Tag Archives: Relationship

Week 12 – Conclusion

Posted on by

Throughout the past few months, this course felt like an endless seesaw ride, bouncing against different – yet similar – themes and cultures. In the beginning of the course, I questioned what “Romance Studies” was, or rather, what it could have meant. However, right from the introductory lecture, I realized I won’t be able to find a single answer to this. I therefore avoided trying to find the meaning behind Romance Studies. This allowed me to approach the texts with an open, unprejudiced mind; rather than seeking for a “hidden” theme, thus creating a filter between the book and myself, I allowed the book to speak to me in its most authentic form, in its most natural language, without any of my own thought filtration. Of course, getting rid of this “tendency to find specific meaning” took time to develop. I remember reading Proust and Aragon and feeling a bit lost as I couldn’t find anything that could answer what “Romance Studies” was. However, simultaneously, the lecture videos were of tremendous help. It guided me through the relevant themes of the story, allowing me to establish an understanding of key concepts without having to systematically “look” for them.

Looking back at the texts that we have read, the strongest commonality I personally found between all the books was the theme of “relationship”. First, there was the relationship between people. From the parent-child relationships shown in The Shrouded Woman, Agostino, Bonjour Tristesse, The Time of the Doves, The Society of Reluctant Dreamers, Amulet, etc., to the temporal relationship between one’s past, present, and future, as shown in “Combray”, Paris Peasant, W, or the Memory of Childhood, everything in our texts started off and ended with relationships. Reading about these different relationships – between people, nations, time, objects, literature – was in itself a truly remarkable experience. One big part that stood out for me was the relationship between narrators and literature – such as the mother’s bedtime stories in “Combray”, the narrator Cercas’ journey to write Soldiers of Salamis, and Auxilio’s obsession with poetry. The relationship between people and literature seemed to have a parallel with the relationship between people and time. Like how time can affect people, in that people can reconstruct the present with a recollection of the past, literature, too, seems to reconstruct people’s futures; in some instances, literature seemed like the key driver of people’s lives (especially for Cercas).

Requiring myself to read a book every week was the best thing I have done in this semester. Not only did I become a faster and better reader, but I was also able to experience a “new world” ever week, every time I opened a new text.

Finally, I would like to express my greatest gratitude towards Professor Beasley-Murray, Patricio, and Jennifer for everything they have done for this class this past semester.

My final question: Out of the numerous themes we have encountered, what stood out to you’re the most? Is it applicable to your life in some way?

Week 12, Agualusa, “The Society of Reluctant Dreamers”

Posted on by

Jose Eduardo Agualusa’s The Society of Reluctant Dreamers was a very interesting read. It felt surreal in one hand, but also had a lot of relatable, applicable lessons to take away as a reader.

The first thing that stood out to me was protagonist Daniel Benchimol’s unstable state. Although in the early pages Benchimol stated “I discovered I was able to live on almost nothing and be happy. I don’t think I’ve ever been as happy as I was back then,” Benchimol’s life – as a husband, father, and journalist – wasn’t successful (albeit the term “successful” is only subjective) (12). Particularly interesting was his role as a father to his daughter, Karinguiri. I felt sorry for Benchimol when his ex-wife Lucrecia blamed him for the arrest of their daughter Karinguiri, stating “this is all your fault, you’re the one who gets her going, with that armchair revolutionary talk of yours.” I felt sorry because as Benchimol himself stated, he knew “it was true” (116). Benchimol, though he did not explicitly state this, would have felt guilty for his daughter’s suffering – going on a hunger strike in prison.

However, this sorry feeling changed when I read what Karinguiri had to say about this matter. In a letter to her father, Karinguiri stated, “I’ve ended up in this prison because I decided to be Angolan. I’m fighting for my citizenship. […] Fear isn’t a choice. There’s no way to avoid feeling fear. And yet we can choose not to give in to it. My companions and I have chosen to fight against fear” (217). Although Karinguiri might have been suffering physically, I think she was living true to where her heart was leading; she was doing what she believed was right, to get her world closer to happiness. In this way, I dropped my sorry feeling for Benchimol; instead, I was inspired by Karinguiri. Her life “divided between different worlds” and her fight for “the Angola of the poor” inspired me (216-217). In a way, it almost seems like Benchimol’s revolutionary talks laid the foundation for Karinguiri to “dream” – to dream of democracy, and a world for the poor majority of Angola. It is this other meaning of “dream” – as in an ambition or ideal in reality – that caught my attention, despite all the other talks about nightly dreams. In my interpretation, I think this other meaning of “dream” – especially relating to Karinguiri’s story – is worth nothing.

