Author Archives: abigail franceschetti

Weekly Book Blog

And now we’re done: RMST 202 Wrap Up

So… this has been romance studies. To be honest with you, it is not really what I expected, but I don’t know if I had any expectations coming into the class. I do know that I had NO idea about what romance studies would be and what type of literature it encompassed, which I now see as something that I enjoy. Although I did not love all of the books, I have really enjoyed reading the books that were required for the course. As the weeks went by, I found myself finding commonalities and links between many of the books, which was really fun for me to kind of see. Reading new novels each week felt like gaining more clues to a scavenger hunt with an ending unknown (ominous, huh? Good. That is what I intended). Jon asks in his lecture if ‘every text we’ve read truly singular and absolutely distinct’ as one question to reflect upon the class with. I would say absolutely not! There are so many similarities with all the books, and I can guarantee you that Jon did not just choose these books willy nilly; there is intention within the choices, and themes we as romance studies students should pick up on. I noticed when reading other peoples blog posts, that there were tons of links between the books, and I saw that too. Even with something as simple as the places in which these novels are written, there are commonalities there! For example, the novels Agostino and My Brilliant Friend were both set up in Italy in areas somewhat near the seaside (Agostino is practically on the ocean, My Brilliant Friend is set up close enough to it for me to count it). These are two different stories, and the more that I think about it, the more I can draw parallels between the two stories (like the way that the kids in each book have such free range, or spend their time growing up and learning about the people and world around them). Something that was semi-intentional (ish?) Is the fact that many of these novels include growing up (as stated in Jon’s lecture). I am always interested in reading coming of age novels, where children begin to make sense of the world around them. I think this always interests me, because I found (and continue to find) growing up to be an interesting thing. I can find it complicated and difficult, and I think that is part of the reason why I find it interesting to read other accounts of how other people grow up; I do not think that I can relate to a lot of these characters, but I think that there are small commonalities that I can find between the characters, which is interesting. 

My experience in this course has definitely helped me make sense of these texts, and to help develop my skills as a literary analyzer; this seems sort of robotic to say, but I think its true! Reading books with themes like this in a way feels like solving a puzzle, looking for clues, and finding things with deeper meaning; that is something that I love to do! I go to the art gallery to find more meaning in art, and I feel as if in this course I have read books with significant meanings that have broaden my mind, especially with reference to literature. Thank you all so much for engaging with my posts this past term, and I cannot thank Jon, Jennifer, and Patricio for making my experience in this class a very memorable one. Now, to wrap up my final blog post, I would like to leave you all with some questions: has this course enhanced your perspective on literature? Would you change anything about your experience with this course? I would love to hear everyones thoughts about these questions, because I feel as if I have gained a ton from this class, but would like to hear what others think. 

Standard
Weekly Book Blog

My Brilliant Friend is a Brilliant book

This week I got the chance to read My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante, and can I just tell you that I made a phenomenal choice in doing so! I am so glad that this novel was chosen for this class, cause I had read this book a while ago, and was able to approach this book with more knowledge than I had when I first read the book. I love the way in which this novel is set up; it seems as if there is so much interconnectedness between the characters, the setting in which the novel is set, and the consistency of themes throughout the novel. There are many ways that you can describe this book, but one of the ways that I would describe this novel is through the word juxtaposition. I think that there are so many things that can be dissected on their own, but it is really interesting to compare themes, characters, and concepts within Ferrante’s novel. An example of this is the juxtaposition between Elena and Lila. These two characters have a dynamic that is very interesting to critique and analyze, because they individually have so many differences and similarities, but bring out so much within each other. Elena seems like an observant individual who instead of constantly resorting to violence and stubbornness (like her friend, Lila), she is more quiet and spends time working with herself. Elena is a follower. Lila, on the other hand, is a leader, maybe even Elena’s leader. Lila is someone who fights at times, who has school come easier to her, and is quite a tough character. I think they are good friends, but sometimes there is an aspect of competition that can work for worse than for better. Another very prevalent place that competition between the two girls can be seen within the classroom; Lila is a natural student with a born talent for learning. Elena, as well as everyone else in their class (even the teacher!) Can see it, and frankly it upsets her. However, her annoyance with Lila about studying soon stops when she stops learning at school, and Elena continues. Jon mentioned this quote in his lecture, and I as well think this quote is important: “Not for you: you’re my brilliant friend, you have to be the best of all, boys and girls” (312). I feel as if this moment when Lila is telling Elena to continue her studies, its almost like she was waving her metaphorical white flag; Elena had won their competition, and Lila wanted her to continue to study. I think that Lila wanted Elena to live the life that she would never have, which is one full of academia and knowledge. It’s kind of sad to be honest with you, because it just shows how different families, upbringings, and class statuses can interfere with ones dreams. I always think about what would have happened to Lila had she stayed in school; would she continue to thrive? Would she see the competition between Elena, and give up willingly? Or would it have ended up the same, with marriage and the shoe reparations.
Something that I noticed that relates to a lot of the other novels we’ve read, is that My Brilliant Friend seems to be like recalling a memory. The novel starts off as an old Elena talking about an old, disappeared Lila. After this, the novel begins from the two girls’ childhood. Although the novel isn’t exactly written in the past tense, it seems like it is all a memory that is being presented in the present. Memory is such a salient theme throughout the whole rmst202 course, and I found that to be really interesting. I know I mentioned this earlier in my blog post, but my question for this week is “how do you feel the story would be different if Lila had continued to go to school? Do you feel as if we would have gotten the salient ‘you’re my brilliant friend’ that the book is named after?”.

Standard
Weekly Book Blog

Cercas’ Soldiers of Salamis…

This week we were tasked with reading the Soldier of Salamis; I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I just did not enjoy this book. It is a book that disinterested me, was too long, and was kind of confusing at times. I hate to be like this, and will try my best to write from the perspective of a book-disliker (mainly because that makes for a bleak review, and I believe there is something good in all novels); anyways, here we go. Something that I found to be interesting was the fact that Cercas used his own name as the main characters’ name as well; it added a layer of reality to the story, making it feel as if it was actually completely true. Although I did say I did not like the novel, something that I did particularly enjoy was the very strong connection this novel has to the theme of memory, specifically how memory can be revived, retold, and turned into something revitalizing and new. I found that Cercas spent most of his time trying to revive the memory of Sanchez Mazas, and even Figueras’ father. The second part of the book was interesting, and also supportive of the up keeping of Sanchez Mazas’ memory, because it recalls his life and perspective of what actually happened during the event that Cercas is so desperately trying to write about accurately in his novel. 

Something that I found to be a bit difficult, but became more clear once I watched Jon’s lecture, was what exactly Falangism was; if anything, prior to understanding, I thought it had to do with the bones in my hand (get it? Because of phalanges… anyways.). Poor jokes aside, I saw the term pop up often here and there, and gaining that sort of understanding of context was really helpful to grasp the importance and significance of what exactly happened in the forest, and what references were made to rehabilitating falangist poets and writers in the early pages of part one. If it is true that falangism is similar to fascism, I was constantly thinking about why exactly did the militiaman save Sanchez Mazas? That may sound strange, or insensitive of me, but it was just a thought that constantly ran through my head as I read the novel. 

Anyways, moving onto another theme that I found in the novel, which I sort of enjoyed, but found a little annoying; the constant repetition. Its almost as if the whole novel is founded on the idea of going back to this one minor event in the Spanish Civil War, specifically to what happened with Sanchez Mazas. Like I said before, part one and three are dedicated to Cercas’ novel, and part two is Sanchez Mazas’ perspective, which is basically all repetition of what happened. Repetition is pretty constant throughout Bolano’s Amulet (which is kind of ironic given Bolano’s presence within this weeks novel), the Old Gringo, and even the Shrouded Woman; these are all books that I read prior to this one. Repetition is one of the themes in this course that I love and dislike (hate is too strong a word in this context lol); it can be really engaging, but I didn’t really find it lived up to that meaning within this book. It felt very stretched out, and unnecessary. I understand that the information and drawing out of the book may be necessary to generate thoughtful discussion of the truth or falsity of the story. But I found it was a bit difficult to find such interest. Watching Jon’s lecture while reading the book helped to spark some more interest, but at the end of the day, I found myself sort of trudging through this novel. This week’s question that I pose is sort of basic, but something I would like to hear from others; what did you enjoy about the book (if you did)? What sparked interest and drew you into the aspects of the novel? As I said before, I found interest in some parts of the novel, but overall I wouldn’t say that I enjoyed it; this novel just isn’t for me.. and thats okay! I guarantee there is a positive audience for this novel. After all, it was chosen for this course for a reason!

Standard
Weekly Book Blog

Bolaño’s Amulet; thinking about Auxilio

For this week, we were given the task of reading Amulet by Robert Bolaño. I found this to be one of the best books we’ve read in this course so far. This book, like many of the other ones, have the consistent theme of memory, and I think repetition. The story is one long monologue, from Auxilio’s perspective. I seem to enjoy Auxilio as a character, “the mother of all young Mexican poets”. Something about her makes me really like and sympathize with her, especially when she’s recalling traumatic memories like the bathroom (which she recalls A LOT… repetition amirite?), or having to find accommodation while not wanting to overstay her welcome. One of the most quotable moments I read in the book was, “I lost my teeth but not my discretion, my tact, my sense of propriety” (Bolaño, 37). That was a very memorable line for me. It’s like she just wants to fit in, but also float around, which I find kind of cool. Auxilio doesn’t have many material possessions, but I think she possesses a lot of character and individuality which I noticed while reading. Something that I found a bit confusing during my reading was the constant references to ‘ash’ and damage, which I infer is reference to the revolution, the army occupation of UNAM, or of the coup (I can’t narrow which one is the best fit). It’s like her mind is dusted and ashy in a way. On another note, I felt as if Auxilio was always just sort of around. I say this especially due to the fact that the story is set up in a quite fragmented manner. The narrator is constantly recalling different stories to create one (I hesitate to call fluid, but I might play with the idea of it) narrative that is like her life. For example, there was a solid shift between hearing about Auxilio’s friend, and then hearing a ton about Arturito and Ernesto. Both memories are being called from different times in Auxilio’s life, but are almost told as a story; like she has already lived these moments. 

I really think that the narrators point of view is interesting, but slightly frustrating at the same time. I like how readers get a very raw sort of perspective from Auxilio, to the point where you can see that she’s still trying to think of her older memories and having difficulty recalling them as well. However, the crux of the matter is this, which leads to my question of the week: How do you think the narrative point of view limits what the readers get from the whole story? To simplify the question a bit more, do you think that Auxilio’s way of narration limits what we know? Auxilio seems like an unreliable narrator who is not telling us everything, which only gives us a certain amount of understanding of the story. I think that if the way the story was narrated (without an unreliable narrator), there is a good chance we would have a different story, or the same story but with different information. For example, I think there is a good chance that we would learn more about Juan and how he got into the situation with the King; maybe it was intentionally written so that we’d never know. However, its always interesting to think about how stories could be different if tweaks were made to a character or narrative style. 

With all this said, I would recommend this book especially due to its quotable nature. There are many lines I will continue to think about, especially these two (because I couldn’t choose one; “memory plays malicious tricks on me when the light of the waning moon creeps into the women’s bathroom like a spider” (101), or “If you have friends you’re never alone (61). 

Standard
Weekly Book Blog

The Old Gringo Review

For this weeks book, I read The Old Gringo, by Carlos Fuentes. To be honest with you, I found this book to be a little bit confusing, but for a few different reasons. 

