done

Hi everyone.. To be honest I was kinda dreading writing this last post since I hate writing conclusions and I had no idea what to say, but I’ve finally decided on just trying to remember what happened in each book I read without going back and skimming. Actually, I will probably forget about a book or two…. If I don’t remember much or any of some.. it’s not the book’s fault, it’s mine.. so, sorry in advance!

1. I forget the name. SORRY. I think this one is about a son who wants his mother and his father is mean… I remember the goodnight’s kiss… adult dinner party… and something about windows…

Already off to a great start!

2. Nadja is next maybe…. I think the intro was really long and I just wanted to hear about her but this damn narrator man… Manic pixie dream girl and her drawings of EYES. I also remember the narrator and his wife were in some open relationship with her. And then Nadja was institutionalized and there was some commentary on that. WOW! I also remember the train??? scene, when she seems some head out the window… I guess I remember more than I thought…

3. Shrouded woman? I’m forgetting the order… Woman after her death recalling moments in life. She had a weird life… Her first love leaving, her weird husband and children’s drama. I remember the beautiful woman and the one that killed herself? I had fun reading this one but my memory is genuinely shit.

4. Agostino. The boy loves his mom A LOT, and they go on a boat. Then, she gets a hot BF and he hangs out with some rowdy boys.. Something about male adolescence, coming of age, sex, cigs, etc. AND! The weird man with six fingers…..

5. PIGEONS….. DOVES… I remember Quimet.. that evil, nasty, evil man. I actually remember quite a bit of this one but if I get started, I won’t stop…..

6. Something about a star??? This is the one where it shifts back and forth from the narrator and the story? I really only remember that it was very confusing and the woman was pathetic. Did she die at the end? Is this the right novel I’m thinking of? That poor, imaginary woman..

7. The Trenchcoat.. A whole lot of nothing going on in this one. I think it was about the underlying tension in this war?? Something about surveillance and paranoia. Whose coat was it???

8. Pig and money. The gay men and the crime. They steal from a bank, be nasty and evil, get stuck in an apartment and face off. BOOM dead. Stealing from a bank versus building a bank…… I think…..

9. SALAMI. Man researches fascist who survived after being spared by an enemy soldier. He realizes the true hero and who he should be interested in is the soldier. Was the old man the soldier or not.. Not sure!

I actually remembered more than I thought! Well.. at least I remembered the existence of all nine books! Looking back, I’m not sure if this course reignited an interest in reading for me but it did remind me that I could if I wanted to? That sounds kind of sad, but it’s actually a good thing lol! I guess I feel more confident in my ability to sit down and read a book now, since I had a lot of nervousness about that going into the course. So, even if I didn’t gain a love for the romances or reading, at least I had some fun and learned something new! okay bye everyone

salami

… I think this is one of those books where I was interested the whole time, but also never fully trusted what I was reading. Which I think was on purpose? The novel felt less like reading a normal novel and more like following someone’s obsession in real time. The narration kept pulling me in and then immediately making me doubt everything. Right from the beginning, Cercas gives us: “Three things had just happened: first my father had died; then my wife had left me; finally, I’d given up my literary career. I’m lying” (p.3) like… if you are already correcting yourself in the opening lines, then how am I supposed to take anything that follows as simple truth? It immediately invites us to question the facts of the story, and I felt like I was constantly doubting the narrator for the rest of the novel..

What I found really interesting (and also confusing at times…) is how the whole novel is built on different versions of the same story. Cercas is constantly collecting accounts from different people, and no one seems fully reliable.. When Mazas’s son tells his version, Cercas literally says, “I don’t know whether or not it is strictly true; I’m just telling it as he told me” (p.12). That line stuck with me because it feels like the novel is less about finding one truth and more about showing how truth gets passed around, shaped, and exaggerated. The story of the execution and escape especially felt like this. Even the characters in the book admit that it “sounds like fiction” (p.22), which I agree with.. a soldier finding Mazas in the forest and choosing not to kill him feels almost too perfect..

