RMST 202

It is hard to believe that this is the last post I will make for this class, the term has gone by quite quickly. At the same time, it feels so long ago when our classes were being held on Zoom! Having read eleven books this term was self-satisfying – reading a book once a week also sort of changed/influenced my mindset a bit as well. I feel more knowledgeable about romance literature and more familiar with the authors’ prose. I wasn’t sure if I would be capable to fulfill the contract with the same level of dedication and enthusiasm I had at the beginning of the term, and while I do admit that I felt a bit burnt out in the last couple of weeks, it is nothing new for me near the end of the term with deadlines and final exams looming. A highlight of this course was getting the opportunity to listen to one of the influential authors, Norman Manea. Getting to meet the author of a book you have so closely read really puts things into perspective, and I enjoyed listening about his upbringing and how he came to America.

My favourite aspect of this course was the freedom and transparency. The freedom to choose which and how many more books we would read and be able to determine our letter grade from that. As a student, it is a relief to know exactly what is expected of you and to be guaranteed a reward if you fulfill the respective requirements. I also appreciate the creative freedom we have with our blog posts, that we can write whatever most interested us (or didn’t) about the text and that we are not graded on a firm analysis of the text, but rather on our reflection and opinion. If I had to choose one thing to change about the course it would probably be the ability to change our contract. Perhaps allowing the student to change their contract once or twice any time throughout the term would be more helpful. When we might have been a bit too ambitious and taken on too much, when we think we can do more than we initially thought, or just when life happens, it would be nice to be able to change our contract once, at any time. Overall, I really enjoyed listening to and discussing the content of this course and the course’s structure. I would also like to thank Jon, Jennifer, and Patricio for making the course and discussion so engaging!

This week’s reading The Society of Reluctant Dreamers by José Eduardo Agualusa revolved around dreams. Dreams have always fascinated me, as it probably should for any psychology major. The lecture mentioned how dreams are often considered to be opposed to practicality, and while I believe that can be true at times (with all of its surrealism), I think it also has some authenticity to it. Similar to how life imitates art, I think that our dreams reflect our reality. What is the purpose of dreams? Perhaps it is a way for our minds to further explore our thoughts without limits, though we ultimately have no control over them – hence the phenomena of nightmares. However, the way we interpret life and what we are exposed to can greatly influence what we dream of, so perhaps there is a way for the government to influence our dreams by censorship, false narrative, and so on. I found this quote quite interesting concerning the topic: “The war isn’t over, my friend. It’s only sleeping.” (131). For me, this statement can be taken in one of two ways. First, the war is on a temporary pause. Second, the war is still prominent in our sleep, signifying how we dream of the war even when it is not active.

I think we also discussed memories, in particular, false memories, earlier this term. However, I am currently unable to recall which text we were discussing. Nonetheless, I think that false memories and dreams are also related to each other, in that they both alter our perception of reality and cause us to think differently. Moreover, we may mistake our dreams for reality because they are that realistic to us, we feel that we have truly experienced them. Similarly, dreams are also fleeting. Though I dream almost every night, I can only remember a handful of my dreams. My question is, what do you make of your dreams? Do you try to interpret them and find a deeper meaning or are they just completely random to you?

Overall, I had a difficult time following this text because of my lack of knowledge of the historical setting. Like many of the texts throughout this course, I felt like I was missing out on context. Though I can usually still make it through, and I found the theme of dreams really intriguing, it was still a challenge for me. However, that may also just be because we are nearing the end of the term.

A common theme I have come across in the books we have been reading recently is war. Last week having read Amulet, in which a woman hides from the army invasion in her university bathroom and the week before that with The Trenchcoat and its totalitarian control and paranoia. I think it is awfully relatable to the current world issue today with what is happening in Ukraine. Had I taken this course a year or even a term prior, I would not be able to compare and contrast the situations and see the connections directly. Moreover, it makes me wonder what thoughtful works by Ukrainian authors are being written at this very moment. Today we have social media platforms in which information and awareness can be spread more easily, and censorship is harder to control compared to the times of The Trenchcoat, Amulet, and Soldiers of Salamis. With that in mind, I pose the question to you: how do you think writing about this tragic topic has changed over time?

On to Cercas’s book itself, prior to watching the lecture, I began this book with a fresh mindset but I wasn’t really sure what type of book I was reading, in particular, whether it was fiction or non-fiction. Nonetheless, I enjoyed how we followed along with the narrator on the investigation of Sanchez Mazas and discovered how little the narrator (and by default, us, the readers) know about the war. I think this also connects back to the accessibility and spread of information (and misinformation) in comparison to then and now. Today, if one has access to the internet, they can simply look up the current news and political figures/heroes. While it may be challenging to differentiate the truth from false narratives and censorship, I think it is a lot easier to do now than ever before. The text also examines the nature of war heroes and how their legacy is dependent on how long they are remembered. This reminded me of the quote “You die twice. Once when you take your final breath, and then again the last time someone says your name.” I can not recall where I remember this quote from or whether it was from a film or song, but it seems to be the same idea Cercas is demonstrating in his text. If any of you know the origin of this quote, please let me know!

I wasn’t quite sure what to make of this text by Bolano. It was a bit difficult for me to follow, but what I got out of it was that it centers around a young woman named Auxilio Lacouture who recalls her life and a few memorable women named Elena, Remedios, and Lilian. The story revolves around Latin American literature, I think Mexican poetry to be more specific. Auxilio is in a bathroom at her university, hiding from an army invasion while she reminisces about her life and poetry. This reminded me of two books we have previously read in this course.
First, The Shrouded Woman by Bombal, in which Ana Maria also recalls her eventful and somewhat tragic life, similar to Auxilio. However, unlike Auxilio, Ana Maria was already dead at this point when recalling her life, whereas Auxilio is almost facing death. Auxilio can still see her future ahead of her, and the potential she has. Ana Maria had no choice but to accept her past and come to terms with her death to pass in peace. Reading both narratives of Auxilio and Ana Maria was enlightening and puts things into perspective.
Second, was a book we read just last week and had the pleasure of meeting the author, The Trenchcoat by Norman Manea. The similar theme I saw between this text and Amulet was the backdrop of war/violence and the uncertainty of it all. The way Auxilio has to hide from the right-wing army reminded me a bit of how Manea had to hide his writing a bit to avoid censorship, using code names. In last week’s zoom call, Manea also mentioned how one in four people were spies amongst them, once again demonstrating the paranoia, fear, and lack of trust in the texts.
While Amulet is a bit confusing, it is also difficult to put down. I admired the poetic style of the text. However, most of all, I enjoyed the stream of consciousness narrative implemented in this text. This technique allows the reader to witness the character’s, in this case, Auxilio’s, thoughts and emotions. We get some insight into her state of mind as she is recalling her life and I think it provides a lot more depth not only to her character but to the text as a whole.
My question is, given the glimpse we’ve had into her life, do you find Auxilio relatable? Or would you have acted differently under the same circumstances?

I initially started reading this text before watching the lecture – a mistake on my part. Prior to watching the lecture, the text didn’t make much sense to me, it was vague and ambiguous and I felt as though I was missing context. After watching the lecture and learning that Manea had written this text in a certain way to dodge the censorship, the text made a lot more sense to me. Even though I still wasn’t certain what the ex or trenchcoat was supposed to represent, knowing that Manea was working around the censorship made reading the text all the more interesting.

As we discussed at the beginning of the term in class, as readers, we have a tendency to try and make sense of what we read and find meaning in every little detail even when there may not be. In relation to that, I found myself trying to look for deeper meanings anywhere I could throughout the text, like who exactly was the unnamed one. At first glance, the text seems to use a lot of symbolism, but upon further reading, I figured that maybe some of the characters and prominent objects are merely just as they are – that perhaps they aren’t meant to symbolize anything. For example, the trenchcoat is also referred to as a raincoat or overcoat at times, so perhaps it really just is a coat. On the other hand, would the author really name his text after something truly meaningless? Moreover, the repetitive presence of the coat throughout the text also hints that it must be significant in some way to the text. Overall, the text felt vague and ambiguous, but on purpose. I think that Manea was trying to demonstrate the uncertainty and paranoia during the time through his writing, and he did so successfully.

What did the trenchcoat represent to you? Do you think it has a different meaning than the term raincoat or overcoat?

I’m really looking forward to hearing Manea’s thoughts on his text after so much time has passed by. Perhaps he can help make more sense of it and clarify the ambiguous text. I’d also like to know what it was like to write such a story during that state and time of Romania, the pressure must have been immense. My question for Manea is, how did you feel while writing this text, considering the censorship? If you could, would you have changed anything about this text?

At first glance, I wasn’t sure what to make of Perec’s book’s title. In class, we previously discussed the influence and significance of a title. We first discussed how the choice to keep “Bonjour Tristesse” in its untranslated form gave the book some context in just two words – i.e. that it is French. We also later discussed how the different titles of “The Time of the Doves” may have affected our perspective of the book, for example, in comparison to the title “Diamond Square”, these titles are completely unrelated to each other but still represent the book. Furthering that discussion, Perec’s title “W, or the Memory of Childhood” was peculiar to me. The latter part of the title is pretty basic and self-explanatory, but the former is quite abstract and made me wonder what “W” is meant to symbolize in the text, and why it is mutually exclusive from childhood memories. “W” is later revealed to be an uncharted island by Tierra del Fuego, from the fantasized imagination of his childhood – something I couldn’t have really picked up on just from the title itself. However, the elusiveness of the title also made me more curious about it. I think it’s really interesting to look back at our childhood memories as an adult and see them differently with a new, more experienced perspective. That being said, I enjoyed following Perec’s journey of introspection and uncovering memories – whether they are the truth or fantasy.
Another aspect that stood out to me while reading the text was the consistent switch between chapters. Half of the book was autobiographical while the other half carried on with the fictional story. I’ve come across this style/form previously not only in literature but also in movies and television shows (though I can’t think of any in particular at the moment), but they typically follow the same genre and relate to each other, whilst also having there own distinct storylines/narratives. Overall, I’m not usually a big fan of this form/structure – but I see how Perec is attempting to piece together these fragmented childhood memories consistently throughout the book. Between these two alternating narratives, we also witness events through the lens of reality and fantasy, which gradually merge into one near the conclusion of the book.
My question is whether you felt like this book was two stories in one, or how implementing the two alternating narratives made the book stronger/meaningful or more enjoyable.

I found this text to be enlightening and thought-provoking. For me, Rodoreda’s writing style was sometimes over-descriptive, but often it made the story more sensual and poetic. Overall, this text was a fairly simple read; I didn’t have to try hard to understand the meaning behind the scenes as I did in some of the previous texts in this course. Another aspect of this book that I appreciated was that I didn’t feel like I was lacking any background or contextual information of the setting of the story. The story was set in Barcelona in the 1930s during the Spanish Civil War, but it revolved more around how ordinary people were impacted by the war, so it felt a bit more relatable in that sense – it could’ve been a civil war in my country and its impact on me.
We get to follow a woman’s journey before, during, and after the war and see how she experiences the life she’s been given under her poor circumstances from the very beginning. It wasn’t as if Natalia’s life was perfect or even near ideal before the war started; she was already motherless and a bit too naive for her own good. Furthermore, she was in a relationship where she was seen as beneath her partner. The unequal power dynamic between Natalia and Quimet was far from unusual (during a time in which patriarchy was even more prominent than it is now), but their relationship grows gradually to be more equal. Natalia didn’t really care for politics either, but the war was wearing everyone down, including her. She had to care and provide for her children as well as work, all on her own. Natalia is not only physically strained by the impact of the war, but we also see how she is fighting for her sanity.
My question is, how Natalia’s life, and other victims of the war for that matter, would’ve been different if mental health awareness and resources were more prominent. Even with modern wars today, during a time where mental health awareness is likely at its highest than it has been in history, I wonder how accessible mental health resources are to the victims and how much it is prioritized. As we witness through the text, the war may be over but the healing has only just begun. Survivors must come to terms with the reality of the situation and what has been done to get them to this point in order to look towards their future.

At first glance, I found this novel quite interesting. Keeping the title from being translated seems to make it appear more authentic and true to its originality. As a student who is also currently taking french classes this term, I was able to interpret the meaning of the title. Nonetheless, I can see why readers may not pick up this book from the shelf – they say not to judge a book by its cover, but I think the title is fair game. The title is meant to draw you in, in minimal words, so that you want to know more about the book and read the back cover. If one does not understand the title or has to look up its translation, does it not take away a part of the process of reading the book? On the other hand, keeping the title in its original form sets the atmosphere of the text; it provides some background information, that is in fact, French. From there, the reader would judge the cover and synopsis with that knowledge before choosing whether they want to read the book or not. Of course, this argument doesn’t really apply to our case of choosing to the reading the book, but I do find the impact of a book’s title intriguing. My question is, how much do you pay attention to a book’s title – what do you notice first and what draws you in?

I think this novel is similar to Agostino in a lot of ways. As Agostino could be said to have “mommy issues”, Cecile could be said to have “daddy issues”, but in completely differing ways. Agostino was more sheltered and possessive of his mother, he idolized her. Whereas Cecile sees her father as almost incompetent, in the way she describes him as a baby who needs to be protected. Cecile sets out to protect her father and relationships through her strategic ways as if she is not his child who he is supposed to be protecting instead. Cecile takes on a lot more responsibility for her father than a child should when instead she could have been studying for her exams – a more common stress of an adolescent. Though I empathize with Cecile for resenting Anne for trying to lock her in the room to study or keep her away from Cyril, I also sympathize with Anne. Anne is trying to ensure that Cecile has a bright future ahead of her and that she does not tarnish it by failing her exams or getting pregnant, as this could result in a limit of opportunities for her in the future.

Since Alberto Moravia’s novel, Agostino, was a relatively short text in comparison to the past novels we have read, I thought it would be light reading. However, upon beginning the book I quickly came to realize the heaviness of the text and how packed it was in its lesser pages.

Agostino’s relationship with his mother resembles that of the classic Oedipus tale in which Oedipus is strongly attached to his mother and views her lovers as his rival. Similarly, Agostino is a young boy who spends a great deal of time with his mother at the beach, he looks up to her and in his eyes, she can do wrong. That is until his mother starts seeing another man which makes Agostino envious. This causes an awakening in Agostino that makes him realize his mother is more than just a mother, she is a woman and she has had a life before him. I found this aspect of the text really interesting because it made me think about when I went beyond viewing my parents as only parental figures – when I realized they were/are also a student, co-worker, friend, etc. I think that as children, it is natural for us to think that the world revolves around us because we know so little about the world at that point. We think we are entitled to certain liberties and possessive of what we have – such as our parents because we cannot imagine anybody else needing them like we do.
Moravia writes a coming-of-age story in which Agostino sees his mother in a new light, as a real person beyond motherhood. The novel is about when we, as children, start viewing people, relationships, and the world differently, when reality hits us. I used to think that this discovery came simultaneously with our maturity – when we learn our actions have consequences and that in fact, the world does not revolve around us and we must choose our battles. However, given that Agostino is thirteen years old at the time and does not fully portray this level of maturity quite yet, I suppose that we may have to be exposed to the reality or harshness of the world before we can fully develop our maturity – which in itself is a long ongoing process. Once we have learned the reality of the world, we can also understand our role in society and our relationships, as Agostino does with his mother.

I was also surprised at how accurately Moravia was able to portray this confusing and almost awkward time in our adolescent lives as we were coming of age. My question is, did you find Agostino’s struggles somewhat relatable in terms of how he started viewing his mother as a real person and learned about the real world?

Reading Bombal’s novel The Shrouded Woman, as a woman, I felt deeply appreciated that a book like this existed in such a time. I’m not quite sure how prevalent female authors were at the time or how popular their works were, but I’m glad that Bombal had the opportunity to share her perception of a woman’s world. The novel goes beyond viewing women as an object. Bombal gives the female characters lively personalities, often even more so than she does with the men. She gives her female characters depth by exploring the complexity of women. That is not to say that women are more complex than men, but during this time period and even today though less, women are often overlooked or given stereotypical personalities in media in comparison to men. Bombal allows us to see the life of women in all its pleasures, struggles, and feelings. The novel acknowledges and addresses the harsh pressure of gendered expectations on women, and how they can never truly escape it. Even after death, people will still think of the woman through that artificial lens. The novel resonated with me because it explores the diversity of women and was perhaps able to change some of the readers’ perceptions of women after reading the book.

Overall, I found this novel the most straightforward from our past course texts. This is partly because I found the text easy to read and because I was more engaged in the storyline and characters, specifically Ana Maria. I also enjoyed reading about Ana Maria’s experiences and feelings after her death, I felt that it broke down a wall and represented how the memory of ourselves lives on even after death. I found the way death was portrayed in this text very thought-provoking, even though everything in Ana Maria’s life was already said and done, I still felt that emotional connection with her as she reminisces her life. Ana Maria recalls her experiences and expresses her regret in some situations, yet she is still able to be at peace with herself in the end. I find this a bit bittersweet, but also realistic, as it demonstrates that we will always wish we could change a part of our past, but since we are unable to do so, we have to accept it and live (or die) with it.

My question is, how do you think Ana Maria’s story would be different if it were to be told in the present tense, or rather, if she were not dead? Would it gain more or less meaning?