At the beginning of my reading, I found the old gringo’s motivation to be a bit strange; he has come to Mexico to die? Once I got more into the reading, I found myself affirming that Bierce (the old gringo) has very little to live for. It’s even exemplified on page 45 of my copy, in which the main character says, “To the earth and sky alike, to the vegetation of the desert, to whatever took form in sense or consciousness, this incarnate suffering addressed that silent plea: ‘I have come to die. Give me the coup de grace’ “ (Fuentes, 45). I did not know what a ‘coup de grace’ was until looking it up, but it actually refers to the final blow given to a wounded person or animal in order to kill them. Even the main character acknowledges that this is the final thing he wants to finish his life off. That really speaks to the characters life, Bierce seems relatively well thought out in his actions and decisions, and it’s interesting that Arroyo finds that within Bierce too. The Old Gringo’s reasoning as to why he’s come to die is gone into depth later in the novel, but I found it really telling, and a bit of a sad reveal into Bierce’s life.
Now, to discuss Harriet Winslow, who is another interesting character in this novel. Originally when I was introduced to her, I found her to be sort of naive; she spent her time thinking that the Miranda’s would come back to their burning hacienda (the Miranda’s being her employers). There was also a line in the novel in which Winslow said that coming to Mexico was her ‘duty’, and that sort of made me think about what her motivation was; why did she choose Mexico, to teach the children who were going to be a ‘challenge’ for her? I know we receive quite a decent amount of her backstory (with her beau Mr. Delaney, the death of her father), but I want to know exactly why this American girl made this decision. It sort of reminds me of Bierce’s motivation; Bierce comes to die, to fight in the Mexican revolution. Harriet comes to Mexico as a new thrill (or ‘cheap thrill’ as a line in the book puts it); could that also be a motivator for Bierce? 

Another aspect I found to be a little confusing was the relationships between Harriet and Bierce, and Harriet and Arroyo. I did not know if Harriet and Bierce’s relationship was one of a father and daughter, or a romantic one. Furthermore, I found that Harriet and Arroyo’s relationship was very confusing, because I did not know if she felt affection, anger, hatred (or a mixture of all) towards him. After some thinking, I wonder if the bit of confusion I was feeling about these relationships was intentional, and Fuentes knew how he was setting these connections up. 

Something that I found when I was doing a bit of research on the book was that Fuentes wrote this book over about 20 years; I don’t know if it is just the effects of a good book and author, but there were some lines that I found were very wise and seemed to be the reflection of someone with life experience. One that particularly stood out to me was spoken by the old gringo, in which he says: “the only way you escape corruption is to die young.” I know that’s spoken by an older character in the novel, but it feels so enriched with Fuentes’ life experience. A question I would like to leave you is this: Do you think that The Old Gringo would be able to exist as a novel if Bierce’s motivations were different? To further elaborate upon this question, do you think that it would be possible for this novel to exist if Bierce did not want to die? 

Standard
Weekly Book Blog

W, or the Memory of Childhood Review

W, or the Memory of Childhood is kind of a confusing book that is open for many interpretations. The fact that it was a story written with different narratives and storylines was something I had not read that often, which was kind of interesting. I can absolutely see the postmodern influence of Perec’s writing all throughout the book, for a multitude of reasons. One of these reasons being the creation of the Island ‘W’, which was very similar to the Olympics and the Olympic Village. However, once I began to read more into that storyline that it seems like an analogy for concentration camps. Something that makes me think of this is because of the emphasis on the authority over the athletes and how being an athlete is incredibly strenuous. A specific quote that almost affirmed this idea was this one, “If you just look at the Athletes, if you just look: in their striped gear they look like caricatures of turn-of-the-century sportsmen as, with their elbows in, they lunge into a grotesque sprint”. I highly doubt that the reference of ‘striped gear’ was coincidentally put into the narrative, when individuals placed in concentration camps were forced to wear striped clothing. The realization that what Perec is writing about alludes to something way more serious is incredibly bittersweet and telling of the authors life. I know that the book was sort of influenced by Perec’s life, but I find it sort of difficult to decipher which parts of his life are true and false within the novel. This has me thinking about Jon’s lecture on the book, and how this type of autobiographical fiction could arguably be considered a form of narcissism. I have yet to come to a conclusion as to whether this novel could fall under that category, but I do have a feeling that parts of the novel were changed to be more engaging and compelling. 

Something else that I found very consistent was the mentioning of the main characters childhood; It seems so obvious, as it is literally in the title of the novel, but it is so constant within the book. I found the constant mentioning of memories to be kind of nice, but sometimes sad. It is hard because the main character doesn’t really remember his childhood, and has very few memories of his parents. I found that a lot of these memories seem like they’re being woven together by the desire to have something to remember his parents by. I can understand the difficulty of trying to remember something from so long ago, but it pains me that he has to piece so little of what memories he has left with things his brain is trying to fill in for him. This book is packed with meaning, allegories and metaphors, and I think many people should read it. The way that its written is sort of secretive, and I believe that was the authors intention. My final question I have is how would the story differ if it was written without the postmodern influence the novel has? Is there any way to have W, or the Memory of Childhood without having postmodernism in the novel?

