The time of the Doves by M. Rodoreda follows the story of Natalia, and the tumultuous tale of romance, war and the harsh realities that grip her life. In the first half of the book, I was often left feeling confused about Natalia’s agency as a woman, mother and wife. I found it hard to come to terms with her decision to marry Quimet, given his controlling and obsessive nature and her early comprehension of these flaws. I felt like there were vivid descriptions of her despair, and the mental and emotional pressures being put on her, but I felt like there was an overall lack of explanation behind her reasoning and thought processes that governed her actions.
Another interesting observation I noticed was how the book’s title “The Time of the Doves” alluded to a larger theme in the text, which was the liminality between animals and humans. The blurry lines that were crossed between the realm of the human and animals were evident in instances such as men being torn up from war (like the grocer), Natalia scrounging for food and shelter, Natalia’s decision to kill herself and her children due to her instincts taking over. Additionally, the doves housed in her home, where she was “killing herself cleaning up after them”, and desperately wanting to separate her “heaven[ly]” house and the “hell it became” (p.100). The novel perhaps creates this blurring of boundaries to foreshadow how war brings out the animal in human beings, with humans being morphed into aggressive, uncontrollable creatures of instinct and conflict.
In addition to these broader themes, I noticed a sub-theme of isolation that ran through the book, carried by Natalia’s feelings of intense alienation. A particular instance where she described her role on p.82- “I was selling him my work..wholesale” highlighted the everyday commodification of humans, and reducing them as mere objects to be used, leading to a loss in sense of self for Natalia and others. It also connects to the broader themes of “things” in the book- the furniture, the markets, the house of the bourgeoisie family Natalia works for, and many more. War creates an image of the world disintegrating – like the things and people that occupy that world are living on the brink of destruction.like they are things that can be and will be destroyed.
However, not all bad things come out of destruction. Natalia eventually does fall in love with the grocer, in imperfect ways (who suffers infertility and cannot bear children) and marries him to create a non-traditional family structure. She lovingly refers to him as her “little cripple” towards the end of the book, in a warm tone that lies in stark contrast to the tone implied in the rest of the book. Her found family has an inorganic solidarity, and it leaves us wondering whether the best stories are ones that are also inherently imperfect.
Food for thought:
In your opinion, do politics, war and societal standards mentioned in the book (and derived from its context) stand at the periphery of Natalia’s life, or the center of it? Why or why not?
Hi, great blog post! I agree with you on the part how Natalia accepts all the faults Quimet has, and I myself question why would she love him. Her later marriage to Antoni to me reveals that Natalia only wants a man to be present in her life, regardless of their characteristics, since she is very good at living up to the standards posed by men.
“The novel perhaps creates this blurring of boundaries to foreshadow how war brings out the animal in human beings, with humans being morphed into aggressive, uncontrollable creatures of instinct and conflict.”
I like this idea, except that I’m not sure we see any such “aggressive, uncontrollable creatures” in the novel, right? And I’m not sure that the pigeons are portrayed this way, either: uncontrollable, perhaps, but aggressive?
Hi!
I love the way you questioned the character’s motives and the explained the themes in the book. All very insightful!
I feel like the story has a balance of making Natalia the center of the book, but also covering in great detail how other factors like war affect her life. It almost switches between shining light on her and the context that she is in and how it’s influencing her.
– Vidushi Singh
Hey! It was interesting to read your response, I totally agree that there was a lack of explanation in relation to her emotions. I hadn’t worked out exactly how to phrase it but honestly when you think about how little she explains her emotions a lot more of the story makes sense. For example, I spent a lot of the book just assuming she stayed with Quimet because he was abusive and she didn’t know how to leave him, but your post made me realise that we never learn why she married/stayed with Quimet. Maybe she actually wanted to stay with him because she genuinely loved him, we really can’t know for sure because she never explains the emotions she is feeling.