In “And We Sold the Rain,” Carmen Naranjo emphasizes water as a source that causes contempt, happiness, and lastly, exile; through this, the people’s relationship with water comes to symbolize a fraught relationship people have with nature under capitalism. The first mention of rain happens when the people complain that “they raise our water bills but don’t give us any water even though it rains everyday” (Naranjo 149). Rain has yet to become exploited, and (while incredibly sardonically) rain is considered separate from water as a commodity. At this stage, rain (as a representation of nature) is an obstacle, a cause for frustration when “poor people without umbrellas, without a change of clothes, they get drenched” (Naranjo 151). This sentiment is further emphasized when Naranjo writes “[t]he sea of poverty” — the sea, a large water mass, is chosen to represent poverty. However, this soon changes when they sell the rain, and the rain becomes a commodity. For a moment, it seems that they have conquered this cause of annoyance, and “[t]he people smiled. A little less rain would be agreeable to everyone” (Naranjo 154). Furthermore, they are able to profit off their triumph over nature. It is almost smart, until it becomes unsustainable.
Finally, water becomes the ultimate cause, and aid, of their exile. The rain stops forever, and people are forced to flee — a situation that the real world will perhaps come to sooner than later due to the climate crisis. By their triumph over nature, and the commodification of natural resources, the people have made their home uninhabitable. Like The Lorax, this short story’s hyperbolic situation mirrors one of the real world’s rapid and insatiable consumption of nature that can only lead to exile.
Hi Mandy, great interpretation! I really like how you discuss this piece as it relates to climate, too, and not just how it relates to the economy. I think that the use of the terms “rain” and “sea” in Naranjo’s work would be a case of “repetition” and it does a great job of keeping the reader on track throughout a pretty abstract story.
Do you think that Naranjo wrote this piece hoping to express concern over the climate as well as the social issues facing Latin American countries, or was it by chance that there is a bit of interdisciplinary critique here? I think that the commodification of Costa Rica’s resources in particular is relevant today, not only with the current climate crisis but also with the natural resources being commodified for tourism and development (perhaps a good thing for the economy… can one be improved without harming the other?)
Thank you!!