Standard
Weekly Book Blog

The Time of the Doves Review

The Time of the Doves by Mercé Rodoreda is definitely a heart-wrenching book, and challenging to read at times (well, I mean basically all of the time). There is little to be happy about in this book, and the times that are happy, you can probably count on two hands. Nevertheless, I think that the complexity and layers that the book has are a lot to unpack. This book left me with so many questions that I think discussions would be very helpful to clear up. I enjoyed reading from Natalia’s perspective the effects the war had on a woman living through the revolution; that is not something you often read in war-centered books. It made me think a lot about the significance of conflict on civilians, people of different classes, and a mother to two children.

One of the first sadnesses I identified in the book was how Natalia decided to leave her fiancé for Quimet; it really hurt me when she found her ex-fiancé and they talked for a little and he had nothing but well wishes for her. Quimet was once charming, lovely, and intriguing. However, over the course of the novel, it basically fades into nothingness, and creates more pains for him, his family, and for Natalia. I believe that there is a reason for this choice to write him this way, but its still difficult because Natalia had a choice and upon reflecting on her decisions, she might have regretted getting with Quimet. 

While reading, I continually found myself thinking ‘wow. Natalia truly is a hard-working woman whom I cannot begin to understand.’ Well, Im attempting to do so now, but I suppose you know what I mean; she works until she can barely stand, takes care of her two children who were painstakingly difficult to raise, deal with her husband who moans and groans til the cows come home, and look after a ton of doves which she soon grows to despise. I remember her ‘last straw’ moment with the doves, and as violent as she was, I sort of understood why she acted as she did. I interpreted her feelings as being sick and tired of Quimet’s actions, especially with the doves and towards her. I feel like Natalia is so under appreciated by her husband. It seems as if Natalia once was very fearful of changing in front of Quimet, but the amount of time they have spent together, she was just done. I think that the use of doves within the novel is a massive metaphor; the exact meaning, I am still grappling with. But there is no way that the use of doves was this heavy and there is no significance to them. Originally when reading, I thought that the use of doves could be a metaphor for Quimet and Natalia’s dreams and hopes, but I don’t know if that would make sense due to Natalia absolutely destroying the doves. Unless that is actually what was intended…

The Time of the Doves is packed with symbolism, metaphors, and references. I constantly found myself taking note of them. For example, the constant use of flowers to describe Antonio and Rita, while also mentioning them when Quimet’s mother died, and the jonquil’s that his mother planted in her flashback about the boys uprooting them. Even the rose of Jericho that she had kept since Quimet was born (p. 59). So much thought and meaning went into the intentions of the symbols that Rodoreda used throughout the story. I also found that the consistent use of foreshadowing to be intriguing. Similar to the flower example, Quimet’s mother makes a remark about boys being difficult; we then see how Antonio is born, and he clearly is not an easy child. The employment of symbolism. Metaphors, and foreshadowing enrich the story and make it extra enjoyable to read. It felt slightly like a puzzle, in which if I went over it again, I would find things I missed the first time around. 

A question I sort of brought up before that I would like to discuss is ‘what exactly is the significance of the doves within the context of the story?’ Maybe it was clear and I misunderstood it, but I’m a little confused about it. 

I feel like this meme is from a super insignificant part of the book, but I thought of it anyways lol.

Standard
Weekly Book Blog

Zobel’s Black Shack Alley

After reading Black Shack Alley, I really enjoyed this novel. I have read stories with similar themes like colonialism, supremacy, and poverty, but nothing like how the main character reconciles with these themes. At the beginning of the book, the main character is almost sort of naive to the idea of his grandparents and the other parents as enslaved peoples; their absence while working is seen as something positive where the kids get a break from parents, which speaks to his perspective. I find it interesting that the narrator refers to ‘the overseer’ and ‘the house’ to what I believe are certain aspects of the bosses and their plantation’s functions. Its like the kids know what they are and their purposes, but don’t fully grasp it yet because they’re simply children (little do we know that this’ll change!!). Nevertheless, authority attempts to keep them in check; for example, majority of the kids fear what’ll happen if they disobey their parents (especially M’man Tine). For example, on page 27 when M’man Tine is describing her upbringing, her daughters upbringing, and past that led her to parent José; she seems incredibly tired and fed up, and I have a great deal of sympathy for her, and for him. Another example is when the kids start the fire and are seriously reprimanded because of it. The Shack Alley in which they live is not just shelter for them, but is a place away from the plantation and its gruesome work; I don’t think its appropriate for me to call it a place of comfort, because the whole situation is based around the plantation and living in extreme poverty.

However, it seems as if there are certain aspects that bring comfort, like the explanation of what happens on Saturday nights, and the experiences the kids have of playing with each other. The people living in Shack Alley are stuck in a life controlled by white supremacy, enslavement, and injustice. Even José’s friend Mr. Medouze speaks of it (rip; I loved his character and his relationship with José), colonialism and white supremacy are not themes that are blind to the characters of the book, but is something very present and influential. The more the story progresses, the more I see that the main character is becoming aware of what his life really is. After he is tasked with working with M’man Tine, he really grasps what little freedom he has, what his future may look like, and how little he is to receive for his efforts. However, it seems confusing to me that he originally says he enjoys this way of life; is he still unaware of how difficult and painstaking it is? 

Originally when I was reading the book, I was nervous as to why M’man Tine wanted to send José away to school, but then grew to thoroughly appreciate the idea. M’man Tine shows how much she loves and wants José to succeed, which I think is truly beautiful. Her character reminds me of a protective parent who wants the best for her children, grandchildren and future generations; they want a better life for them in comparison to what she has lived. Their relationship is ultimately founded on love and protection, and although she gets fiercely angry with José, she wants the best for him. Another important component in the novel was José’s homesickness and feelings when he was sent to school. Comparing his life in Martinique to his life at school are very different, which I think is an interesting observation in the novel; a question I constantly found myself thinking about was ‘what would José’s life be like had he not gone to school? Conversely, what would his life be like had he not have influences like M’man Tine, Mr. Medouze, and the experience of growing up on the plantation to shape his ideologies?’ Thinking of alternate perspectives of characters and story plots always help me engage with their personalities and character motivations better. I hope you think about them too!

Standard
Weekly Book Blog

Moravia’s Agostino…

Okay, so I finished reading Agostino, and I would definitely say that I have some mixed feelings about this novel (to say the least). It is absolutely a novel about coming of age, class, self-discovery, but has some other themes such as love, lust, brutality, and low-key incest. I particularly enjoyed how it was written; I think that Moravia (or maybe the translated version of Moravia) does a really good job at engaging the reader by painting a clear picture, all while accurately describing the feelings and thoughts of the main character. Now with regards to Agostino’s feelings and development, I really found that to be a very important part of the story. I found that Agostino’s coming of age development had quite a bit of layers to it. Personally, I found his affection for his mother to be slightly off-putting, and quite oedipus-like. Although he attempts to grow out of it naturally, I interpreted the spite he had for his mother as stemming from his subconscious and incessant love for her. His possession for her is almost obsessive, to the point where I found it a little crazy, because it seems slightly abnormal. There is a lot to unpack with regards to the possessiveness over his mother. To be honest with you, I think Freud would very much approve of how the main character was written, because that was essentially what he was all about. I am not opposed to reading a novel that integrates themes like such, but it seems to be a very very permeating topic, to the point where I got a bit tired of it. Nevertheless, I think that this theme speaks to who Agostino was and the innocence that he holds, specifically at the beginning of the novel and then towards the middle. Agostino is incredibly sheltered and privileged, which leads me to discuss the topic of class within the novel. Berto and the gang are evidently lower class than Agostino, and I found it very interesting how he really gained a different perspective by hanging out with them. A scene I found particularly interesting was when the boys start pestering Agostino about his lavish lifestyle and what it would be like to live as fancily as him. For him to speak so highly of it, and for the boys to recognize that that lifestyle was so out of reach was something that really stuck out to me. Agostino seems so sheltered, which I think could speak to his upbringing. By juxtaposing the two types of characters, I found a lot of differences (such as class, ways of communicating, acting, and essentially living life), and in some ways found similarities (the ability to be frustrated by certain things, the ability to make connections and to want to fit in with the group). I really thought Berto’s character was interesting, because I originally thought that he was a tough guy who ran the group, but found that there was more complexity to him and his place within the gang. The aspects of the book that I particularly enjoyed were the engagements with Agostino and the gang, how their relationship sort of grew, and how they helped him grow. What I didn’t particularly love was the infatuation Agostino had with his mother, and that strange relationship Saro had with Agostino, Homs and the gang in general. There were many nods to his ‘paternal’ relationship with them, and that rubbed me the wrong way. The book had many ups and downs for me, which made me question the significance and importance of them within the development of the novel. Could Agostino have been written without such significant nods towards freudianism and perversion in order to have the same effect on the readers? Would readers be able to understand the importance of his development as a character if those underlying themes not been integrated into the novel? That is a question that’s been riddling my mind, and I don’t know if I even have an answer for that. However, if that were to ever be the case, I would much rather read that book. Nevertheless, I can say I had an interesting time reading Agostino, but I would not recommend it for everyone. 