Also… I have to say, I didn’t really care about Mazas. I don’t care about fascists.. whatever.. I was more drawn to the unnamed soldier, the “friends of the forest,” and later Miralles. Aside from the obvious issues, Mazas feels kind of underwhelming as a central figure. His survival depends on luck and other people helping him, not on any kind of bravery. There’s even that suggestion that he kept telling the story because it “redeemed his cowardice” (p.27) which is probably true. So I was actually really glad that the novel shifts focus away from him. The soldier who chooses not to kill, the villagers who risk helping him, and Miralles all felt way more meaningful and compelling to me.

I also liked how the novel challenges simple versions of history. One quote on page 17 stood out a lot: “Some nationalist historians insinuate that the ones who burned down churches and killed priests were from elsewhere… It’s a lie… what pisses me off are those nationalists who still go around trying to sell the nonsense that it was a war between Castilians and Catalans, a movie with good guys and bad guys” (p.17). That idea that history gets simplified into these narratives really connects to the whole structure of the book. It feels like Cercas is pushing against the idea that there’s one clear story or one clear side. And also it kind of reinforces the idea that history is told by the winners. Mazas, as a fascist who survives and later gains status, is remembered. Meanwhile, the Republican soldier who maybe did the most morally significant act in the whole story is basically anonymous or forgotten.

Overall, I think I enjoyed the narration and the ideas more than the actual “plot.” I was confused a lot, but in a way that made me think more about how stories are constructed and remembered.

My discussion question: If the most morally important figure in the novel is the anonymous soldier who history forgets, what does that say about the reliability and purpose of historical narratives?

pig

I have some mixed feelings about this one… some parts of the book I flew through because the action was so intense, and other parts I felt like I was dragging myself along trying to keep track of what was even happening.. I still thought the story was very interesting but there are so many perspectives, newspaper reports, testimonies, police commentary, and background stories that I would just get a bit lost sometimes..

One thing that stood out to me immediately is how detailed the scenes are. I really felt like I could picture a lot of the action scenes, especially around the robbery and the siege in Montevideo. Those sections felt fast-paced and cinematic, but then suddenly the narration shifts into these long explanations or historical details and I felt the pacing slow way down… I understand that Piglia is trying to show how the story is constructed from different sources and perspectives, which is interesting because the novel is based on a real crime, but sometimes I just wanted the narrative to stay focused on the main characters instead of jumping into another police report or witness statement.

Speaking of the police… I have to be honest.. I did not care about the cops’ perspective. Sorry! Every time the narrative shifted to them I felt less interested. Maybe that’s intentional, because the criminals themselves are actually way more compelling.. Even though they are obviously terrible people who have committed horrible crimes, I still found myself weirdly rooting for them to escape with the money. Which is a bit concerning, because they are not good people at all… but somehow the story makes you emotionally invested in them anyway..

The characters that stuck with me the most were the Kid and the Blond Gaucho. Their relationship was probably the most emotionally intense part of the whole novel for me. The final moments between them were actually really moving. When the Kid is dying and Gaucho holds him and tries to comfort him, the scene feels almost religious. The description where Gaucho holds him “like an image of the deposition of Christ” (p.181) was such a powerful image. The scene just felt so intimate and calm compared to the chaos around the apartment.

Another thing I noticed is how the novel comments on the meaning of the crime itself, especially the burning of the money. The newspapers describe it as something worse than murder, calling it “an act of nihilism and an example of pure terrorism” (p.159) and compare it to cannibalism (p.158), which is crazy to me. Like they are upset because they can’t say “at least they are doing it (all of the murdering..) for the money!”

Overall, I liked the novel’s characters, plot and atmosphere, but sometimes got lost in the delivery. The mix of crime story, historical reconstruction, and multiple perspectives is definitely interesting, but also a little overwhelming. Despite that, the emotional moments between the characters, especially the Kid and Gaucho, really stayed with me after finishing the book.

