Archives: rmst202

Conclusions

I’m not sure how to write this. I’m not sure what the correct wording to use here is because how do you write a concluding blog post?

To begin with, I enjoyed this course (really mundane start but hey! gotta begin somewhere!) especially because we learnt a lot about literature in the romantic era. I had already had an introduction to this in school but mostly through poems and little excerpts of novels, never to the extent we did in class.

Being candid, I stumbled across the course when I was looking through options for my literature requirement. I didn’t expect to be able to take a course that catered to my interests while fulfilling the requirements and when I found this course, I was intrigued by it. Signing up for it, I knew it would be literature focused but not to the extent it was and it was a pleasant surprise.

I didn’t contract for the highest grade like I’m sure most people did because I had a bit of a heavy course load and couldn’t have kept up with all the reading. But the books I read were eye opening, both in terms of literature from a bygone time and socio-economic situations during the eras the novels were set in. The fact that they were translated also gave me a different take on reading books because I found myself pausing several times over sentences in different novels, wondering how the author must have worded them  in their native languages.

The class with Manea was undoubtedly my favourite because it was so new and a chance to almost go back in time and peel back the layers of the story he wrote, from the plot to the situation at the time. It was beyond fascinating to hear his life experiences and hear the way he connected them to his stories.

Thank you to our professor and TAs for the the great books and the opportunities we had throughout this class to discover and learn while journeying through various eras.

My last question is really simple: what was your favourite book that you read in this class?

Read 5 CommentsAdd a comment

My Brilliant Friend- reflections

I really enjoyed this book. Maybe the most interesting (hey, I’ve used this word in all my blogs so far, why break the trend now?) thing I found in this story was the relationship between Elena and Lila. With both of them beginning in a poor neighbourhood in 1950s Naples, there is an seemingly unbreakable bond forged between the two girls as they learn to care for and rely on each other. It is an unconventional friendship as is expected from less than comfortable beginnings but the reader sees the way it grows, contracting and expanding but never breaking as the girls grow, highlighting not only a girl’s journey into womanhood but also the growth of a nation while simultaneously focusing on the lesser known sides of friendship. Despite Elena being more financially stable and Lila not being as fortunate in the cards life dealt her, the initial discomfort and scrapes between the two clear up as they learn to navigate what seems, at the beginning, to be an unlikely friendship.

I did find myself wondering if maybe Lila was friends with Elena only for her money- after all, if she was, who could blame her, given her situation? ‘Desperate times call for desperate measures,’ as the old saying goes. But I think, despite her rough edges, Lila genuinely does care for Elena and Elena learns to look out for her friend too without pitying her.  However, I wouldn’t say it’s a completely pure friendship, since both girls seem naturally inclined to compete with each other, tainting their bond with confusion and hurt to the point of being toxic at times.

I have to say, this was a good book to end the course with. Ferrante’s writing flows easily and while it is definitely not a light read in any way given the shocking nature of incidents such as the normalised violence against children, it is definitely enlightening about the circumstances the girls live in and what society was like in Italy then.

My question for the class is, how would you place Elena and Lila’s growth against the coming of age of the society and nation they live in?

Read 1 CommentAdd a comment

Amulet- reflections

I really liked this novel, it was a very intriguing and even suspenseful read. The fact that this novel is set in Mexico at a time of great political unrest is what makes it both unnerving and interesting at the same time. The opening lines of the story immediately catches the reader’s interest and successfully holds it throughout the novel. I even found myself pausing the read to research more on the general social and political situation during the time period the novel is set in which I believe is evidence as to just how much Bolaño manages to engage his readers with this narrative.

The controlled, seemingly lucid beginning seems to highlight the narrator’s confidence in controlling not only the pace of the story but how we as readers engage with the texts only to send us spiralling into a world where literature and its beauty that has constantly to be an outlet of some sort, often providing some sense of escapism, is complete juxtaposed against the brutal violence of the political conflict going on around it. What I thought was extremely intriguing (I really have got to find a better word for ‘interesting’ and ‘intriguing- the amount of times I have used them now!) is the way in which there is no sense of terror or emotional turbulence especially expressed throughout the novel although it is an almost certain thing our narrator must have experienced it to some degree given the amount of ongoing violence. She avoids paying too much attention to the unrest yet the brief windows she provides of it make it seem all the more real and tangible to the reader.