Standard
Weekly Book Blog

My Take on The Shrouded Woman

I found that I really enjoyed reading The Shrouded Woman. The first few pages really set up the general gist of the narrative, which was a very interesting concept in my opinion. I thought that Bombal did a great job of engaging readers (or me at least; and sometimes I find it difficult to enjoy certain novels of this genre). I have only read one novel prior to this one that was focused on the perspective of a dead person looking in on their life, which I thoroughly enjoyed in The Shrouded Woman. Occasionally, I found myself a bit confused when following the progression of the novel, specifically with regards to flashbacks and her current point of view; although, I usually found my way back to the main progression. The use of flashbacks integrated with the unique perspective of the dead Ana Maria allowed for the ability to delve into certain topics with different perspectives. I constantly was thinking of the topic of femininity within the novel, especially with Ana Maria in mind (mainly because she’s the main character in the novel). The first example I can think of is when she’s describing the flashback of Ricardo, her love for him, and how she was feeling when he sort of abandoned him; it’s almost as she completely gave up on things, and became extremely depressed. This made me question how reliant she was on a man who I don’t think truly loved and cared for her at that point (maybe before, but not anymore). Is that what Ana Maria thought her life should be equated to? Recall the quote from the book, “I felt weak, with no desires, my body and my spirit indifferent as though they were filled with passion and sorrow.” I felt as if she was very obsessed with this man, and it almost changed her perspective on life. Furthermore, I believe that her relationship with men greatly affected her femininity when she was married to Antonio (at least in the flashbacks). Her gradual resentment made it seem as if she was so unhappy with her life, that even it is stated in the novel, “the destiny of women is to remove the pain of love in an orderly house, before an unfinished tapestry.” I got the impression that she could not be independent among herself, specifically in relation to men and romantic partners in her life. However, I don’t want to only talk upon the femininity aspect of the novel, but I’d like to delve into what this novel provoked me to think about death, and the perspective of what happens beyond this earth. Ana Maria’s perspective post-mortem illustrated that she had many revelations, which I thought was an interesting part of the book. The aspect of reflection of her life seemed very good and almost in a sense philosophical, because she considered her feelings and thoughts in a new light. For example, when she sees Antonio crying, instead of being filled with hate, she almost feels great pity for him; “she feels her hate withdraw and disappear”. That was a very interesting moment of character development. Now, a final question I have for readers of this blog post is this; how do you think the novel would have differed if female independence had been a more prominent theme within the novel? What I mean by this is how do you think the novel would be different if Ana Maria found peace with not being with a lover? Would that even be possible, given the fact that this novel was written in the 30’s? I know I said I didn’t want to completely talk about the feminine aspect of this novel, but I don’t often get the chance to analyze and criticize novels with such interesting female protagonists (if you can even call Ana Maria a protagonist or narrator?). I would want to read this book again and find more evidence to support claims once I discuss this with other classmates!

Standard