Month: March 2026

Categories
Blogs Luiselli

why does every book have a character that likes reading?

I really enjoyed Faces in the Crowd, however, I found myself more confused than not over the course of my read. The multiple perspective changes (from the woman to Owen), the different locations (i.e. New York City and Mexico City) and the various time periods (for example, the woman’s present day compared to her young adult years) left me in a constant state of fight-or-flight, where I was trying to figure out who was the narrator and where each part transpired. I liked the role of time in the novel; the notion of the “future pluperfect” (96) tense lowkey sent me into a frenzy after remembering the hours I have spent learning conjugations. However, such a tense also tied the story from “three” perspectives together in both time (past and future) and space (New York).

 

I found the abrupt breaks in the woman’s and Owen’s memories of their youth quite interesting. I felt like such discontinuity almost added to the process of telling a retrospective tale, and how there may be missing parts when recollecting something that occurred x numbers of years ago. In a way, the fragmented aspect of this partially retrospective story emphasized the “unreliability” of the story: the woman and Owen are likely unreliable narrators. After realizing this, I begun taking the words I read with a grain of salt, especially since there is a plethora of missing information (as indicated by the abrupt narrative changes).

 

One thing I have noticed in this book and in many novels from other genres is that there is often a main cast member who enjoys writing and/or reading. For example, in Money to Burn, one of the twins somehow became a reader after his time in prison or Macabea who likes newspapers in The Hour of the Star. On that note, Faces in the Crowd really fulfilled such a literary “canon event” per say by having the women and Owen as writers and literary enthusiasts. We know that these characters are writers as they both state they are in the progress of writing a novel; similarly, we can infer that the women enjoy reading after learning about her hyper fixation on Owen’s poetry when she was in New York.

 

Initially, I believed that the aspect of having a “literary” main cast member was something authors do because they can’t conceptualize the fact that not everyone is like them (harsh, I know). However, I recently took some time to reconsider my thoughts, after consistently seeing this trend in literature. Perhaps, rather than just a desire to have characters that share their passions, such characters that enjoy literature are fragments of the authors themselves, allowing them to be encapsulated forever in their own creation. I think my newfound notion actually aligns extremely well with Faces in the Crowd, especially after considering the fragmented storytelling. I now leave the question to you, why do you think that many authors include characters that enjoy reading into their works?

Categories
Agualusa Blogs

theres always a duo in a trio (idk how true that is but there are certainly duos in the chameleon).

 

I was actually really intrigued by this book. From the talking gecko, who’s not actually a gecko, to a silently marinating plot twist, what’s there not to be shocked by? It was incredibly pleasing when the title manifested in the story when the gecko’s true identity as an Argentine author was revealed: Borges was almost like a chameleon since he was disguised as another entity (can this work almost be considered a fanfiction lol??). Overall, the author’s utilization of pairs and differences from other works in this class captivated my attention during my read.

 

Agualusa’s use of pairs added another layer of depth to the novel, one that could only be properly appreciated when I was actively engaging with the text. One of the most notable pairs is the Gecko, later revealed to be Borges, and Ventura. Their dynamic as different but the same was intriguing. More specifically, we realize that they are physically different through the Geckos animalization of Ventura by calling him “the creature” (3). However, they are also similar in the sense that they both burn easily under the sunlight.

Aside: the use of pairs encouraged me to listed to “In Twos” by Esha Tewari during the writing of this post (super good song lol, I 100% recommend giving it a listen).

 

I would like to make some comparisons to the previous works we have read in this class; prior to making any claims, I acknowledge that these observations may have been influenced by the collection of novels I have chosen to read. Firstly, it quickly becomes clear that this novel was written around a time of political unrest after learning about Buchmann’s occupation as a “photojournalist” that collects “images of wars” (17), which is emphasized after his grand revelation near the end of novel. I noticed that many of the South American literature we have read has been during such unstable times; an example includes Money to Burn.

 

Despite the presence of the well-documented societal unrest in South American novels, such is not the case in the Western European romantic literature we have explored; the most notable example is Combray. In a way, it seems like the South American authors have aimed to encapsulate the surrounding socio-political unrest into the stories of their characters, which ultimately acts as an introspective window into their world and feelings. As a result, I leave you with the question, why do you think the discrepancy between the author’s portrayals of society exists? Perhaps it may be a product of my literary selections, it could also be a cultural difference between Europe and Latin America, or even, it may simply be attributed to indiviual author characteristics/stylistic decisions.

Categories
Blogs Piglia

well…money was definitely burned

Up to this point, Money to Burn has been one of the most interesting books from this course. In fact, I found myself extremelt eager to find out what happens next. I really liked the suspense, the description and the close feeling to the characters. Two aspects of the novel stood out to me, one of them better than the other: Piglia’s depiction of woman and the irony at the end of the novel.

 

However, many of the male characters in this novel were incredibly weird, and I honestly despised the way Piglia portrayed women in the novel. Beware: rant incoming. Almost every time a female character was discussed, there was always a sexual undertone to it. It basically felt like women were constantly objectified. This aspect of the novel left a sour taste in my mouth and diminished my enjoyment of the book, which was disappointing since the premise of the story, the fast-paced plot and the narration were all really enticing.

