All Good Things Come to an End (except for Piglia’s book because WTF was that. It should’ve ended a page into the book)

4 Replies

I’ve read 10 entire books! Probably more than I have ever read in a year, nowadays. I came into this course with the obvious idea that I will be reading many books, but I never thought it’d be this much. I think what I anticipated to have accomplished from this course has been done. That is to bring back my passion and time for reading. I’m so glad that I have taken my chance on this course, to take it. Also, I’m beyond grateful that I had the many opportunities to achieve my goals through this course that has easily allowed flexibility in doing so.

My favourite book has to be “Death with Interruptions” by José Saramago probably because of the heavy amount of political and economic aspects of the book. Also, I can’t help but mention “The Hour of the Star” written by Clarice Lispector. I’m just obsessed with the author herself and how she writes literature in a way that isn’t so complicated and in a stupid way (sorry to some of the other books). Lispector doesn’t do too much, and is rather a lot more relaxed in her writing. I’d definitely read her other books, despite this course being over. Random, but sometimes I do imagine if Lispector was still alive and came in to talk to us about her book. I’m a little crazy for even thinking that, but honestly you can’t tell me there wouldn’t be other people in this class that’d be interested in this.

I don’t like hating books haha… because I think there is usually that one little thing that you can like in a book. Personally though “Money to burn” by Ricardo Piglia was intolerable to read, mostly because of the very vulgar style of writing. I think there was some substantive action in the book, through the plot that made it a little interesting. HOWEVER, I CAN’T HELP BUT STILL HATE IT.

Aside from all these last concluding thoughts, I’d like to give Dr. Jon Beasley-Murray a big thank you for arranging such a cool course. I never have had a contact- based course in university, and also an instructor with such liveliness! The lecture videos were such a vibe to watch. I’d dim down my lights to bring in some warm ambiance, and sip the drink pairing given if it was something that I could have, along with watching the videos.

Additionally, I don’t want to forget to thank both TA’s, Tesi and Daniel. For making insightful comments on our posts, holding that one discussion for us when the class time schedules had some conflict, and posting our blog posts at the break of dawn (for me at least haha).

Question: When watching the lecture videos, reading the book, or writing the blog post, what was the overall ambiance you created when doing those activities?

Sad Momma Gone Wild

9 Replies

From the start of the book of “Faces in the Crowd,” I thought I was going to emphasize with the narrator who is a mom to two children and has a husband. It seemed to be that she was struggling raising her kid, her depression during and after pregnancy, while being in a marriage that lost its love. As a woman, I’ve been surrounded by women I know that have been through these things. It’s unfortunately no surprise.

BUT NAH. The narrator’s definition of reciprocity was making ‘sleeping arrangements’ for people (women that weren’t her husband pretty much LOL). I think I laughed when I read that… and I actually lost it when she was hiding all this cheating with Dakota. I’m not justifying the lack of presence in the narrator’s life as he clearly seemed to like her in a physical way and wanted her for kids. Also according to their son, man had some mood swings that became an issue for the family. Anyway, I didn’t see much emotional love in their relationship, especially from the husband’s side. To the point where the narrator says how she is “conceiving an infinite hatred of the other.” Crazy right. Maybe y’all thought another kid would solve whatever love-less marriage you had, but let’s be so real, when is this going to ever happen.

OH YEAH. We love hiding and lying to our husbands even more. The narrator also has her moment with a female prostitute, Iselin as if Dakota, some random girlie wasn’t enough. I didn’t expect this at all honestly. Maybe it’s because I don’t typically see mom’s in my life do a brief switch to the other side. I mean go for it, but the husband being unaware of this, until he finds the narrator’s laptop open and see’s she is writing about Iselin and the narrator’s sexual interactions. At this point, I’ve given up on whatever family thing the narrator was trying to bring back together. All I have to say is these poor kids. If both my parents were this fucked (please excuse my language), I would’ve had such trauma that would even affect my future relationship/s.

