I to start did not really enjoy this book however it did make me ponder. Macabea a complicated but rather very simply presented character as being extremely passive has made me think. Think just as the author had at the start of the novel has they sparced through their thoughts trying to figure out the conjunction between beginnings and endings. At the start of the novel my opinion that the narrator was trying too hard to find complexities and be unique, but as readers we really see how these abstractions develop. Especially in the importance of the end, where Macabea loses her life in rather a harshly poetic way. Her last moments hit by an expensive car contrasting her strikingly impoverished life and the moment of her passing being described as her being finally born. Like in the lecture I thought here about titles how that this moment of her passing she is supposed to be a star, the “fresh flower” deep within her finally surfacing. I wonder if like the professor pointed out that if I had considered the other titles I would have a different interpretation of the ending. Such as “a sense of loss”, I think I may have focused more on her passing and loss she experienced throughout her life rather then her death supposedly being a shining moment of birth. I also find it interesting the conversation about ethics in writing a book about a topic that the author has not experienced. They make claims such as sadness is a privilege to the poor and harsh descriptors, but I’m struggling to decide if that is enough. What makes them qualified to create such claims and assumptions, and what business they have writing it. But I also believe it is important to share these stories of not only poverty but in doing so it must also ensure that the writing is true to retelling an experience. Its also interesting but not surprising to me that a character as mundane as Macabea, has hyper fixations such as collecting ads and drinking cola. I wonder how she perceives her collections and fixations or if it is her own way of making her life a little less mundane.
My question for the rest of the class is what do you think makes an author qualified to write stories on experiences they have not had to live through and what title do you think is most appropriate for this book?
” has they sparced through their thoughts trying to figure out the conjunction between beginnings and endings”
Not sure I understand this…
But I like your question. Or to put it another way: are there certain topics that (certain) authors should avoid? Me, I’m not sure.
It’s funny, because often times people think that you require a lived experience in order to be able to empathize with someones experiences, and therefore under that impression, writers should only be allowed to write about issues in which they have lived. I don’t personally think that should be the case. Empathy is being able to put oneself outside of their own shoes, and into another. Writers can do this without have to be the same as the topic they are writing about.