Valeria Luisell’s novel, “Faces in the Crowd,” was intricately written from the perspective of two different narrators originating from different cities and periods. The author didn’t introduce nor warn the readers of the back-and-fourth narration occurring throughout the story, so I was very confused about the events transpiring until more than halfway through the book. Even after the realization that there were two points of view, I was confused about the man’s identity and thought that the male perspective came from the female protagonist’s husband instead of Gilberto Owens. The lecture confirmed the identity of the male narrator and suggested that perhaps it was actually the female protagonist writing from Owen’s perspective. That was intriguing because I myself thought that it was a completely different narrator. The novel was uniquely structured, it was deliberately fragmented and told in bits and pieces, resembling the unpredictableness of resurfacing memories and the disruption of family and work in the female protagonist’s life. Not only were there different narrations, but the storyline jumped between different times in their lives as well, which increased the difficulty of the reading because I needed to lock in and puzzle together the narrative.
The woman lived with her husband but frequently reminisced on her life before her kids and family obligations. Her narration emits a sort of detached feeling like she regards herself from an external viewpoint. For instance, she never names her family members, she just refers to them as “son”, “the baby”, or “my husband”. It’s this detachment that makes me consider that the female protagonist possibly lost her sense of identity (a recurring theme in this course, like in Agostino and Agualusa) due to the responsibilities and commitments that come with marriage and motherhood. She introduces and revisits many characters from her premarriage days, merging the line between past and present. This novel was like reading her diary, but it’s difficult to interpret how much of the story was her own as she told her husband “It’s all fiction…” (pg. 57) when he snuck glances at her writing.
A very fascinating point in the story is when Gilberto Owens begins to take note of a “woman with the dark face and shadows under her eyes (pg. 43)” on the trains. Owen’s description of her “red coat” (pg. 43) made me recognize the woman’s identity, which revealed that he shockingly saw glimpses of the female protagonist. It was kind of like the two characters are interconnected through different realities. But if it had always been the female protagonist narrating, then wouldn’t this impossible event that defies the bounds of time and reality be a figment of her imagination due to her fascination with Owens? Overall, this was a difficult novel to navigate and interpret, I struggled to place characters and timezones and figure out the different narrations.
Discussion Question(s)
What reason do you think the female protagonist chose not to include the names of herself and her family in her writing? What is your interpretation of the narration(s)?
Hi Fiona,
To answer your discussion question, simply put I think the author wanted us to see the many “faces,” as stated in the book title (it was confusing on my end). I think by not having names the author is able to express themselves and thoughts for characters in a way that has no shame to their feelings. I don’t know the way I’m explaining it makes sense.
Hi! I loved reading your blog and actually I had the same question as you in my blog! Honestly I don’t know why the characters were left nameless, maybe it was to not let the readers get attached to the characters? Or maybe the author wanted us to think that this can be anyone, not just one person and she tried to convey that message by not naming them
-Nini
Fiona, I think there were subtle clues along the way but most of us aren’t able to see them until afterwards. Such as the division of the excerpts on paper and the mention of who they envision being the narrator. It seems like you understood the text well though! You caught on to the different timelines as well! Regarding your last point, I think there is also an implication that they are both kind of narraitng each other.
Thanks for your comment!
– Tesi
“It’s this detachment that makes me consider that the female protagonist possibly lost her sense of identity due to the responsibilities and commitments that come with marriage and motherhood.”
I really like this comment that you made! As well, I think that the deliberate omission of names when referring to her family members creates a sense of emotional distance or detachment, possibly indicating a barrier between the protagonist and her loved ones.
Hello, I loved your blog. I agree with you , I believe the names of the characters and the author herself were kept blank to emphasize the loss of identity. Since a person’s name is inextricably linked to their identity, losing their name appears to suggest losing their identity. Perhaps she named those in the past because she felt like “herself” in the past but does not anymore.
Hi Fiona! I also initially thought the male perspective was the young woman’s husband, but then I finally realized it was Gilberto Owen! I appreciated your analysis of the young woman’s detached feelings to her sense of identity and even her family, which may be why she doesn’t include their names. I think she missed her identity and lifestyle from when she was younger and felt a bit lost in her role as a wife and mother.
Hi Fiona! I actually had the same question. Throughout reading the book I actually was suspecting whether or not Owen was actually her unnamed husband. Overall I definitely agree with you in that the timezones and narrations made it a really challenging book to read. Thanks for your comment!