Question: Do you think Piglia’s use of multiple perspectives (police reports, witnesses, newspapers, etc.) makes the story feel more realistic, or does it make the story harder to connect with emotionally?

im not sure..

IM ALWAYS CONFUSED. Extremely lost once again… but it also seems like everyone in this story is also confused and stressed and repeating themselves so maybe it’s fine..

First of all.. The narration style really threw me off at first. There is SO much repetition. Characters say the same thing over and over but in slightly different ways… and sometimes literally the same way again. I think every character does this constantly and also the narration.. So I guess it may just be the style of writing but whatever.

The dialogue is also insanely long. Characters will just start talking and talking and talking. Bazil especially… oh my god. This man LOVES a monologue. Half the time I genuinely felt like he was speaking about nothing?? Just long philosophical speeches about politics or society that spiral into nowhere. And everyone just kind of sits there listening… I was reading at an embarrassingly slow pace because I kept getting lost and having to go back to reread these giant paragraphs but I still DONT KNOW what was being said….

Another thing I struggled with was the characters themselves. There are a lot of them and they all seem kind of connected through this weird childhood friend circle. But honestly… I kept losing track of who was who. Ali, Ioana, Felicia, the “Guileless One,” Bazil, Dina… and then the narrator keeps giving them different labels like “the Kid,” “the Learned One,” “the Researcher.” I kept getting confused while reading and thinking who are we talking about now?? I think started to understand more as the story went on but wow.. I might be like. a bit airheaded…

Dina especially confused me. Everyone seems to talk about her in this weird way. Sometimes they sound kind of mean about her, like she’s pretentious or awkward. But then later she becomes almost tragic or mysterious. I never fully understood what was “wrong” with her or why everyone acted so strange around her… I felt sorry for her but I was still confused on this whole situation.. I understand her husband? is odd… something is wrong with him.. and she is like rich?? and they are not?? but still.. I’m just not sure.

and I still have not talked about this coat situation like what is the difference between a raincoat and trench coat to these people why does it matter? Perhaps the war actually.. If I am remembering correctly, there was some conflict???? trench as in trench warfare….. or something.. not sure……..

It just felt like there was this giant sense of dread and like nervousness in every scene. Like something bad or someone bad is going to come and it connects to the coat.. Felicia literally goes on this giant confused rant trying to figure it out (p.242-243), repeating questions over and over: “How did they get the keys? Why are they meeting in apartments? What does the coat mean?”  Even though nothing actually happens, everyone seems extremely nervous. There’s this constant sense that something bad is happening in the background but nobody can fully explain it.

By the end, when Dina starts wearing the trenchcoat herself and walking around with the “Learned One,” I was even more confused. Ioana completely freaks out about it, acting like something deeply sinister is happening.. what is going on…

So.. I think I really don’t have much to say about this novel because I am just so confused. I feel like I can’t even form a thought on it.. except that it made me stressed.

Question: Do you think the constant confusion, repetition, and circular dialogue in the novel are intentional ways of showing unease and stress in the characters, or they just make the story unnecessarily difficult to follow?

 

??? star

I’m confused… I’m always confused but I think I’m genuinely lost this time… I think I enjoyed this one… again, I am confused so I’m not sure… I found the narration really interesting, but a bit hard to follow! I felt like I was sitting beside someone who just kept talking and talking and spiralling in real time.

The made-up narrator Rodrigo was kind of entertaining. I thought he was so dramatic, so self-aware, and SO SASSY!! It was like he sat down and started writing whatever crossed his mind. What really stood out to me early on is how much Rodrigo keeps interrupting himself. He’s constantly explaining why he’s telling Macabéa’s story, doubting his own authority, and making weird little philosophical detours. It was actually really funny like when he called her so “dumb she smiles at other people on the street” (p.7) LOL

On the other hand… Macabéa herself made me deeply sad.. She is so passive it almost hurt to read. The way Olímpico and just the world treats her is so upsetting.. Olímpico is actually on a different level though. Every time he opened his mouth I got more irritated. The insults about her face, her body, and her intellect…. Please leave her alone…. The scene where he drops her in the mud (p.44) and she immediately apologizes and minimizes it… She is not even real. She’s in a story being told by a fake narrator and I am still so sad for her. This poor girl has been so worn down by life that she doesn’t even register cruelty properly.

But at the same time.. some of the dialogue is just so funny to me. When she tells Olímpico her name and he goes, “Sorry but that sounds like a disease” (p.35)??? or when he randomly responds, “Nobody looks at a girl like you” (p.44)  like HELLO?? The bluntness is so wild and UNPROVOKED.. I felt a bit guilty for laughing because her life is objectively tragic. But I do think the humour is intentional.

About Rodrigo specifically, I thought his relationship to Macabéa was a bit odd.. He claims to love her, even saying he wants to give her soup and tuck her into bed (p.50)???? but the way he describes her body, her stupidity, her emptiness… is a bit uncomfortable. I’m not sure to how feel about it since he’s not even real? And I know Lispector is a woman so I felt conflicted… Sometimes I would forget Rodrigo wasn’t real and be confused on why this man knows so many “womanly” details, but I remember it’s because this is a woman.

Overall, I think I enjoyed the dialogue and narration more than the story aspect of this novel. I was confused, uncomfortable, amused, and sad all at the same time… Very tragic. Very strange…..

Question: Since Rodrigo is literally a made-up male narrator created by Lispector, how should we read the way he both “cares” about and lowkey objectifies Macabéa? Do you think Lispector is intentionally using him to expose how men narrate women’s lives, or does his voice still end up feeling uncomfortable like what it intends to critique?

DOVES

Hello…. Usually when writing my blogs I go back and look at my notes from while I was reading. This time… I see there is a LOT of anger. Which is actually pretty normal for me, but wow. So this blog is basically a running list of all the times Quimet pissed me off. plus a few extra thoughts…

First of all: I did not like this man from the start. SWEATY? AND STINKY and pushy, does not take rejection, immediately starts calling her Colometa (PIGEON GIRL??). The way he just decides they’re getting married after basically five seconds is already a RED FLAG. And Natalia girl…… If you are already running from a man the first night after meeting him… you need to keep running…

What really pissed me off is how early the control starts. He shows up late and doesn’t apologize, and she immediately assumes it’s her fault (“maybe I hadn’t heard him right…”). That moment on page 20 hurt because you can literally see her shrinking herself in real time. Then the neck grabbing (p.25)? The pinching (p.27)???? The constant jealousy over her boss?? It just escalates and escalates. He is CRAZY and ABUSIVE.

And the Maria thing… oh my god. The way he keeps bringing up this mysterious Maria had me SO suspicious. It really reads like psychological manipulation… keeping Natalia insecure so she’s always trying to prove herself. When we later find out he probably never even knew a Maria (p.121), I was like… yeah. Exactly. Control tactic. #manipulation….

What makes the novel especially painful is how Natalia internalizes everything. She keeps doubting herself and keeps adjusting herself for him. His Dumb Ass Motorcycle scenes stressed me out he KNOWS she’s terrified and still speeds around. ANOTHER way he makes her feel small. Also why the hell are you taking a pregnant woman on a motorcycle? or a baby???? YOU ARE STUPID.

The doves I think feel symbolic of Natalia herself. She is trapped, with multiplying problems, the house filling with suffocating noise and growing mess that she has to manage alone. Her exhaustion, weight loss, and constant fear make it very clear how domestic life and these dumb ass birds she didn’t even want are slowly consuming her.

And then the war hits and somehow things get even worse. Lowkey when Quimet went off to war I thought that maybe she’ll get some peace?? But of course Natalie cannot catch a break. Now there is poverty, starving children, just war… The scene when she has to leave Toni at the camp and he’s begging for her to not (p.136-137) and then when she’s literally contemplating ending it all (p.146) were so heartbreaking. I really struggled to keep reading.

There are so many moments I have written in my notes about this BUM. Quimet. But it’s actually making me upset thinking about this man again. The way he laughed at her during their “wedding night” when she expressed her fear (p.51) made me so angry for her. And how she still fears him after his death (p.171)!! I’m just thinking about Antoni Sr. AND I just remembered PERE woww (just p.55-56 I can’t). I had to stop taking note of everything that was upsetting me because it was taking too long for me to get through the novel…

Overall, I really did enjoy this book, even though it was emotionally brutal. It felt painfully realistic in its portrayal of marriage, gender power, and war. I was constantly angry, constantly stressed for Natalia, and honestly just sad at how real her situation still feels.. Just wondering when will I get to read a novel where there is not a man for me to hate on….

Question: Do you think Natalia is ever truly free from Quimet by the end of the novel, or has his control and treatment of her permanently shaped how she sees herself and her life?

YUCK

Agostino……… I guess I should be thinking with an open mind and critically or whatever… But I cannot stand these nasty boys! From literally the first few pages I was already uncomfortable. Why are these boys always so obsessed with their moms.? Like okay. From the first page I already knew what I was getting into with all this jealousy and fixation on his mother and her looks. But oh my god bruh.

One moment I HATE is when the novel describes Agostino’s mother as “still in her prime,” which felt so rude and unnecessary. What does that even mean? It just felt instantly misogynistic, like her value is tied to desirability, even though she’s literally just existing as a mother on vacation. Maybe I am just being nitpicky but I’m already in a bad mood, so whatever.

I feel like there is this common but WEIRD trope of a beautiful single mother and her son, where the son is obsessed with the mom and hates her bf because the son lowkey or highkey wants her.. and this trope is often played as like a gag or something… Maybe I’m making this up… But Agostino and his mother’s relationship is basically that… IT’S ALWAYS FREUD. Their relationship isn’t even like entirely unhealthy.. it’s just a bit odd.. Like his mother isn’t doing anything wildly extreme. She’s affectionate, maybe a little self-absorbed, and kind of weirdly drags him along on these boating “dates” with her young bf. I don’t even know if neglectful is the right word, but it’s definitely inappropriate and confusing for a child..

Once Agostino learns about sex I guess. Everything gets worse. The knowledge “destroys the aura of dignity and respect” he had for his mother (p.42), which is such a gross idea in itself. Like, women can’t be respected once they’re sexual? OMG leave her alone! Why are we watching our mother half naked? Why are we hoping to catch her naked!? Obviously, I understand there are deeper psychological and symbolic readings here, and I’m probably engaging with this at a surface level… but I still hated it.

ALSO. I hated reading about the group of boys. They’re cruel, violent, misogynistic, and constantly humiliating Agostino. The way they talk about women, especially Agostino’s mother is disgusting. LEAVE HER ALONE… And I can’t deal with Saro. This 50-ish-year-old lifeguard hanging around these kids. Why is he here? Why is he so nasty? And what exactly is being implied about what happens on those boat rides? Like. Just control your WILD gang of children. NASTY.

I think I get that the novel is about the loss of innocence, class difference, and masculinity. But I really disliked how that innocence was contrasted against “savage,” poor boys and sexualized women. Like. Of course these poorer boys are nasty, love sex, are evil and animals! Oh but this rich, sheltered, boy is sooo innocent and loves his mom! But now he is “TAINTED” by these BROKE ANIMALS!! WHATEVER…….. Yes I should try to look back on this novel with a more open and mature lens but I really don’t want to think about this 13 yr old boy being attracted to his mother anymore. Sorry. This book made me uncomfortable from start to finish and maybe that is the point, but still. YUCKK.

