Conclusion: What Is Isn’t and What Isn’t Is

Leave a reply

I remember writing my introduction post before all of the readings that I contracted for in this course and it has only left me with more thoughts about the real reason Romanticism has ever existed, realized and even created by those who see the world differently. On the other hand, maybe there is no reason for its realization, but I stand where anybody decides to give their opinion because I struggle to find a fixed position on matters socially and politically. I am lost and I only find myself more lost in a complicated world of disorder, trauma and inexperience that I have to retreat into these stories to find meaning through the relationships that I make with some of the characters. If Romanticism was ever a person, I think Machiavelli’s quote from The Prince captures the real essence of what this topic would be like: “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.” The beauty of life is that there are more questions than answers.

The novels and short stories that we read were not about love stories with fairy tale endings. In fact, I could go so far as to say that they were not novels, but recollections of a possible life, like a biography or an autobiography that bleeds through the pages of the author’s experience tainted with an endless imagination. I felt I was personal with those who actually mattered and then betrayed when I realized they were not who they claimed to be. I think it is human to feel misunderstood, but through the past, we can build some fragments that should stay and never leave us, like a friend or words in a pocket, to reassure us that those who suffer are never alone in this world. There is humanity out there and Romanticism was enough to seduce us into thinking that by asking us to question everything before we start making assumptions on things we don’t know or even things we do know, but are never too sure of.

I learned that there is more to learn about the human condition and that real identity is a lost cause because there just seems to be something in the way. We are not ourselves even if we think that because there is some psychological aspect that never makes us more human than a possible alien. We have the ability to communicate with each other, but so much is left shrouded in mystery in the minimal of words. If we could at least see reality differently I think we would be able to brace the truth more openly and not be so distant both literally and metaphorically from others. The main message I got out of this course would be to expect the unexpected and to never take anything in front of you for granted. Moreover, it isn’t bad to be a pessimist because they wouldn’t be disappointed when matters turn out ugly if that becomes the norm. It is only dreadful, I can imagine, for an optimist in a shattered world, searching for hope and never being able to find it at all.

I would like to thank Jon, the Professor, for this class, & the TA’s Patricio and Jennifer for keeping the gas running. It was very enlightening to be a part of the discussion and I don’t think I will ever see another class as diverse as this one.

My question is: What was your experience like reading the novels in this course and did it change the way you thought about Romanticism?

Personal Reflections on Elena Ferrante’s My Brilliant Friend

2 Replies

Over all the weeks of reading different literature, I can confirm, at least for myself, that Elena Ferrante’s “My Brilliant Friend” is the longest reading I have done for this course. The focus is mainly on the relationships among all the characters from the protagonist, Elena’s point of view. The theme(s) are oriented on the social aspects of experiencing life and growing up as a woman from childhood. The writing level is not very far from that of reading the Harry Potter series, as everything can be picked up very straight forward. To no surprise, I find the dialogue to be rich and quite saturated with its authenticity of being involved with the chronology of events that children are so accustomed to share with others. There is also some irony at the fact that, we as readers, do not know the situations with all the other characters and we are only left with some free-flowing information through the first person narrative of the child Elena, as she gives her account of the old days.

The relationship that Elena has with her best friend Lila since childhood is a very complex dichotomy of struggle, curiosity-driven fear-fueled adrenalin, and relentless competition, but also with a long-term satisfaction because Elena would be nothing without her. Elena and Lila have many extravagant and memorable adventures, as they take pleasure in each others’ company. Despite the fact that they are close friends, I still like how Lila is sometimes inaccessible to the reader through Elena, which makes her the most 3-dimensional character in this novel because she is witty enough, or maybe even oblivious enough, to hide her motives, which is another example for Elena’s suspicions and uneasiness around her. As a child, Elena does not exactly know what having a friend is like and so she constantly feels on and off with Lila, but what she did not realize until her adulthood is that Lila has always pushed Elena to be the greatest version of herself. Lila is like Elena’s chess opponent because she teaches her how to become a better chess player by exposing herself to her, which subconsciously helps her climb the ladder of her own personal decision making and supports the framework for looking at the world from a wider perspective.

One question I would have from reading this Neapolitan novel is: What would Elena have changed about her childhood if she had the chance to go back to relive that moment and why?

