Author: SophiaCinelli

Posted on

Concluding Post

I must say this class was definitely a new class structure for me, but I really enjoyed it. For starters, due to the contract and pre-determined grade in this class, I never really felt overwhelmed or stressed by this class, which definitely helped put me at ease. I also enjoyed how every week, it was the same routine, which made this class more flexible for me as I knew exactly how much time I would have to set aside for it. I liked how we only had one class a week as it helped me catch up on the readings if I ever felt I had fallen a bit behind. I never really felt stuck or lost at any point of the semester, and always felt like I had a way of expressing if there was something I didn’t quite understand, which is greatly appreciated. The other aspect of this course that really stuck out to me was the constant communication. After being online for an entire year, it was nice to sit in a classroom where conversations between peers were encouraged. This was really cool to me as I am in my second year and never got to experience that aspect of a university course until this semester. It was nice to have the diversity between smaller and larger discussions where you got to hear everyone’s ideas or perspectives on the books we read. I always looked forward to reading the blog posts or going to class to listen to everyone’s favourite characters or least favourite, and hearing the differences in the way people perceived parts of the books compared to others. I felt like hearing everyone’s perspective really opened my eyes to ideas that stuck out to them, that I would have never interpreted on my own. This really helped broaden my perspective on the importance of the stories we read. This course also opened my perspective to other genres of books that I would have never explored on my own, but was pleasantly surprised by. The books that stuck out to me the most were The Time of the Doves, as I felt true sympathy for Nataliya and will never forget how I felt reading about her contemplation of whether or not to kill her children. Bonjour Tristesse was another one that stuck out to me, mostly because I felt like it was the book that I could relate to the most. I could understand where Cecile was coming from to a certain extent, and I know how it feels wanting to gain the control of your parent’s attention when you feel it drifting to a step parent. Lastly, I want to say thank you to all the instructors, even though this course was a requirement for me, I really enjoyed it!

Questions:

Which texts was your favorite, or stood out to you the most? Why was it your favorite?

Posted on

José Eduardo Agualusa “Society of Reluctant Dreamers”

Unlike the other stories we have read throughout this class such as Time of the Doves, Nada, or Bonjour Tristesse, I found this one much more light-hearted and not as heavy as the others. Not to say there wasn’t any significance in this book, but the events that took place were not as dark as some of the other stories. 

I was not expecting to enjoy this book as much as I did, as it is not like any stories that  I usually read. Although, I felt that book really captured and sustained my attention as it included many different writing styles. The story also seems to incorporate not just the idea or dreams, but also politics and relationships as well. This also brought many different levels of the story together nicely. It was interesting to see different perspectives throughout the story, with the letters, journal entries, and descriptions of past dreams. I felt that it gave it many depths, and levels. 

In saying that, it is a good way to portray the story, especially having such a heavy focus towards dreams, as dreams themselves often come with many layers. Sometimes dreams have a deeper meaning to them that can be unpacked, but also sometimes dreams are just dreams and don’t mean anything. It was interesting to see how the author incorporated the idea of dreams into the story, as I often try to analyse my own dreams in search for a deeper meaning. In addition, I often found myself searching for the meaning of the characters’ dreams throughout the story. The details the author incorporated also made it feel very dream-like, for instance, the rainbow hotel, or the girl with the cotton-candy hair, both sounding like something that only comes from dreams. Those little, yet key details, really accentuated the story and made it feel like I was reading a detailed description of someone’s dream. One of the lines that really stuck out to me was “glass jars filled with anxious little hearts, still alive and palpitating,” (p.364). Again, it showcases how these little details really brought the dream-like aspect of the story to life. I think some of the events that took place like Daniel’s daughter getting arrested, or the discovery of a technological device that captures images of peoples dreams, are also representative of the theme as some may wish that those things were only a dream, and not real events. 

Questions:

Did you feel that the different writing styles were easy to follow, or were you often confused on how the story shifted?

Do you feel that dreams always have deeper meanings?

Posted on

Roberto Bolano “Amulet”

This book caught my attention instantly with these first couple of sentences, “This is going to be a horror story. A story of murder, detection, and horror. But it wont appear to be, for the simple reason that I am the teller. Told by me it won’t seem like that. Although, in fact, it is a story of a terrible crime.” Automatically I questioned how the narrator was able to tell what they described to be a horror in a way that it won’t seem like a horror. I felt that I needed to continue reading, until I was able to understand what the narrator meant. 

Throughout the story, I noticed how much detail the author put into the story to help their readers create little scenes in their heads. I liked the attention to detail, and found that it wasn’t overpowering the entire storyline like how it had in some of our previous books. 

I like how the story was condensed of shorter stories that the narrator- Auxilio, told as one story. I was always waiting for the next one to start and see what adventure was told through the next chapter or a couple chapters. I felt that it kept me from getting bored of one story. Another aspect of the story that I liked was how the author addressed questions to themselves as a way to stage their opinions, instead of blatantly stating their opinion. For example, on page 130, the narrator states, “What did I think of his drawings? I didn’t like them much to be perfectly honest.” This made the book have a more conversational style to it that I really enjoyed. I haven’t come across many books where I felt that I could actually connect with the narrator. I also liked how at the end, we got to see more of what she was talking about at the beginning of the story, and you can understand more of what she went through and how it connected to the beginning. It was interesting to read about her thoughts that went through her head during those ten days in the bathroom, and how they helped her get through it. Like many of the other books we have read throughout this semester, this one came in full circle. Starting with Auxilio trapped in the bathroom and ending with how she was able to escape. 

My question for this week’s reading:

Did you like how this story was told, or would you have rather read more about Auxilios experience of survival? 

Posted on

Carlos Fuentes “The Old Gringo”

The old gringo is set in historic Mexico during the Mexican revolution. This story took a couple of turns that I was not expecting, but it definitely kept me wanting more. The love tale told within the story had both passion, and deceit, which kept it interesting every step of the way. My expectation of this book was completely wrong, but in the best way possible. I think this book has been one of the only books throughout the course that really highlights love and relationships, which was unexpected. 

I also want to touch on some of the questions asked in the lecture, as I also found myself pondering the same questions. As professor Murray stated in the lecture, a common theme throughout this story is repetition. More specifically, repetition of the line “Now she sits still, and remembers.” I interpret repetition in a book as something that the author wants their readers to pay attention to and think about it in a deeper way. I think that the placement of the line, “Now she sits alone and remembers” means that the author wants his readers to do the same. He wants them to sit and reflect on the events that had just occurred, and understand their significance. Another line I noticed that was repeated several times was, “And your daughter?” Although, I don’t think this line was repeated in order to convey some deeper meaning like the others did. 

I think the love triangle between the three characters was fascinating as I wouldn’t expect Harriet to have fallen for the old gringo. I wouldn’t have expected such a turn of events when Arroyo became so angry with the gringo and Harriet, as I never caught on to the strength of Arroyo’s feelings for Harriet. I think for Arroyo to be so forceful and aggressive towards Harriet, shows his true intentions and personality. 

I also noticed that they made this book into a film as well. Having watched some of the scenes, I was surprised to see the characters whom I had imagined in my head, as they were not like what I was imagining. However, I am intrigued as to how much the story line of the film matches with the novel. 

My question for my peers is:

Do you think the meaning of repetition, in this story more specifically, conveys a deeper meaning or do you believe the author felt like the line fit in more than one place?

Posted on

Georges Perec “W, or the Memory of Childhood”

I have to start by saying this book is nothing like any book I have read before in the fact that there aren’t just two stories going on, but one being an autobiography and the other being fiction. In saying this, I did not enjoy the stories as much as I was hoping to, as I was often confused as the author jumped between the two stories. I also had difficulty in piecing the two stories together, and understanding why the author chose to combine them. 

Of the two stories, I was definitely more drawn to Perec’s autobiography of his childhood. It was really interesting to me that the idea of memory was a recurring theme throughout the story, as Perec chose to write a story about his childhood, while not having remembered a large portion of it. His loss of memory is demonstrated multiple times throughout the entire story, as we read on page 28 “The memories I have of my father are not many.” and again on page 122 “(that doesn’t mean she didn’t come: it means I don’t remember).” I almost felt like it was necessary for the author to recount his memories from his childhood, in an attempt to understand and cope with what he went through. As both of his parents were taken from him due to the war, where his father died fighting and his mother died in the Auschwitz concentration camp, it is quite obvious the pain and trauma that Perec endured as a child that could have caused some gaps in his memory. I felt sympathy for Perec as not having many childhood memories, especially ones with your deceased parents, would be tough to deal with throughout your life. “For years, I took comfort in such an absence of history: its objective crispness, its apparent obviousness, its innocence protected me; but what did they protect me from…”  I feel that this line is a good illustration to what I had previously stated. His recollection of memories shows how he is trying to come to terms with what he went through as a child, which seems like something he had not previously done. In order to protect himself. He also talks a bit about how he imagines his parents would be if they had lived, which I think is another way of showing how he had attempted to cope with the situations he was put through. 

