In the critical lens, I can hypothesize that Natalia may have betrayed people in her lens to be economically smart so in that sense it can be justified. However, not once in the text could I describe her as happy. Intelligent, beautiful, insightful? Perhaps, but definitely filled with melancholy in every domain of her life. Her family has set expectations for her, but her ordinary nature suppresses her of rebellion so she leads an ordinary life. She marries Quimet, a richer lover than the last, has children with him, and maintains the textbook housewife image. She carries the weight in the cooking, cleaning, and continues sugarcoating her life with her bare minimum husband. This despondent household is shaken and challenged when the socio-economic and political setting of the novel is shifted by the Spanish War. When Quimet goes to war and eventually dies, it could be argued that Natalia is mainly devastated by the cut off of funds during the great economic fatigue of the war rather than the loss of her husband. All in all, if he contributed anything it was company, a wavering presence that she would prefer not do without.
Now, to interrogate the text’s title, the doves Quimet decided to father had been sabotaged by Natalia as she distracted the mother from her chicks, leaving them malnourished and dead. I would argue that this was foreshadowing for Natalia’s suicide plot. Like the doves, as soon as she was uncomfortable with her situation, she decided to do away with it … permanently.
In the empathetic lens, Natalia reminds me of a time in my life where I had ulcers forming in my stomach from the constant stress and anxiety I was under. Humorously enough, I was also a victim of war at the time but by all means, had no responsibilities like her during the time. Perhaps I held the same amount of emotional intelligence and spatial awareness but no children by any means. Everything she did was for survival, from the opening scene of the party. She had no excitement coming from her previous lover, so she emotionally eloped. She never argued with her husband when “his leg would hurt”. Until ultimately, her only way to survive was to find closure in death not only for herself but her children as well. The grocer being a saving grace and scooping her up. Suddenly, life is only slightly good enough to live again. Her personal demons and internal struggles persist but whose don’t? I know the same demons that caused those ulcers still persist in me now but I know somewhere in between the lines and chapters of the novel, Natalia found someone or something that gave her hope. The children, the grocer, a third variable hiding as a purpose? We don’t know but I admire Natalia for being the protagonist who selflessly gives up her happy ending for us to learn that they aren’t promised.
My question is:
What kept Natalia afloat?
Should Natalia have turned down Quimet at the party? Would it have changed anything?
“not once in the text could I describe her as happy… I admire Natalia for being the protagonist who selflessly gives up her happy ending for us to learn that they aren’t promised.”
I’m not sure about this, though I am intrigued by the book’s final word (and the ellipsis that follows). I think, however, that what happens over the course of the novel is that she has a new conception of what “happiness” means; that what it means to be happy is redefined for her, and perhaps also for the reader.
Hey, I realy liked your imout on the text. I think that a part of what kept Natalia going was her children because even though, she kept going despite herself being miserable was saving her children, and this also is demostrated again whe she decided to her her life and her children, as if she couldnt leave without asuring that her children wouldnt suffer.