Sure, Papa is missing. But Momma is also confused and finds you kids emotionally invaluable. Actually the legs and mini-skirts are a lot more important. No offence, but before you pop out a kid or even conceive one you must know that things won’t be the same! Be it a mom or dad, you have to have room emotionally to literally have infinite love for them to truly be good parents. Regardless if you’re poor, half-alive, physically unavailable, or whatever excuse there is, your kid is going to be your everything. A kid should rarely feel like a chore, nor something that you simply don’t want to raise.

Yes, identity is something that takes people a long time to figure out and sometimes it changes significantly. Although, I think there needs to be conversation if it is going to affect your loved ones.

There’s a part near the end of the book where the narrator is reminded of Julio Torri’s ideas of cycling being like a thought of freedom. Like can I get on the cycle instead.

Question: do we like the Narrator as a character in the book? do you think Valeria Luiselli has experienced these things herself ? (lol)

Please Excuse the Word Count… I LOVE THIS BOOK.

3 Replies

“Death with Interruptions” by José Saramago is the kind of fiction book I enjoy. I’m typically not a fiction lover, but I think the amount of philosophy and political aspects in this book makes me so curious that I somehow remain focused on the book. Even when it takes a while for a reader to understand the characters in the book. This book seems to cover probably one of the most ethical and philosophical question to exist: is it worth living when it feels like you’re in between death/dying?

It was almost like I got the insider scoop, the one potential answer to this question, until the ending, where Death doesn’t die HA. I absolutely think that it was a good choice to take this path. I feel that some people may not be as satisfied with the book given how the book DRAGS out the story with mentions of death on every page, only for there to be no answer to the question that everyone’s asking. However, the between life and death in these situations is a gray zone where I personally feel it is meant to be like you’re prolonging what is going to happen; I mean that’s just life.

We start the book with two movements that occur in the society: one believing in beating death through willpower, and the other advocating for eternal life as the new reality. The Prime Minister couldn’t seem to accept death, potentially because of the Queen Mother already being on the fence of death. However, the religious leaders (the catholic roman church) opposed not dying at all, because they thought that it is fundamental to the religious doctrine.

The absence of death leads to questions about how hospitals and the funeral industries are going to do with this new normal. Graveyards suggest burying or cremating domestic animals to keep the business going. How interesting that as much as we wish our loved ones to live, industries like that pretty much need the death to keep their business running. Also the over crowdedness of hospitals lead to indefinite patient stays because they don’t know when they could potentially die and are also suffering in the ‘in-between.’ As a result of some concern, the Prime Minister proposes a symbolic age of mandatory death that allows for him holding his political position.

The maphia (not mafia because it’s different according to the book) then gets randomly involved. They have some sort of control with the government. The maphia created a plan to transport dying individuals across the border for burial, charging exorbitant fees. Families started getting scared and stopped sending their families across the border. That is when to cover up the maphia started labeling deaths as suicides to continue business.

Just as I was already getting so intrigued with the plot, it thickens! Later in the book, a letter is sent to the director-general’s office with no warnings, the secretary opens it (LOL). The director general catches the secretary and orders her out. At that moment the director general panics and hurries to share this news with the prime minister because this can change things for everyone. At midnight the prime minister and director-general inform the public on TV about the return of mortality (oopsie). Obviously there is a lot of chaos. As a political science major I definitely over-analyzed this moment in the book. Anyway, some people start dying, but then they make the change for people to have one week warning before dying to say their byes with their families and friends. This part was very sad and I can’t imagine the amount of sadness in the society. Some people didn’t believe the better though in correlation to the Deaths’ letter. National flags are put on homes that have deceased individuals for doctors to help. It’s so devastating to read.

I completely forgot, but Death is a character in this book in itself. Which I find so interesting! Death pretty much makes all the decisions and Death is almost human-like. For example, having favorite interests like art and finding love with the Cellist (kind of symbolic and funny). I’m sure there’s so much more to say about this book. But I chose to focus more on the societal structures of the book! Probably because it’s more in line with political science that is my major and interest!

