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