Category Archives: blog

Conclusion

Posted on by under blog, conclusion

I can’t believe it’s already the last week. Wow, this semester went by quickly and I will miss this class. I initially took this class to fulfill my literature credits but I did enjoy it, along with the novels! There are very few university classes that I would consider “fun”, but this class would definitely be considered one. If I’m able to, I would definitely take more literature classes in the future. 

When I chose to take this course, the course name is “Romance Studies” I expected our readings to have romance as a major theme, however, this class turned out to be totally different than my initial expectation but in a good way! In fact, only a few of the novels we have read actually had romance in them, but even then it wasn’t a big theme. I think this could be a rare situation where I am glad that this class didn’t live up to my initial expectation, since I’m not a big fan of romance novels. 

I was surprised that this course had a contract where we could essentially choose the grade we wanted, as long as we didn’t break our contract. This also gave us lots of freedom to fill out the contract that would work best with our schedule. I really liked the contracts because of this, since for many of our other classes, we don’t have much of a choice where our grades will fall, and the uncertainty of what our grades may be can be nerve-wracking. But the contract eliminated a lot of the anxious feelings which definitely help make this course more enjoyable!

Nada was definitely my favorite novel I have read in this class, followed by The Society of Reluctant Dreamers, Bonjour Tristesse, and The Shrouded Woman. The complex relationships Andrea have witnessed in her relative’s house, along with some situations I didn’t expect, such as Ena breaking up with her boyfriend to get revenge for her mom on Roman, Roman’s death, how Juan and Roman seemed to hate each other but also can’t live with each other (implied by Juan’s grief that Andrea believed was the worst thing she witnessed). 

Also, thank you so much to Professor Beasley-Murrary, Jennifer, and Patricio for making this class so enjoyable! 

My very last question I have for this class is: do you have any favorite quotes from the novels we have read? If so, which ones are they and why are they your favorite? 

Final- Agualusa’s “The Society of Reluctant Dreamers”

Posted on by under Agualusa, blog

In this final week of class, I have chosen to read The Society of Reluctant Dreamers, which I found was an interesting story that ties in dreams, memories, and politics: the rich that benefit, the poor that suffer, and the quiet ones. 

The novel starts out with Daniel Benchimol who was getting a divorce from his wife, Lucrecia because he was “criticizing mistakes made by [their] government” (6) in a newspaper as he “dreamed of a better country” (6). Homero, his father-in-law didn’t like, and Daniel ended up getting fired from his job which led to him being a stay-at-home father for a few months because he couldn’t find a job. However, Armando, who was his friend, saved him from his misery and he lived with him for a while. Daniel “was able to live on almost nothing and be happy” (12) from Armando’s philosophy: “if you have nothing, you have more time for everything that really matters” (10) which is a quote I found quite interesting because I can’t decide whether I agree with it or not. 

I also liked how in Hossi’s perspective, when “Daniel snatched the keys from [his] hand” (18) without answering his question or thanking him, Hossi’s first thought was that “something must have happened to upset him” (19), which I thought was nice because I think most people might’ve been offended by Daniel’s behavior.

Daniel was obsessed with a woman, who he later discovered was Moira Fernandes, because of a camera he found. He eventually visits her in Cape Town, and within their first meeting, he thought that “she seemed fake, … a rather crude copy of the woman from my dreams” (94). Later Moira tells him that “[she’s] not the person [he’s] inventing in [his poems] (we always invent the people we love)” (160), which is a quote I found true, since I think some people like to imagine being with their ideal partner, instead of who their partner really is. 

When Daniel returned, Armando told him Karinguiri was arrested because she was in a group of revolutionaries that protested “against the dictatorship” (115), something that Daniel and Armando “never did out of cowardice and conformism” (114). But Karinguiri’s hunger strike led to more and more people protesting against the government, even Daniel who was considered a coward, eventually did as well. 

“Fear isn’t a choice. There’s no way to avoid feeling fear. And yet we can choose not to give in to it” (217). Karinguiri’s quote, along with her actions and behavior were inspiring. Even though she had been suffering from a hunger strike, to the point Daniel thought her body looked dead, her determination never wavered. 

A question I have for my classmates is: Armando mentions that “people should only be allowed to marry when lucid” (11), do you agree with his belief that marrying someone when you’re in love with them is the same as drunk driving? 