Question: Do you think dying should happen at some point of our lives? And for what reason do you think that? (no judgement, just curious to hear other perspectives :))

OR/AND

How did you feel reading this book?

The Evil Gay ‘Twin’ Lovers & other Psychotic Male Characters that Hide Crime for Money?! Maybe you deserve jail.

11 Replies

I absolutely DESPISED this book, “Money to Burn” by Ricardo Piglia. It was a difficult read with the characters being all over the place with their odd descriptions. Needless to say this book had more action and crime than the other books, although the amount of vulgar words was insane. The next time I force myself to read this book again (never), I’ll need to take a shot of hot sauces that go up a level of intensity, as shown on the “Hot Ones” series. I absolutely tried to like some of the characters because of their ‘voices’ in their head, wanting to escape to open their Argentinian restaurant, or whatever.

Do I really care though? Good job at justifying robbery (if you’ve forgotten, an illegal crime).

I’ll give a brief summary of who this story consists of: a group of criminals who did an armed bank robbery in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Their names being Malito, the Crow, the Kid (Brignone), the Blond Gaucho (Dorda), Twisty Bazan and Nando. Likely more but these are the people I managed to catch while reading.

Then there were characters like Blanca (the Girl), an overly sexualized 16 year old girl in the book. That is later beaten up by the police to get information. She was the girlfriend of Crow Mereles, this weird drug and sex addict (isn’t that every character in this book). The Girl is also shared amongst all these men. This book is so uncomfy to read.

Dorda and Brignone are the ‘twins.’ Similarly to Mereles, Dorda is said to be a psychotic killer, according to his mother who saw him with such evil intentions as a child, has a drug obsession too, and he hears women’s voices in his head. In many ways, those voices can suggest Dorda’s gender conflicts, the sexual assault he faced in jail, or it may just be the drugs. Brignone has some deeply psychological issues too with young girls. I actually wanted to gag with the way he would describe how inappropriately he’d think about girls. Those who read those specific pages, know.

I think many people may think of this passage to feel a little bad for the twins especially:

‘Those who fled’ (said Commissioner Silva, speaking off there cord) ‘are dangerous individuals, antisocial elements, homosexuals and drug addicts,’ to which the Chief of Police added, […] they’re common criminals, psychopaths and murderers with extensive police records (72).

Although, they’re so messed up in the head that I literally don’t feel an ounce of sadness for them.

Nando this big man boss and Malito the true boss and mastermind of them all, yes are horrible people but the rest of the male characters are just as worse. Malito is a silly little traitor ONLY because someone had to do it, sorry 🙁

The following text sums up his stupidity:

“Malito was the boss and had made his plans and prepared his contacts with politicians and the police who furnished him with data, maps, details and to whom, in return, he would give half of the proceeds” (4) LOL BE SO FR.

The fact that this story was based on a true story is insane, because why is everyone trying to escape jail. Maybe you deserve it one way or another? Haha. Then, Piglia, the author of the book, was sued because of Twisty Bazan’s character by his real life daughter. Apparently he wasn’t a hard core euphoric drug user? I don’t believe that haha. These people are crazy. I think the people you surround yourself with have an indirect role in molding who you are and will be. Also, all this because of money? Like damn you are SO out of touch with what makes life, a LIFE worth living. Only at the end of the book, when especially Brignone dies is when they realize the riches of life are the relationships, friendships, love, family, and loyalty that matters. I guess burn the money.

Question: Who was your favorite character in this book? (bold of me to ask this)

GO TO JAIL PLEASE. BOTH OF U “LOVERS” !!!

6 Replies

THEY DON’T NEED THERAPY, THEY NEED JAIL TIME. Warning: This book is so utterly explicit that my blog will have to be, so I am sorry if this is a bit much.

I’m 100% sure this relationship is simply sexual. Maybe I’m just a little conservative, but there is simply no excuse to make one accept that sort of age gap where the girl is underage! Be White, Asian, Middle Eastern, I don’t care but I will still treat this kind of a problem the same for all people despite their race. This is not a money thing, nor a race thing in my opinion. This issue could have never happened in the first place, that is how I know this is purely (how ironic) sexual.

