To start off, what was this? Honestly I have no clue. “The Passion According to G.H.” Clarice Lispector was so abstract and very manic, but I found it quite fascinating. The whole book surrounds this mental breakdown of the rich artist narrator after she kills a cockroach. Wow, what a sentence. I definitely understand why the drink associated with this book was a double espresso and an (optional) cigarette! Makes plenty of sense now.
The cockroach in the maid’s room may symbolize poverty, seeing that they are usually found in poor living conditions and dirty rooms. This gives her the instant urge to kill it since this narrator is of high privilege and wealth. This is particularly evident in the context of the setting in Brazil where this contrast is apparent. But as we see in the story, the narrator is triggered by this act of killing because it makes her realize that she is put in this place of privilege to think that this insect is something that does not belong in her home. I think this can relate to how wealth and status can truly change someone’s attitude, however at the end of the day we are all biologically stemmed from the same anatomy. No one is born privileged and poised, this is an attitude that is learned from observation and what we think a certain group is expected to behave. Her eating the cockroach is a power move to capitalism. It just goes to show that the facade of wealth and upper class circles is nothing more than an act. But, I don’t really understand how she changes her perspective all because she ate a cockroach? Like I get that this is symbolic, but really?? A cockroach??
Killing a cockroach is such a simple act that we would just look over. But to the author, it was a 200 page masterpiece. It really blows my mind how Lispector transformed this into an entire book with hardly any plot. Killing this cockroach somehow makes her doubt herself and reflect deeply on her life. I feel this is a book that everyone experiences differently, so I am really intrigued to see how others interpreted it because it is such an abstract concept.
So for this week I pose this question to my classmates; How would you have interpreted this book if the narrator wasn’t rich and privileged?
Hey Alexa, play La Cucaracha!
“Hey Alexa, play La Cucaracha!”
Love it! 🙂
“the narrator is triggered by this act of killing”
But I think that, for G. H., it’s worse than that: the cockroach isn’t dead, but on the threshold between death and life. (Like the shrouded woman?) It’s neither one thing nor the other: neither dead, nor alive. G. H. herself similarly finds herself on the threshold.
Hey Tamara, your analysis of her eating the cockroach as a power move to capitalism is interesting to me. While I agree that no one is born inherently privileged and that we are all born biologically equal, I disagree that privilege and upper-class social standing is just a facade or an act, these inequalities run deep within social structures. Therefore, I think the narrator’s privilege serves to demonstrate the way that these structures ingrain themselves deeply within us all. Her internal crisis at the sight of a cockroach is inherently tied to her social standing as someone who has never witnessed having bugs in your home. If the narrator did not hold such a high status as she did in this book I think the story would lose its meaning. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I loved your post, I hope we start the beginning of the next lecture listening to ‘La Cucaracha’!!
Hi Tamara,
I appreciate your post, and I agree, I have no clue what this book was either. There were moments in the book that I thought were beautifully written, but for the most part, I was just wondering what the hell she was talking about. I guess the premise is that squishing the cockroach makes her have a mystical experience where everything that she knows comes into question and she begins to view life and death differently? I don’t know. I’m amazed at how well this book was received. Maybe I’m missing something?
Hello Tamara,
I think your analysis of this book has definitely made me rethink my interpretations. Honestly the language and writing style just upset me to the point where I just wanted to hate. But at the same time is this really truly anti-capitalist. Like she changes from not even seeing her servant as a person to realizing that they are a human being with human feelings.
“I definitely understand why the drink associated with this book was a double espresso” Ha, other than Lispector being Brazilian and Brazil the major exporter of coffee, I wonder what other connections you make here.