Also, sorry this may have been my most poorly written blog so far! I promise I know proper grammar and have a university level vocabulary…

My question: Do you think Moravia uses discomfort, especially around class, sexuality, and Agostino’s relationship to his mother, to critique these dynamics, or does it end up reinforcing the same misogynistic and classist ideas it exposes?

bombal

Wow… Writing this immediately after finishing the book, all I can feel is overwhelmed and a bit amused. This has been my favourite read so far, which is not too surprising! I knew I would enjoy this novel more than Proust and Breton just because its written from a woman’s perspective… but still, wow! Ana María… what a woman!

What really struck me is how full her life feels, even though we only see it through memory and death. She has lived through so much. Her first love with Ricardo, complicated romantic and sexual desire with Antonio and Fernando, familial bonds with her father and her children, and intense friendship with Sofía… There are so many different forms of love explored, and none of them feel shallow. The painful ones feel especially real.

My favourite sections were the ones describing her experiences with Sofía and María Griselda. The relationship with Sofía really stood out to me because of how intense it was despite being so brief. They only knew each other for six weeks, but their curiosity toward each other was so deep and immediate.. There’s so much intimacy and then the betrayal! And it all feels so devastating even though it’s so quick. Just thinking back on it… Sofía was the wife of Ana María’s first love… her husband cheated on her with Sofía… and their overall intense affection for each other… just messy!!!

María Griselda’s section was also unforgettable. Her beauty is described as almost violent, like it traps her instead of freeing her. The line about her loneliness, “any expression that could have made her recognize herself as a link in a human chain… Oh what loneliness was hers!” (p. 203), honestly hurt to read. She’s admired, desired, envied, and completely isolated. Her beauty turns her into an object rather than a person, trapping her in a kind of emotional prison. The entire scene, inadvertently caused by Marías beauty and ending in Silvia’s death, was so fascinating and vivid.

As I kept reading, I found myself becoming more and more curious about Ana María’s life. I wanted to know more about what she didn’t choose, what she regrets, what she didn’t understood while she was alive. I found it interesting that these were the moments that surfaced at her death. Out of her entire life, these relationships and experiences are what define her final reflections. It made me think about memory and how we don’t remember our lives evenly some moments just carry more emotional weight than others.

Overall, I really enjoyed this novel. Maybe because I am so nosey and love reading about all of this drama! All of the relationships and experiences felt so real, intimate, and human. I found myself genuinely invested in Ana María’s life, wanting to understand her choices, her regrets, and the emotions she never fully resolved while she was alive. Reading the novel from the perspective of death made everything feel reflective and so brutally honest. I was forced to see Ana María’s life and feel everything she had ever felt. It was so fun.

My discussion question: Why do you think these relationships and moments specifically resurface for Ana María at her death and how did they impact her?

breton…

While reading Nadja, I couldn’t stop thinking about how Nadja is such a “manic pixie dream girl.” Maybe she was like the first one… But after making that comparison, the rest whole novel feel even more uncomfortable for me… Breton seems fascinated by her spontaneity, her intuition, her drawings, and the way she experiences the world so differently from everyone else. But at the same time, it feels like he’s constantly watching her and not actually caring for her. I think he observes her like a case study and not a real person..

One thing that really bothered me was the fact that Breton has a wife, but he’s spending all this time wandering around Paris with Nadja, emotionally entangled with her. It made me question his moral position from the start. I think, if he already has a wife, why insert himself into the life of a clearly vulnerable woman? Like, Nadja is low-income, unstable, and struggling with her mental health, and Breton seems fully aware of this. That awareness makes his behaviour feel even more weird. He knows she’s fragile, but he continues to stay around her, wanting her presence while refusing full emotional responsibility.

Also, he is aware of his odd behaviour and admits even: “I suppose I observe her too much, but how can I help it? … It is unforgivable of me to go on seeing her if I do not love her. Don’t I love her?” (p. 90). What stood out to me here is how self-focused this reflection is. He’s worried about his feelings, his confusion, his moral dilemma and not about how Nadja might feel. Like this is some situationship between this artsy, mature, capable man and this “quirky,” mentally ill girl. I couldn’t stop thinking about how Breton is such a man (negatively).

I really dislike this kind of dynamic and especially when Breton is describing it: “I have Nadja, from the first day to the last, for a free genius, something like one of those spirits of the air… As for her, I know that in every sense of the word, she takes me for a god, she thinks of me as the sun” (p. 111) Like, okay he sees her as a genius and she’s so wonderful, OKAY. But then he says the god and sun part… Whatever.

ANYWAYS. I do think Breton shows some awareness when it comes to institutionalization and class… I agree a bit with his critique of psychiatric asylums, especially at that time: “Unless you have been inside a sanitarium you do not know that madmen are made there” (p. 139). He also connects what eventually happened to Nadja to poverty: “Nadja was poor, which in our time is enough to condemn her” (p. 142). These moments show that he understands how social systems destroy people in similar situations but he still did all that crap from before. Like, leave her alone. Whatever.

Something I enjoyed was the inclusion of the images, especially Nadja’s drawings. They felt intimate and raw, like a glimpse into her inner world that Breton’s narration never fully gives us. I felt like I could really see her and it made me think like Wow, she was a girl and she drew these.

In the end, I think I enjoyed the novel… but also I’m not sure. I also think the negativity in my thoughts might stem from my prejudice against this trope of a mature man with a whimsical women and I couldn’t get over it while reading and reflecting. So. My bad André..

My discussion question: Breton is clearly aware of Nadja’s mental health struggles, poverty, and the violence of institutionalization. Do you think this awareness make his treatment of her more forgivable, or more disturbing?

proust

Hi everyone,

My immediate reaction post-Proust reading is that I’m confused but I think I understand the gist of it. Throughout the text, I found myself lost at many points and when I thought I was getting into a flow, I would realize I was completely misinterpreting or missing details. So I ended up circling back and re-reading sections quite a bit… I thought some of the wording and description was a bit lengthy and muddled, but a lot of this is probably due to my inexperience with this genre of literature. As I mentioned in my intro post, I’m more used to the straight-to-the-point and more grounded scientific or historical articles (which can also be wordy but in a less artistic way?) I’ve studied in previous classes.

Anyways, despite all this, I think I enjoyed the reading. I was really interested in the beginning where the narrator was describing his experience at Combray as a child wanting his mother’s affection and his father’s disapproval. The description of how important the ritual of just his mother’s goodnight kiss was and the lengths he was going to get this when M. Swann’s visit denied it is embedded in my mind. It reminded me of something that’s been mentioned in many of my classes and even at work: the significance of parental affection for childhood development and how such a small gesture can have such a profound impact on a child. The scene of him sobbing with his mother when she stays with him for the night instead of punishing him for staying up just for a kiss really struck me. When she begins to read to him, the text just laments on how beautiful and gentle her voice is, as well as how much care she takes in speaking… Wow! I found it sooo sweet. I think maybe I am just emotional or really appreciate  themes about mothers and their children…

Moving on, I also found the way Proust connects memory, place, and emotion quite compelling, even if it was confusing to follow sometimes. I can really relate to the idea that certain rooms, smells, or foods (like the narrator’s madeleine cookie and tea) and can carry such emotional weight and bring us back to specific moments. It made me think about how a lot of our lives are shaped by seemingly unimportant details and associations. 

In all, although I was, at times, a bit lost in the language, I found what I could understand visually stunning and absorbing. Hopefully reading the literature will get easier with more practice throughout the semester, but I’m so far enjoying it either way!

My question is how do you think the narrator’s lack of parental affection affected him and his emotions (especially around love/attachment) later in life? Also, how could this connect to research in real-world studies on childhood development?

Thank you for reading!

Spam prevention powered by Akismet