Author: TR

Categories
conclusion

Conclusion – The End

This is one of the last classes I’m taking as part of my undergrad, and I’m really glad I took it. For the longest time, I pushed to fulfil my literature requirement because I struggled with reading. I used to enjoy it a lot, then stopped, and part of me struggled to get back to it. Not going to lie, initially, my attitude towards the course was mostly “there’s so much to read”, but within the first two to three weeks, I felt it change. Instead of that mindset, I actually would look forward to what was next and the discussions we would have in class. I think a game-changer was that we discussed what we were reading. Usually, I’ll read things on my own and keep any learning or thoughts to myself, not really engage with them beyond that, but this course showed me how much more we actually can engage through conversation and collaboration with like-minded people. I also became more aware of how several themes overlap across texts, especially those of identity, memory, etc. and how differently each writer approaches them. I feel like even when texts were very different, there have been many little connections that we realize through discussions in class. 

Honourable mention, I also think the classroom environment that Jon curated also didn’t really make us feel any less if we didn’t quite understand a text because of the way it was written, or we had different views from our classmates. More so, it showed me the beauty of dissecting a piece of text from different perspectives and understanding that no one’s perspective is incorrect or correct. My favourite text has to be Norman Manea’s The Trenchcoat because it was one that captured my attention quite instantly. I think the ambiguity throughout piqued my interest a lot. The space for readers to think and curate their own interpretations instead of being told clearly what it is I think, is something new, but yet too intriguing to me. While it is my favourite, I also really enjoyed Time of the Doves for a very similar reason. 

Overall, this course really helped me rediscover the happiness I find in reading. I feel way less pressure and tension around it now, which I was struggling with initially. More so, it changed the way I approach literature, I’m way more open to difficult texts, see more perspectives and am more able to sit with the discomfort and uncertainty rather than looking for the ‘right’ meaning or perspective. Graduating this month, I think the class actually gave a very fitting ending to my undergrad experience, doing things that challenge me and push me outside my comfort zone. 

It was lovely reading everyone’s posts throughout the sem, truly leaving me inspired! Last question, I’d like to ask you all is how this course has influenced how you approach reading? I’m very curious. Lastly, a massive thank you to the entire teaching team!

Categories
Uncategorized

Last but not least

I think Love Me Tender is such an interestingly written piece that goes against the ideas of love, motherhood, and identity. The expectations placed on women are traditionally challenged by the choice of personal freedom over social approval, which, as a woman of this generation, I LOVE to see. I think one of the most powerful tensions present is between motherhood and selfhood in this novel. 

Another main idea is this idea of freedom vs. loss, which I think was one of the most complex parts of this novel. All the empowerment we felt through the narrator leaving behind her marriage, career, and traditional life is this pursuit of freedom. However, it comes with a cost and that too the loss of her son, which, as a mother, I think is the biggest loss one can have. The novel doesn’t show it as this simple cost-benefit situation, but allows the tension to linger between being free and grief. I started thinking about whether her freedom was truly worth it if it’s seen through the eyes of what she had to give up. As a mother, does the freedom surpass the emotional weight of that loss? In the novel, it is not really shown in dramatic ways, but more so, always there, which I think makes it more impactful. This leads me to think further about how freedom is so highlighted, but not so much the sacrifices one has to go through. The idea that the novel suggests of living authentically may need letting go of things that are meaningful to us, that realisation felt both transparent yet uncomfortable to hear, but truly is the harsh truth of life. As an international student, child of immigrants so many of us move away to pursue our dreams or just take a chance at success which in a way is freedom and that comes with a lot of sacrifices like being away from family, working many jobs, and a lot more so this idea just seems very human to me but as a mother it seems even tougher.

Reading this initially, I felt disconnected, like I was being kept at arm’s length, away from the narrator’s inner world, but as I kept reading, the distance began to feel more intentional. Instead of making us feel a certain way, it forces us to sit with what is unsaid, which creates discomfort but also pushes us to understand the emotions rather than feel them passively. As unsettling as the writing style was, I definitely felt it impacted my reading of the novel, perhaps strengthened it. How did you feel reading this? Additionally, my question to discuss would be: Can freedom ever exist without some kind of sacrifice? Do you think freedom is worth the sacrifices?

