Hello everyone! My name is Daniel Choi, I am a third-year arts student majoring in International Relations and minoring in Law and Society. As evident from my minor, I am interested in law and how it affects—and, in turn, how it is shaped by—society. I am by no means a natural reader—if there ever is such a person. While I cannot describe reading, especially academic reading, as “enjoyable”, I can confidently say that Professor Beasley-Murray’s previous course (RMST 202) taught me that academic reading could in fact be interesting and engaging.

RMST 202 was about literatures and cultures of the Romance world. As such, the central question of the course was, “What is the Romance world?” “What is Romance studies?” Although there isn’t one definitive answer nor a clear definition, this intrinsic obscurity and abstraction was what made the course extremely interesting; it allowed us to be limitless in our approaches to the diverse texts, helping us keep our thoughts open to the new ideas, imagery, and symbolism that the books introduced to us rather than actively seeking for “hidden messages” based on our own presumptions. This unique approach was what helped me grow as a student and reader. It allowed me to find meaningful links between literature and life, literature and time, as well as interesting connections and contrasts between the texts and between related themes such as surrealism and modernism.

Watching the introductory lecture, a lot of SPAN 312 seems to have the same theoretical approaches to RMST 202. While the background context of a story is emphasized, the focus of our analysis is not limited to just context; as Professor Beasley-Murray stated, “we are not doing history here.” It is the unique focus on the “distortion, elaboration, invention, mystification, [and] fabrication” of literature that excites me. I mean, where else would we be allowed to adopt such a fascinating approach? It is certainly a new way of approaching texts, but once your focus falls into what Professor Beasley-Murray calls the “gap between representation and the real,” it will certainly open up a new journey.

Specifically for SPAN 312, I am excited to start thinking about the idea of Latin America and Latin American literature. Similar to Romance studies, I do not think there is one clear definition of Latin America. It could be thought of through multiple methods—for example, through geography, shared cultures and history, etc.—but it nevertheless does not provide an accurate definition. Rather, like the notion of “magic realism”, it only seems to be limiting the scope of our analysis. While having these thoughts and ideas in mind, I hope to allow myself to go beyond the limits of these approaches and find new, meaningful connections and disconnections between the texts that we read.

Question: What does Latin America mean to you? Do you have any past experiences related to Latin American literature? If so, in what ways do you think your experiences will affect your approach to the readings?