As she tries to outlast the violence and grows weak from hunger, the theme of memory and recollection grows stronger. The narrator recalls several memories from her past including her lost teeth and her friends as well as strange landscapes before ending on a vision of victims. There is a sense of falling into her own head and drifting, seemingly cut off from the reality that surrounds her before she jarringly brings us back to the present when she mentions the song of war and its meaning.

My question for this post would be whether we can consider the narrator’s telling of this story a way of her trying to escape what must have undoubtedly been a horrible reality? Or is it to ensure the way in which such terrible political unrest plagues people is not eventually forgotten and lost in time?

No commentsAdd a comment

The Trenchcoat- Reflections

Norman Manea’s ‘The Trenchcoat’ is definitely a confusing read. I felt there was a lot of  what one of my high school literature teachers referred to as ‘invisible reading’ to be done. By this they meant that there is a story being told in between the lines and I have to agree that this was most prominently show in this week’s novel. The author focuses a lot on historical and political points throughout the novel and I admit that I am biased when I say this narrative was my least favourite read we have done in this class thus far as I usually avoid any material containing non-fiction or political elements like the plague.

That said, I can appreciate the historical context the novel draws on at several instances as (and yes, I see how this is ironic since I am not fond of politics) as I find history extremely intriguing and often like to read up more on people, events and instances I find mentioned in books and media. I believe the most significant question in this novel is regarding the true meaning behind the trench coat for which the book is titled. Unlike most authors, Manea tends to be more open-ended in his writing which results in the reader not being given as definite an ending or closure as we might like. Just like history which we will never known truly know, the novel leaves us with questions and reading into more aspects, looking for hidden meanings, anything that might dispel the ambiguity Manea leaves the narrative and therefore the reader, surrounded by.

Another interesting fact about this novel is the lack of names. It is accepted by many that names provide one with a foundation for one’s identity and that Manea refuses to name his characters leaves us wondering whether he means to strip them of what many agree to be a basic right. But there is also the notion that history rarely remembers names and even when it does, it is mostly either the wrong names or for the wrong or unjust reasons.

My question for this weak is what is the level of ambiguity present in this novel meant to achieve, from the author’s point of view?

Read 1 CommentAdd a comment

W, or The Memory of Childhood

Let me start by saying I apologise for the late post. I was caught up in another assignment and completely lost track of time.

About the novel, I found it to be a very interesting and even somewhat appealing read in small degrees. I am well aware that I use the word ‘interesting’ about almost every book in we have read thus far in this course however it doesn’t diminish that it holds true, in various ways for each narrative of course.

Perec’s narrative style combined with historical experiences post World War Two create quite an engaging read that draws the reader in. Time seems to expand and contract as we follow the protagonist to the island of W and see the way he tries to connect with a past he has no memories of. In any world, we would find it strange that someone could exist with no remote idea of a past but I feel it is especially true of the present world we live in where one’s identity is brought under sharp scrutiny.

What I found more intriguing was that the author had no particular intention in creating the ambiguity surrounding W. Maybe it is just me, however I find that any mystery the reader might feel surrounds the island is accidental rather than purposeful, unlike in most other novels where there is an active effort on the author’s part to create some character or thing whose truth is hidden in order to build up suspense.

Peres merely seems to document the details of his voyage to the island of W, each story melding into the other and building his narrative in the same way his journey helps him piece together a past he has never truly had.

My question is; is it possible to ever really reconnect with a part of you that wasn’t really yours to begin with? Can that sort of past really be reclaimed?

Read 4 CommentsAdd a comment

The Time of the Doves- Reflections

Mercè Rodoreda’s novel is definitely one that leaves you feeling some type of way, only what way you can never be sure.

After reading this narrative, I sat down and contemplated how I felt about it because my mind was blank and I couldn’t gage what I thought about it. Even now, as I write this post, I am still no closer to finding a solid answer. Maybe, in a way, it is because I feel a multitude of things for different aspects of the book that I cannot settle on just one alone. Or maybe the story just didn’t strike me. Whatever it is, my thoughts on the narrative are as follows.

Firstly, I feel sympathetic towards our protagonist, a young woman by the name Natalia, who seems to be recounting her life story and experiences in a way that is sort but also really different to Ana Maria from Bombal’s ‘Shrouded Woman.’ The fact that she finds herself trapped under the control of men from her father to her husbands, and treated as a possession, that she seems to be a character who not just highlights but in fact personifies the phrase ‘damsel in distress’ as she needs a man to protect and provide for her, the absence of a maternal presence and a father who is emotionally unavailable, all of these points garner my sympathy towards her. Perhaps if her father was more of a guiding, parental figure or had she had her mother with her growing up, Natalia might not have made the decision to end her relationship with Pere and marry Quimet and perhaps then we would have a completely different story.