Categories
Ferrante

Not your typical friendship story

This was a long read, phew, but a very interesting one, regardless, I must say. At times, I did need to keep the book down, then get back to it due to the constant tension present. I definitely doubted if I would enjoy this novel, but it did take me by surprise (in a good way). One of the most interesting parts is the contrast of opportunities between the girls. How Lila, as the brilliant one, has limited access to opportunities in formal education, while Lenù, on the other hand, although intelligent, gets more access. She is also the one who feels jealous of Lila. The difference shows how factors like class and gender can play a role in outcomes more than someone’s individual abilities. 

I also found it interesting the way girlhood or friendship is portrayed throughout. Lila and Lenù’s relationship is filled with insecurity and competition, but also support. While you can tell that Lila is admired and looked upto there is also a lot of jealousy beneath Lenù’s perspective. It feels real and raw, similar to what I’ve seen in real life in comparison to what is often shown in the media. I think this happens a lot in the real world, especially during adolescence, these sorts of relationships, where support and competition co-exist, sort of. Reading this felt like a breath of fresh air, where it’s not just the glamorous side of friendships but the complexity alongside what other factors, like the environment, play into these relationships. In a way, it challenges the idea that friendships are only positive and showcases that while they may be messy, they can also be meaningful. In addition, the fact that the story is set in Naples doesn’t act as just a place but more so plays a large role in actively shaping the behaviours and identities through the violence, poverty, and social hierarchies that exist.

Lastly, I find it striking how the story is told entirely from Lenù’s perspective. This makes me think about how reliable the narration is. Can we ever fully know Lila, or do we only know her through Lenù’s eyes? I think the uncertainty is what makes this read so interesting, because we’re not just questioning who Lila is, but more so Lenù’s perspective as a narrator. Since this story is also told retrospectively, I feel that memory plays a role in determining what’s included or not. In a way, it’s not just their story but more so Lenù’s interpretation of it as well. What are your thoughts?

Categories
Agualusa

Gecko gecko

The Book of Chameleons as a title makes me think about people changing their colours, and to my surprise reading the novel was exactly that but with a focus on individuals actually focused on changing their entire identities and lives because of their past and the narrator being a gecko?! This immediately made me curious about how identity and transformation would be explored in such an unusual and creative way.

One of the most interesting parts was the curation of identities for various individuals. “But what these people lack is a good past, a distinguished ancestry, diplomas, in sum a name that resonates with nobility and culture. He sells them a brand new past.”

This idea of curating and handing out different identities to people just sounds childish, almost like you’re engaging in pretend play like kids do. The more I read, the more normalized it got but still was very disorienting, in fact, most of the situations narrated in this are. However, it poses this question in my head: where is this something to be considered wrong or right?

This was one of the most unique reads I’ve had in a while (I feel like every other week I say oh this is different but truly though lately I’ve been getting suprised). The narrator, the narration style, the chapter titles, the changes in perspective, I feel like this time around truly got me interested in reading and trying to understand the novel more. 

One aspect I’d like to explore in class is why the gecko was chosen as the narrator, and how Agualusa’s choice impacts our interpretation of the story. While the choice of a gecko seems random or sort of confusing, I think its perspective adds a lot t the novel and reinforces the exploration of identity, truth, and memory. Since it remembers a past life as a human, it already blurs the boundary between identities, which mirrors what Félix is doing with his clients. It also looks at everything from afar, if you may say, which makes its perspective feel more philosophical and less tied to any one version of events. This made me think and ask: Are we supposed to trust any single perspective in the novel? Or is it that, depending on who is telling the story, the truth is always changing? Also, does looking inwards from the position of an outsider – does that give the gecko a better understanding of events, or is it similar to how we observe it?

Categories
Piglia

oh the power money holds over us humans

Reading Money to Burn finally gave the true crime vibes I’ve been waiting for. It was one of the novels that actually got me interested from the start, as readers, we were thrown into the action and introduced to criminals planning a robbery. 

I loved the variety of characters and perspectives presented through the different commentaries, reports, and testimonies. The narrative moving between perspectives creates this unstable feeling. I found myself, as a reader, often putting together parts from different perspectives, similar to how crime stories are understood by reports, witnesses, and others. Due to this structure, reading this felt more like a true crime report than a true crime story with storytelling elements. I think it is mainly strengthened by the fact that the novel being based on a real event.