My questions for this week:

Why do you think Perec chose to include the story of W along with his autobiography?

What relationship did those two stories share?

Posted on

Mercè Rodoreda The Time of the Doves

My first impressions when starting this novel was that I was not going to enjoy it. I found myself often bored at the beginning until about midway through. I understood Natalia’s frustration when it came to the doves, as I felt that if dirty birds were flying around my house, I too would eventually be fed up with it. I didn’t quite understand, however, that it was mainly Natalia’s job to clean up after and feed the doves, when Quimet was the one bringing them home. I think it may be some sort of foreshadowing as to what happens later in the story when Quimet dies and leaves his children for Natalia to take care of. I also think that the doves may have some sort of connection to Natalia’s and Quimets children’s as Natalia had the same thought process about both, when it came down to trying times. As we saw with the doves, when Natalia was at her breaking point, she decided the best idea for her would be to damage the dove eggs, so they would not hatch. She had the same thought process with her kids in a sense, when she felt she was unable to take care of them, her best idea was to kill them. I understand these were very difficult times, and she thought they were bound to die anyway, but as we see later on, they ended up surviving and thriving after the war. I feel that Natalia almost gives up too easily with certain things. Personally, I would never be able to live knowing I killed my children, as you never know what may happen. If Natalia did kill her children, and then met Antoni who was able to provide for her, she would have had to live the rest of her life knowing that they may have lived. Although, I can almost understand her thought process as well. The kids were living in less than ideal situations, so I understand how Natalia wouldn’t want them to continue in their suffering. I think this book personally brought a lot of aspects of war into perspective to me. My naive thoughts surrounding war could never imagine how someone would ever think to kill their children, but I can understand now how when in desperate times, someone could see how that would be the best way to escape. 

Do you think if you were Natalia, the thought of killing your children would have crossed your mind?

Posted on

Bonjour Tristesse

The original description of Bonjour Tristesse really captured my attention towards the book. I felt that I would be able to resonate with the main character, assuming she is around my age and the problems she faces throughout the book. And as much as I could relate to Cecile, the plot went in a different way from what I originally expected. I think that because I had a preconceived notion as to what the book was about, my expectations were not met and therefore I didn’t enjoy the book as much as I would have liked to. Besides that I felt like I could relate to some of the problems Cecile was facing throughout the book. Specifically, the issue she faced in accepting her father’s relationship with Anne. As I have a step parent as well, I resonated with how Cecile felt in accepting the decreased amount of attention she would receive from her father when his relationship with Anne started. I also had a tough time in accepting that my mom would be less attentive towards me, as she grew her relationship with her new boyfriend, as I was used to receiving her full attention for many years. Although, I feel that Cecile had a harder time because of the control Anne felt like she had over her, which was something I didn’t have to deal with. Anne’s superiority in controlling Cecile angered me because personally I feel that in certain situations, step-parents do not get to control a child that is not their own. Sure they can put in their opinions if asked, but full control is something I don’t necessarily agree with. I understand that Anne was looking out for Cecile’s best interest but I felt it was taken overboard, and Cecile needed to learn some of those lessons on her own- she needed more freedom to explore. With Anne always making the decisions for her, Cecile was not able to go off and explore other options that may suit her better than what Anne had originally thought. Anne’s control over Cecile and Cyril’s relationship bothered me as she had just broken up a relationship between Raymond and Elsa herself, so why does she feel that she is entitled to give her opinion to Cecile. 

My questions I have regarding this text are:

How would you feel if Anne was your stepmother and acted the way she did towards you? Would you go along with what she had to say in respect to her or speak up for yourself?

Posted on

Laforet “Nada”

 

Nada by Carmen Laforet really captured my attention as the book was filled with drama, relationships and betrayal surrounding a young university student. Laforet did an excellent job in portraying the characters as somewhat delusional as I often found myself questioning many of their actions. Although this book has a lot to unpack, this blog post will focus on the relationship between Andrea, and her friend Ena. 

Ena and Andrea met through school as they both attended the same university. They seemed to really get along right off the bat considering they came from two widely different backgrounds. Andrea’s family lived in poverty while Ena lived within the middle to upper class. I feel that this also attracted Andrea towards Ena as she was curious to know what it was like to live such a lavish lifestyle in comparison to her own. As Andrea spent more time with Ena and her family and less time with her own, I think she had grown to idolize the life Ena and her family lived. Andrea longed for that sense of family, stability and normalcy within her family that she could never quite find as they often fought and betrayed one another. Looking at Ena’s family from an outsider perspective, it was all Andrea had ever wanted. 

