get through than the first half, probably because there was more dialogue and more action. I even began to enjoy it a bit.

I thought that that the plot took an interesting twist at the end with the death of Cumanda, though I believe it needed to happen. First, because I think that, for it’s time, the book was already controversial, being that it was about the forbidden love of a colonist with a “savage Amazonian head-huntress”, and that the twist was that Carlos and Cumanda were really brother and sister; but, how would the author be able to just end their feelings for each other without killing one of them. Their feelings for each other were so strong it wouldn’t have been believable if the passion was immediately extinguished. And it would have been too shocking if the characters ran off and fell in love anyways, or lived with their passions for each other, though ignored them. I don’t know if society would have accepted a book like that. Second, I believe that such a romantic book needed a dramatic ending. Everything was romanticized, from the flowers to the jungle, to the river, to the frogs mating, to the bonfire. In my opinion, a happy ending would have made it flat and redundant.

I also thought it was interesting that Cumanda was the most beautiful girl in all the tribes, and it turned out, she wasn’t even native. She was white and the most beautiful. Does anyone else find this to be an obvious bias? From what I understand, the author was trying to remain objective, was he not? And I understand that he was probably one of the more excepting people of other cultures and it was obvious that he admired the Indigenous culture, but, though we could excuse him for being a product of his own culture, I felt that the continuous name calling of the indigenous people as savage and barbaric made his attempt at enlightening the public of the indigenous ways, fall short.

Eva Luna - The second half of the book

During Fridays discussion, we were asked to contemplate whether a book could be considered good literature if we didn't relate to, or feel for the characters. This question made me think back to other books I have read and whether I felt for the characters or not.

The one book that stood out in my mind was Nabokov's Lolita. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, it is about an older gentleman, Humbert, who becomes obsessed with a twelve year old girl in his care, Lolita. While I was reading this book, though I found the main character, Humbert, to be repulsive, I also found at times, as he was the narrator, that, despite his repulsive obsession, I was able to understand his reasoning and even felt sad for him. My point here being, the fact that I felt for the characters (both Humbert and Lolita) resulted in my enjoyment of the book.


In comparison, though I felt satisfied that I was reading literature for a change and not long winded articles on, say secularism, and I did enjoy the fantastic voyage Allende took me on from one character to the next, I walked away from this book with no feelings whatsoever. I didn't have that same sadness I have when I finish a book and say goodbye to the characters and put them away. Mind you, preference does not make a book a good piece of literature and I believe that, though it is hard to separate personal taste from objective reasoning, it must be done.

So do I think we need to be able to relate to and feel for the characters in a book for it to be good literature? No. I tend to enjoy a book more when I do relate to the characters. When I read Pride and Prejudice, I could barely stay awake and found I was irritated by the characters throughout the entire book, but I was able to recognize that it was good literature and deserved merit. Is Eva Luna good literature? Not so sure anymore, I thought it was at first but I found the last three chapters to be contrived. I think Allende rushed her happy endings, and though Eva’s happy ending was ambiguous, I think both endings were somewhat happy – she did get the great job and was with Rolfe, if even temporarily. Anyways, I digress, I think I am sitting on the fence really, the book wasn’t great, but it may deserve merit.

Cumandá: 10 capitulos

Cuándo yo googled la palabra Cumandá, aprendí que es un lugar en Ecuador (según cabe suponer el lugar en el foto) y una planta que se usa como medicina. En el libro es el nombre de "la joven... que significa patillo blanco, la cual, no obstante su belleza, permananecía soltera" (102). Me pregunto si hay una significado entre los tres definiciones.

El primer capitulo era muy difícil a leer para mí porque hay muchos adjetivos nuevos que nunca he aprendida, los descripciones eran muy prolífico y a veces, podía ver lo que Mera describe. Creo que conocía la selva bien y quizá pasaba mucho tiempo allí. También, a través el resto de los capítulos, nunca paraba describiendo con mucha familiaridad y admiración a las caracteres, los marcos de la historia.

Una tema muy obvio es la tema de la familia. Para las caracteres parece que la familia es muy importante y el amor y devoción de esos caracteres es muy conmovedor y creo que es una de la más importante partes de la historia de Mera. La historia es sobre un amor tabú entre Cumandá y Carlos, los dos de culturas muy diferente entonces, la historia, asimismo es del amor prohibido
y las dos culturas. Parece que Mera hace comentarios sobre como es posible que dos culturas muy diferentes pueden (o no pueden) vivir juntos y los problemas que puede causar.

Eva Luna: the first 5 chapters

It is difficult for me to find fault in Allende's Eva Luna, due, in part, to the fact that my Spanish is not advanced enough to comment on the use of language, and also, because I am enjoying the story.

So far, I haven't been able to find what about this book makes it "bad literature". First of all, the characters come across as sincere and the storyline is light and interesting. Each character is developed just enough to make them colourful, yet remain believable. The role of Eva Luna's character seems to be, for now, of the observer. She is jostled from home to home and stays only long enough to get to know the people of each place and then some crisis occurs and she is moved again to another place. Her only major actions happen at specific moments, but then she returns to her role as the narrator, who, for the most part, has no control over what happens around her. As her character is a child for the first half of the book, this seems accurate.

The plot is fluid and, though there are many changes in the setting (which keeps things interesting), the storyline is still easy to follow. Although, despite the fact that the story is never too heavy (as of yet), Allende manages to touch on political and cultural issues of the time. Perhaps one can accuse Allende of being too accessible to readers of all cultures, which may restrict her from taking the story too deep; however, this is only an assumption of what others may believe, of which I would disagree.

El peor libro

Me da vergüenza pero, lo más peor libro que he leído es "The Da Vinci Code". Cuando viví en México, leí todos mis libros en inglés y mi compañera de cuarto tuvo solo esto libro en inglés, entonces desesperado, lo leí.
Es lo más peor porque Dan Brown escribe como si escribiendo para niños. La historia era interesante (más o menos) pero la lenguaje es un insulto; la gramática, a veces, es equivicado, (problamente como la gramática en esto blog, pero inglés es su primera idioma entonces no tiene excusa) y la vocabulario es débil y sin color, solo usa las palabras más familiar a los lectores, nunca trata usar lenguaje que es único o creativo. No entiendo porque era un libro que hacía mucho dinero, que era muy popular; tengo una idea pero es sobre el publico y demasiado negativo. Aunque, yo lo leí.
"The Da Vinci Code" es lo más peor libro que he leído porque es un insulto por nos inteligencias.

literatura y la familia

Lo que es más interesante sobre las familias en literatura es que son reflejos de las familias en realidad; aunque, hay diferencias también. Por ejemplo, en la historia de Marquez, "Cien años de soledad", la familia es familiar por que todos tienen lineas ancestrales y muchas historias sobre las personas en sus familias, pero, claro en "Cien años de soledad", hay realismo mágico que es fantástico y asimismo, personas que no todos pueden relatar... pero, esto no es interesante al fin y al cabo.
A mí, lo que es más interesante es las familias de los otros países. Acabo leer un libro se llama "The Moonlit Cage", por LInda Holeman y No es lo más mejor libro que he leído pero es muy interesante por que es sobre la vida de una mujer de Afganistán. Su familia era muy interesante por que era muy diferente de mi familia o las familias de mis amigos. Creo que es por que las expectaciones de las mujeres son muy diferente allí, entonces sus relaciones con su madre y padre eran menos abierto que mis relaciones con mi madre y padre.
Entonces, a mi, lo que es más interesante sobre las familias en literatura es las diferencias, y puedo ver estas diferencias en la literatura sobre culturas diferentes.