Another thing I found interesting was the representation of the relationship with money. I feel that money is such a sensitive yet powerful topic for many in society, as seen in the quote:

 “Money is just the same as drugs: what’s fundamental is its possession, knowing it’s there, touching it, checking it’s still in the cupboard,” 

This comparison between money and drugs truly encapsulates how money becomes addictive, where logic isn’t used. Those addicted to money, like criminals, are not only into what money can do for them but also the feeling they get from holding that possession. Having and feeling its presence represents security, power, and validation for them. This leads me to the irony of burning the money. It made me think about how the act seems like something a rebel would do out of the power it gives them, that destroying the money was the better, perhaps correct choice for them, instead of handing it over to the police?

Similar to other crime stories, this has a tone that gives this sense of inevitability. You as a reader just have this sense that things are not going to end well. There’s tension just knowing that the characters are going to end up in a situation like this (the siege) before the robbery happens. I feel like this tone just added so much intensity to the story.

All in all, I think the novel gives us such interesting ways to think about crime, power, and money, making me also think about how stories can have blurred lines between fact and storytelling. As mentioned in the lecture video, the story has gone through many changes and resembles the relationships between fiction and reality, especially how the fictional part of it helps us see what’s real or not. Thinking about this, why do you think people are compelled to crime stories like these, especially if they’re portrayed as true, like this one? What makes these true crime stories so captivating?

Categories
Manea

Ambiguity at its finest

Manea’s The Trenchcoat was such a breather compared to the other books, I actually liked reading it. Starting the book, I didn’t know how to feel or what to expect, but the dinner party created an uncomfortable environment. From the title itself, I expected some crime, thriller, or murder mystery vibes just through the ambiguity surrounded by the title, along with the trenchcoat as an object. That may just be me, but the idea of a trench coat made me resonate it to a mystery or detective genre since they’re pretty prominent in those books and shows. Because of that association, I went into it expecting some sort of big climax. 

The chaos created by simply a trench coat being left behind was so fascinating to me, and what made it interesting for me. Thinking about it, if any of us were to lose our trenchcoat or see a lost trenchcoat, today we wouldn’t think much of it. However, the reaction here is completely different. I think this is related to the characters living in communist Romania, where they live under fear and surveillance. Due to this political environment, I believe that’s why they’re so careful with what they talk about, and even something simple like a coat being forgotten may feel so threatening. I think the trench coat didn’t even need to belong to a spy to be powerful, but the idea of them being watched or under surveillance is sufficient to control their behaviour. It was so interesting how just the fear of the political system easily ruined the trust between the individuals when they started suspecting each other. 

Additionally, I found the unclear ending pretty ironic. The title in itself leaves a lot of mystery/ambiguity, as I mentioned and reading the novel, you’re expecting an answer, there’s a sense that the mystery of the coat will be explained. However, instead of the answer we’re expecting, Manea gives us an answer, showcasing how the mystery of the coat showcases the environment of uncertainty and fear that society people experience. I feel that Manea not providing us with a clear explanation somewhat makes the read more impactful. In a sense, it conveys the same uncertainty the characters experience to the reader, incorporating the same ambiguity as in the title, into the message itself. My question to you is, did the ambiguous ending (not having a clear answer on the trenchcoat’s owner) make the story more powerful or frustrating for you as a reader? Why?

Categories
Calvino

Didn’t know I was about to get my feelings played with

This book turned out to be so different, honestly. I don’t know what I was expecting, perhaps something similar to the books we have read. This book didn’t give us one story like we are used to: a start, middle and end. However, in fact, we got several beginnings of different stories and each time we started getting more invested, or it got compelling to read, it was cut off – creating A LOT of frustration, but now I think that was the point? It almost felt like scrolling through different shows on Netflix and never finishing one. Rather than just “finding out what happens”, I’m forced to focus on the experience of reading. In a sense, Calvino is playing with our feelings.

