Conclusions

Posted on by under Uncategorized

This was probably my favorite course this term! At first, I took this for my requirement because the description sounded so interesting even though I had never heard about Romance Studies, and I am SO glad I took that chance because I thoroughly not only enjoyed the content of this course, but also the structure which allowed me the freedom to really get engrossed in these novels and find an escape into novels that I will refer to from now until I can remember.

I loved how different each novel was, and also how uniquely insightful each was whether it be historically or commenting on human nature and the human condition. It really pushed me to read again (and now I am obsessed and fully back into reading fiction – so thank you!!), and also was very inspiring and now has me wanting to write my own novels as well! (If I ever do, I will accredit this course).

I loved getting to tap into the heart of the histories that I was not previously aware of. It wasn’t a straightforward textbook outline of historical events but rather a philosophical one entrenched in literature. I’m also now more interested in history and so aware of how much knowledge I lack.

I want to thank you for creating and teaching such an impactful and exciting course! This is definitely a course I will remember throughout my life and one that really helped me this term find an escape. Overall, this course was very beneficial to my learning, and my continued learning.

The Society of Reluctant Dreamers

Posted on by under Agualusa

I loved this book! This was probably my favorite novel to read in this course, and I really enjoyed the way it was told to the fantastical elements of dream that kept my interest in the development of the story as a reader.

I found that the various perspectives emphasized in the passage where Moira (I think it was Moira) talked of democracy was reflected in the fragments of all of the characters’ stories. I really also liked the shift in the protagonist from having diverged from the true Angolan perspective to fighting for his daughter and bad-mouthing the president on live TV. Though I think I would need a bit more context to really grasp the symbolism of the dreams, I thought that it was a very interesting way to represent unity, or the collective dream/struggle of fighting for democracy and against the corruption of the government.

I also did notice the use of doubles, whether that be reality vs dream, or Hoppi and his twin or the two twin contortionists in Daniel’s dream. I’m not exactly sure what that represents, maybe how there isn’t really one ‘official’ truth but rather various viewpoints.

I also found the idea of literature creating the future very interesting. In the novel, the dreams are prophetic, especially in the case of the collective dream of Hoppi destroying the president which was then followed by Daniel and Hoppi’s confrontation of the president. Maybe collective hope/dreams do infact play a power in if not predicting the future, then shaping it, even if they are rough outlines and not exact.

Overall, I really liked this book! My question to you is: what do you think the dream machine signified? What was the point of that whole narrative to capture and record dreams?

Soldiers of Salamis

Posted on by under Uncategorized

This novel has so many areas that can be explored. From memory, to morality, to information, to accuracy and the nature of fiction and literature!

I really enjoyed this read. Particularly the first and third sections. I found the second section to be a bit dry – though it was intriguing to know more of the man with the mysterious survival story, I was more interested, as was the protagonist, in finding out more about the soldier who let Mazas go and why he did. Though the details of the second section did leave me zoning out, I did really appreciate the way the three sections were tied to each other! It offered up broken information trying to be linked by whatever commonalities the journalist could find, and this was reflected in the way he went about finding and tracing the story, as well as critically evaluating it and questioning the gaps and discrepancies.

I really liked the third section as it offered some release to the tension built up of the journalist finding clues and trying to produce a satisfactory novel that both felt complete and factually accurate. I found the repetitiveness of the comparison of historical tales and fictional tales to be quite interesting, though I’m not sure how to frame that into a larger theme – maybe it alludes to the ending whether details are left out and it is stated that unless you’ve lived through it, you can’t really know or understand the experiences of war.

My question to you is the one explored by the journalist in this novel; why do you think the soldier let Mazas go?

Amulet

Posted on by under Bolano, Uncategorized

Amulet was such an interesting read, with the novel at times dipping into fantastical and sporadic narratives and at other times detailing straightforward and raw accounts of Auxilio’s life in Mexico.

I found the book to be very fun to read, with the protagonist detailing the accounts of the people in and out of her life, as well as offering snippets of her own intentions and goals. I liked the opening as it framed the protagonist and her situation very ambiguously – there were almost no accuracies and she came across as a little bizarre (with the whole vase story). Nonetheless, I really appreciated her passion for literature and poetry, and being a philosophy major, I enjoyed the appearance of phil in this novel.

