death – RMST 202

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?

??? 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?

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?