The Time of the Doves (Week 7)

This week's reading was another interesting one. Now that it is halfway through this marathon of reading, I'm finding how I'm able to compare how differently each of the books are written and the effect this has on the reader. Usually, in my spare time, I read novels that are very similar in genre and writing style so this has been a good mental experiment to see how much a novel's writing style affects the overall message, tone, and my opinion of the novel. For Time of Doves, I found the writing style to have a real point and artistic effect on the novel (maybe even more than the others). 

For the first few pages, I was really taken aback at how there was such little description of the feelings Natalia experienced despite the novel being written in first person. While first-person books tend to portray a little more intimacy and "behind the scenes thought" to the reader, there was a passiveness to this, as if we were only using her eyes as a placeholder to watch from without really seeing it from her perspective. I'm not saying there was no mention of feeling (for example on her wedding night, she expressed her nervousness and fears), and maybe we've been reading such descriptive heavy novels that my judgement is clouded, but I just couldn't quite place Natalia as a narrator. 

Since this was my first impression of the novel, I then started to try and read into why this passiveness exists in this character through the writing as the novel handles topics that usually include great detail of emotion and inner turmoil. Even when we do get inner dialogue that creates an actual image of Natalia, her emotions and opinions usually revolve around the needs of those around her. For example, with Quimet's mother, Natalia notes that she "had to make her think [she] loved her, because Quimet would be satisfied with [her]" (49). Rather than just talking about how she really feels, she chooses to address what she thinks those around her need her to feel. I believe this passiveness that exists in Natalia despite the turmoil happening around speaks to a larger issue of women's place in war. For many women, they were forced to complacently wait for political war to resolve or to follow the lead of their husbands in their own domestic war. The little amount of emotional agency in Natalia throughout the book really exemplifies the place that women and gender hold in conflict.  

Question for the class: Did you think Natalia was passive? What did you think of her as a narrator? Do you think her lack of individual thought speaks to a larger issue of gender?

 

Deep Rivers (Week 6)

 This was a very difficult read this week. I don't know if it was the midterm stress or the context or length of the book in general, but I had difficulty grasping the nuances of Deep Rivers. However, I found the writing style flowed in a way that was really immersive and I loved the use of dialogue. I also thought the footnotes in my edition were done really well and I got to learn a lot about different cultural terms, customs, and history in a very approachable way. I like how even in translation, the footnotes found a way to incorporate the integrity of the original language by including certain words and educating the reader on their translation. I'm also planning on going to Peru in the Summer, so it was fun to start imagining these places and learning more about Indigenous history and culture before I go. 

This brings me to the first thing that I noticed when reading this novel: how ethnic categorization was at the forefront of character description. Literally, right from the beginning, Ernesto continuously refers to workers as mestizo and/or Indian, rather than by name or description of job, etc. Additionally, one of the beginning lines mentions how the chiesling of the church by the Spaniards had broken the "enchantment" of the building. I really liked how this imagery from Maria Arguedas set the tone for the racial comparison and identity themes that were to come. The fact that it was exemplified through a conversation between father and son also symbolizes how these ideologies are so ingrained in generational thinking that post-colonial influence continues to live on.  In my other Latin American courses, we talked a lot about the historical influence of the Casta Paintings and the tools of categorization used by the colonial powers as a way of generating power and influence. I think this addresses a main theme throughout this book which is the lasting impacts of colonization on Indigenous communities as well as how they are presented in more modern times. 

Despite being set in Peru, I found it interesting how there were many parallels with the history of residential schools in Canada. Reading about how Ernesto navigated the racial tensions and the imposition of Western ideologies through the school system and even the racial tensions amongst the students made me think about my role in instilling these Western ideologies in our education system here. Residential schools weren't something that I learned about until university, despite going to school all my life in Canada. I think choosing to show the impacts of generational trauma through education was a very interesting choice as having a young character like Ernesto symbolizes how the present and future are still met with the colonial racial tensions that are so ingrained into culture, that it is difficult to unpack and move forward. 

Question for the class: What did you think about the racial classification or identification throughout the novel? How do you think Ernesto's use of race as a way of describing and individualizing people in the book speaks to the larger issue of post-colonial identity with Indigenous culture? 

Agostino (Week 5) - aka wtf did I just read

Well...this one was interesting. I usually write blog posts a lot earlier because I feel pretty inspired after reading a book...but this week was different. I've delayed writing this because quite frankly I've been left a bit speechless and don't know what to say. It's not that I didn't enjoy the novel...I'm just left a bit weirded out, and confused, but also intrigued at the same time. Last week in class we spoke a lot about whether or not a novel is feminist and what makes a feminist novel be viewed as such. At the time, I argued that almost anything can be feminist depending on how you look at it. However, this week made me realize I spoke too soon. 

I don't really know where to begin, but I guess I'll start with the hyper-sexualization of his mother in a way that would make even Freud clutch his pearls. I thought it was an interesting narrative to have the mother be only viewed through the lens of young boys. There was the existence of her young adult lover in the novel, which could have been a potential narrative/character, however, having the only female character in the book be portrayed through the eyes of young boys was an interesting choice for me. I think this could speak to how feminism isn't inherently attached to sexual realization and puberty. I think this can ring true in many cases today with young men learning about sex through violent porn or hyper-sexualized social media. The somewhat passive role that Agostino takes when the gang of boys discusses his mom can also symbolize how much a person can be passively influenced during sexual puberty. This speaks to the importance of having positive role models for men (and women) during these times of sexual exploration. 

While I think writing about the tendency that young boys have to hyper-sexualize women during sexual maturity is very important, what's left me really struggling is why Moravia chose to exhibit this point with the guy's mother...I mean...why? I think this is made even weirder by the fact that his mother seems to almost baby him throughout the book. I'm not going to lie, usually, I have more deep thoughts attached to these posts, but my speechless nature has left this post brief. 

Question for the class: Do you think this novel is a feminist novel? If so, why, if not, why not? Why do you think Moravia chose to use Agostino's mother as the object of sexual desire when he could have easily placed another female character in that role instead?