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?

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...

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.