As for Ena, before reading the entire story, I almost felt that she was wanting to be a part of Andrea’s family to a certain extent. She seemed fascinated by how much incentive Andrea’s family had towards their goals in life. She was not used to seeing that as her family had already gone through that stage in their life, and were now satisfied with the life they had created. Ena was also fascinated by the constant energy that was in Andrea’s family. It seemed as though there was always something going on. I don’t think she realized the extent to how much of the energy in that house was toxic and violent. However, as we learned, Ena was just using Ramon to get back at what he did to her mother many years ago. 

Even though both characters came from vastly different backgrounds, it was nice to see how they could come together to support one another. I enjoyed the end of the story when Ena’s family welcomed Andrea into their family as they invited her to move to Madrid. 

Questions:

If you were Andrea, knowing what Ena did to your uncle, would you still befriend her? And would you consider Ena a good friend?

Posted on

The Shrouded Women

The Shrouded Woman takes on a super naturalistic approach to death as the main character (Ana Maria) lays deceased, yet she takes her audience through her most important past events in her life. What stuck out to me with this story was the many failed loves Ana Maria had experienced throughout her life. She points out the men she has loved in her life- Ricardo, her sons, and Antonio- and how her love towards them was never returned to her in the way she desired. I will first touch on her relationship with Ricardo- this was her first love as a young woman. Since they were both young, it was more of an infatuation/obsession sort of love. However, Ricardo chose to pursue his opportunity to study scientific farming, which broke Ana Maria as he rejected her idea that she would move with him. Because of this, she felt betrayed and unwanted by Ricardo, as she felt that she would do anything for him, and for them to stay together, but he was not willing to make those sacrifices as well.  Then there is Antonio- Ana Maria’s husband. Her love with Antonio was always being held up to standards with her love for Ricardo- to which she felt did not ever meet her expectations of how the love between them should be. She feels there is a lack of passion between the two. Another contributing factor as to why she felt less passion with Antonio was because Antonio split his focus between his wife, as well as his love for other activities. This point is illustrated on page 225 when the narrator states, “She realised she was, she had always been, only one of Antonio’s many passions, a passion circumstances had shackled to his life. He tolerated her, that was all;” This made me question why Ana Maria stayed with Antonio, if she did not get what she felt she deserves? Was she willing to accept the love she didn’t deserve in fear of being alone? Ana Maria felt that she had to suppress her love when it came to the men in her life that mattered most to her, Ricardo, Antonio, and her sons. “For it would seem that not to love too much might be the best proof of love which can be given to certain people.” Over the years she had adapted her ways of showing love and affection towards her husband and sons in a way that they wanted, but not in the way she felt she wanted to express her love for them. It seems like she was having to make the majority of the adaptations for the people around her, without them returning the favour. 

 

Posted on

Aragon, Paris Peasant

 

This week’s book really threw me for a loop. Throughout the story, I was trying to question what I was reading in hopes of understanding the story, and the meaning behind it all, but most times my thoughts came up blank. My understanding was that Argon’s goal was to emphasise the idea of surrealism, but I was unsure as to why he decided to not have a plot. I think that because there was no plot, I was having trouble following along with his messages of surrealism, therefore, his goal was not met in my opinion. I also found myself trying to pick up on background stories or information about some characters that made an appearance, but was unable to really do so. Does anyone else feel the same way? Also, another thing that made it difficult for me to read this book was his elevated word choice that I believe he used to help create a picture in the reader’s mind but for me, I was unable to create a picture of what he was describing. Trying to follow along to a story when you don’t understand a portion of it was quite frustrating at times. This could also be due to the fact that because this book was quite boring to me, I found myself becoming quite distracted and daydreaming about other things, which took my focus from the book. I was able to make some connections however with this book and Combray in the fact that their ideas were greatly detailed. For example this quote from Paris Peasant, “Blond resembles the stammerings of ecstasy, the piracies of lips, the tremors of limpi waters. Blond takes flight from definitions down a wayward path where flowers and seashells meet my eye.” (40) Had very descriptive words to describe the shade of blond. However, I found this word choice quite confusing as I was unable to create a picture of what he was attempting to portray. In Combray, Proust put great detail into his story that it was easy to picture in my head what his surroundings were like. The difference with this story is that even though there is lots of detail, due to my lack of understanding of the plot in general, I can’t seem to create a picture in my head of what this author is talking about. Overall, I think that to help me better understand the author’s ideas, I would have needed a storyline to follow along with, therefore I would be able to look further into the story to the message the author was trying to portray.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet