So I tackled the last 120 pages of this book with trepidation and hope after hearing Jon’s conclusion that the book was dreadfully boring. My hope was in that I would have a different view of ‘boring’ and get more out of the ending than our own personal, omniscient book critic. But soon my hopes were dashed. I had read on, becoming pleasantly enthralled with each turn of the page. Plots of deceit, the little people getting the upper hand, happy endings, and many smiles ensued (I’m pretty easy to please when it comes to reading literature similar to that of Jane Austin). But then, in the height of my amusement, this wonderful ending came grinding to a painful, dull-witted, time-consuming halt, with the final dialogue of those hot-aired Cackles. This, my friends, was a HUGE disappointment. Throughout the entire book I would cringe when I noticed the next chapter would be focusing on the Cackles. Their meddlings in politics and obsession with power made me sick. I am definitely a romanticist by nature, and certainly not a classicist. I know that Ruiz de Burton enjoyed making a show of their hipocritcal actions and the wonderfully clever parody with their namesakes, but what a terrible way to end a perfectly good book. It was similar to a very decent movie about love and plots and good and bad which ends with the movie-goer walking out of the theater, wondering what it was that they just saw. Please, if any of you reading this can explain the symbolism in the final pages 293-298 of the story, I ask you to fill me in as I am afraid that I may have drifted off.

Okay, enough venting. Sorry, I had to get that out. As I mentioned earlier, it made me absolutely giddy to read about the characters most poorly treated in the story receiving the upper-hand. Obviously Lola finally got her happy ending (although whatever happened to Don Felipe Almenara, whose only claim to fame in the novel was his saying he was Lola’s husband, was never quite tied up….I had no doubt that this would be the ultimate crush to Julian and Lola’s love and was disappointed when Don Felipe never appeared again). But others, such as Issac Sprig and Mina the french maid, found that they could climb to the height of their happiness while stepping on a few hipocritical toes along the way! What a lovely balance of good vs. evil! Julian realized the evil hidden within this ‘great government’ which he had served with his very life. Mrs. Norval is almost put away in an insane asylum by the materialistic, cold daughter whom she actually crafted with the looseness of her purse strings. Whatever happened to the poor doctor who started this run-around story is also left to the reader’s imagination. And unappreciated Lavvy…did she ever start a life with Mr. White? I only wish that Ruiz de Burton had filled us in on what eventually happened to THESE characters rather than focusing on the political plans of the nauseating Cackles. Again, if anyone can explain the importance of this last conversation (perhaps pertaining to the Cackles’ [or real people whom they were meant to imitate] involvement in American history [something about which I am terribly ignorant of]), please feel free.

María Amparo Ruiz de Burton’s Who Would Have Thought It? (the first Mexican-American novel in English) is centrally concerned with the notion of “good government”–and its absence from the nineteenth-century USA. Indeed, at some points the problems facing the country seem to be the fault of government per se “If we were to trace our troubles to their veritable source,” the novel’s narrator declares at one point, “we would often reach, more or less directly, their origin in our lawgivers. Not only the dwellers of the frontiers, not only the victims of lawsuits, not only–“ (201).

Here, however, the train of thought is interrupted. The narrator breaks off to declare “But I am no political philosopher. I am wandering away from my humble path” (201). And that path is, ostensibly, a romantic comedy of domesticity and manners.

The narrative opens as the life of the Norvals of New England is transformed when Dr. Norval returns to his family from an expedition to the American Southwest with a young Mexican girl named Lola he has helped to rescue from a band of border Indians. The doughty and upright Mrs Norval is shocked and upset, but the unwelcome arrival is rather sweetened by the fact that the girl brings with her a million dollars’ worth of gold ore and precious stones. Much of this loot has to be kept in trust until Lola comes of age and/or is reunited with her missing father. In the meantime, however, there is plenty that can be appropriated by the family, whose daughters are soon arrayed in the latest fashion and riding out from a New York mansion in the finest carriages. There is even enough money to be spread around family friends and acquaintances, and to outfit entire companies for the Union side when the Civil War breaks out.

The bulk of the novel then charts the ways in which money and warfare expose the frailties and hypocrisies of WASP respectability. The story’s greatest rogue is a lawyer turned preacher turned military man by the name of Mr. Hackwell, who circles the Norvals, their womenfolk, and their money, like a hyena who has sniffed out the stench of moral corruption and is anxious to reap the profits. Hackwell contrives to seduce Mrs Norval into a clandestine marriage once her husband takes off on yet another voyage, while trying to engineer nuptials between her son, Julian, and Hackwell’s own sister, Emma. All the while he lusts after the young Lola, who develops into a striking beauty as she matures, made all the more desirable by the potential dowry that she bears with her.

Rosaura Sánchez and Beatrice Pita point out that money and machinations thereby lead to “the fall of Republican motherhood” (“Introduction” xxviii) and “the violation of the marriage contract” (xxxi). But this is also an allegory of broader social disturbances, just as the arrival of Lola and her wealth points to the US acquisition of over half of Mexico’s mineral-rich territory following the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848. As Sánchez and Pita observe, the novel exposes “the degeneration of democratic values and the faltering of the republican ideal” as a whole (xlv). Democracy is a myth, rights are proclaimed only to be abused and ignored, and there is “no informed consent of the governed [. . .] but rather corruption and influence peddling everywhere, even in the highest circles of government” (xlv).

The novel is indeed scathing about the state of the American res publica. Mrs Norval’s sister, Lavinia, travels to Washington to enquire about her brother, Isaac, a prisoner of war in a Southern camp. She discovers, however, that her government is happy to let its citizens languish if it should mean increasing pressure upon the Confederacy’s capacity to feed even its own people. Moreover, Isaac in particular has been removed from any list of prisoners to be exchanged because he once had a run-in with a powerful politician. Private pride (as well as ambition and indifference) is allowed to over-rule any sense of compassion or responsibility.

Lavinia had previously “believed all she had read in printed political speeches” (106); soon, however, she reluctantly comes to share in the cynicism expressed eventually by almost all the novel’s admirable characters. Julian too, for instance, who is threatened with dismissal from the army despite his heroic record, and then studiously ignored when he tries to press his case before the President, soon finds himself learning a “bitter philosophy [. . .] from the leading men of his country” (215).

In short, precisely at the moment at which the United States is forging some of its most potent discourses of self-justification and exceptionalism, from Manifest Destiny to the Empancipation Declaration, Ruiz de Burton reveals their bankruptcy and hypocrisy. Figures such as Mrs Norval may continue to declare that theirs is “the best government on Earth” (67), and to rail against both foreigners and popery; but she is insulated by wealth and blinded by the return of long repressed desires that dance around her, Ruiz de Burton suggests, like “unbottled imps” that have particular and “abundant fun” in Washington (148). As the social contract is revealed to be a sham, any putative hegemony is replaced by the new habits of wealth and the impish antics of misguided desire.

technorati tags: span322 literature hegemony usa

The novel is getting very interesting and I’m actually excited to know what happens at the end. I have read about 2/3 of the book, and by this point i want to eliminate Mr. Hackwell and Mrs. Norval. Sooooo evilllll!  Mrs.  Norval has all the negative qualities that a woman could possibly have, immoral woman. (p 135) It is funny how Mr.Hackwell is seen as a hero and Mrs. Norval as a noble woman, best mother, best christian. (p 138) The way she treats her sick son is so un-motherly, no love, no affections.

The novel is an easy read, and I’m enjoying it. There is a lot of drama, which makes it’s fun, but at the same time it points out crucial  gender, class, and race issues, and shows how they are all interconnected.

So far I am enjoying this book, it is far less scary than I thought it was going to be.  The characters and their reactions were human.  I had some troubles getting used to the syntax and other grammatical aspects of the book, but have found the story of the Norval’s and Lolita intriguing and am looking forward to finishing the novel.   the universalism of the novel is very evident – the importance of money and status (although no one really wants to admit it) are themes that can easily be translated into modern times.  I particularly enjoyed the introductory speech made by Hackwell and his discussion with Hammerhard regarding the necessity of ‘rogues’ in ‘good society’.  Also, I enjoyed the affection shown towards Lolita from Dr. Norval and his description of how he came to find her and her mother; how she had more romance in her short life than in any trashy novel that his daughters or wife had read.

Alright, so I have to admit: this book is getting better. I’m still finding it hard to follow sometimes and find myself having to go back and read things over. However, I’m also finding myself wishing I was finishing this book while listening to other lectures in my classes 🙂
So today in class we were talking about whether this book could be constituted as a feminist novel. Truth to be told, the actions of many women in this story embarrass womankind everywhere. Pinning over men who are married seems to be a good one. Also, entering a relationship and acting like a lovesick puppy when you are ‘pretty sure’ your husband is dead. I am aware that this novel was set in the 1800 and that maybe women weren’t expected to be more than ‘ladies’; but anybody who only worries about out-dressing their sister needs a reality check. The only women who act in a decent manner are Lavinia (who never gives up when looking for Isaac), and poor Lola (who although is the source of the Norval’s so called happiness and riches, is never fully treated like a human being).
Another thing that has struck me while reading this: the evils in this world, no matter what shape and size they might come in, are prominent in life and especially in this tale. The Hackwells go as far as pretending somebody’s family member is dead in order to get money and status. I’ve yet to finish the last few pages in the book, and am curious to see if karma is in place here (hopefully) and if Lola finally finds happiness with her family and Julian.
I wonder what will happen to Lola’s money when she finds her father. Will she let the Norvals keep it all and live with her father or would she take it along with her?
Also, what is to happen when Mr. Norval finally returns from his travels?
A question for whoever might be reading this: How do you think the title relates to this story?

My reactions to the first part of the novel is quite positive. I found it to be very captivating because of the flow and easiness of the story. I think that it is an interesting read because it is sort of like a soap opera…and soap operas have drama…and i love drama. But also apart from the drama i think that the first part of the book really touches on important themes that are tied into the course. Race is obviously a big issue and reveals to us the mindset of the people of that time and also the exceptions that are made to overlooking race when other factors, like money are involved. I found it a little weird that Lola was not actually black or native, and that her skin was only painted but perhaps we can see this as symbolic for how looks can be decieving. Another theme i thought was important was your gender related to nation in the novel. It is obvious that women were not valued in that society in terms of politics or government because of their lack of education about the subject. I found Lavvy to be a great example of the portrayel of innocence and ignorance to what was actually going on in her country and the propaganda that she was receiving. I think the dynamics of this book is really interesting and im excited to learn more about it. Im not too sure how this relates to much with chicanos, but perhaps the book touches more on societal views of foreigners during the time of the civil war in the US and how they were an influence or a nuisance to the stereotypical patriotic american citizen. anyways im excited to see what goes on in the book further after the death of the doctor. and mostly to see whether julian and lola end up together…drama drama!!!

reading others response to the book i found it very interesting how many like (Emily) applied this book to modern times. she mentioned that this racism is still very apparent in the states especially in California towards Spanish people. and that made me think that there is a big difference between Canada and the states in this regard because Canada encourages diversity and even though racism is present is not as Strong as in the states towards Hispanic people.

Nicole also mentioned something very interesting which is the presence of the author in the book in some occasions she talks to the reader. which is interesting because if you read the introduction of the book it mentions that the author did not want to have her name published in the book because she was scared it would affect the way the book was seen, yet she included her self in the story, t in more mysterious way, with out an identity almost as a neutral party yet when we learn more about the author we see that she favors Lola.

Feminism….Racism….Materialism…The absurdity of war….Government corruption…
Could be today.
Maria Ruiz de Burton’s modern way of thinking has me impressed and smiling on almost every page. She’s making these sharp, witty observations on many universal, transcendent issues that exist in today’s society as well as in the 19th century. For a book written in 1872, the commentary is years ahead of its time, and all expressed with hilarious satirical flair.
It’s not just that the issues she discusses still exist today. Her voice expresses opinions that are completely modern.
On women’s role in society, Maria brings to our attention the power and strength of women in the family and in the war (Mrs. Norval, Lavinia Sprig), the ability of women to deal with political issues in a thoughtful and rational way, and the regular dismissal and scorn with which they are treated in attempts to express these things (Lavinia Sprig’s encounter in Washington and the derision of Mr. Blower). She ridicules the old stuffy men who are against the franchise. All these things are very much a modern reality….and now women can vote, too.
On racism, Maria portrays the “bad” or “roguish” characters as racists, and the good as tolerant. Constant references by Mrs. Norval (the evil stepmother) and Ruth, her vacuous daughter, about “Indians” and “niggers” are contrasted by Lola’s fair and kind treatment at the hands of good characters like Julian and the Doctor. The Confederates are the bad guys. Today, we condemn racism as superficial and illogical, as Maria has pointed out more than 100 years ago.
On materialism (a plague of today, in my opinion) Maria shows criticism of the Misses Norval’s obsession with a certain lifestyle, especially clothes, and their idolatry of these things above what really matters (Ruth goes so far as to hope her brother Jules doesn’t die so she doesn’t have to wear black….she really wants to wear her new silks).
The absurdity of war is a timeless choice….we’re dealing today with the same false heroes (like the Cackles, like Hackwell, who become heroes for their stupidity), the same creation of “enemies” using fear (Julian ponders the issue of killing his own countrymen), the same use of war policy by the government to achieve innoble aims (Blower’s bizarre explanation to Lavinia about starving the enemy and thus their prisoners).
Government corruption is everywhere in the story. Men make their way to government posts through family connection and money. Members of respected institutions (like the Church…yes, this doesn’t go under government but I will put it here) are frauds and hypocrites (Hackwell etc.)
Maria’s criticism of these is expressed as a modern writer would express it.
This is what literature is about: the transcendent, the universal, the timeless.
I’m loving it.