I’m giving THE STANK EYES to both The Narrator, the White girl and The Lover, the old Chinese man.

They are both at fault.

Why lie about your age being 17 and not 15. In all honesty though, it does not make it any better by being 2 years. How is The Lover still ok with a young girl anyways? Does it make him feel better that he is desired by a White girl? It is so disgusting to be ok with using the young girl for sexual desires. Would you ever let your younger sister or daughter do that?! Is it that she’s a White girl that you think she has no value, making it ok to mess her life up. He is a grown man that knows what sex can do to a person. The girl is just clueless.

The Narrator’s family is sad with her abusive and opium addict older brother. Also the mother that allows her daughter to sell herself to that man (pays money to the school board so The Narrator can sleep with her Lover) and encourages her son’s addiction.

BUT STILL WHERE IS HER SELF RESPECT. She gives herself, but then ends up attached (no shit) and crying. The Lover tells her that he can never marry her, but still does whatever she does anyways. Please focus on your school girly. She is probably very uneducated about sex given that you’re even put into this situation. Attraction does not justify doing whatever you want. Also, bold of The Lover to assume The Narrator did not once think about the money he had. What else would the girl want to do with you besides the ‘attraction’ and money. Be so forreal, that’s a young girl that probably does not know what a true and healthy relationship is.

Let’s not forget to mention the borderline rape scene after the dinner with the family?! I really could not deal with these two. I am not a professional relationship expert but this book is not about love or lovers, it’s nonsense.

The only character I liked in this book is the younger brother. HE DESERVES JUSTICE. Poor guy is sobbing all throughout the book because of the chaotic family he is born into.

Great, she’s a writer now! Used him to write his book, but I think The Lover used her just as much to satisfy his desires (he’s probably lacking that with his wife).

Question: Who was your favorite character in the book? Also, do you think if The Narrator was educated on sex and relationships that she would have been less likely to be or get fooled by the relationship with The Narrator?

macabéa is so real for this (she’s my star).

3 Replies

“The Hour of the Star” is written by Brazilian author Clarice Lispector. First of all, I love Clarice Lispector’s way of having a male be the narrator- that being Rodrigo, rather than it being herself. Lispector’s thinking and reasoning for every small detail from the title to the philosophy all over the book fascinated me rather than the story itself. Since, last class when Dr. Jon Beasley-Murray mentioned how people tend to write the same things. I will try my best to take a different approach to show how I understand the book.

What I took away from the plot was how this book follows the life of Macabéa, an uneducated woman that is a typist. She’s extremely poor (paid below minimum wage) and lives in Rio de Janeiro.

She’s a young woman, similar to the ages most tuniversity students are right now, that’s forced into growing up. Definitely the economic situation of Brazil did not help with her life, causing her to live in poverty. Despite all of this though, Macabéa never fails to be in touch with her dreams, has a heart filled with so much love, and passionately does everything she does like being a typist. She’s what many Gen-Z women and girls aspire to be like, she has an irresistible and relatable charm without Macabéa purposely making this her persona. She paints her lips to look like Marylin Monroe, catches up on the ‘culture’ on the radio, cuts pictures out of culture magazines, dresses very femininely, and fantasies the day she’ll get married. I have never seen a woman out of all these books that seem so alike to me, but at the same time not. She struggles in life in such a serious way, like not having basic necessities to live. Although her playfulness and youthfulness is something I just understood! The way in which she acts is just so real. I also love Coca Cola haha. Practically everyone in the book is annoyed by her childish- like tendencies, except for the narrator that sounds like he’s in love with her. I find it so odd that people had such a problem with her. She’s just a girl.

Anyways, to continue with the story, Macabéa meets a very cheating and manipulative man named Olímpico. He mistreats her with having an affair with a co-worker, but Macabéa being the this loving girl is still infatuated with Olímpico.

Again, in so many ways there are women with so much forgiveness and are so blind-sighted like Macabéa. However, can we judge her? Personally, I have experienced women in my life that are just like her. Just so kind and sweet that they’re easily taken advantage of. It’s unfortunate. I will say her character archetype reminds me of “the maiden,” that’s essentially the embodiment of innocence and seeing the good in people. They are often young girls but some take this childishness with them even in adulthood. Examples of other characters I’ve noticed having these characteristics are: Daphne in Bridgerton, many Disney Princesses, Princess Anne in Roman Holiday (honestly almost every Audrey Hepburn movie character), and there’s so much more.

Towards the end of the book, Macabéa’s story tragically ends. Her entire life was seeing the world as such a happy place and from her lens, she looked with so much hope. She goes to a fortune-teller where she depicts that her life will get better by meeting a “foreign white man” (how funny) the second she gets out of the door. Instead, she is killed in a car accident by a taxi. I was sad when this happened, but I couldn’t help but laugh a little. Lispector I believe had the same intent when writing this scene.

Overall, I genuinely enjoyed reading this short book and it was a little bit of a break from all of these women that take life so seriously. Yes, I think that the struggles of every woman throughout these books we’ve read is so horrible and serious. But, I’m a reader who enjoys a little bit of playfulness in a book even if it’s so incredibly traumatic. I think Lispector has done a beautiful job in writing Macabéa’s character.

Do you think Clarice Lispector was influenced by her youth to write Macabéa’s portrayal of innocence? Since the last few years she was alive, she appeared the complete opposite of how Macabéa is in her book?

Women in Crazy Relationships- Season 5 Episode 100

8 Replies

Yet again another woman with a troubling life, by the social circumstances given by the men in her life. A book called “The Time of the Doves” by Mercè Rodoreda. The main character, Natalia starts off by working at a pastry shop and is persuaded by her friend Julieta to go to an event. That is where she meets a young man that gives her the nickname Colometa, meaning dove (I think). He is Quimet, and Natalia breaks up with Pere for him. This name comes through the book later on where a reader can see how Quimet, Natalia’s first husband, begins to collect doves. Natalia starts to get annoyed by the doves eventually, and starts messing with the eggs to get rid of them. From my perspective I see how she may feel like a confiscated dove as they are kept and sold. When for many people doves represent freedom, and nor the doves or Natalia has it. Natalia in the book also contemplates killing her children due to extreme hardship, after Quimet dies in war. This crazy thought of breaking the norms of ‘motherly love’ is also haunted by visions of hands and eggs from the birds. In many ways, it’s probably because the dove selling business Quimet loved and had brought them income to live. Even though the doves troubled Natalia, it maybe felt wrong to ‘throw away’ one of the most important things of her dead husband’s life. Overall, Natalia was struggling with poverty and loss, including the death of her father and Quimet. The story does a good job (in no way is it a good situation) at showing the harsh realities of war and the toll it takes on individuals and families. I kind of wished Natalia left amongst the other people in the city, as maybe she wouldn’t have considered murder. Natalia was probably hoping for a better future, even though people were still being shot in the square of the city. She chose to be in disbelief, but it’s a dangerous thought to be in. She eventually sells her belongings, tries to find work, and doesn’t kill her children with some chemical. Which is one of the great parts of the book. Although, as a result of this situation in the book, it made me think about the amount of people who don’t leave a city that’s in a bad state because of their patriotism towards the country. I have my mom’s side of the family back home in Afghanistan as of right now that fell victim to sticking around for “better times.” They regret it now.

I think a big chuck of the book had me thinking about Quimet and Natalia’s relationship. I think Natalia is facing those conflicts because she doesn’t know how to live without him. Quimet controlled Natalia, from the jealousy from the get-go, making Natalia break up with Pere. Honestly, justice for Pere because his heart was torn from somehow happening to be in between Quimet and Natalia’s crazy love story. Pere was crying and said how she “wrecked his life.” Even Natalia felt bad, but is she genuinely? I think Natalie was busy thinking about the sexual energy between her and the “handsome, young man” (very repeatedly said by her), to even care about the reality of her life. She was actively dismissed by Quimet, like for example there’s a part in the book where Natalia tells Quimet how she dislikes Gaudi’s buildings and he essentially tells her that as a wife she has to like everything he likes. They have great moments though, like how Quimet buys a motorcycle and talks about having kids (way too much). But isn’t that the same storyline as every toxic relationship. In my opinion, I didn’t like their relationship. I don’t think love or sexual tension is enough to keep a relationship healthy for both people in it. Because, that can easily go away.

I know the main debate for many people is: Did you think Natalia is right for considering killing her children, given the circumstances? Also did you like Quimet and Natalia’s relationship?

Is this Barcelona Or the Wild?

7 Replies

“Nada” by Carmen Laforet had me questioning if this was the craziest, yet oddly realistic, family I have ever read about. Aside from all the comments about the women in the book acting like animals, from the grandmother or men, I still could not understand why Andrea bothered to stay so long in this family (for simply being human). I could see why Gloria was having trouble leaving, because of the abusive relationship she was in with her husband, Juan. I will almost always support reasons as to why women act in a certain way; we are typically logical and reasonable beings, although there is no excuse for not leaving, especially when your baby was attempted to be murdered by the father two times (that I’ve counted). The grandmother was another annoying character with her Christian morals and it often aligned with only her daughter and daughter-in-laws, and never for the sons, Roman and Juan. For instance, when Andrea wanted to go to Barcelona, she was told to remain an “innocent, Christian girl” and to only study. I don’t mean that it is not a valid moral, but it is the fact that the grandmother ignores and rather praises her sons who cheat on their wives with their brother’s wife. The book makes us believe that the grandmother is the only loving person in the house, but she uses her ‘love’ (Christian phrases) to control the women in the house. The same goes for Aunt Augustian, but she is just a lot more direct with the control, especially with shaming Andrea for being an orphan and Gloria for being a bad wife. On that note, Juan also shames Gloria. For example, there is a moment in the book where Juan uses a glass object to try to hit Gloria with it, but cuts the baby’s hand. Juan then puts the blame on Gloria for being an awful mother. Seemingly, it shows how the men are never held responsible for their horrible actions. This book has similar themes for showing the sufferings women go through because of men, especially during, before, and a bit after a particular war in a country. These situations still speak for what some women go through even today, like unfortunately being in abusive relationships. Andrea even says her family members are like “ghostly women.” The level of poverty in the home made these horrible conditions even worse for the women. As they were allowed to take a limited amount of showers and eat less food, according to the orders of the Aunt, mostly.

My question is: Do you think this story was based on a true story of a family?

“The Shrouded Woman[‘s]” Point of View on Life and Death

7 Replies

“The Shrouded Woman” by María Luisa Bombal, follows a woman named Ana-Maria takes over the book with how she is the symbol of femininity and, in today’s world, is pleasing to the “male gaze.” It definitely may not be intentional, but she does end up being a vocation for three men. As seen in this part of the text:

Though, the struggles that Ana- Maria faces in her life, for simply being a woman, sums up Bombal’s The Shrouded Woman. This was the messiest book I read thus far in my life. The story was going so fast and everyone in the book was acting feral (I don’t know how else to describe it.) Legitimately, there can’t be a world where everyone is after each other, even though there is no mutual feeling of love between any of the ‘couples’. New characters were introduced out of nowhere, like the Alberto guy. I think because it’s supposed to be a fiction, that maybe those things don’t make sense. Or, my life is just boring, and I’m not seeing this much stupidity, considering they seem like they’re grown adults. I know how women are perceived (after all, I am one haha), but I still think it’s so wild that these multiple men are willing to ditch their partners and go after a married woman. Perhaps that’s what the book was trying to prove, similar to ‘Combray’; women are these mystical ideas, and not people with feelings, self-agency, and thought. Poor Maria though, her telling these stories of her life from her grave (literally a dead person’s POV), saying how grateful she is to be dead. Her living was like she was dead, as she mentions somewhere at the beginning of the book. At another point in the book, dead Ana- Maria shows how she sees other people seeing her life. Particularly this text stood out to me from Fernando, one of her lovers:

