Nada is a novel based on the story of a young girl who moves to Barcelona in hopes of experiencing the colours of life, and finds herself in the midst of a broken and cruel family.
I really liked this novel. I liked how the explosive and violent energies of the characters and their actions contrasted against the almost comical narration of Andrea, who from the perspective of a young university student, provided the basis for an honest and emotional storytelling of life with her extended family.
What caught me off guard was the amount of violence in the novel, whether it be Juan hitting Gloria, Roman verbally abusing her, or just the general energy of the household and the internal traumas of the characters themselves. I read that the context of the novel is rooted in the post Spanish civil war, and so all the characters and their crushed dreams, problems, and emotional volatility really convey the importance of this novel during the time.
I thought that the relationship between Ena and Andrea was quite interesting. Andrea comes across as a fairly rebellious girl, and it was interesting to see that same sentiment reflected in Ena, who also towards the end of the novel, expressed the joy she received from winding Roman up. There seems to be a strong theme of both freedom, and rebellion, with the latter often bringing out the former. I think this would probably reflect the post-war sentiments, where not only did a chaotic conception of life become alluring or familiar/ordinary due to the on-going war, but maybe seemed like the only way to gain freedom.
I don’t really know anything about the war other than the few google searches I’ve done just now, but it’s clear that Andrea’s family reflected the lower class people that were on the side of a republic. As such, the lives of the lower class and the brokenness and trauma in them is reflected in the characters, who we see from the beginning are very distressed and broken.
My question is: what did you think of Ena and Roman’s relationship? What larger theme did you think it represented? What did it really signify?
“it’s clear that Andrea’s family reflected the lower class people that were on the side of a republic.”
As I say in my lecture, I think it’s a little more complicated. In fact, the family used to be richer, but have been brought to poverty (and forced to halve their living space) in large part because of the war. And it’s clear that there are different allegiances within the family–just as there were within Spain as a whole. Some chose one side, others chose the other, and some tried to play the one off the other.
(Also can you please use the category or tag “Laforet” and add some other concepts or key words as tags. Thanks!)
You somewhat come around to this idea at the end of your post, but when you say that Andrea finds herself “in the midst of a broken and cruel family,” I think the more important thing is that she finds herself in the midst of a broken and cruel Barcelona (and Spain by extension).
I think an important element that you touched on is the amount of internal violence throughout the book, and how this is presumably a product of the traumas they endured through the war. I think this is possibly an overarching theme of the book; how destructive war is to individuals in a very personal sense, that it goes beyond the obvious aftereffect of physical destruction.
Hi, I really enjoyed reading your blog post. I agree with what you said about the war and its traumatic outcomes. Trauma is very complex with many layers. Understanding trauma helps us understand or explain how what has happened to us in the past shapes who we are, how we behave, and why we do the things we do. Like Tierra suggested trauma may have contributed to character development.
Thanks for sharing!