Week 12- Cercas’s “Soldiers of Salamis

Posted on by under blog, Cercas

This week’s novel, Soldiers of Salamis written by Javier Cercas definitely felt like such a long read. Although, I was extremely thankful that I had a physical copy for this long novel because reading on a computer screen would definitely strain my eyes, and make the reading process longer. I found that it was interesting that this novel was divided into three parts instead of the usual chapters we often see. This novel, Soldiers of Salamis, also takes place during the Spanish Civil War, similar to some of the novels we had read. 

In part one of the novel named Forest Friends, Javier Cercas is the narrator who was struggling in making his dream of becoming a writer a reality, as he claims his career “never actually got started, so it would have been difficult to give it up” (13). Which was quite sad to read but also realistic, as people grow older, there eventually comes a time when they start to distinguish between their dreams, and what they are actually capable of. Javier returns to being a newspaper writer after five years where he had suffered “economic, physical, and metaphysical anguish… and a dreadful depression” (13). His father also passed away and then he was divorced by his wife. Even when he returns to his previous job, he’s treated as a traitor for leaving to write novels. However, he gets the opportunity to be able to interview Rafael Sanchez Ferlosio, the son of Rafael Sanchez Mazas, who told him “the story of his father facing the firing squad” (15-16). Mazas escaped the execution and was hiding in a forest when one of the soldiers spotted him, looked him right in the eye but yelled out, “There’s nobody over here!” (24) and essentially saved Mazas’s life with his lie. I found that act extremely interesting and also powerful, that the supposed enemy lied to spare his life. Eventually, Javier suspects that the soldier who spared Mazas’s life was Antonio Miralles. When Javier questioned him, “It was you, wasn’t it?” (240), there was a hesitation, and Miralles simply answered, “No” (240) with a wide smile, which feels like a lie. But if he was the soldier, I wonder why Miralles didn’t answer honestly. Was he hoping that lying would increase the chance that Javier would return to question him again? Or did he not want to be seen as a traitor, as he lied to his comrades to let Mazas escape. I find it interesting, and I wish we could’ve had a point of view from Miralles in that interaction to answer honestly, in his mind, if he was the soldier (which it seems like it): why he lied to Javier, and why he lied to save Mazas.

A question I have for my classmates is: in part one, do you agree with Javier’s colleagues that his choice of leaving a newspaper writing job to write novels is an act of betrayal? 

Week 11- Bolano’s “Amulet”

Posted on by under blog, bolano

This week’s novel was Amulet, written by Roberto Bolano. The novel begins with the line, “this is going to be a horror story” (1), and my mind instantly thought of ghosts, demons, creepy dolls (watching Chucky at 5 years old has forever changed the way I see dolls). However, the narrator also claims that “it won’t appear to be, for the simple reason that I am the teller” (1) and I was intrigued to read this novel as I was wondering how the narrator may tell this “horror story” in a way that does not appear to be horror. 

This novel took place in 1968 when the student movement occurred in Mexico City at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where the narrator, Auxilio Lacouture, was locked in the women’s bathroom in the “faculty of Philosophy and Literature” (16) all alone for 12 days. As she didn’t want to be taken “prisoner” (26) nor did she want “to be in [a horror] movie” (26). This line of her precise location is repeated throughout the novel which reminds me of The Old Gringo, where the line, “now she sits alone and remembers” is also repeated throughout the story. Perhaps the use of this repetition is a way of reminding the narrator of her location and surroundings so she doesn’t get swept up by her past and future memories, even though it seems that the narrator struggles with some of her memories, “let me try to remember” (2) and “[she] can’t remember exactly” (18), which also reminds me of Perec’s “W, or the Memory of Childhood”, as both narrators seem to have troubles with their memories. Auxilio seems to try and drown in her past memories as a way of coping with her situation, as she is completely alone during this terrifying time. 

I found that this line, “history is like a horror story” (66) is powerful because it is, unfortunately, a true statement. Horror movies have been around for many years, whether it is about supernatural beings or creepy dolls, it makes it easy to forget the true horror story (or rather stories) that has actually occurred in reality, which is history. Something that every country has, and some may even try to hide it. For Canada, one of the dark histories was the residential schools that were (and still is) extremely traumatic to Indigenous people. 

A question I have for my classmates is: what are some similarities between this novel and Perec’s “W, or the Memory of Childhood” as memories are one of the main themes in both stories.

