RMST202-Literature Review

In my previous post, “The Society of Reluctant Dreamers”, I mentioned that I am currently feeling a little foggy because of Covid. Today is supposed to be my last day of exile… I mean quarantine… so hopefully, I will see you all in class tomorrow?

Anyway, my thoughts on the class; I really enjoyed this class. I was a little skeptical at first because being given the choice of what I wanted my grade to be was a unique decision. I am very much a classic “over-achiever” and because of that I often sign myself up for more than I can physically do, but surprisingly, I managed to complete each novel and blog post (except of course my most recent one which was unique). I found the structure of this course really comforting, I knew exactly what I had to do every week and there were never any surprises. As well, I always enjoyed the environment of the classroom and felt like class discussions flowed naturally.

I would like to talk about some of my favourite novels from this class. My top two favourites were “Bonjour Tristesse” and “The Passion According to G.H.”, I think that these were my favourites because I related most to the characters. Not because I have ever experienced anything similar to either protagonist but because their inner monologues were understandable in a way that the other protagonists’ were not. In “Bonjour Tristesse”, Cecil’s situation is not something I could personally relate to, however, I have been a 17-year-old girl, who was unsure of herself and the people around her. And in “A passion according to G.H”, G.H’s story is particularly unique but her deep inner reflection and turmoil is something I could empathize with. Furthermore, I appreciated these novels for featuring women as protagonists whose stories didn’t really revolve around men.

Overall, I would like to say thank you for this course, I quite enjoyed it and I am sad that it’s ending.

I am going to be honest, I tested positive for Covid on Wednesday of last week and because of that reading, this book was quite difficult. I don’t know if it’s the book or the illness my body is trying to fight off but I found the plot very difficult to follow. I am half-tempted to just tell you about the wild dreams I have had in my life instead of this book because although I tried reading it, I cannot remember a single thing about it and do not have anything intelligent to say on the subject. Does this count as a blog post if I don’t really talk about the book? Dreams are on the subject of the book? I’ve always felt an odd connection to dreams; anytime anyone has mentioned that they had a peculiar dream I beg them to tell me so I can attempt to decode it. I guess I am just going to talk about dreams instead because that’s where I’m going with this, and I truly believe that writing is more about saying what wants to be said not what you think should be said. This is going to be unhinged so be prepared. 

In the lecture, you (I am addressing you, Jon, personally because I think you might be the only one that reads these posts) posed the question; what are dreams for? This was a particularly good question in my opinion because I have always wondered the same thing. What purpose do dreams serve, evolutionarily? I say evolutionarily because I am an Anthropology major and sometimes I get stuck in the mindset of why is this important for survival? I suppose it’s not, or maybe it is, I don’t know because I can’t say what life is like without dreams. I also can’t say that my life is either better or worse because of dreams. But regardless, to answer your question, I think dreams are for motivation, escapism, nurturing passion, and connecting to your inner consciousness. I don’t know if any of this makes sense but I feel like dreams are essential to the creative and emotional aspects of our lives. When we get caught up in the mundane tasks of everyday life, it’s dreams that remind us that that’s not all we are made for. A quote that I wrote down from your lecture was “the dream of the committed individual is no more than that: a dream” —I think dreams are essential because they are not permanent, they don’t matter, they can simply be a dream (a reprieve from the every day) or they can be something motivational. It doesn’t matter what they are and that’s what makes them essential, because they simply exist without trying to be anything more. 

Again, I apologise for not writing about the book and I apologise for this somewhat unhinged blog post but regardless I hope you enjoyed and I hope you still count it as a blog post and give me the grade I contracted for! I also apologise for the lack of photos, I am just very tired. 

The Soldiers of Salamis is a novel based loosely on real events, told by a narrator with the same name as our author, Javier Cercas. Whether it’s supposed to be him or that’s just an aspect of the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy of the story, I am not sure. The fiction/nonfiction story is divided into three parts— one, how Cercas discovered and became obsessed with the amazing survival story of Rafael Sanchez Mazas; two, a first-person account of Sanchez Mazas’ time during the war and his escape from execution and three, how Cercas comes in contact with who he believes is the soldier who spared Mazas’ life. 

One of the first times I came to Vancouver as an adult, The Vancouver public library literally stopped me in my tracks, I was so amazed by how beautiful and grand it was.

Overall, the novel reads like the narrator trying to piece together the plot as he goes. The reader gets the sense that you are discovering the narrative at the same time as the narrator, which gives the novel a somewhat of a thriller or mystery vibe. An interesting aspect of the novel is that the story Cercas is trying to recount isn’t an unheard-of story, it’s actually the opposite. Many of the characters he interviews during the first part of the novel tell Cercas that Mazas’ himself told his story to anyone who would listen. I found this interesting because the tale reads like a mystery but the story is already very well known. However, what makes this “true-tale” relevant is the way that Cercas tells it. Before the narrator “wrote” this book, the miraculous story of Mazas’ was just rumours or gossip and Cercas gives it life.

Downtown Vancouver at night <3 I love the lights!

The novel as a whole is interesting because of its biographical elements. A lot of the characters were real people, the narrator himself is named after the author (or is the author, still not sure). This memoir-like piece of fiction makes us question how much fiction is influenced by reality and how much reality can feel like fiction. This concept, I feel, is alluded to in the novel, on page 29 (of my copy) in a conversation between Cercas and Aguirre. Cercas remarks “Because it sounds like fiction” and Aguirre answers “All wars are full of stories that sound like fiction”. In this scene, they are directly talking about the events that inspired Cercas’ novel. I think that these quotes illustrate how fiction and reality are more closely linked than we think and therefore “the truth” and the perspectives that come along with that are irrelevant.

The novel, “Amulet” by Roberto Bolano was an enjoyable read. It features Auxilio Lacouture who is an uruguay immigrant living illegally in Mexico City. She is passionate about poetry and literature which leads her to having many different relationships with different famous Mexican writers, as well as working odd jobs at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. While working at the UNAM, Auxilio became the only symbolic resistor of the Tlatelolco massacre in 1968. The novel tells the story of Auxilio and her life before, during and after the event and how she influenced and nurtured Mexican poetry and literature. 

I took this photo the other night when I was walking home from my friends house, I really like it because of the way the stop lights and store lights cast shadows.

Overall, the timeline of this novel is confusing, but I find that there is a purpose to it. Auxilio is a classic example of an unreliable narrator. She starts the story unsure of when exactly she moved to Mexico and continues to confuse dates and years in which events took place. As well, she narrates the story as if she’s telling it while being held captive in the bathroom but much of the story takes place after the events of the massacre. On page 56, she says “that afternoon of 1971 or 1972. And the strangest thing is I remember it prospectively, from 1968”, this conflated timeline leaves the reader unsure of what events are true and what exactly is happening in the “present” (1968). Furthermore, Auxilio says that everyone believes the things she says because she is “their mother” and because she can see into the past and into the future. This omniscient point of view from the narrator, who is also a character in her own story is an interesting perspective, but also confusing. I think that this narrative structure is supposed to clearly distinguish her life before the massacre and after. The massacre acts as a grounding point in which afterwards Auxilio is never the same. 

On the very first page, Axilio refers to herself as “the mother of Mexican poetry”, at first I interpreted that to mean she founded Mexican poetry. However, after reading the book I interpret it differently now. She nurtured and guided Mexican poetry. She loved poetry and literature so much that she nurtured it by taking care of the professors and students at the university and the renowned poets of Mexico City. She wasn’t a writer herself but she contributed a lot to the culture of poetry and literature. 

As the book goes on Auxilio seems to lose track of the narrative and it is slowly transformed into something fantastical. This aspect of the novel was very confusing, although I don’t fully think I grasped the entire concept of the novel, I’m curious as to how everyone else viewed the unravelling of the narrative. Therefore, my question is; how do you think the unravelling of the narrative contributed to the novel as a whole?

I found this book incredibly difficult to understand but somehow also really enjoyable. I felt like I was missing some historical context that would’ve made some of the references and allusions more meaningful, but besides that here are my thoughts…

The novel (short story?) tells the story of a handful of couples living in communist-occupied Romania. It is obvious from the beginning that all the couples are at least upper-middle class as they are driving to the dinner party and are speaking of the various ways that Bazil (their host for the evening) manipulates his power and social standing to gain extra privileges like gas, coffee, and fancy food. In the beginning, this is impressive to the couples but as the evening goes on they seem to become disgusted with their hosts’ displays of excess and wish to not be associated with them. 

I’m finding it increasingly difficult to find interesting photos for these posts, but I will not stop including them because I feel like they give me an opportunity to add a little Easter egg of personality.

The way in which the dinner party is described is interesting, Manea uses a lot of repetition and descriptive language to convey the overall feeling of shameful pleasure the party experiences. The guests and the hosts all enjoy lots of food and drinks and the narrator describes them enjoying it as if the characters are starving and this is the first taste of food they’ve had in a while. It’s almost grotesque to read because you know that this experience is a result of some shady dealings and manipulation of power. Furthermore, the contradiction between their meal and experience and their conversation is striking. Here they are enjoying rich food and drink but also talking about the corrupt and unfair treatment of their society. After the events of the dinner party, neither of the invited couples are interested in maintaining any sort of relationship with the hosts which further proves their feelings of guilt.

I cannot believe that the semester is well over halfway over. Maybe it’s because I was busy or just distracted but it really flew by.

The subject of the Trenchcoat is immediately confusing and intriguing. When Dina first brings up the subject with Felicia, Felicia is immediately defensive and denies the possibility that the trenchcoat could belong to either her or her husband. This defensive response is confusing the reader because as far as we are concerned it is simply a trenchcoat. However, as the plot develops it becomes abundantly clear that it is not simply a trenchcoat. The mystery of the Trenchcoat drives everyone crazy because although it appears to have no real consequence on its own, the implications of it are alarming. The novel takes place in a dictator state in which public spaces do not feel safe and everyone must watch what they say or do because someone is always watching/listening. The only assumed safe space is their own residences, however, the presence of the Trenchcoat implies that they are not as safe in their own homes as they think. The point of the unassuming Trenchcoat (I think) is that it is unassuming, there is nothing special about it. As Ali says on page 240, “and so this drop that overflows a glass that’s already been running over for a long time— this drop is not a drop of blood. A simple extra drop, like so many others”.  The characters are living in a society that has become so controlled and over-monitored that the simple addition of the Trenchcoat is enough to drive them all to paranoia.

Question: The one character that seems the most mysterious but also involved with the plot is “The Kid”, what do you think is his importance to the story and why he became so involved with the Beldeanu’s business? 

I found the concept of this novel really interesting. I’ve read other books that are similar in the way that they contain two books that eventually come together to form one narrative (for example, “The Starless Sea” by Erin Morgenstern), however, Perec’s novel is unique because it’s half biographical. 

A picture of a rose in the UBC rose garden, this was obviously not taken recently as there are no roses blooming in the garden as of right now.

Overall, I found Perec’s biographical narrative interesting because it was so fragmentary. He explains in the beginning that he has no memory of his childhood, but then proceeds to fill half the book with fragmented pieces of his past. This creates an interesting narrative because the reader doesn’t know what is true or just Perec’s imagination filling in the gap. As well, there are times in which he recites pieces of writing from his youth and then contradicts or amends what he has written. This fragmentary way of telling a story leaves the reader without much of a satisfactory conclusion and leaves a lot up for interpretation.

The other aspect of the novel is the mysterious island of “W” and the story that coincides with it. The island is somewhat of an enigma and it’s hard to interpret. I think on its own its a powerful metaphor for Nazi occupied Germany, as well as concentration camps. However, I find that the Island of “W” becomes more interesting when you remember that this story was something that Georges Perec came up with as a child and built upon in his adulthood. This adds a bit of context and nuance that is heartbreaking, as it shows a way in which Perec, as a child, was trying to understand the confusing and devastating world around him. Paired with Perec’s fragmented memory and his childhood made up story, you get a bigger picture of the trauma he endured. 

I took this photo last June when I went whale watching with my mom,

Question: What were the biggest parallels you found between Perec’s own story and his made up story, “W”?

“The Passion According to G.H” is a novel that could very easily be labeled difficult and convoluted and therefore not worth anyone’s time. I certainly felt lost and confused upon starting this novel and therefore found it hard to enjoy. However, as soon as I gave up trying to decipher it and simply took it in for what it was I found that I not only started to enjoy it but also that my brain was subconsciously piecing together some sort of narrative. I’m not sure if I completely grasped the entire meaning of this novel; however, these are my initial thoughts…

This novel tells the story of a woman going through a revelation or transformation. She endures a lot of deep inner rumination and seems to decipher value and meaning from things that others would find mundane. An arc that I found throughout the beginning of the novel was the idea of perspective. More explicitly the perspective of others imposed on G.H. We only know our narrator by her initials that are found on her suitcase, not by her own name. Which potentially represents the narrator’s own perspective of herself as a character through other people’s eyes. Throughout the novel, the narrator reevaluates her identity and her own self-image. She realizes that living life exclusively from the perspective of those around you leads to living a false life, an imitation of life. As her transformation progresses, G.H starts to piece together a new identity, someone who is her more authentic self. 