On the other hand, the more conventional meaning of dream – relating to sleep – also interested me. Specifically, the sleep imaging machine caught my attention. The idea wasn’t new, as I’ve heard of machines similar to that before, but it certainly was frightening. Knowing that dreams “express our forbidden desires,” as it was said in the lecture, the thought of this dream-imaging machine seemed to cruel.

Question: On page 171, it is stated “it might be possible for us to remember future events, if they’re very important or very traumatic.” On a similar note, the book suggests that “foreshadowing dreams” can be true. Do you think this idea of a “foreshadowing dream” was mentioned in a literal way – as in, do you think the author actually believed this idea was plausible? Or did the author want to imply a parallel between dreams and literature, trying to suggest that literature can affect the future?

Week 7, Rodoreda, “The Time of the Doves”

Posted on by

I was passionately engaged while reading The Time of the Doves, mainly for two reasons. First of all, I really enjoyed the narrative of the novel. I felt like the first-person narration of Natalia made the narrative more credible. Normally, first-person narratives are less credible than a “neutral” third-person view, but since this story was about Natalia’s life, nothing could’ve been more credible than her own thoughts; in this way, the benefits of a first-person narrative of this book resembled that of “The Shrouded Woman” by Bombal. In both books, I did not care if there could have been “another side of the story”. All I cared about was what the narrator perceived and thought, which made the first-person narrative most suitable and credible. Secondly, I really enjoyed the temporality and linearity of the book and plot. It felt like specific plot events did not take up majority of the pages; everything seemed more focused on Natalia’s thoughts and emotions. Moreover, I think the majority of the plot is more about how Natalia “lives on”. Though significant events happen throughout the book, the plot continues quickly without being stopped in one event for a long time. Considering that the narration was Natalia’s own thoughts, I felt like Natalia was too busy – with work, housework, raising children – with her life that she had no time to stop at a single event; life was continuous survival for her, survival through endless sufferings. She just had to keep living on.

While reading, I noticed (and indicated on the pages) a lot of instances where I found Natalia suffering: guilt after leaving Pere, on the motorcycle with Quimet, the disasters with the doves, having no choice but to send Toni away, living through times of war (hunger and pain), and marriage Antonio. The last suffering, marriage with Antonio, isn’t truly a suffering; in fact, it seemed like the foundation for Natalia and her kids’ lives to get better. However, reading the last parts of the book, I couldn’t stop feeling a bittersweet, guilty, and incomplete emotion. The actual events of Natalia’s life seemed to be leading her towards recovery from the terrors of hunger and pain. However, I felt like Natalie still suffered. She was unstable and always seemed preoccupied with thoughts of the past. The last few pages where she finally crossed a street implied that Natalia was recovering, that she was reconstituting her life in a positive way. However, the ellipsis after the last word of the book, “Happy . . .” bothers me. Some part of me doubts that Natalia is truly happy, while I truly wish she would become happy.

Although I feel like this blogpost was clustered with emotions and thoughts, I want to end with an organized question: Natalia’s life can be characterized as a “continuous effort to carry on”. Knowing this, do you think Natalia is truly happy by the ending of the story? Can Natalia ever become happy again, despite everything she has gone through?

Week 6, Sagan, “Bonjour Tristesse”

Posted on by

Reading Sagan’s Bonjour Tristesse felt like riding a playground swing. For me this book was full of an ongoing internal contrast in Cécile’s mind between admiration and resentment towards Anne. On one hand, the difference that Cécile and her father had from Anne seemed to be highlighting class differences; Elsa, Cécile, and her father’s lives were categorized as “Bohemianism”, whereas Anne’s life was that of “a cultivated, well-organized, bourgeois existence” (46). I noticed how Cécile took advantage of this difference to cognitively separated her and her father from Anne, strengthening her treatment of Anne as an intruder and “danger” to the happiness of her and her father.

However, at the same time, Cécile seemed to have viewed Anne with great admiration. Cécile explicitly said, “I greatly admired her” (10). Cécile believed that Anne’s addition (or intrusion) to the family would benefit her as she said, “she would guide me, relieve me of responsibility, and be at hand whenever I might need her. She would make both my father and me into paragons of virtue” (44). I felt that throughout the entirety of the book, there was tension between Cécile’s admiration and resentment towards Anne. Perhaps Cécile’s admiration towards Anne fueled her resentment, as Anne’s attempt to bring order and responsibility to Cécile’s life kept Cécile from liking herself; Cécile, “who was naturally meant for happiness and gaiety, had been forced by [Anne] into self-criticism and a guilty conscience” (52). Cécile undoubtedly admired Anne and her “bourgeois existence”; however, she viewed Anne’s orderly life as something far too superior, something that will require too much work, responsibilities, and changes to her current life that seem to her as unwanted sacrifices.

I felt that love was a key driver of this book. Cécile’s attitude towards love started cynical, where she viewed it as mere sensation rather than happiness (20). Then, love changed to a strong “physical” and “intellectual” pleasure that seemed to make her happy when she was with Cyril; it seemed like a true realization until this point. However, her realization of love took a drastic turn when she realized that it was not Cyril that she loved, but she “had loved the pleasure he gave [her]” (127). Perhaps this attitude accurately summarizes the novel’s focus on sensuality, pleasure, and irresponsibility. At a certain point Cécile started to resemble Anne; she started to think about the future and formed tactics that were derived from critical thoughts. However, her irresponsibility remained the same; she is driven by emotions, usually resentment, and never thought of the consequences that could happen by her actions.

To close off my blog, I would like to ask a question: Throughout the book we never got proper insight on Cécile’s mother. Considering that this book had a first-person narrative, do you think the lack of insight on her deceased mother has any implications? Is it merely because her deceased mother is uninfluential to the plot, or perhaps, is Cécile repressing thoughts about her mother?

Week 5, Moravia, “Agostino”

Posted on by

 

Reading Moravia’s Agostino brought me a new perspective towards the transition between youth and adulthood. While I was trying to empathize the situation Agostino was going though, such as him witnessing his mother’s relationship with the young man, I could not understand – by heart – what Agostino could have felt in those moments. In this way, I felt quite attached to Agostino’s thoughts; I did not have any prejudice or bias towards the scenes he was witnessing, so it was easier to perceive – as information – what Agostino was feeling.

What really stood out to me was how Moravia depicted the change of Agostino’s thoughts and perspective towards his mother. In the early parts of the book, where he first saw his mother “let herself fall awkwardly into the arms of [the young man]”, Agostino was confused of why his mother would indulge in a “feminine clumsiness” (11). Then, as he learned more about adult sexuality from the boys at Vespucci beach, his initial misunderstanding turned to “complicity, curiosity, and mug, glum approval” (47). This initial change of thought and perspective was weirdly understandable; I could not relate to it because I did not go through the same thought process nor achieved the end product similar to Agostino, but I was able to follow this change of thought without denying it. Furthermore, it was interesting to see the instances where Agostino had to hold back what he truly wanted to say to his mother, showing how there was that ongoing conflict between his innocent youth and emerging early adulthood. For instance, Agostino wanted to shout to his mother, “cover yourself, stop showing yourself to me, I’m not who I sued to be” (69).

Although it was tempting to view Agostino in a psychoanalytic perspective, I chose not to do so. The reason for this goes back to Aragon’s obsession over sensuality. Agostino’s story, which was a short instance of his much wider life, was full of new sensations; it was almost as if Agostino was piled up by new stimuluses that he could not resist but pursue. In this way, Agostino let his sensual experiences guide his thoughts, rather than rationalizing everything. Therefore, I respected this “pursuant towards sensuality” and decided to follow along the same line; I, too, focused on understanding Agostino in regards to sensuality, rather than logical rationalization.

To conclude my blog, I’d like to end with a question: Moravia, intentionally or unintentionally left out big gaps on Agostino’s life; his regular day-to-day life, as well as his previous relationship with his father. How do you think his regular day-to-day life would have changed, after his summer instance? Also, it was told that his relationship with mother had changed. How about the metaphysical connection he must have had with his father? Do you think his attitude towards his deceased father would have changed?