After reading Faces in the Crowd by Valeria Luiselli, I learned that identity is not something fixed, but something constantly shaped by memory, imagination, and the stories we tell ourselves. The author shows how the boundaries between past and present or reality and fiction can be confusing to people so easily they can overlap. The narrator shifting her life in New York and her later life as a mother highlights how memory is fragmented and unreliable, but still influential. What really stood out to me the most was the idea of “ghosts”, as these are not literal spirits but representations of thoughts and past memories that are always on people’s minds. The book shows how deeply we can as individuals lose ourselves in these imagination and past memory, as the narrator’s connection to Gilberto Owen suggests that identity can dissolve when we immerse ourselves too much into someone else’s story. Moreover, I also learned that writing itself is not always complete, as the authors style of writing which is sort of fragmented forces us to piece together meaning like how we try to understand and make sense of the world or our lives. I also found that the story does not always have a clear narrator as the voice keeps changing which makes it hard to tell what is real or simply an imagination. I think this reflects how identity can feel confusing and never a sure fixed idea, as we are constantly influenced by our emotions and past experiences. Just like the narrator again shifting between perspectives, our sense of who we are individually can also change by the situations we put ourselves in which emphasizes that identity is something fluid rather than permanent. After watching the lecture video on this book, it explored the idea that time and space are not fixed, but constantly shifting. I really found it interesting how the lecture emphasizes movement between cities and identities as it shows that the narrator is always in “transit”, as this connects to the novel’s fragmented structure that the past and present blend together. In addition, it deepened my understanding of “haunting” as it is more about memories and experiences that “haunt” us everywhere we go, which I thought was a really good way to understand our past memories. Overall, this book made me reflect on identity and how we construct it through memory, which can both define and somehow confuse ourselves to who we really are, which I think is very relatable. My question is “do you think the narrator is losing her sense of who she is throughout the book, or is she discovering who her new version of herself is?”
Month: March 2026
Money to Burn
After reading this book, Piglia presents crime not as an act of violence but as a window into society’s values and contradictions. What I thought was really good about the book was that how the criminals burning the stolen money allows us to reconsider what wealth really is, as throughout the book, the bank robber appears to to be because of greed and survival. But, when the gang begins burning the remaining cash during the police siege, the act transforms into something symbolic. As it was said in the book, the criminals throwing the burning bills from the window, “looked like butterflies of light.” I think this forces us to rethink that money is the ultimate motivation behind crime as if the gang were really driven only by profit, destroying the money would make no sense. Instead, it shows us that the act was a form of “breaking” the system surrounding them, or “societal norms”. When the public was furious, it further reveals how this is truly how society acts and values money as they seemed more furious about the waste of money, rather than the violence that lead up to it. After watching the lecture video, I found Piglia’s idea that crime stories can reveal deeper truths about society to be interesting as rather than simply focusing on entertainment or suspense, as he explains how the genre allows writers to delve deeper into political and societal realities and social conflict. Furthermore, crime itself becomes a way of exposing corruption and the relationship between money and violence. In addition, the lecture video raises a question of whether “truth” in literature is found in facts, or in the way stories interpret reality. Lastly, after watching the conversation video, the way how Ricardo Piglia is presented is he is not just a novelist, but as an individual who constantly reflects on how stories are constructed. His work often blends fiction, history, and investigation which challenges the idea that literature has to be a single genre. In his book, this approach is shown as the book is both a crime story and a reflection on politics and society. Moreover, the video helped me see that Piglia uses storytelling as a way to question official narratives and hidden perspectives, which shows how literature can expose deeper truths about power and society. So my question is, when the criminals burned the stolen money, was it really an act of rebellion against society, or was it because they were desperate?
The Lover
After reading “The Lover” by Marguerite Duras, the book is very powerful and emotional as the story center’s around memory, love and identity. The book is set in French colonial Indochina, where a young french girl begins a secret relationship with a rich chinese man. Moreover, through the narrator’s memories, the story dives into major themes such as desire, poverty, growing up and colonialism. The relationship between the french girl and the chinese man is not just simply about being romantic but delves deeper into how social class, race and cultural expectations can shape it as well. Because of these external pressures, love simply is just not enough as it seems in the book. The narrator reflects on her youth from an older age, which shows how memories can help us understand our past. Early in the book, she even reflects on aging and how she already felt changed by the age of eighteen, which shows how quickly she realized how much of her youth she had already lost. I think towards the end of the book, when her former lover calls her and says he is still in love with her really stood out to me as it shows how powerful their relationship was and how it affected both of them. After watching the lecture video, it highlighted how Duras returns to the story not to retell is but to reconsider it from a different perspective. I found that the idea of the “threshold” was interesting as it represents a space between memory and narration. In addition, Duras stands between her past experience and the act of writing about it, constantly revisiting and reshaping the story which helps explain why the book feels sort of fragmented and reflective instead of just being linear and chronological. It also shows how memory is never fixed and that it really changes every time it is told. Lastly, after watching the conversation video, it helped me understand more the unique style of her writing and why it feels different from other books. Duras focuses less on plot and more on emotion and memory, which makes the story feel so personal and universal where it really tries to resonate with how people usually feel in my opinion. The way where the characters do not say rather than through direct explanation where in the relationship, they rarely talk about their feelings but instead the silence used in writing forces us to interpret the tension is what makes the story feel more realistic. So the question I have is do you think the girl has control over the relationship, or is it the influence from her family situation and environment that has control?