Tag Archives: gender

The Lover – Where Does Duras Situate Herself in Her Relationship?

Duras, , , , View all 4 comments

“The Lover” left me in a state of perplexity long after I had finished reading the novel not because of its plot, but because of its power dynamics between Duras and her lover, the Chinese man. I find the title “The Lover” intriguing because it seems to me that Duras refuses to be identified as the lover of the man; instead, she reverses the narrative by establishing the Chinese man as her own lover, thus asserting possession and power in their relationship.

Initially, I was inclined to pass judgment on the older man as a despicable person because of his willingness to be in a sexual relationship with Duras, who then was just a young girl. However, as I progressed through the novel, I became increasingly confused as to whether Duras feels she has control over the man. For instance, she writes, “She tells him she doesn’t want him to talk, what she wants is for him to do as she usually does with the women he brings to his flat… And she, slow, patient, draws him to her and starts to undress him…” (38). This sentence makes me reflect on the power dynamics in their relationship. Duras lacks a tone of condemnation, nor does she resist the man. This corresponds to the part where she describes how outsiders would view her relationship with the man. Duras says, “Don’t tell me that hat’s innocent, or the lipstick, it all means something, it’s not innocent, it means something, it’s to attract attention, money…” (88). Contrary to conventional societal norms, it seems to me that Duras embraces her identity and behaviour in the sense that she deconstructs people’s conception of what should be deemed as “decent”. I find her alienation of people’s obscene judgement powerful because it only reinforces Duras’ centrality in her relationship with the man. Duras also writes, “I discover he hasn’t the strength to love me in opposition to his father, to possess me, take me away… his heroism is me, his cravenness is his father’s money” (49). Her contemptuous tone enables her to attribute cowardice to the grown man. By doing so, Duras displays authority by belittling her lover since bravery is usually one of the qualities that is associated with males.

Another element that I want to explore is Duras and her relationship with her mother. On multiple occasions, I find it sinister when she mentions how her family is depicted as dysfunctional. She writes, “She shouts, for the whole town to hear, that her daughter’s a prostitute, she’s going to throw her out, she wishes she’d die, no one will have anything to do with her…” (58). However, later on, her mother personally asks the head of the boarding school to let Duras return to the dormitories whenever Duras wishes. This is the part where I got confused. Her mother’s decision seems to give Duras a moral license to remain in her relationship with the man; it also makes me wonder if Duras’ mother is torn between financial pressure and moral boundaries, or if she knows that she cannot possibly “restrain” her daughter in a conventional sense.

My question for this week is: The ending of the novel illustrates the scene where the man phones Duras and expresses his love for her. How might the sense of irresolution enhance our analysis of Duras’ relationship with the man?

The Time of the Doves – Motherhood, Femininity, and Perspectives

Rodoreda, , , View all 4 comments

At first glance, the title “The Time of the Doves” immediately reminded me of peace, hope, and freedom; however, having read the novel, I find this contrary to what Natalia endures in reality as she unfolds a feminine perspective of the Spanish Civil War, and the effects it had on her life. I view Natalia’s relationship with Quimet as a strong indicator of her constraint, just like the consistent imagery of how the doves are caged. Quimet is portrayed as a dominant and manipulative man who imposes his desires on Natalia. Rodoreda writes, “He called me Colometa, his little dove… and when I said my name was Natalia he kept laughing and said I could have only one name: Colometa” (18). In this sentence, the idea of doves parallelizes with the title and perhaps shows how in the eyes of Quimet, Natalia will always remain a “little dove”, which is something to be possessed and controlled.

I noticed there were multiple biblical references as well as the imagery of nature, which I think are connected to Quimet’s dominance in the household. Rodoreda writes, “He talked about Adam and Eve, and how woman was made from man’s rib… Because Adam, who was the father of all men, desired only the good” (40). Quimet emphasizes the causal principle of women, and how their existence is contingent on men, hence women’s compliance to men. Biblical references help Quimet reinforce the centrality of his doctrine as he has a preconceived plan for their lives, with Quimet being the carpenter and Natalia being the caregiver. In this way, Quimet parallelizes religion and the idea of singularity with his beliefs, thinking that his ideas are the sacred way to be obliged, just like biblical teachings.

At the same time, I was also a bit confused about the dynamics of their relationship because it seemed to me that Natalia yielded to Quimet’s psychological abuse and authority, even after his death. When Quimet refuses to apologize for his tardiness and claims that he has seen Natalia with Pere, her former fiance, Natalia displays passivity and obedience by adhering to his manipulation, leading her into thinking that she has truly gone out with Pere. Moreover, after Quimet’s death, Rodoreda writes about how the pigeons remind Natalia of Quimet. “So It turned back to the door and took my knife and carved ‘Colometa’ on it in big, deep letters” (197). Natalia may still have an emotional connection with Quimet, and I wonder if this means that Natalia embraces her identity of “Colometa” even more after Quimet’s death. It is interesting to see the transition from being conditioned to be referred to as “Colometa” to her carving “Colometa” voluntarily.

The scene where Natalia contemplates how to kill her children is something I find interesting because it allows me to see the unique point of view illustrated by Natalia, a mother and a widow. I interpret her decision to kill her children as a sign of motherhood guilt rather than despair, though both play vital roles in her decision. “…With their ribs sticking out and all their bodies all lined with bright blue veins, I decided to kill them” (145). The war devastates her life with the loss of her husband. Coupled with her failure to provide for her children owing to their financial constraints, this manifests her guilt since she is inclined to fulfill her role as a loving mother who cares for her children. She first loses her identity as a wife, then is stripped of her identity as an adequate mother. Both losses have a detrimental effect on her life, and it seems that she sees no purpose in living anymore, now that they have been taken away from her.

My questions for this reading are: What is the symbolism of doves? How do they relate to the idea of motherhood and femininity?

Black Shack Alley – Community, Resistance, and Empowerment

Zobel, , , , , View all 3 comments

Despite finding “Black Shack Alley” a bit slow-going at first, I appreciate how Zobel depicts the reality of Caribbean society following the abolition of slavery in implicit, but nevertheless, powerful ways. His emphasis on the sense of community throughout the novel goes hand in hand with the idea of resistance. Zobel illustrates his childhood memories, such as his daily interactions with his grandmother, as well as his neighbours. They all originate from the same community, which reminds me of how they hold a shared identity. I also notice how the presence of white people is scarcely mentioned in Chapter 1; Zobel unfolds his memories from the perspective of his community and neighbourhood. In particular, José’s relationship with Mr. Médouze adequately exemplifies the idea of collectiveness. Though Médouze is not kin to José, he takes up the role of a parental figure, being the first person to enlighten José in terms of his political consciousness. Médouze says, “But when the intoxication of freedom was spent, I was forced to remark that nothing had hanged for me nor my comrades in chains… I remained like all the blacks in this damned country: the bekés kept the land, all the land in the country, and we continued working for them…” (45). Zobel highlights the change and continuity of poverty and white supremacy following the abolition of slavery through the perspective of Médouze, constantly alluding to the idea the Caribbean people remained a tool for white settlers to maximize their economic interests, and that blackness inevitably entails oppression. Zobel rarely condemned colonialism in a militant way in the sense that he would explicitly incite his readers to resist, yet his narrative style makes me reflect on the continuity of injustice in Martinique.

I love how Zobel depicts the relationship between José and M’man Tine, José’s grandmother. José is raised by his strict yet loving grandmother; M’man Tine perceives the harshness of reality, especially with the fact that José and her are in a white supremacist society, and therefore seeks the best interests of her grandson. She frequently scolds and punishes him as if she intentionally finds faults in José, but her unconditional love for José is evident by her refusal to let him work. She says, “Well! If I didn’t put your mother in one (petités-bandes), I’m not going to out you!” (56) M’man Tine is determined to break the perpetual and generational cycle of impoverishment, deprivation of education, and bondage. With the frequent absence of José’s mother during his childhood, M’man Tine’s feminine role as a caregiver features a nurturing and motherly figure to José.

Another aspect that I want to explore is the simplicity of language used in the novel. I think language plays a significant role in delivering the theme of nationalism. Médouze and other neighbours always say “Eh cric” and “Eh crac” before telling stories. Zobel also brings a number of superstitions and cultural beliefs to light. He writes, “And when at night, you smell anything bad, don’t say a word, for your nose will rot like an old banana” (45). These cultural beliefs that he holds onto contrast with the assimilative education system that he is in in which the language of instruction in school is French. I interpret the contrast as a symbol of resistance that shows how Zobel is inclined to preserve his Martinican culture despite the environment that he is in. Again, Zobel retaliates against colonialism in an implicit yet empowering manner.

My question for this reading is: How does the imagery of the black shacks represent inequality and resistance?

María Luisa Bombal, “The Shrouded Woman”

Bombal, , , , View all 3 comments

Bombal’s “The Shrouded Woman” presents a complex perspective on love. Written from the perspective of a deceased woman, Ana María takes on a variety of roles to unfold her memories and complicated relationships around her. Being a wife whose marriage is disastrous and lifeless, a mother whose children all encounter troubles of their own, and a selfish lover who manipulates Fernando, I find Bombal’s depiction of Ana María captivating. In particular, I like how Bombal parallelizes Ana María to Ricardo while Ana Maria is in an affair with Fernando. In both cases, Ana Maria and Fernando’s unrequited love are vivid. It is interesting to see the transition from Ana María’s despair owing to Ricardo’s abandonment to her selfishness, allowing Fernando to pursue her. Having gone through abandonment, I wonder if Ana María’s behaviour here reflects her inclination to elevate her self-worth about men.

Bombal’s peaceful portrayal of death highlights the transcendence of the soul. She writes, “But now, now that I am dead, it occurs to me that possibly all men once in their lifetime long to make some great reunifications…” (166), and “The woman in the shroud did not feel the slightest desire to rise again. Alone, she would at last be able to rest, to die…” (259). It seems to me an epiphany occurs within Ana María in the sense that her death brings about insights that she would never have gained when she was alive. Having re-figured the fragments of memories in her life, she ultimately embraces death and liberates herself from the chaos, sorrow, and resentment in her lifetime. I find this amazing because she rejects the binary concepts of life/death, and implies that her life is not complete without the said mental process.

I like how the relationship between Ricardo and Ana María makes multiple references to nature. Physical intimacy between them, such as arms touching and Ana María’s cheeks pressing against Ricardo’s chest, took place in nature. I think the plainness of nature here connects to Ana María’s emotional nakedness to Ricardo. Ana María shows her side of fragility when she begs Ricardo not to leave her, and her physical submission to Ricardo. I find this connection very beautiful and vivid since it enables readers to experience her infatuation with Ricardo through readers’ senses.

I also noticed how Bombal contrasts Ana María’s relationship with Fernando with Antonio’s relationship with Sophia. The moral lines become complicated to me; Ana María retains the reputation of being a “loyal” wife since Fernando never kissed her; on the other hand, Antonio was seen kissing Sophia. Their unfulfilling marriage, marked by jealousy and suspicion, connects with Antonio’s indifference toward his infidelity. He says, “For a few kisses I took from her (Sophia), she is now treated like nothing at all and you even ignore the great affection she had for you” (245). I see Antonio’s behaviour as a sign of vengeance, alluding to patriarchy. Ricardo’s presence in Ana María’s life humiliates Antonio and is perceived as a threat to his manliness. His desire to re-assert control over his wife displays his insecurity. Women also develop emotional dependence on men; their sense of identity derives from their husband’s affection and attention. Bombal writes, “Indeed, as a woman, she understands Silvia’s frenzy, her desire to measure herself against Maria Griselda” (189). Alberto also says, “There is always something that escapes out of everything… It’s just like Maria Griselda! As soon as she moves, I feel her already distant…” (198). Lateral oppression among women owing to insecurity shows how they yearn for their husbands’ affection to reinforce their self-confidence. At the same time, patriarchy indoctrinates men into thinking that they must look dominant; possessing their wives is seen as a symbol of success and manliness. In this case, I think patriarchy oppresses both women and men.

My question is: What roles do religion and gender play in depicting the miseries of male and female characters in “The Shrouded Woman?”