Until now, we’ve been analyzing different characters each week. For this, it feels strange to do any character analysis because the main character is literally “you”, the reader. Addressing the reader by saying “you”, especially at the beginning of the book, is a first for me. It made me feel like the main character of the story, sort of blurring the line between reality and fiction – you’re somehow outside the novel but also inside. It conveys a certain illusion of control, where we are addressed but don’t actually control anything. 

Further, the way attention to the act of reading is given, you could almost argue that it’s portrayed as a desire we have. It also dives into how we read for various reasons, and perhaps the desire to read doesn’t stem from the happiness in finishing the stories, but being immersed in them or in this case, perhaps part of them. Ludmilla read for pleasure and immersion while Lotaira had an analytical approach. It made me think about the way I read and perhaps what I read for. 

Additionally, what was most fascinating was how the whole book feels very relatable to how we consume media now. We start shows and don’t finish them, read articles halfway, and all in all constantly interrupted. This sort of fragmented structure mirrors real life, nothing feels complete. Also, made me think about how it portrays how meaning works in our lives. We never get the entire narrative of people’s lives and perspectives, we see only parts, and fill the gaps with assumptions/knowledge as the Reader does. Despite not getting to the end of the embedded stories, the ending felt strangely calm and traditional after all the chaos, making me wonder perhaps the real story isn’t the novels but the act of reading and connection itself. 

A feeling I did have was the discomfort of not knowing how things ended. It exposes how dependent we are on solutions and endings, but in fact, Calvino is just reemphasizing this lesson of life that life rarely offers us proper endings. We sort of just learn to move from one start to the next and eventually figure it out as we go. My question is, did you feel something similar? What are your thoughts on this?

Best,

Tripti

Categories
Rodoreda The time of the doves

Little Dove? Nah, She a Warrior

The Time of the Doves, reading about war here felt different in comparison to what I expected or usually read. Instead of focusing on the big picture like the battle scenes or larger consequences of the war, it focuses on the tiny details of everyday life that people usually seem to skip past –  loss, hunger, instability and more and it’s vividly shown such that Natalia describes the starvation her and her children faced: “ I had two mouths to feed and nothing to put in them” (p.134). Rodoreda portrays how war invades daily living spaces, making its impact feel even worse. 

Natalia’s narration provides a sense of intimacy, yet there is also a barrier I feel between her and the reader, at least that’s how I felt. In a way, this distance portrays how women’s voices are internally powerful yet socially silenced – she reflects saying at one point, “and i felt a lump in my throat. Because as soon as I’d said yes I’d started feeling like I should have said no. (p. 166)” only further emphasizing internal hesitation and how her feelings are suppressed. Further, the simplicity of the narration made it easier to read despite the repetitiveness. The repetitiveness felt intentional, which again feels like a metaphorical representation of Natalia’s internal world and the nature of her suffering. 

Witnessing this idea of Quimet renaming her to Colometa rubbed me the wrong way, I’m not going to lie (where did the audacity come from???). Especially reading this part where HE decides that she could have only one name, like excuse me? Natalia said “I said my name was Natalia, he kept laughing and said I could have only one name: Colometa.” (p.18). In my opinion, someone’s name is tied to their identity and background and provides a sense of individuality. Renaming Natalia to a name that means ‘little dove’ only screams control and authority. It symbolically represents reshaping her identity, belittling her, and controlling her. In addition, the pigeons, which she said made her feel “ smothered”, also act as a huge metaphoric representation of Natalia herself, trapped and confined to that life and the suffocation the marriage causes her. 

On the other hand, one thing I did love reading is how Natalia transforms throughout. She goes from this oppressed wife to a tough survivor, rebuilding her life after all the suffering. Her growth and change show that identity is not only curated by the relationships we have but also the trauma and experiences we go through. At the end, the fact that she was no longer just “Colometa” gave me SO much happiness, as it showed this beginning of reclaiming herself, her identity, and her name.

 

Best,

Tripti

Categories
Arguedas

Feeling before Understanding

You know those books where the writer throws logic out the window and invites the reader to live in the character’s inner world. Deep Rivers is one of those. It feels as if Ernesto’s inner dialogue is being read aloud to us. A mix of memories, emotions, and observations with a touch of melancholy. 

Arguedas invites the reader to experience emotionally rather than logically. None of the emotions, like sadness, fear, or wonder, is explained but rather made to feel and get immersed in. It creates a sense of heaviness and quiet intensity, even when nothing ‘dramatic’ is happening. We feel Ernesto’s unsettledness, confusion, and loneliness through his perceptions alone. Each little part that possibly stood out as ordinary objects and environments was given so much significance. From stones to walls to rivers, they weren’t just physical elements as we know them to be, but symbolic ones, ones that had meaning. 

This consistent feeling of displacement is present throughout the novel. We feel unsettled as Ernesto does, not comfortable anywhere, reflecting the identity struggle and belonging Ernesto experienced. While this displacement is present, some moments reflect a breath of fresh air (the glimpses of nature), which slows the pace and heaviness. However, even during these calm moments, there is uneasiness and underlying tension that conveys suffering never truly goes away but is always present under the surface. 

On that note, this sense of identity struggle Ernesto felt was something very relatable. Through Ernesto, it is technically argued that living between cultures is hard but very human. Quite honestly, this makes some of us readers who are torn between cultures feel validated. This sense of feeling like an ‘outsider’ is rather comforting than isolating. Further, his intense reactions to injustice portray how having awareness can be painful, especially in a society filled with inequality, and as an ‘outsider’ we have definitely heard of, if not experienced, this exactly. 

What I found unique was that Deep Rivers does not really offer a solution, clarity, or closure. It actually asked us as readers to witness injustice, sit with that discomfort, and feel the emotions deeply. It seemed as if Arguedas also wanted to emphasize that understanding cultural divisions is only possible through feeling them rather than explaining them. All in all, it suggests how deeply one’s identity is rooted in cultures, languages, and the environments we grow up in. 

The question I want to discuss, or perhaps I wonder more about, is: Did you ever find yourself feeling confused or disoriented while reading this? If so, how does that confusion reflect Ernesto’s emotional state?

 

 

 

Categories
Laforet Nada Narration

Expectations vs. Reality

Hi again!

One of the elements that stood out to me the most in Nada was its irony, which is seen from the title itself. Nada, which means ‘nothing’, truly captures the space between the expectations Andrea came to Barcelona with and the reality she lived, learning that what she envisioned was nothing like it. She moves with hopes of this new life, in fact, a better one, only to receive poverty and oppression from her own. The irony here is that what’s meant to be a new journey filled with growth is instead filled with disappointment and frustration. The title largely reflects the emptiness inside of her due to the disappointment of unmet expectations, and I find that to be a very unique and fascinating choice. 

There is also irony that stems from my perspective as a reader. In today’s age, where many of us are encouraged to have new experiences, and as an individual who feels like new experiences are always about growth or learning, Andrea’s experience in Barcelona, which was supposed to expand her life, instead took away from it. So instead of growing, she left feeling empty, and that to me is very ironic as a reader today. 

As a reader, even though the novel is named Nada, which portrays Andrea’s inner feelings, it doesn’t mean that the novel feels like nothing to the reader. In fact, I think the abcscene is meant to be there, making the reading experience feel emotionally draining, to feel what Andrea is feeling, the discomfort and oppression. 

This novel also made me think about the effect of the Spanish Civil War on people. If this was the result, what are we made to think about the consequences of this war then? The novel shows us that the war’s damage was not only economic but also perhaps psychological and interpersonal. The cruelty and oppression portrayed by family members, forming this toxic environment at home, with each person’s trauma, sounds like a crisis that led to a dysfunctional family and environment. It shows how the war has ruined not just places but humanity as well, with no sense of empathy or warmth towards one another, ‘nada’. 

Lastly, a thought I had reading this was how Andrea’s experience strongly resembles many of the mindsets and stories I hear of immigrants who leave their home seeking a new life. Similar to Andrea, many come with these high expectations, but instead they are met with struggles, isolation, financial strain and emotional loneliness. Nada shows the irony of these narratives of moving to another place for a better life. Here, Andrea’s location does not give her freedom, it captures her in this restriction and emptiness, making the novel somewhat relevant to today’s time and people despite being written so long ago.

At the end of it, Andrea girl I’m so glad she got out of there. However, this leads me to think about how others in a similar situation. Was the impact similar on them? How does one get out of a situation like this? Is escape the only option?

 

Spam prevention powered by Akismet