Distant Star

I. Do. Not. Like. Poets.

This was my first impression halfway into the book. I don’t like their worldview, or the way they write about experiencing things. I bet these people would’ve been been miserable to hang out with. As the book opened in the setting of college, something about the mood of this book greatly reminds be of the movie “In the mood for love”. I think theres something very distinct about the tonality of college students hanging out and figuring things out in uncertain political times that seem to transcend cultures.

The question from the lecture was something I was thinking about, even as I was reading the book. I was confused why the narrator referred to these people as poets (Weider, Lorenzo, etc) when their explicit circumstance didn’t consist of writing poetry (lexical art I guess) themselves anymore. I think this ties into the broader question asking if the photographs that Weider showed counts as art. Personally, I think at the core of art is this notion of creation, or birthing something new. In this sense, Lorenzo just living out his life is art, because he is creating all these possibilities despite his limiting circumstance; this notion is what he himself recognizes as ingenuity. In a similar vain, the act of Weider to collect these photos and present them in the way he did was an artistic move. His action birthed this sort of effect, and was meant to be a statement. What precisely he was trying to convey, I am not certain. As I said, I do not like poets and they way they convey experiences. But regardless, it was meant to create a sort of reaction, and doing it the way he did meant something more than just “submitting a document to spread information” and thus in my eyes, it counts as art. Maybe not the images solely, but the act itself. Personally, I am not educated enough about the different kinds of art to make a claim on what kind of artistic category it falls under, but I think a fair point can be made that art often crosses these boundaries and that boundaries often times do not work well in the realm of art.

A question everyone: In your view, what counts as a poet, or what makes a poet a poet? How has reading this book influenced your perspective on this matter?

Part 2: One Hundred Years of Solitude

Jon was right, the ending of the book was such a shattering surprise. Now looking back at the entirety of the novel, magical realism is done here like no other, and I certainly cannot imagine any book written of a similar nature that can even live up to, much less overtake the writing of Garcia Marquez. In my opinion, this book is undisputed as a must read and deserves an immortal place in the literature canon. Another thing I have noticed now is how intentional his method and style of writing is. Having read his other works allowed me to realize that the narration and writing style of Garcia Marquez isn’t exactly fixed, and much of the magic encapsulated in “One Hundred Years of Solitude” is actually restricted, and thus intention to this novel solely. This is to say that its design choices were much more conscious than I would imagine. I think this book has a very solid place in being one of the best books I have read so far not just in this course but in life general, although I would hesitate to describe it as one of my personal favourites, just based on the contents and extravagancy of the book but would rather call it a must read. To some degree, reading the words on the page is almost like reading the title to news articles- you anticipate it and no doubt value its significance but you wouldn’t really say that you love reading the news.

To pick up on last post regarding characters, I have stated that the one that stood out to me the most is Ursula. I think her significance to me is almost the concentrated essence of female characters and the overarching role of women in the show. In some sense the role of women may be established in this book due to the repetitions in circumstance that characters find themselves in, thus maybe the role says less about the idea of women, as much as it is another symptom of repetition. But regardless, a new character has taken place over Ursula as the one that stood out to me most- Remedios the beauty. Because what even was that. I guess the fate of those named Remedios is broadly described as being “taken away” whether from mysterious illness, a mental hospital or the heavens themselves. But either way, I think her existence is an outlier.

As a hilarious side note, I have been describing the plot  spottily to my boyfriend, and he is vaguely aware of the general themes of this book. So to clarify the characters to him, I decidedly showed him the family tree, to which he responded with “I expected the family tree to be drawn in a circle”. I think that is a worthwhile note that the editors and translators of the book can take into account.

To finish, a question to you all: What do you all think about Remedios the beauty and everything that happened to her?

On the topic of love and loss, and ultimately, being a man.

This post is a reflection of the poetry collection by Neruda, titled “Twenty Love Poems and a Song of Despair”.  Normally, I’m not a big reader of poetry, which is to say that I don’t have the aptitude to appreciate poetry as much as another person who really enjoys literature and poems, but I do tend to appreciate what I do come across.

To dive into my thoughts for this book, I can sort of summarize my thoughts in one sentence:

He is more passionate about him being passionate than he is passionate about her.

Reading his poems reminded me of a quote that said something along the lines of: if a man wrote a poem for her he loves her, and if he wrote multiple poems for her- he loves poems. I think this doesn’t necessarily take away form the quality or intimacy / vulnerability of the poems that make it beautiful, but I would hesitate to accept its title as the gospel for hopeless romantics, because that means hopeless romantics are more in love with the idea of being in love as opposed to the motions of loving another human being. Although that can very much be the case. I don’t think of myself as a hopeless romantic so I cannot really speak on that.

I think my initial thoughts connect to the lecture very well too, since the feeling I got from this book is that he loves so that he can write. Which fulfills his purpose as a writer, as described in the 20th poem, where he opens with “Tonight I can write the saddest lines.” (pg.70), in acknowledgement of his desire to turn this love into craft, and as that love ends, he understands that these poems contain “the last verses that I write for her” (pg.78), where the potential or material for writing more poems dies as this love comes to a close.

Personally, I think the “problematic” aspects of his poetry doesn’t require multiple reads to notice, especially coming from a female’s perspective. The more notable thing in my opinion, is that this is something I notice often in male writers and the undertone of their work. Notable examples can range from people that are popular now, such as Haruki Murakami, or even the last author Azuela who wrote The Underdogs which had sorrowful depictions of female characters, from Camilia to War Paint.

To recycle Neruda’s own words: Love (from these mens perspective) is so short, forgetting (their sexism tinged work) is so long. Because they always end up being writers worth looking at.

To close, my question to you all is, Which poem out of the 20 was your favourite, or contained the most memorable quote for you, and why is it particularly significant to you?

Spam prevention powered by Akismet