Reflection on Javier Cercas’ Soldiers of Salamis

2 Replies

Soldiers of Salamis is a novel set during the Spanish Civil War and is probably the closest experience we have to reading historical nonfiction than any of the other novels and stories. Rafael Sánchez Mazas, an important figure in the actual Spanish Falange, is the main character we encounter in the novel as a fascist writer who escaped a Republican soldier casually walking away after a group of Nationalist prisoners, including Mazas, were scheduled for execution. This detail in the novel is a historical fact. Whether everything else occurring in the novel is an actual rendition of a Spanish history lesson is still up for interpretation because the truth could be told in very different ways. This could explain why historians are avid debaters and always choose to take the unoccupied position on matters that most would deem agreeable. Maybe the novel is Cercas’ work to explore his own roots and find the historian in himself to analyze the past so he could understand how Spain changed to how it was today. It shows how history has shaped a controversial identity and vice versa.

The narrative’s focus is divided into 3 parts. The first part introduces the background and the developing interest that the writer felt towards Rafael Sanchez Mazas. The second part is the actual book itself about Mazas written by the narrator, who is the author or storyteller of his actual experiences. I felt the second part to be riddled with points of deception and the underlying idea that Rafael Sanchez Mazas was hiding a dark secret from us as civilized beings and attempting to influence the world under his own terms behind the shadows. Stepping outside of the written novel, I also feel the deep significance that the narrator had when he used Andrés Trapiello’s phrase: Falangist writers “had won the war but lost literature.” (19), which is also echoed in the third part too. The intention of writing Soldiers of Salamis seems to reject the highly regarded political figure as a good role model amidst those who support him. It also teaches those who love poetry and books that the poets and authors do not always think the same way about what they write. It is very difficult to understand a poet who uses words to create walls while all everybody else sees are the flowers that bloom on the other side. I think as a Falangist writer, Rafael Sanchez Mazas had the ability to confuse his audience. He was a successful man in achievement, if one could argue, but he was not so great as a person. The third part returns back to the narrator making his reflections on his own work, first feeling euphoric about his success with his novel and then disappointed afterward.

My post-reading thoughts about Soldiers of Salamis has probably left me with more questions than answers. From the perspective of the interviewer/narrator, I feel that, despite all of the facts about the events, people, and places, I feel that I never know enough. More questions need to be addressed. There is something about Rafael Sanchez Mazas that I don’t know about and I can’t find something particular for it. My questions are: How are we to know the social dilemmas before we start critiquing a person and do you think the narrator has taken a neutral stance on this political matter? What do you think Rafael Sanchez Mazas would say about himself? Could it possibly be a lie?

Reflection on Roberto Bolaño’s amulet

4 Replies

The turning incident of a Uruguayan girl, named Auxilio Lacouture takes place in a 4th-floor bathroom at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City where the nation’s army has seized the grounds of the university amidst the 1968 youth protest movement that have left innocent students, professors/ staff members, and civilians arrested, beaten, and even killed. The narrator is left confined in a bathroom stall for 12 days that safeguard her from the political trauma that is experienced outside. The fear is very real as she is left to observe the situation from a window. The military, as a collective effort, leaves the individuals helpless as their struggles end up a failure against their own nation. There is no solution but to submit and stop the protests before they start getting more out of hand. In these battles, only the Government would win and so there is no better solution for the narrator than to not be a part of what is causing the chaos outside.

As she is alone and locked in the girl’s bathroom, she falls back on her old memories and stories that she has read from her past. Consequently, the attention is drawn away from the violence and outside events, towards the independent thoughts that happen inside Auxilio’s mind, bombarding and clashing with the brutal reality of what comfort is like here and the chaos that is going out there. This is exactly what the narrator mentioned when she described reading Amulet as “a story of murder, detection, and horror. But it won’t appear to be, for the simple reason that I am the teller. Told by me, it won’t seem like that.” (1). Because the narrative gets very personal, we are left to feel life in Latin America that is very divided.  The dilemma between oppression and the coping mechanisms of those who experience the suffering of the oppression or even those who are left to watch it happen is a case in point with the psychological corruption of begging for help but not receiving it. Even though she is in harsh times, she still offers an escape route from reality for her readers by filling the void of boredom to her life as time passes in the girls’ bathroom. I also like the subtle mentioning of the moonlight that drifts across the tiles.

Auxilio enjoys to be around poets and artists because they help her escape and cope with reality, as mentioned before. Her favorite poet is Arturo Bolano and she also refers to popular female figures in the arts who have inspired her. When the narrator revisits the past, she is opening the readers towards a vision that only she can see and feel. I think that is why Amulet is so special because it makes any situation feel unique in the entirety of what it is trying to represent at a personal level that reflects in the calamitous society of Latin America. There are beautiful things even in a terrible world. One question I have for discussion is: do we experience the reality of Auxilio’s experiences in the novel more than her envisioning of it or is it unclear where to draw the line between the two?

Reflection on Georges Perec’s W or the Memory of Childhood

2 Replies

Georges Perec’s W or the Memory of Childhood  is a work of postmodern literature. From my personal viewpoint, the style and the experience of reading it is comparable to reading the use of surrealism in  Louis Aragon’s Paris Peasant. Both are works that need more time for reflection on the abstract concepts about life that are constructed for their readers. The details of the world are profound and are more deeper than what people are able to sense. This leaves the text indirectly accessible because of not being as concrete to read for a traditional English audience.  Furthermore, I am deeply invested in the relationship between the individual and the society that is depicted as functional units that help W, or how I would like to think about it, the world!

The novel tackles the subjects of politics, economics, and sociological aspects of postwar Europe and recovery. For example, civilization is recursive because it is composed of systems within systems. A group of individuals forms an organization and a group of organizations can form an alliance. The particular athletes who are selected to compete in big events are symbols of pride and nationalism of W and are role models for the next generations. They are the ones who inspire others to achieve victory and motivate them to achieve their goals. They are symbols of power for the individual to seize the day. The author also gets personal with the content by introducing an autobiographical element into the narrative as well. As suggested from the title, this is about childhood memories recalled from a distant past and many of these factors play a part in the influence and perception of people.

One interesting feature I noticed is the use of italics to signify something historical. The memory is a type of nostalgia that is deployed from the way the work is presented. The author does not seek to tell his memories, but it was as if I was running through his mind and dived into his thoughts that were a collection of facts from a different world, however real or illusory they may be, I can feel the memory itself blending the two together into something different. It still tells the truth, but very differently from what may be expected. Perec offers something different to explore. The text is a fiction of a fiction and the author decides to leave lots of room for interpretation. After reading this particular text, I noticed the importance of no right or wrong answers when asked for my opinion on what I just read.

I don’t know if my question is related or unrelated to the reading, but one question I have after reading this novel is: if the government watches over us, then who watches over the government and how does this aspect relate to trauma if it does?

Reflection on Sagan’s Bonjour Tristesse

3 Replies

Sagan’s “Bonjour Tristesse” is about a 17-year-old girl named Cécile who has family issues. Her relationship with her father significantly affects the type of lifestyle she lives. The narrator is emotionally and psychologically connected to her single father, who serves as the main male figure in her life and is the only source of parental love that is available to her. Elsa, the mistress of the household, serves as a close friend to the narrator and offers companionship and understanding to her. She is the most relatable person to Cécile and they are easily accessible to each other.  Cyril is Cécile’s romantic love interest that is becoming a little sour as she falls into her own depravity and needs more time for herself even if she may love him. As we read deeper into the novel, we find Cécile to be very cunning and manipulative because she knows what she wants and consciously plans her intentions. In the very opening of the novel, the first paragraph shows her as the victim to her sorrow, retelling how she went from being perfectly happy to being completely changed in a negative way. Other people in her life can get over the fact that an accident happened, but the irreversible consequence sits with the dark truth about what really occurred and this is what would follow and haunt Cécile after Anne’s car crash accident. However, the need to maintain something outside of her (like the satisfaction of her father’s close relationship with Elsa over Anna) makes me relate to the fundamental idea about philosophy and that floats on Søren Kierkegaard’s principle of “do it or don’t do it — you’ll regret both” which is the situation that the narrator finds herself in. On the other side, Cécile’s fickle father bounces back and forth on different women in his life, sometimes even being unsure of himself too. We can also see that some manipulation is not as intentional as nature permits it to be. The façade of a woman is judged by a man subconsciously, which is how beauty can be a tool used for manipulation. It seems we can remember more about the characters based on their appearance than on what they have to say or do.

The novel is an example of how young women and girls can also be very manipulative and not know what they are getting themselves into, similarly comparable and highly contrastive to the popular stereotype of daring teenage boys endangering others through violence, abuse and drugs. Unlike the masculine physical domination of the man, the woman taps into the domination of emotions without leaving much trace behind. The exploration of maturation in the face of relations shows us who is in control of the power dynamics. Sagan shows how the main character makes the wrong decisions which hints at her suggestion to be careful what one wishes for. Not all choices are essential to make for yourself when the teenage life is already bound to be very experimental at the risk of potential loss. My question for this week would be: what should be said about French society in the time that this novel was published and what type of background or struggles as an 18-year-old influenced the author to write this novel?

Reflection on Alberto Moravia’s Agostino

Leave a reply

I am made to believe that it might be better to be in one’s own company than in the wrong one after reading Alberto Moravia’s “Agostino”. However, I think not having fun would definitely leave the narrator in an existential mindset. By avoiding this, he is trying to find some meaning through attaining experience that puts Agostino where he is with the “tough boys”. Nevertheless, Agostino still has his boundaries and it is very obvious how sensitive he is when any of the gang members talks about her mother in front of him, especially when they use sexual references.

I can feel Agostino’s internal dependency that he has with his mother and the need to be associated with motherly love. He wants to protect it. He defends her like she is his one and only treasure. He does not want the other young boys that are part of the group to lay a finger on her because he is possessive of her and believes she is the love of his life and nothing should come between him and his mother. From the writing style I can find some sexual references in the way Moravia decides to describe the movement and structure of nature as part of the background. The way he describes the trees, the round hills, and the soft sand that Agostino walks on gives me a feeling of relaxation and pleasure.  I think I am reluctant to feel that Agostino belongs with the gang of young boys as he is not referred to by his true name, but by “Pisa” and gets pushed around as a joke very frequently, which I don’t personally find very comfortable and welcoming.

Agostino loses his innocence as a child and comes to terms with the fact he has to grow up into a man and such losses are inevitable. He loses his sense of self and rubs off of the opinions of others which concatenates the deep sense of connection he has with his mother. “The truth was that the camaraderie of the gang, their foul language, their talk about women, stealing from the fields, and even their violence and harsh treatment of him had transformed him and made him adverse to the old friendships” (74). At this point, he experiences a lack of morals and becomes less aware of himself as he was before. As a result, the more he hangs out with the boys, the less intimate he feels with his own mother. Moving towards the end of the novella, he becomes more aware of the objectification of women, which is something new to him that he finds to be in conflict with his young and blissful upbringing. This is another example of how powerful such social groups can change the individual on a indescribable scale until the individual is unable to figure out what was important to themselves or something new replaces what was once old.

I think a good message from reading “Agostino” would be to realize who one surrounds themselves with. This rivalry between brotherhood and love is a modern issue that many will find themselves in. I wonder how Moravia suggests we deal with relationships in general and how should people deal with growing up if the reality of life can be ugly?

Personal Reflections on Bombal’s The Shrouded Woman

4 Replies

What surprised me most about reading Maria Luisa Bombal’s “The Shrouded Woman” was the absurdity of how the narrator’s every moment goes against her own expectations and there is something spiritual about the fact that the narrative is carried by a dead woman (The Shroud) as there is a feeling you get that nothing really matters at all. The experience of diving into her perspective gives me the sense of hopelessness through massive efforts to keep those we love close to us, even though they might not feel the same about us. It reminded me of a F. Scott Fitzgerald quote: “The loneliest moment in someone’s life is when they are watching their whole world fall apart, and all they can do is stare blankly.” The writing itself is compelling in its nature because it serves as a memory of the life of a deceased woman and can even be regarded as a mystery of being misunderstood as a woman to a man which is exhibited at the fact how the dead are quick to be forgotten. Sometimes not existing or being seen can be mistaken for being dead, which opens up many avenues of thought. The definition of life and living one properly seems impossible for the narrator to comprehend.

Bombal’s narrative approach fills the reader of a desolate past and a metaphorical way of showing the present. It’s not the fact that Antonio sometimes treats the narrator with indifference, but the fact that he is not even aware that he was. People tend to forget about the good times, but the bad ones somehow remain to be remembered. The narrator was not only physically dead, that was not so important as to be obvious, but she felt dead when she was alive as well. The personality she develops is centered around her existence, each thing that she does and thinks as part of her testing the world before she comes to accept it— but she never does, which is the problem and the address of it through this particular writing. Her reflections are what keep her together as the world she envisions herself loving falls apart. This can also be a metaphor for how a man gave Ana Maria the world, but she was not able to do with it. “One does not sleep with impunity so many nights beside a man, young and in love!” (223). In general, the world could be a metaphor for the man. It is a way of establishing the perception of women and their basic needs that never seem to be met because there is a struggle of understanding on how love should be communicated between lovers just as much as with friends. I think Bombal has created an exceptional voice that makes us feel like the narrator is dying on the inside with how she describes her environment.

My question would be: What is the argument about death in the story and what does that have to say in its relation to life?

 

My Personal Reflections on Aragon’s Paris Peasant

Leave a reply

Reading Louis Aragon’s “Paris Peasant” is like therapy for me and I start to see how surrealism becomes the main theme of the text. It plays with the lightness and darkness of many situations which shows the illogicality of the narrative. Surrealism is described as “the offspring of frenzy and darkness” (65). Because there is no convention to the writing, — the whole point is for us to question the enigma of our own mind and what the text feeds it. I like how the objectivity in the writing is written subjectively, which is somehow able to bridge the gap between the Scientific Method through observation and a character’s perspective from “The Arts”.

Louis Aragon uses various arbitrary/general terms, names, and many metaphors to describe abstract concepts. It is basically the epitome of the question: “I can read what is going on, but what is ACTUALLY happening?” The author’s use of personification for not only objects, but aspects themselves, renders it as if they (objects and aspects) were people who the readers could reach out to. For example, Death and Psychology are mentioned as if they were confrontable or (for Pleasure) as a loved one, “worthy of absorbing a man’s activity as any other.” (44-5). Furthermore, on page 34, the mention of: Sigmund Freud, and Hegel— hints at the subtlety on how Psychology is the brainchild of Philosophy which counters to how Surrealism is the brainchild to (Photo)realism or even reality itself.

Not only is Surrealism a theme that prospered in and of itself over the course of the mid-20th century, but the theme, if I am not mistaken, could also primarily be a historical reaction to the aftermath of chaos and destruction. It is a movement born from the sheer atrocities that humans committed in general, but most particularly in the World Wars. The fundamentality concerning Surrealism is reflected in the stringent message that is conveyed through propaganda: “It will win, this coalition of powers dedicated to the principles of why-not and making-the-best-of-it” (67). Quite a large group of people began to question themselves in fear of their own safety which was both a beneficial and impoverished way of looking at the world. This gave the forefront to a new form of art that places creativity above rationality. Contrarily, some have regarded that it was radically putting rationalism into practice that led to conflict on a massive scale. The movement itself forged together multiple scraps of meaning and instead of stating or showing the truth, the Surrealists decided to share a unique and exclusive perspective that is uncommon with Society’s Logic of living in a Civilization.

Lastly, in Louis Aragon’s “Paris Peasant”, the “fun” accordion’s PESSIMISM and the mentioning of Freedom imprisoning the narrator shows the contradiction of the whole premise of Surrealism as a major movement — How are things so believable that they can sometimes be counterintuitive and vice versa? And regarding contradiction, is it possible to have a contradiction within a paradox? If there are any boundaries, where might they be?

My Take on Proust’s Combray

Leave a reply

Before I relate to the text, I would like to admire the lofty imagery that we are left with when reading Proust’s Combray. It is almost like a string of thoughts that we are bombarded with and is an open ground for feeling many of the emotions and the experiences that the author himself has a deep relationship with. It is a reverie for the past and somehow attempting to revive some part of it into the present moment. I definitely think many of the sensory input we get from this work really shows the attention to minute details which do not deserve to go unnoticed. It also adds to the idea that maybe it is good to live within illusions if that is how to live more peacefully in such a hectically controlled society. As the narrator would put it, “Certainly I found some charm in these brilliant projections… But I cannot express the uneasiness caused in me by this intrusion of mystery and beauty into a room I had at last filled with myself to the point of paying no more attention to the room than to that self” (Combray1. p10).

From my perspective, I think Proust wants us to embrace our childhood by giving us a way to escape from the dull day-to-day life as an adult. Essentially, I think Proust is recollecting his memory on the good times — the good times that are gone, but not forgotten. These good times are shown through his experiences, the relationship with the narrator’s mother (is fairly complex) and a hierarchal society composed of the Bourgeoisie and the lower classes. The memory of childhood is something that sits in a large portion of where Proust decides to take his work. It captivates the atmosphere of an empty space in the present where this dark void is significantly filled with what happened around him and to him that left its imprints on the narrator’s mind. “What I wanted now was Mama, to say good night to her, I had gone too far along the road that led to the fulfillment of that desire to be able to turn back now” (Combray1. p.34).

On the other hand, Proust does not decide to put the direction of focus on the fact that the past will never happen again because everything in the past cannot be revisited physically. More alternatively, the narrator is able to find and revive a part of himself, which is essential to reading something as memorable as Combray. It is not the fact that living inadequately is the main issue, but the perspective of the main character who experiences it and must find a way to somehow leave it behind. And as difficult as that task may be, this is Proust’s personal attempt to find some meaning in whatever he is going through as a unique individual. Some painfully joyful tears.

Lastly, my question would be: What does the relationship between the narrator and his mother indicate about the story?