It goes to show the importance of how the quality of life is something that many people think about. Everyone wants to live a fulfilled, best life, knowing they will be satisfied when they die. However, realistically, not many of us will get to a point of life where we will feel ok with dying ever because life experience is endless! There is so much that you can experience, so how will you know it’s a death that you will be ok with? I’m throwing away a bunch of philosophical questions and debates. It’s odd though to think how Ana- Maria was still ok with dying, despite living a life where her marriage was unloving, a family that didn’t see her as a person with feelings, and overall her depressed life that consisted of having an alcohol dependency. “The Shrouded Woman” is a book that helped me see that side of death where one can be content with death. Whereas some books usually focus on writing about a life that they regretted, from a dead person’s POV. I still cannot get myself to like the book, though. It feels surface-level, so many storylines at once, and the writing is way too wordy to get to the point.

Question: There are a bunch of little questions in my blog that you can answer to.

Did anyone also dislike reading the book? And why?

Nadja and Breton’s Concerning Romance & it Similarly Occurring in 2024

11 Replies

Dr. Jon Beasley starts the video lecture about how this book is neither an autobiography nor a novel. So going into Nadja, I wasn’t expecting much because I thought it’d be a boring book. However, the twists and turns of this story between Nadja and Breton had so much ‘madness,’ to say the least. There were a lot of art, portraits of inspirational surrealist artists, and pictures of certain places where the romance between Nadja and Breton intensified. I enjoyed that the book did not read like a novel because the mixture of forms of storytelling helped me to try to understand the era of the book (pre-WW1). A general idea I took away from the book is how women are perceived in it. That is something people rarely think about. The whole idea that women are this idea, concept, and feeling is overly emphasized in this book. Nadja was probably made to be the protagonist, but I don’t think she was even considered a being, let alone the main character. Breton is probably the main character. A lot of the book is Breton just being so selfish! While Nadja is suffering mentally, thinking that ‘pure’/true love would mean dying with each other, and there were other things (worse) that she had thought about. I’m sure the two book reviews explained that as well.

Once reading the book, I surprisingly saw how Breton’s actions were conveying surrealism, specifically regarding women. Surrealism is explained as this idea that beauty is madness and that there’s Madness in Beauty. To link that thought, often women are depicted as having this access or teleport for a man to go into a beautiful world or a hectic one. Nadja is his muse/access, that led to the creation of the book. However, in the book, Nadja also gets blamed for how Breton himself goes ‘crazy’ because of her bad mental state. In all honesty, I think Breton was crazy to begin with. The fact that he went out of his way to throw away his prior wife, for an affair with Nadja, is wild.

I read this book at first, thinking about how insane Nadja was for sticking around for Breton. Why on earth would you accept such love from a man that borderline fetishizes “your eyes that had sadness,” the crappy clothes you once wore (when she just met him), and your horrible mental state. Until… I realized how common it is, even in today’s world. There was a part in the book where Nadja said something along the lines of “you’re going to be writing a book about me.” See that there, for many women is like the pinnacle of being the muse, the only girl that will seemingly alter this man’s life, and someone he will never forget. It’s what the majority of women die (not literally haha) for. A man giving her attention, but I think what went wrong is the intention. The attention that was given to Nadja I feel compelled her to feel loved, but Breton’s intention in my perspective was him seeing Nadja as an opportunity to take advantage of her mind for simply writing a book. This situation happens in various forms for women even in 2024, just maybe not for a book… maybe in the music industry haha. There’s so much to discuss in this book, but I think this is one of the crazy stories in Nadja.

Do you think Breton took advantage of Nadja? Did their relationship ever have mutual love for each other, or was it one sided?