 

I’m going to jump all the way ahead to the end of the novel: after the team successfully achieved their goal of robbing the bank, they burned the newfound money they acquired. This was incredibly ironic as it seemed like they did all planning and work for … well … nothing. Initially, I was confused as to why they were doing this. However, after thinking about it for a little bit, I thought that the action of burning the money was almost a “critique” of society: the world runs on money and some people would do anything for it. In a way, the main cast, and Piglia by extension, were setting themselves free from the money-driven mindset that had possibly governed their lives until now.

 

I found it interesting how every character had a “label” of some sorts. For example, Malito was the “Engineer” (8), or Brigone, one of the twins, was the “Kid” (4). At first, it seems like they going to package each character into their element, however, that didn’t really happen. As a result, I wasn’t really sure what to make of these character tropes by the time I finished the novel. Therefore, I want to ask you what you made of the labels. Did you think they had a purpose, if so, what was it? Or did you believe they were just some extra expositions used to introduce the characters and set up the story? I am excited to hear your thoughts!

 

Categories
Blogs Manea

The Trenchcoat of the Unknownn

I’m not sure how to feel about this book, or is it even a book? Maybe this work is better classified as a short story. Regardless, the fast, fleeting nature of this piece helped capture the sentiments of the members of the working class, the “proletariats,” during the unfortunate times of war.

 

The start of this book was incredibly abrupt. We were introduced to an amalgamation of different characters, such as Ali, Felicia and Ioana, within the first few pages. It almost felt like navigating a friend group for the first time, where every member except you has known each other for years. As a result, it was difficult to follow what was going on. The dinner scene really highlighted our lack of context by making references to other characters that everyone in the dinner knows, but not us:

“They, meaning them, meaning Him, the audience knows it.” (196).

Whoever the narrator is discussing seems like common a figure to the characters in the novel, but they are completely unfamiliar to us.

 

In fact, the narrator actually breaks the fourth wall and addresses our confusion:

“For you, the observer, the Guileless One … The miracle of the instant already past, the deep, inaudible breath of the instant to come, chance and void and question: the uncertainty” (199).

Despite the initial confusion about the phrase, I started to notice that the “uncertainty” addressed by the narrator plagued the world of the characters. Such “uncertainty” and suspicion between characters emerged more clearly after the owner of the raincoat was questioned. For example, Dina asked Ali

“the same question” (219)

about the raincoat that she had asked two days earlier. Although this could be a simple accident, Dina kept pressing Ali and the other attendees of the dinner party. This lack of trust between the characters showcases broader information about the period the work takes place: during wartime. This sense of uncertainty was likely perpetuated by the larger social issues surrounding the main cast, which becomes apparent when discussing whom the raincoat belongs to, especially since war is never certain.

 

My question for you all is what makes someone a novel or a short story. Is it solely the length of a piece of writing? Or are there other stylistic or textual elements that contribute to the categorization of a work? I would argue that while the categorization of a short story can be guided by its length, I think that this one, albeit short, is not an example of a short story. This piece resembled an excerpt of a larger work, than a standalone piece of literature, since there was an overwhelming lack of exposition. However, this quality is what made the story a more convincing rendition of the war Manea hoped to portray: just like the abrupt start of the narrative, war often comes out of nowhere.

Categories
Blogs Lispector

The Hour of Questions

I have to say that this has been my favourite book so far. I loved everything about it, from the engaging writing style to the mysterious nature of the author, and each page left me more eager to go on. It really seems like the overarching theme of this novel is the “unknown,” since there is so much unexplained information.

 

This narrator is a paradox: both humble and proud, mysterious yet close. Each paragraph made me more confused about who the narrator truly is what his actual intention is for writing the story. This quote reminded me of a riddle, it was almost like “what am I” would be placed right after it haha:

“The upper class considers me a weird monster, the middle class worries I might unsettle them, the lower class never comes to me” (8).

This sentence really highlights the unknown aspects of the author: even though he provided a description of himself, it is not nearly enough for readers to learn anything meaningful about him or his motives.

 

The first chapter was full of uncertainty. The author stated multiple times that he “would like to tell the story of the northeastern girl,” which almost felt like an effort to remind himself what his primary objective is. This act of also reinforced the unreliability in the narrator’s version of events. In fact, the narrator himself states that

“[t]his book is a question” (8),

implying that us as readers should not take what he says as face value. However, he still says,

“I prefer the truth in the foreboding” and that “the story is true” (4),

which highlights the nuance in his words. The repetition, his declaration as an unreliable figure, and his desire to emphasize the “truth” in the material led me to believe (very early on) that this guy is a ghost. The last paragraph of the novel confirms this:

“I just remembered that we die” (77).

 

Similarly, I had more questions about why he is telling us about her, why does he love her so much and why he knows so much about Macabea especially since

“the girl isn’t aware of [the narrator]” (25).

I think anyone’s first thoughts would consider him a stalker, which I agree with, but it seemed like he was almost an extension of the girl, to the point he died with her: “Macabea killed me” (76). It seemed like the more I read, the less I understood.

 

Overall, the “simplicity” (3) in the text, as said by our narrator, led me to question the line between truth and lies. Specifically, can something be considered “true” if information is intentionally or unintentionally omitted? In this novel, the lack of details, and paradoxical nature of the narrator made me extremely hesitant to trust anything the narrator said, despite his reinforcement of the “truth” in the story. But I’m not sure I can say that his story is a lie. I open the same question to you all: what do you think?

Spam prevention powered by Akismet