Author Archives: tamara vukota

Concluding Blog Post

Posted on by

This course has been very different from all of my other ones, but very enjoyable! I really appreciated the unique approach with the contracts and the freedom to be allowed to pick the grade we wanted to achieve. Personally, I think this motivated me to be consistent and loyal to the choices I had made, because the only person to blame if I thought it was too much was myself. I really liked this aspect of self-accountability! Also, getting to choose how often we were to attend class (based on the books) was really nice because I gave myself breaks during weeks where I had a lot of other things going on in my other classes. Being strategic with the books I chose I think saved me a lot of stress this semester which is very much helpful!

 

At the beginning of the semester, I would not have considered myself a reader and was definitely nervous to do a literature course. But now, I feel really accomplished and proud of myself for keeping up with all the books I have read this term. These books were also definitely out of my comfort zone, and proved to myself that I could explore literature outside of the things I usually gravitate towards. Specifically, I never would have grabbed things associated with politics, memories or history which seemed to be common factors throughout all the books we have read this semester. Though I may not reach for some books like this again, I feel proud that I did explore outside of my comfort zone. 

 

My favourite book this semester was definitely Bonjour Tristesse. It was the most like the books I usually read and I enjoyed all the drama in it. Especially the twist ending that was very unexpected. Other honorable mentions are “The Shrouded Woman” and “The Society of Reluctant Dreamers”.I also really liked the class we had for the book when we made the character webs, I thought it really deepened my understanding of the plot and the characters. It was really fun and interesting. I liked the fact that I could preview or read the books in advance to make sure it was something that seemed intriguing before I committed to it in my contract! 

 

Overall, I enjoyed the course and appreciated the drinks of the week 🙂 ! Thanks to Jon, Patricio and Jennifer for making this a great semester! My question for this week is has this course changed your previous opinion on literature courses? If your opinion has changed, how so?

 

week12 – “The Society of Reluctant Dreamers”

Posted on by

“The Society of Reluctant Dreamers” was an interesting one! There were a lot of aspects to this book surrounding the past/future, dreams, love, and politics. Personally I appreciated the letters being included in the pages because it made it feel very personable and you got to see how Moira and Daniel’s relationship formed.

 

“To anybody with any imagination, the past is constantly changing. You think the present is born out of the past, but it’s the other way around”. I thought this quote was meaningful because perspective can change your entire life. If you really wanted to, you could change everything about yourself in this very moment and become a completely different person. By doing this, everything in your past would hold a different meaning. Though your past is concrete, the way you interpret it is constantly changing depending on who you are in the present moment. 

 

The contrast between this world of love and dreams with Moira and his daughter being imprisoned I thought was very interesting. Daniel is inescapably sucked into politics, which is seen as a harsh reality that society is run by. It’s this very real societal entity that deems some people more powerful or important than others, oftentimes leading to cruel outcomes to those below the government. In comparison, the beginning of this tale with Moira feels very magical and above reality in a sense.

 

However, now with the Dream Lab technology producing images of peoples dreams, I feel it blurs the contrast of harsh reality and the world of dreams. For a lot of people, dreams can be terrifying and project or amplify the bad aspects of reality. This can be seen when Daniel begins to dream about the danger his daughter is facing. Having dreams being able to be physically illustrated is highly unnatural and was never something that should have come to be. Especially having those personal images be examined and regulated by authorities, it strips people of all security or freedom of their mind (that cannot be controlled). Specifically for those who suffer with trauma or PTSD, this reiturance can cause even more damage to their psyche. 

 

The title “The Society of Reluctant Dreamers” to me resembles the negative influence authority has on society when they bite off more than they should be allowed to. Dreams are such a personal experience, so publicizing and having others be able to take a look into yours is very dehumanizing. Hence, why people would be reluctant or hesitant to ever dream. I would argue this to be a strip of human rights. This is at least how I interpreted the story to be. 

My question is, what benefits do you think having a Dream Lab in our society would be? How would it change our everyday life?

 

week 10 – Bolaño

Posted on by

“Amulet” by Roberto Bolaño examines a Uruguayan poet, Auxilio Lacouture, grounded in being stuck in a fourth-floor university bathroom cubicle for thirteen days (or so) with no food during the Tlatelolco massacre in Mexico City. This massacre was a real life event in which the Mexican armed forces opened fire on unarmed students protesting the Olympics which were to be held in Mexico city that year. 

 

She often mentions how she does not remember the timing or how “memory plays malicious tricks” (107) on her after this dramatic experience occurred. Throughout the book, we witness her sporadic thoughts that often contradict real life. For example, she’ll talk about how someone is dead when she is saying she is going to her house. I think we can attribute these confusing and disarranged thoughts possibly to the trauma she experienced during this time that has led to serious mental discombobulation. Her socioeconomic status must contribute to this as well, seeing as she does not have money nor access to consistent food or housing. 

 

I found it interesting that the author, Roberto Bolaño, chose to write this book from a woman’s perspective compared to a mans. He writes how Auxilio feels becoming a poet, which is male-dominated field at the time, and how being this minority plays a role in her everyday struggle. Bolaño tries to step into a woman’s shoes when talking about women not being taken seriously in their profession.

 

Auxilio talks about love in a very odd way as well that seems similar to how a man would typically think about it; “I did take part in the games of passion and love” (pg44) and “Nothing ever good comes out of love. What comes out of love is always something better but better can sometimes mean worse if you’re a woman” (pg54). While he pays attention to the disadvantages of being a woman, this is not a typical narration of a woman talking about love. Though she may be of low socioeconomic status and may not have time to contribute to the womanly illustration of love (as she is just focused on surviving). We see her friend Lilian Serpas, of the same poorer economic level, with a lot more interest in men and love in general. She also says; “despite appearances to the contrary, I was a woman and not a saint” (pg45), further contributing to a kind of male perspective when we discuss love and pleasure.

 

With this observation in mind, I pose this question to my classmates: do you think that this is a usual way for a woman to talk about love or do you think the fact that Bolaño wrote this piece impacted her as a character? What makes you think this?

Perec – Week8

Posted on by

Perec gave us “W or The Memory of Childhood” to share his illustrative vision of the Holocaust, both in a personal and figurative aspect. Throughout the book, we see the contrast of these two parallel stories, one being autobiographical and the other (seemingly) being on a  fictional (based on real events) premise. His autobiography emerges from his past which he based off of photographs as a kid and relatives testaments of this time. He often refers to not  remembering what it was like for him in the time of Nazi Germany because he was a young boy. Perec’s response to this trauma led him to block out this horrific time from his brain. The other is the contrasting fictional utopia of the island W, where luck is the only thing keeping you alive. He describes an intense torturous land that I assumed to resemble Nazi Germany concentration camps where the Olympics reside and the horrendous government ideals control its people. “Winners” are graced with food and basic necessities while “losers” progressed getting weaker and weaker as they were malnourished. This winner/loser act shows how unfair and aimless the killings of Nazi Germany were on people. Though, this is a link I assumed, we cannot know if this is fully what he wanted to be observed through the island of W.

I found the alternating stories to be a very interesting way of displaying the reality of his own personal experience and the reality of Nazi Germany in a birds eye persepective almost. Since W reflected more on the broad tragedies of WW2, the story of W is more of a general perspective on the entirety of Nazi Germany. I think he did this to contribute the trials and tribulations that others faced during this horrific time and bring their stories to the surface. This showed how many different people faced different traumas during the same time period. His autobiography connected into his own personal story, much of what he cannot remember as he was a child. This also may have been a coping strategy for him, as a child his brain actively tried to block out this horrific time in his life. Seeing this general perspective through the island W, and his own personal experience made readers adjust from personal to impersonal analysis. 

Personally, I haven’t studied Nazi Germany much so I don’t know much besides the general tragedies during this horrifying time. But I really appreciated the way Perec set up this book because it showed how everyone had such different battles in time of WW2, yet they all share the commonality of being brutal and traumatizing. So I pose this question to my classmates,  do you think forgetting memories is a valid way of progressing past trauma? Or do you think addressing the situation head on is more effective? Do we get to choose to forget or address?

 

W7 – “The Passion According to G.H”

Posted on by

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!

 

Bonjour Tristesse – week 6

Posted on by

This week’s reading I found riveting, I truly could not put it down. Bonjour Tristesse by Françoise Sagan highlights the dynamic relationship between father and daughter, in this case Cécile and her wealthy father Raymond. The setting takes place on the French Riviera on a summer trip with Cécile, her father and her fathers latest young mistress, Elsa. We can see how the more traditional/conservative character of Anne reintegrating into Raymond’s life really impacts the plot of the story and Cécile’s connection with her dad. 

I feel throughout the story that most of the story surrounds the issues Cécile has with Anne, leading her to plot her plan to break them apart. We see Anne making unnecessary comments to Cécile as though she is her own daughter; “To look decent you ought to put on six pounds.” (pg.22), she believes she has the right to say these things to Cécile. Although Anne clearly has issues of her own, I don’t think Raymond gets enough criticism throughout the book. Since it is in Cécile’s perspective, she clearly wants to salvage her relationship with her father and sees him in a positive light. She even describes him; “It was easy for me to love him, for he was kind, generous, gay and fond of me. I cannot imagine a better or more amusing companion.” (pg. 6). He is referred to as a ‘playboy’ throughout the book even though he is 40 years old (creepy that his own daughter talks about this lol). He is a cheater, womanizer and lets Anne around his daughter knowing she has the capabilities to physically (pg.39 slapping her) and verbally abuse her. This pays homage to the stereotype that a man can do no wrong and the woman must be crazy, even though at the end of the day he is not a great partner. Anne is not perfect, but neither is Raymond.

Cyril is a very interesting character, unfortunately he gets caught up in this scheme that Cécile created. He participated to prove and confirm the love he had for Cécile even though it made him very uncomfortable pretending to be in a relationship with Elsa. “Cyril began to torment himself. He hated this role I had forced upon him, and continued in it only because I made him believe it was necessary for our love.” (pg. 116). 

With this in mind, I pose this question to my classmates; Do you think Cécile had genuine intentions when planning this and involving Cyril? Would you force this upon your partner even if it made them uncomfortable? Is this taking it too far? Is this a selfish act upon Cécile’s conscience?

Nada – Carmen Laforet week 5

Posted on by

For this week’s reading I chose to read Nada by Carmen Laforet. This post war aroma is consistent throughout Andrea and her surroundings. While in the midst of longing to study in Barcelona, she has to simultaneously navigate her new family dynamic dealing with post-war hauntings.  

 

The contrast of Andrea’s past and current state is very dramatic with her family, “what a relief to be away from the stares of those extraordinary beings!” (pg. 8). She often reflects on her past life through her memories, which is understandable seeing how different her life is now. The war changed the way her family acts, society and life’s overall feel. She seems very distant and alone even in her own home. She paints images of being surrounded by pictures like of her grandparents for example. I think this line “In the light of day the room had its horror, but not its awful disorder, its absolute abandonment” (pg.12) illustrates this feeling very well. Though her environment is not as horrific as it once was during war, the feelings of trauma still linger. Clearly, it is hard for her to disassociate these feelings from even her own home. 

 

The character Gloria is seen as a counter stereotype to the ‘obedient woman’, she is seen as ‘crazy’ because she isn’t afraid of speaking her mind. Gloria goes against patriarchal standards of this time period. She is described as a “absolutely inappropriate woman” (pg. 16). We see her constantly fighting with Roman; as he says “now that piece of trash has the gall to talk to me” (pg. 17). Whereas other women talk to the men in the book with a lot less authority or demand.  “Gloria, the snake woman” (pg. 82) is a very outspoken and intricate character. In this time, Gloria represents the ‘atypical’ woman, deemed this ‘ugly duckling’ in a sense because of how prominent the patriarchal values were. Therefore, making her a really dynamic character as she takes on this narrative. 

Nada’s substance led me down many paths and left me with a lot to think about. In my opinion, I found Gloria one of the most interesting characters. With Gloria’s perspective in mind, it made me wonder if post war conditions made the patriarchy more or less cruel towards her being. Since we only really see her interactions post war, it made me think about what her dynamic was with men before. War is a prominent male construction. So I pose this question to my classmates, how do you think the Spanish civil war changed and/or adjusted patriarchal views (if so)? Do you think Gloria was treated less fairly now more than before?

Bombal- The Shrouded Woman W4

Posted on by

Firstly, I must say I really enjoyed this read. It has probably been my favourite thus far. I found The Shrouded Woman to be very thought-provoking and interesting. 

The overall feel of Bombal’s fictional world in The Shrouded Woman seems to me to be very gender-stereotypical and of course, patriarchal. The toll each of these men had on the dead narrator, Ana-Maria, was very significant and caused her an abundance of emotions. She has plenty more to say about the men in her life than to her own daughters. I found this to be very sad. But also, kind of relatable. I feel like most people would have more to say to people who have ‘wronged’ them then to people who were consistent in their life. It is especially prominent in this time era because of the way women are deemed to be in this patriarchal time. A woman’s sense of identity and fulfillment came from the man (or men) she surrounded herself with at that given point in time. I would not consider Ana-Marie to feel very fulfilled with her past life, this is because you cannot base your self-worth on mens validation. Clearly, we can see her to be bothered by all these instances even after her passing, so how additive to her life were these men really? It doesn’t seem like they were the most positive emotions.

She does express feelings of wanting it to be different, for men to not take up so much space in her life. But, this can be kind of relatable, it is very difficult dealing with emotions of being in love, anger, toxicity and heartbreak. Even though our society has developed much since this time period, these feelings are still evident today. The most important difference is that now females have a sense of purpose outside of men. Purpose can now fall anywhere between joining a workforce to simply just being alive. Thankfully, women have a lot more opportunities to feel fulfilled without the presence of a man. It just goes to show how living in a more equal and educated society can impact something as delicate as self-worth or romantic emotions. However, I do have an interesting question to pose to my classmates. Even though we live in a society that we can thrive in without a romantic partner, do you think you could die fulfilled without ever being in love? For me, I recognize that I do not have to have a man in order to feel complete, but I would be very upset leaving this world without someone to love. In my mind, one of the main purposes of life is to experience being in love, is this true for you?

Paris Peasant Analysis Week 3

Posted on by

Paris Peasant by Louis Aragon I found to be very creative and abstract. It was difficult for me to logistically understand the plot and justify/recognize what and why things were happening in the book. That said, I thought it was a fun read because of the visuals given by Aragon. It was also fairly descriptive and edgy.

 

Aragon constructed a piece grasping the concepts of  surrealism. The topic of God, logic, greater powers and self/beauty are all tied into his writing. In regards to this, his thoughts on reality and how we function as humans in society really stuck out to me. You can tell through his writings that he has a lot of depth to his thoughts and makes his readers engaged in analyzing these same questions within himself. I really like when authors provoke ideas or topics that makes them think but also makes you think deeply as well. Especially in this case, when a lot of his points lead to the suggestion that reality and society should be taken so seriously in a sense and how all these things like God or sense of self and such, can allude to this idea that nothing needs to make sense. Nothing has to make sense or has to mean anything, it can just be what it is. People today are so quick to attach meaning to everything which can be a good thing, but it can also lead to genuine pain over something that doesn’t have to be painful. 

 

I found his visuals of women very interesting and a bit disturbing. Countless times he is caught rambling about blondes, hair and women’s bodies. Something that he did say that caught my eye was; “It is the merest change that these films never depict a woman who suddenly catches sight of a man, goes straight to him … Such films would have no success at all, they would smack too much fiction” (pg.55). I think this line in relation to the submissive portrayal of the ‘ideal’ woman is really telling. We can see that 100 years ago, male dominance, especially in a sensual manner, was the only ‘acceptable’ way to form any type of relationship. This also alludes to the idea that women would never make the first move and always need to be pursued instead of pursuing. In comparison to today, although I think women have a lot more levelled equality in regards to men, this is still a normative issue today. But it led me to think, is it human nature to want to be pursued rather than pursue someone? As a woman, wouldn’t you rather be pursued than make the first move? If it wasn’t for societal pressures, would men rather be pursued than make the first move? Is this concept necessarily a bad ‘norm’ for women?

Week two – Proust “Combray”

Posted on by

This week’s reading was challenging for me to understand. The main concept I gravitated towards during “Combray” is his multifaceted relationship and/or reliance on his mother. This is what I want to further unpack (from my understanding) and question in my blog post this week.

Marcel spends a lot of time reflecting on his past memories in these sections of “Swann’s Way”. Most of these past memories have to do with his relationship with his mother. Marcel as a character seems to be very anxious, nervous and uneasy most of the time, especially before bed time. He describes his space and environment in much detail, leading me to think he is either very observant or just very anxious about every detail constantly. His mind is always racing and a million thoughts are being thought even though throughout the book there isn’t much sense of physical or mobile actions bodily verifying his thoughts. 

He mentions a lot about how he longs for bedtime kisses from his mother, leading me to assume that he lacks a sense of stability to her. If he truly believed she would always be there to kiss him goodnight, wouldn’t he not worry about it as much? Or is it just a mental anxiety telling him that this ‘routinely’ thing is not certain? Another question I had was regarding his father. Why was his father always so upset and/or bothered by the fact that he wanted a kiss from his mother goodnight? This could be stemmed from a number of things. Jealousy perhaps? Resentment, either towards his wife or his son. It was a little unclear to me where this attitude comes from. 

This whole concept/theme reminded me greatly of the Oedipus complex from Sigmund Freud, in which states that the son is in love with the mother at the unconscious level and simultaneously fears his father to be a rival. This concept from Freud was developed in 1899 and this book was published 1913, so it is possible that maybe the author was trying to convey this idea? Whether or not this is true of the author, I do believe the relationship conveyed by Marcel and his mother sometimes seemed to be codependent. This also raises the question, to which extent is it healthy to rely or depend on your parents in your life? Since we are unsure what age the mother and such were in the memory, it is difficult to say or critique this relationship if Marcel and his mother were in a state of development where dependence was very crucial. I don’t know I feel like I am all over the place hahaha.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet