After Borges, I welcomed the opportunity to read a novel with actual characters and a straightforward plot, so I was intrigued by the first few pages of this book. And though I enjoyed this book more than Borges, I was overcome by the lack of straightforwardness I encountered while trying to piece together every little bit of the plot on each page of Rulfo’s mysterious adventure into a ghost town. The constant changes in timeline and perspective really threw me off guard, and it felt like every time I picked up the book I was reading a different novel. That’s not to say I didn’t like what I read, I just felt distressed by the seemingly unorganized manner of storytelling Rulfo employs here, and that made for a thoroughly challenging reading experience. I suppose this way of telling a story is purposeful, since the novel centres on history of family and how the events of the past influence the events of the future; it makes sense that so many timelines should overlap, to reinforce the theme of intermingling events and people. (That being said, a little guidance would’ve made reading this so much simpler!)
Connecting to the theme of storytelling, I was struck by how Rulfo uses quotation marks in dialogue. Often, paragraphs would begin with some text, and it wouldn’t be until farther down the page that this paragraph would only end with a quotation mark. I would then have to recalibrate whatever it was that I just read to fit into not third-party description, but rather important plot information directly from the mouth of a character. This use/disuse of quotation marks happened frequently throughout the book, and I think it helped reinforce, at least to me, the very ‘fable’ feeling of this book. Instead of just reading an omniscient third person account of the plot, different characters are constantly telling you things that are relevant to them, and therefore relevant to you; it begins to feel more intimate in this way of giving description, like you’re sitting around a campfire listening to someone recount an event.
I know this book is one of the first instances of ‘magic realism’ to be created, and I liked how this genre was employed throughout the book. I was not aware of this book being in the genre, so I was caught quite off guard when Juan realizes the people with whom he is conversing are not alive. It also made the other parts of the book blur together for me, and I never really figured out who was alive or dead at any moment. I think this is a book that warrants a reread, because I felt a lot of themes of family, generational trauma, and forgiveness (or lack thereof) come through, but couldn’t fully engage with them while being confused.
Question: do you think there’s a benefit to not having a differentiation between timelines/plots, or does it overcomplicate this story? Would clear headings or a plot roadmap make comprehension easier?
Julia Moniz-Lecce
February 12, 2023 — 9:58 am
Hey Julia,
I agree that it was a challenging reading experience. To answer your question, I do think there’s a benefit to not having a straightforward timeline. To me, I take the book more seriously and the challenge gets me more invested. I’ve honestly been in a bit of a reading slump because I was really bored of the same cookie-cutter material out there. I really like the complicated nature of these books because it’s something different and arguably more artistic than the common straightforward books out these days. The only reason why I would want headings would be to make it easier to stop and pick it up later. That way I can mark chapters and such, but other than that, I like the continuous nature of it as well.
neko smart
February 12, 2023 — 4:04 pm
Hi Julia! Great post 🙂 In response to your question, I think Rulfo’s complicated manner of storytelling is certainly confusing, but meaningful as — like you said — he’s exploring some loaded topics: family, generational trauma, forgiveness… There’s nothing straightforward about any of these themes. In this way, I think his refusal to spell things out plainly for readers is powerful. See you Thursday!
DanielOrizaga
February 12, 2023 — 9:24 pm
As in several of the texts that we have been commenting on, rereading is always recommended. Sometimes the smallest books, with few pages, can be the most intriguing. As you have noticed, “Pedro Páramo” must be read carefully to understand the subtleties. And yet, there are details that can escape us. Do not be left with doubts, please discuss them in class… or in other opportunities to dialogue, such as these posts, an email or office hours.
katherine
February 12, 2023 — 9:54 pm
I think a plot roadmap would oversimplify the story lines of the book. I think the lack of linearity contributes to the mysticism of the novel. The confusion between life and death is what drives “Pedro Páramo”, and this is reflected in the way it is constructed.
Daisy Storey
February 15, 2023 — 7:42 pm
Hi Julia! great post! To answer your question, I think that the use of mixed stories, that don’t follow a chronological order adds to the themes prevalent in the story. This blurry line between what is dead and what is alive adds to this complexity. However, I can totally relate to you and sympathize with you that this did at times make things more confusing.