The central event of this novel was her getting trapped in the bathroom of her university during the take over. It was interesting that beyond her own survival, it seemed that there was an obligation for her to survive, which she did by staying quiet and starving – if she was the only one to witness this she had to survive to sustain the story. The concept of ‘beyond time’ was prevalent throughout the novel, and especially towards the end with her discussing the future of certain writers as well her recounts of her memories of others. This element of her being beyond time, cements her role as a ‘memory’ or as ‘history’ of all the experiences she witnesses, as well as the ones she belongs to, those experiences that only she holds the burden of viewing of acknowledging especially when the world doesn’t or works to invalidate them. I found this to be very creative, and I also liked how the erratic-ness of her story-telling mirrored the kind of history she held and it’s view in the world.

Overall, I really liked this novel, though I didn’t fully grasp all the symbolisms of characters such as Elena, etc. Though I suspect they represent some aspect of the history of the nation.

My question is: Why do you think the bathroom event was so central? Did it mean to root trauma centrally to history? How did you feel the characters were significant to Auxilio’s storytelling?

The Old Gringo

Posted on by under Uncategorized

The old gringo is another look at memory and trauma, recounting the story of an old man who leaves his life behind and has nothing to lose, and Harriet and Arroyo, all of whom are situated at the hacienda.

What struck out to me was how some parts of the novel sounded poetic, especially with the repetition of Harriet sitting alone and remembering. I didn’t really find myself becoming very interested in the story, and this might have been because I felt very removed from the context when I first started reading it (and I was deathly sick so don’t have much memory reading it in the first place. Though I did really like the take on memory this novel had.

With Harriet, I really resonated with the idea of trauma haunting the present. The sprinkling of the lines of her thinking, as if the novel were her memories coming to life around her as she’s remembering, speaking to the vitality of our traumas and how they can tie the past to the present in an almost seamless way.

This kind of reminded me of both Nada and the shrouded woman, with Nada having the idea of trauma within the relationships in the house (hacienda), and with the reflective aspect of the shrouded woman as she recounts her life (though she is dead, and Harriet remains the only one out of the three alive).

My question is: Did you enjoy this novel? Could you relate to any of the characters? I could go on about the idea of having nothing to lose as in the case of the old man, but how did it make you think about your own life, and if it did, what motivates you to do the things that you do or to be fearless?

 

 

 

W or the memory of childhood

Posted on by under Perec

I really liked the way this novel addressed memory. Usually novels that are auto-biographic in nature, or talk about childhood, highlight memories and seem to be fluid in the way memories are explored and described but Perec did a really good job of focusing on the gaps of memory, and how sometimes memory is only a step away from imagination.

I really liked the two(major)-part story structure, and I liked the way that the stories were told interfering with each other, which I felt captured the theme of the novel of the nature of memory, and how W, though fictitious, shares the same place-holder as Perec’s recount of childhood, sometimes flowing into each other (I think there’s a part in the childhood where W is directly mentioned as a figment of imagination). I thought this was a very refreshing way of telling a story, with the narrator acknowledging the gaps in memory and just ‘jumping’ around rather than explaining their history.

I read about the context of the novel (and the last chapter), which outlines W as being based on Nazi Germany and the SS. I thought that was a very interesting way to capture that history, and because I read another blog mentioning trauma and memory, I can see how the novel could also potentially be commenting on how trauma affects memory, or creates gaps or fictions that either block memory or replace it such that it can more easily be re-visited.

I liked the novel’s uniqueness though I did sometimes find myself getting lost in the childhood chapters as I felt things were very dis-jointed (minus a whole other story happening in between). Overall, I thought this was a unique way to explore and portray memory and I enjoyed the read.

My question is: What did you think of W, do you think it was an effective part of the story? If so, what did it achieve?

 

 

The Passion According to G.H

Posted on by under Lispector

As a philosophy major, I really enjoyed the opening of the novel, however, this book very quickly turned into nonsense for me and I found myself uninterested to even try to follow along. I think this is probably my least favourite novel thus far, and what made it difficult to read personally was a lack of reward from following along with the narrator’s train of thought.

I did really appreciate the slow and contemplative style of the narration, though I think I preferred Combray as I found that I could relate to it more emotionally. The passion according to G.H didn’t really resonate with me as I couldn’t really relate to what she was saying. I understood the notion of trying to give form to the formless, and being afraid of what giving it form could reveal to a person about themselves, however, for me it dragged on too long.

I’m not sure what else to say about this novel. One thing that did strike out to me was the image of the cockroach. I’m incredibly scared of them so that added to my being unable to read the grotesque details, but I liked the use of the cockroach as a reflective symbol and as something the protagonist used to meditate on. Though I couldn’t really follow along, I thought that was very creative.

Maybe I could’ve appreciated the existential thoughts more if I was in the mood – I think you definitely have be in a certain mood to pay attention to the slow narrative and think like the narrator.

My question to you is: Did you like this novel? Could you relate to the probings of the narrator? Do you find any comparisons between this narration the one in Combray?

 

Bonjour Tristesse!

Posted on by under Sagan

Bonjour Tristesse was a very interesting read.

It’s about Cecile and her relationship with her father as he falls in love with Anne, the woman Cecile believes threatens their free and youthful way of living. All this is to disguise the sense of instability has within herself, with the thought of losing the only other person who shares this with her propelling her into scheming with her friends to destroy what is probably the only saving grace in her father’s life.

In short, its a novel about youth, instability, fear and childishness. I found myself, like other people, not being able to sympathize much with Cecile. She has every opportunity to grow up but chose to plot against someone who could’ve given her stability and encouraged maturity. I think it’s maybe due to the fact that Cecile has grown up so privileged, which makes anything that disrupts her comfortable existence a pertinent threat.

I thought the father was an enabler, with him not really caring much about what Cecile does and seeking validation from her at times. The father himself is also a little immature, and it was interesting to observe the similarities between him and his daughter.

I really liked Anne’s character. She was self-assured, confident and could see the pitfalls of Cecile and her father’s lifestyles. I think she did a lot to contribute so that they could reorient themselves in a better way, however as we saw, it was ultimately to her detriment.

Overall, I didn’t really like the book. My favorite read so far remains Nada by Laforet, but I did like the discomfort that came with the read as it is not often that I come across protagonists who are so stuck in their ways and ultimately stay stuck and unmoving. The characters in this novel were destructive and petty, but they reflected the sentiment of forever youth and the appeal of an unstable/reckless lifestyle well.

My question is: Did you like Anne? Do you think she could’ve helped Cecile if Cecile would’ve listened to her? Do you think it was in Anne’s place to parent Cecile in the way that she did?

 

Nada, Laforet

Posted on by under Uncategorized

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?

The Shrouded Woman

Posted on by under Uncategorized

First off, I loved this novel. The shrouded Woman by Bombal details the narration of a dead woman who is able to recount her life as a dead body, and present to us moments in her life relating to love, self-worth, and  frustrations with underlying spiritual messages.

I thought Bombal captured the essence of ‘frustrated existence’ incredibly well, with her use of characters that are both naive and childish, as well as deeply sad and longing for things they just can’t seem to grasp or understand before it’s too late, with their ability to understand being overshadowed by the dominating presence of the males in their lives. I thought this narration was so clever, as we are able to get an overview of Ana’s life not as an objective account post-death, but as her living self despite having lived her entire life. It really opened up and explored well the themes of heartache and the troubles of unrequited love and sexual frustration. I could find so many moments within this novel where I was angry at the protagonist for being so childish, empathizing with her situation and feeling bad for her, while also finding parts of myself and my friends in her and while coming back to anger in how she deals with things and the role she gives to the men in her life.

I think what made this read especially prominent was it’s universality in the experiences of women and how they often are made to feel in relationships where they are subordinate and subject to the desires and insecurities of men. This does not underplay their own insecurities, which often times affects not only the men in their lives but ultimately their own lives and sense of self-worth, as we saw with many of the female characters who could’ve been friends or amicable if it wasn’t for the fact that each perceived other women in relation to men.

Ultimately, I felt that the almost ‘obsessive’ portrayal of women in relationships in how their partners see them, and the sadness of their lives when we know of the context that provokes their actions and reactions, really taps into universal themes of the experience of (privileged) women. I find it so incredible that when I read this book, I took so many photos of passages to send to my girlfriends because they were and are so relevant to our modern lives right now, whether it be comparison, making men the centre of our lives and purpose, being mistreated by them, being projected on or limited in relationships, having insecurities and reflecting insecurities, and the ups and downs of the search for love and where a balance of giving and receiving can be found in the constant fight for fulfilment. 

I also really enjoyed the spiritual undertones of this novel, with Ana and the other women’s’ battles over love reflecting complexities of their own identities. Thought this heavily featured the role and emotions of women in regards to relationships and men, it thoroughly explores one set of complexities amongst the many that make up a woman in both her identity and how she is conceived of in society, one that plays a large role and seems inescapable.

 

My question is: What parts of the novel and the characters did you find yourself relating to if you identify as a woman, and what parts did you find completely inaccurate to your experience? For the men, how do you feel about the portrayal of men in this novel, do you agree or have you seen other men reflect any of the behaviours of the men in the story? And for anyone else, did you relate to the relationship issues that were brought up in the novel, and if so, do you think these themes are universal? If you don’t have experience with relationships or if you don’t relate to romance, how did you feel about identity being so tied to romantic/non-romantic relationships?

Spam prevention powered by Akismet