This photo was taken with a disposable camera when I went to the PNE back in August

“How to explain, except that something I don’t understand was happening. What did she want, that woman who is me? What was happening to a G.H. on the leather of her suitcase? 

Nothing, nothing, only that my nerves were now awake– my nerves that had been calm or simply arranged? Had my silence been a silence or a high mute voice?” (pg.36)

This quote kinda illustrates my point exactly of how G.H comes to realize her new identity and how her authentic self was there the entire time, she just had to change her perspective to find it. 

Another main plot point (if not the only real plot point) is the cockroach and its presence which is what spurs most of the main character’s inner unraveling. The cockroach triggers G.H’s intense rumination because of her hatred for the insect. She says the reason for this hatred is because of their timelessness and the fact that they have existed on earth for hundreds of thousands of years without evolving much. Another theme I found in the novel was gender and G.H.’s own identity of being a woman. Furthermore, throughout the novel, G.H. compares herself and the cockroach and humanizes it by giving it female characteristics.

This is also a film photo from when I visited Granville Island with my roommate on the first day I lived in the city:)

 As well, on a couple occasions, G.H. describes herself as a painting on a cave wall and declares that she has been alive forever. I think that the comparison between herself and the cockroach and the presence of the cockroach in general, is supposed to symbolize how similarly to the endurance of cockroaches as a species, women have endured a lot throughout history and their societal responsibilities haven’t changed much. G.H hates cockroaches because in her mind they symbolize the stagnant role of women that she doesn’t fit into. This theme is also seen throughout the novel when G.H. compares the cockroach to women’s reproductive organs and relates the insect to her own abortion. 

My question for this week: Throughout the novel, G.H narrates the story to the reader and sometimes identifies the reader with endearing terms such as “my love” or other terms such as “mother” or “doctor”. What do you think is the role of the “reader” or “listener” of G.H.’s story? 

Taken on Robson street, this little banner is a great reminder as we enter the middle of the semester that everything will work out just fine!:)

Bonjour Tristesse by Francoise Sagan appears at first to be a classic tale of a spoiled teenager longing for the days in which she was the main focus of her father’s life and rebels against the new motherly figure in her life. I think it would be easy to diagnose Cecile as a classic whiny, privileged, teenage girl but upon further inspection, Bonjour Tristesse as a novel is much more than that. Cecile as a character is reaching a turning point in her life as she exits childhood and enters the realm of adulthood, but just before she can Anne is introduced into the picture. Like most teenagers, Cecile is young, selfish, and lacks empathy for those around her. This is not to say she is a bad person, she is simply a young woman who has yet to experience the consequences of her actions. I think ultimately the book tells the story of a girl who yearns for guidance and approval but also the freedom to choose and express her own opinion. Cecile is stuck in a dichotomy and because of this, she makes numerous mistakes that eventually lead to the fatal climax of the story. 

Throughout the novel, Cecile is repeatedly treated as an accessory or pet by many of the characters in the novel. Overall, I think the struggle of the novel has less to do with how Cecile feels about her father and Anne’s relationship and more to do with her own struggle to be treated like a person with real feelings and opinions.

This is Stinky, given name, William. But who has ever met a cat who goes by their given name? no one, because cats have a tendency to accumulate odd nicknames that suit them better. Anyway, Stinky is not my cat, he is my roommate’s girlfriend’s cat but he is still cute enough to make it to the blog post.

Cecile’s story is one of control and becoming the master of her own life as well as the lives of the people around her. Only when her plans come to fruition does she realize that with agency comes responsibility and she is solely responsible for the consequences of her actions. The book ends with Cecile coming to the painful conclusion that her actions not only have consequences but the people she has invoked her plans have feelings and emotions and the individuals around her are not simply there for her own manipulation. Bonjour Tristesse is a classic coming-of-age tale with a tragic twist that leaves the reader feeling introspective of their own life at seventeen.

Question: What do you think of Cecile as a narrator and how would you diagnose her character arc?

I took this photo when I was on vacation with my family in Sooke. If you’ve never been to Sooke it’s a lovely little town 45 mins from downtown Victoria. I’ve always loved it there and coincidentally my boyfriend is from there, though we met at UBC.

After reading so many novels and other pieces of literature written and centered around men, their experiences, and their perspectives, I found reading “The Shrouded Woman” by Maria Luisa Bombal so refreshing. Overall, the whole concept for the novel is really unique, Ana Maria is reexperiencing past memories postmortem with new clarity that she feels she only has because she is dead. As well, the entirety of the novel occurs through Ana Maria’s memories, therefore there is the question of how reliable is this narrative and the events we are seeing?

Throughout all the main events of the novel, Ricardo and Ana Maria’s relationship, Alberto’s marriable and Sylvia’s death, Fernando’s secret love, etc. are all recited through Ana Maria’s memory of them. This is not to say that Ana Maria is necessarily an “unreliable narrator”, only that memory is often polluted by our own biases and perspectives. It makes me wonder, what would this particular story or narrative look like from a completely unbiased, third-party narrator? Is it even possible to tell a story from an unbiased perspective?

Obviously, because the narrator of the story is postmortem, it is hard to portray active character development. However, the first part of the story is heavily focused on Ana Maria as a young woman and her relationships with, her first love, Ricardo, and her brother. Further on in the story, the narrative switches to focus more on her as a mother and her relationship with her children and her husband. An interesting parallel between the two parts of the story is Ana Maria’s contemplated suicide and her daughter-in-law’s suicide. Both involved guns and had similar story arcs, involving unrequited love and overwhelming emotion, but only one of them actually went through with it.

The sunset the other day when I was walking to the Skytrain station:)

Ana Maria doesn’t really dwell on this moment much and doesn’t seem to draw the connection herself which is interesting. I am not entirely sure what the significance is but it’s interesting and worth exploring.

Before I talk about the book itself, I have to describe how incredibly difficult it was to find a physical copy of it. I preemptively started looking for a copy two weeks ago. I started by looking at the Indigo locations in Vancouver and Burnaby because I work at a location in the city and therefore I have a discount. I had no luck finding a copy at any of the locations and shipping was going to take weeks. I then decided to try calling Pulp Fiction, they didn’t have any copies. I then proceed to call five or six different bookstores and even visited a couple on my way to work and almost all the booksellers commented on how rare it is to come across this particular title. Finally, I called one of the last bookstores on my list, “The Paper Hound Book

Here’s a cute little picture I took at the Seawall. I’ve lived in the city for 6 months now this is the first time I properly walked along the seawall and wow I’ve been missing out. Plus last Saturday was such a nice day!

store”, the phone rang and a young woman’s voice answered, I desperately asked her if they had a copy of “Paris Peasant” in stock and she cheerfully replied that they did. I was shocked but delighted. The next day I took a lovely trip downtown picked up the book and got coffee at a lovely cafe. Overall, the book was hard to find but the victory I felt when I found it was great and the whole experience felt somewhat like a treasure hunt.

Anyways on to discussing “Paris Peasant” by Louis Aragon. My thoughts on the novel were conflicted. I tried really hard to think past: this book is boring. I really wanted to find the beauty and originality that it had to offer. And truly I think that Aragon does a wonderful job of portraying the beautiful city of Paris in a very honest and non-cliche way. Aragon’s imagery was exquisite and he was quite funny at times. I especially enjoyed his display of self-awareness on page 97 when he says “These worthy folks are in a state of consternation. They have read, without really understanding, the pages which you inexplicably blacken with your frantic attempts to describe, in which looks suspiciously like a spirit of mockery, these winding byways now crouched under the threat of the raised pickaxe.” This quote made me feel better about the fact that a lot of his writing felt convoluted and hard to read; but obviously that was on purpose.

I took this photo when I was walking around downtown after picking up my copy of “Paris Peasant”. I saw the sign that says “rare books” and the sign that “coffee” above it and thought -wow algorithmic advertising in real life-.

As well, I thought Aragon’s themes were quite refreshing and found his candidness interesting to read. Although, at times I felt like he crossed a line. A lot of his opinions or dialogue about women were really uncomfortable to read. I understand the argument “it was a different time” or “this was a product of a different way of thinking” but I think it’s important that going forward as we evolve as a society to read literature from the past and criticize it with our current views. This way we can understand the mistakes of our past and move forward towards a kinder and more inclusive future.

This leaves my question: what were ideals or themes of Louis Aragon’s novel that were indicative of the time period and how do we view those ideals/themes now?