Tag Archives: memory

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

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