Week 10- Fuentes “The Old Gringo”

Posted on by under blog, fuentes

For this week, I have chosen to read “The Old Gringo” written by Carlos Fuentes, which from the book cover I thought this novel would be mainly focused on the Mexican revolution. However, there seemed to be so much more themes in this story. 

One of them was an unexpected love triangle of some sort between Harriet Winslow, Arroyo, and the old gringo, who is later revealed to be Ambrose Bierce, an American author who went to Mexico with a desire to die in the Mexican revolution. The old gringo seemed to have developed romantic feelings towards Harriet, who is an American woman that traveled to Mexico to teach children, and his feelings seem more genuine compared to Arroyo. Although personally, I find it quite odd and uncomfortable, as in the novel, it also seems to imply that the old gringo and Harriet have a father-daughter dynamic. As when he was killed, she said that he was her father and she wanted to “[bury] him in Arlington Cemetery beside her mother” (179). She also called the old gringo, “papa” (182) to his corpse. I’m not exactly sure how the author would want the readers to think of this pair, but I think it seems that both the old gringo and Harriet’s love for each other are one-sided in a way. As the old gringo has a romantic love for Harriet, while she has more of a parental love (implied) towards the old gringo. While Arroyo mainly targeted Harriet because he wanted to hurt the old gringo for betraying him. He threatens her that he will murder the old gringo if she doesn’t have a sexual relationship with him (which is very disturbing). Harriet wanted to protect the old gringo which began their side of the “love” triangle. 

Also, the lectures mention how repetition is a common theme in this novel, as the story begins and ends with the same line, “Now she sits alone and remembers” (3 and 199). I find stories that start and end with the same line quite interesting as it symbolizes coming full circle. Towards the end of the novel, Colonel Frutos Garcia tells Harriet that they respect her “because [she is] the one who will remember it all” (183), and I found that line extremely powerful and tragic. As both the old gringo and Arroyo are dead, their “love” triangle story, the memories between them, only exists because Harriet is the only one alive. The memories from the old gringo and Arroyo all cease to exist when they have passed, Harriet is the unfortunate one that will remember everything.

She is the only one left.

A question I have for my classmates is do you think Harriet viewed the old gringo as a father figure or as a love interest?

Week 8- Perec’s “W, or the Memory of Childhood”

Posted on by under blog, Perec

This week’s novel, W, or the Memory of Childhood by Georges Perec, contains two alternating texts. The author claims these two texts merge together into one to tell a story that can’t be told without the other. At first, I thought it was an interesting idea, especially since one of the texts is an autobiography, while the second one is imaginary. I was intrigued to see how these two seemingly unrelated texts could merge together to tell a story. 

The first part of the entirely imaginary text talked about how the narrator was “the only living memory” (4), whereas the autobiography immediately started with how the narrator had “no childhood memories” (6). After reading these two beginning parts with contrasting lines, it seemed like the narrator in the autobiography text had a traumatic childhood which may have caused him to repress his childhood memories to the point that he no longer had memories of it. Or perhaps he has locked up those memories somewhere deep down because it would’ve been too painful to remember it. Due to this impression, I initially thought that the imaginary text was going to be a different reality that was filled with childhood memories for the narrator. Although, that didn’t turn out to be the case. Instead, the story was focused on the Olympics that took place on an island that seemed like a complete nightmare due to the significant difference between how the government treated the winners and the “losers.” 

The narrator’s repression of his childhood memories, a way of his defense mechanism, seemed to have caused him to have a lack of identity as he doesn’t remember his memories as a child, much less his own identity in childhood. I felt bad with the way he was frustrated with himself due to his lack of childhood memories, but his frustration and struggles also contradict with a popularly known phrase, “ignorance is bliss.” The readers are aware that the phrase may not be the case for the narrator, which I found was interesting (although still tragic) to see that phrase from a different perspective where ignorance isn’t bliss. As I find that it seems more common for people and characters to wish that they didn’t find out about a particular truth because it had a significant effect on them. Thus, it was interesting to see that perhaps it’s better to be aware than be kept in the dark. 

A question I have for my classmates is: do you agree with the author that this story can only be told with the two alternating texts? Could this story exist with only one of the texts? 

Week 7- Rodoreda’s “The Time of the Doves”

Posted on by under blog, rodoreda

This is the first novel that I have a physical copy of and the feeling of holding a book and flipping through the pages was so different compared to scrolling through the pages on a computer, so I was looking forward to reading this novel. This week I chose to read The Time of the Doves. This novel takes place during the Spanish Civil War and it shows how the main character, Natalia, had to struggle throughout this challenging time. 

“I had two mouths to feed and nothing to put in them.” (134) was such a heartbreaking line to read, it must be one of every parent’s worst nightmares, to not be able to provide for their children. Along with Natalia having to place her son into a camp “for refugee children” (139) so he wouldn’t starve despite her own desire of wishing she didn’t have to leave him. But her desire for Antoni to have his basic needs fulfilled was stronger. Even when he was begging her “not to leave him” (136), she “had to harden [her] heart and push him away” (136) for his own sake. It must have been difficult for Natalia to not give in to her son who was crying and begging to stay with her, but she had to be the level-headed person. Her son was still a child, young, and naive, unaware of the necessary but difficult decisions that must be made for the sake of his health. However, Natalia who is an adult, a mother, doesn’t get the choice to be ignorant. She must be the one to not be blinded by her or his emotions, and make the logical decision. I can’t imagine how that must feel, especially when she looked back at him and Antoni had “stopped crying… his face was like an old man’s” (137). It was like within these few minutes, where Natalia had to run out with her daughter, Antoni suddenly stopped being a child. It was almost like he had grown within those few minutes, and he’s no longer young and naive anymore, as he came out of the camp as a “different boy” (139). 

I was extremely shocked when one night when Natalia was lying with Antoni and Rita, she “decided to kill them” (145) and then herself due to being in poverty after her husband, Quimet had passed away in the war. Especially with her belief that “no one loved them” (146), which is once again, another heartbreaking line. However, thankfully a grocer, who ironically had the same name as her son, had saved her and her children by giving her a job and was also a man she ended up marrying. Eventually Natalia “returned to life… [her] children stopped looking like skeletons” (158).

A question I have for my classmates is, were you surprised when Natalia had a plan to kill her own children and herself? Did you think her plan was too extreme or did it make sense due to her challenging situation? What would you have chosen to do?

Week 6- Sagan’s “Bonjour Tristesse”

Posted on by under blog, Sagan

This week I chose to read Bonjour Tristesse by Françoise Sagan, which was a novel about the relationship between a daughter and her father, Raymond, along with Anne, who is a woman he plans to marry. 

Firstly, I found it was quite odd that Cécile “knew his need of a woman” (6) and “his fancy changed every six months” (6). I also felt quite bad for Cécile to have to know this playboy side of her father. As it may be difficult for her to see Raymond with so many women, and it seems to also negatively contribute to her perspective on relationships as she found the “conception of quick, tempestuous and passing love affairs… enticing.” (11). Thus, this may have been part of the reason that led Cécile to manipulate and use Cyril, who truly loved her. As she didn’t seem to know what a healthy relationship seemed like since she “knew little of love” (11) and had mainly witnessed her father’s quick relationships with mistresses. Raymond also doesn’t seem to consider how his relationships with mistresses would affect Cécile and he didn’t seem to be discreet about them either. He doesn’t seem to care about her and was more focused on his own life with his mistresses. 

Initially, I felt bad for Cécile due to her mother’s passing and her father’s actions and behaviors with other women, along with his inability to actually be a father. However, my sympathy started to fade away when she came up with a plan to break up Raymond and Anne’s relationship and use Cyril’s feelings for her as a part of the plan. 

Raymond’s lack of proper parenting ultimately led to Cécile having freedom to do whatever she pleases, which definitely led her to being spoiled. She didn’t mind too much of having Elsa with them since she knew Elsa’s presence wouldn’t effect her. However, Anne is seen as a threat to Cécile due to trying to take on a motherly figure to her and throwing some control into Cécile’s life. Despite the fact that there were some actions Anne did that seemed to cross the line, such as making the comment regarding Cécile’s weight and even slapping her. Which definitely didn’t help decrease Cécile’s hatred of her. Cécile was willing to do anything to keep the freedom lifestyle she had and she didn’t seem to care about anyone else. 

My question for my classmates is if Raymond had tried to slowly introduce Anne and the idea of marrying her to Cécile, would she still have developed a hatred towards Anne and planned to break them up?

Week 5- Laforet’s “Nada”

Posted on by under blog, Laforet, Nada

“Nada” is currently my favorite novel so far. The novel takes place after the Spanish Civil War and the narrator is an orphan named Andrea, who was ecstatic to be able to study literature in Barcelona to the point she carried her luggage by herself as she had enough strength due to “[her] youth and eager anticipation” (3). Not even the fact that “nobody was waiting for [her]” (3) dimmed her excitement. However, the minute she arrives at her relative’s house, her excitement seems to be replaced with horror that “it all seemed like a nightmare” (5).

The novel seems to have a sense of nostalgia, as the way the grandmother talks about Juan and Roman who were “angels” (31). Especially when she mentions “back then, my child, Roman was a good man” (32), as if she doesn’t truly want to admit that Roman has changed and has become a terrible man. It seemed like she still wants to believe that there’s still some good in Roman, that he’s still the angel she loved when he was a child. Gloria also agrees with the grandmother and mentions that he used to comfort her when she was afraid. However, she also mentions that “Roman’s very nice when he wants to be, but at heart he’s bad.” (36), which was a line I found memorable, as it implies that one can never truly know another individual.

Ena’s situation surprised me the most, where she had a boyfriend that she loves, as she claims, “[she] couldn’t bear it if [her] life were separate from his” (218) but she broke up with him to be involved with Roman. However, it was later revealed Ena was with Roman for the purpose of getting revenge for her mother. As Ena was aware of the love her mother had for Roman, “nobody loved Roman the way [her mother] did” (193) but was mistreated by him. Juan’s grief for his brother’s death also surprised me, as it seemed their relationship became complex as both brothers loved Gloria. Earlier in the novel, Roman mentioned that “Juan belonged to him” (232), and I didn’t really believe that statement due to their tense interactions. However, when Roman died, “Juan’s grief was unashamed, maddening, like that of a woman for her lover… [or] a young mother at the death of her first child.” (232). Andrea had clearly witnessed many unpleasant situations in the house, however, she believed Juan’s cries for his brother was the worst situation. On the outside, it seemed as if Juan disliked Roman. However, in the end, it turns out he loved him the most (besides their mother).

A question I have for my classmates is do you agree with the other aunts that the grandmother’s unconditional love, spoiling Juan and Roman as much as she could, caused Roman’s ending in a way?

Week 4- Bombal’s “The Shrouded Woman”

Posted on by under blog, bombal

I found The Shrouded Woman to be an easier read compared to Paris Peasant and Combray. The writing was descriptive but not overflowing with a lot of vivid details. The scenes also didn’t feel like they suddenly changed without a reason either. It is also my favorite novel so far, though I do wish I could’ve read this as a physical copy rather than on the computer. Nevertheless, I found it interesting that this novel was regarding Ana-Maria, who is a dead narrator as she talks about the people who have had a significant influence on her life. Although, it feels more unfortunate that Ana-Maria reflects more on the men in her life rather than her children or parents. 

Ana-Maria reflects on Ricardo, her first love when she was a teenager who had to move to Europe to “study scientific farming” (165). Ana-Maria asked Ricardo to marry her and take her with him, however, he refused as he doesn’t seem to think that being married to Ana-Maria would be beneficial to both his career and future. Ricardo’s rejection and departure broke Ana-Maria’s heart, as she cries to Zoila that he doesn’t love her anymore. However, ironically as Ricardo visits Ana-Maria on her deathbed, she “understands that this man had never remained entirely apart from her” (176). This is quite devastating, as she finally realizes Ricardo did- and still does love her on her deathbed. Thus, causes her to wonder “must we die in order to know?” (176), which is truly a philosophical yet heartbreaking question. I think in most situations, perhaps yes, since pride, ego, and fear of vulnerability often restrains people from being honest about their feelings. It would be interesting if we had Ricardo’s perspective on his relationship with Ana-Maria, and what his thoughts and emotions were when he visited her on her deathbed.

When Ana-Maria’s brother, Luis, visits her, I found this line to be quite powerful, “I remember there was a time when we loved each other very much; … a time you had forgotten but which my death reawakened in you” (180). It’s unfortunate that she was separated from him due to an outsider when they were once so close to each other. It’s quite tragic how sometimes people come to a realization of how much they love one another when it’s too late. Luis seeing Ana-Maria on her deathbed seemed to make him realize how much he once loved his sister, in a similar way to how Ana-Maria realizes how much Ricardo still loves her after all these years. Even though it’s not the same type of love, as one is a family type of love and the other is a romantic type, it’s still love that was realized after her passing.

A question I have for my classmates is why does Ana-Maria’s reflection focus more on the romantic relationships rather than her family, friends, and children? What could this also imply about our society today?

Spam prevention powered by Akismet