She is almost forced into a corner with no way out after her marriage as Quimet asserts absolute control over the household and her, becoming jealous and controlling, something we particularly take notice of when he accuses Natalia of meeting Pere in the streets. There is a sort of helpless feeling created within the reader as we read since we see the danger in having such an unstable man controlling a woman who has no way out of her miserable fate yet all we can do is continue the story in hopes that it will not end on a terrible note. She is even stripped of her identity in a way as Quimet insists on calling her Colometa and that births a woman who is a world away from what Natalia might have been had her circumstances been different, only tightening the control her husband has over her. That Natalia is also forced to seek work as Quimet cannot reliably hold a job and has to be both the breadwinner and the homemaker of the family seemed especially cruel to me; it is as if the author decides she does not have enough to contend with and must have another burden placed on her shoulders.

Maybe I am truly saddened by the story and all its events that it prevents me from feeling any other way. Despite that, my question for this week is this; had Natalia continued her relationship with Pere, where would she have ended up at the end of the narrative?

Read 2 CommentsAdd a comment

Bonjour Tristesse- reflections

To begin with, I found Bonjour Tristesse to be quite an intriguing, if a bit desolate, read. Sagan’s descriptions, especially when he focuses on the French upper class in the beginning of the twentieth century has an almost lyrical, romantic feel to it. What caught my interest the most the more I read of the novel was what I felt was a rather jarring contrast between the flowing prose and the more abrupt, changing experiences of Cécile as she tries to destroy her father Raymond and his lover, Anne’s relationship. As a reader, I found myself caught up in the way Cécile tends to grow from a rather spoiled and at times immature rich girl into a more conscientious young lady. The character development here is probably my favourite from the books we have read in this class so far as Cécile seems to learn that the frivolous and carefree life she leads, thanks to her father’s money and tendencies to spoil her, cannot last forever.

Sagan has woven the theme of a character coming-of-age beautifully into his portrayal of the protagonist as life slowly begins to intervene and disrupt her usual way of living, just about forcing her to take off her rose-coloured glasses and start to really see life outside of the privileged lifestyle she leads at the tender age of seventeen. What really grounds the reader’s focus is the way the author makes Cécile a character with flaws and feelings that are so relatable to what one would experience in reality and thus makes her seem like an actual person rather than simply a character built out of one’s imagination and some words. We see the truth of this especially after Raymond and Anne are married and Cécile’s darker- for the lack of a better word- side comes into play, the indulgent girl replaced by a scheming, manipulative young woman who makes what can sometimes be thought of as morally concerning decisions. It is this lack of a ‘black or white’ attitude that most authors tend to unconsciously adopt with their characters that make Cécile an intriguing character to follow along on her journey.

Almost right after, when guilt starts to worm its way in and we see Cécile experience the realisation of her actions and see the consequences as well as her responses to them, is, at least in my opinion one of the strongest highlights of the book.

My question for this week would be: what if Cécile had accepted Anne from the start? Would she have changed differently or maybe not at all?

No commentsAdd a comment

Agostino- Reflections

I realise this may be a somewhat unconventional way to start a blog post that is meant to be part of the course content however, my reading of Agostino was made of up of confusion and feeling unnerved.

Whenever I open a new book to read, whatever the reason may be, my first thought is to go into it completely unbiased however, with each page I turned and the more I learned of the story the further on I read, it grew exceedingly harder to keep myself from just shutting the book and walking away. The relationship between the protagonist, Agostino and his mother is complicated at best (for the lack of a better or appropriate word to describe the situation). There is a constantly expanding and contracting whirlpool of emotions within the boy with regard to the bond, I suppose one would call it, he shares with his mother and the overwhelming sense of isolation mingling with desires the reader finds it hard to make sense of. I am unsure of whether there is simply a sense of hero worship wound into Agostino’s rather glowing view of his mother or whether his love for her runs deeper than simply seeing her as an attractive woman.

Another aspect of the story that seems, at least upon the first read, to make no sense is Agostino’s mother’s lack of any sort of motherly love for her son. She frequently slaps him and leaves him for the man on the beach, completely neglecting the child that loves her so intensely.. There is also Agostino’s need to become more mature and manly which coincides with his growing discomfort around his mother which adds to the reader’s confusion as the emotions the protagonist embodies are hard to understand in context.

Thirdly, it is hard not to feel sorry for Agostino after reading about the growing hurt he experiences at the hands of the other boys, especially Berto when he first meets him. There is  a constant and growing stream of bullying and brutality that is both ruthless and deliberate and it is heartbreaking to watch Agostino forced to undergo that as well as the neglect of his mother for her ‘lover.’

My question for this week would be how, if it is possible, would one go about defining Augustino’s relationship with his mother?

Read 2 CommentsAdd a comment

The Shrouded Woman

The first thing that struck me about the narrative, The Shrouded Woman was how different it was to the other two texts we have already read. There seemed to be an almost modern twist to the reflective theme that is brought out through the narrator’s voice. The novel being written in first person through the eyes of the beautiful, dead narrator Ana Maria adds to the intimate and emotional mood that lends itself to her reminiscing of her life and the different aspects of romance she discovered with each boy, from Ricardo to her best friend Fernando and then the bitter tragedy of her disastrous marriage to Antonio.

There is a wistful sort of sadness that lingers in the narrator’s tone as Bombal uses her to capture the personalised life of Ana Maria and the state of mind she might have as a now deceased person. I have to admit I found the book to be quite a bit of an emotional rollercoaster as Ana travels through love and its possibilities as well as the hurt it has inflicted on her, all edged with a subtle undertone of regret over things that could have been done differently, how her life could have had a different path but now it is too late.

I found the novel to be quite fascinating in its merging of death and time as they seem, to me, to be two concepts juxtaposed against each other; death seems like a finality and an end all to life while time, on the other hand, is endless and flows without any sort of restraint. Bombal also does a wonderful job at capturing the unspoken question of why people should focus on things that really matter to them in life which I believe ties into the themes of death and time as Ana Maria on her deathbed focuses on love which is highlighted to be the most important thing she held onto throughout her life.

Finally, there is the notion that the narrator is clearly happy to be dead while it is popular opinion that death is something to be mourned and always results in heartbreak. Bombal presents through Ana’s eyes that death can also offer offers a sense of peace and a chance to let go of the things one usually clings to while alive. Now the narrator simply contemplates her life without holding on to things that are stories of the past.

My question after reading this book would be how would one’s perception of death be altered after reading this book?

Read 1 CommentAdd a comment

My thoughts on Proust’s ‘Combray’

The first thing that came to mind when I read Proust’s ‘Combray’ was a sense of nostalgia. I grew up reading a lot of classics, especially from Victorian England writers and the language that the English translation of ‘Combray’ uses is very familiar to some of that used in those books I used to read. The writing style is almost the same too and it was a nice bast from the past, so to say. However, at the same time I found that it is vastly different too, especially the use of ‘first person narrative’ used to write the story and the reflective quality to the writing, more so in the beginning when the narrator talks about the book they are reading and the dreamlike trance the writing seems to take on when they think about the subject matter of the book before they slip into unconsciousness. The separation of the character’s consciousness in a way that seems to distribute it over several places, causing both a disturbed and comfortable sleep in fractures I thought was described in a way that makes the reader feel empathetic towards the character whose name is not yet revealed to us. I think what stood out to me more than everything else in the text was Proust’s way of drawing the reader’s attention to things that we usually wouldn’t pay attention to otherwise. Surely, most authors would overlook the shifting of the light or the noises a character would hear in favour of the greater picture they are trying to create through their writing. It was very unusual to me, especially as authors of old literature goes- or maybe it is Proust’s way of writing that made me pay attention to something I didn’t realise I never actually noticed previously- but quite refreshing. To me, Proust seems to draw the reader into the past through dreamlike sequences of the character’s childhood before dragging them back abruptly into the present yet it is done in such a subtle, almost, dare I say, gentle way, the reader does not really understand the greater shifts between time as we are more disgruntled by the large scale exploration of the character’s psyche. Proust appears to tangle time and memory in a manner that allows organised narration to blend with chaos and it is quite interesting, if a little chaotic and has the reader caught up in quite a bit of confusion at the first look to the story.

My question would be this; what is Proust’s motive behind exploring the character’s psyche and melding time with memory the way he does in this narrative?

Read 2 CommentsAdd a comment