When you need to hit the word count of an essay, but its kind of genius - Death with Interruptions (Week 11)

I did not expect to love this novel as much as I did. I was so hooked from the beginning. Given that I criticized Piglia heavily last week on how dense the text was with such a lack of dialogue I thought I would be saying the same for Saramago, but this density worked for me! My first impression of this novel was a little like when you need to hit the word count of an essay and tend to ramble on a bit, but after I got into the structure of the writing, I got so lost in it. It was almost meditative. It was also really cool to read a Portuguese novel! I'm actually Portuguese and I've never been able to read a book from Portugal before, so I felt a nice connection with the work from the beginning in that sense.

What I loved about this book is that it looks at death from macro and micro perspectives. So many stories about death are very singular and this story bended the rules with that. Another thing that I enjoyed about this novel was how it looked at death (or lack thereof) as a shift in power. It is interesting how power was given and at the same time taken away from the government once nobody was able to die. Also interesting how the government (aka maphia) still found a way to almost control death itself by removing those who became old. Even when power and control were taken away from the organization and natural flow of society in the way that it was, the government still found a way to instill control in how society "needed" to be conducted. 

The removal of the older population from the country was also a fascinating sociological addition to the novel. Now in this globalized society, those in the first world have the freedom of migration and mobility, while for others outside of privileged communities, their position is often dictated by the state. I thought this read as a great metaphor for how governments pick and choose their citizens based on their desired criteria. It also really made a statement about who is viewed as more valued by society. I thought in a society where death was taken away, the elderly and sick would be given more power, but they were still considered unwanted in the community, despite them now being on the same level as everyone else. Naming the government the maPHia was also so cheeky and genius I loved it.  

Question for the class: why do you think Saramago chose to focus so much on the government when examining the topic of death? There was mention of religion, but the government took the main focus. Why do you think that is? 

Money to Burn (Week 10)

Oh man, I did not like this book. Considering that I've been on board for every book so far, I guess statistically speaking there was bound to be at least one I didn't like and this one was it. I found the writing difficult to follow, I didn't feel myself caring much about the characters, and the plot was drawn out. The lack of dialogue between the characters just made me feel like I was reading this massive chunk of text and I could not concentrate or focus on what was going on. The writing was all over the place and it just frustrated me. I agree with everyone that it was nice to read a novel that wasn't coming of age, but at the same time, it had a lot of exploitation against women. Many of the books I've chosen to read in this course have been driving home the theme of female sexualization and exploitation, so this one just pushed me over the edge a bit on this topic. I think this novel wrote the female characters (or lack thereof which is a whole other point) in a way that was completely unnecessary and made me happy that this book is out of print. 

To continue my rant, this book was misogynistic in obvious ways (you know the sex with the barely-of-age women and obvious objectifying of their bodies), but also in ways that were "subtle". For example, saying things like "he smiled like a girl" (71) or just the normalized tone that women can be obtained or purchased for personal benefit or amusement. I get that this book was written in the 1990s, but honestly, it read to me as if it was written much earlier due to this constant objectification. I'm also a little confused about the author's relation to Blanca. As pointed out in the lecture and the epilogue, Piglia mentions that he actually met her which really took me by surprise. This also brings in the question of ethics as I thought it was based on a true story, not literally keeping the same names (again still confused as there were a lot of nicknames). I also found it really interesting how she later sued him...and to have that lawsuit be lost! Again this book was written in the 90s! Did I miss the part where he said that there was consent to write about these people, especially in this way? Or is this just another form of exploitation? I understand the benefits of the genre of the testimonio, as it is important to have the story of minority voices told. However, my issue with this is the ethics behind having someone with the privilege of not living these experiences tell these stories. In this instance, Piglia's writings on Blanca's story didn't seem to benefit her in any way nor was it even consensual (again another grey area...I guess?). 

This grey area of real elements within fiction just leaves me wondering what is real and what is not in a way that I just can't get invested in. This makes me think why Piglia was so insistent on keeping these real elements in the novel in the way that he did. He could have easily written a work of fiction without the need to attach these assumptions to the lives of real people. 

Before I read this book, I was expecting to write about the themes of consumption and the moral position of theft and greed. However, I just found it difficult to think about it from a sociological perspective beyond the clear gender differences. Yes, the burning of the money was super interesting, but at that point, the lack of female characters and how women were written made me kind of disassociate from this novel in a way that stopped me from analyzing the general meaning of Piglia's fascination with the robbery. 

However, despite my negative bias against this book, for the sake of the course, I will give it the benefit of the doubt in the sense that I only read it in a week when in reality it probably needed more of my time. The dense text made it hard to read through and maybe I would be able to appreciate it more if I didn't have to read it in a rush. However, at the end of the day, I did not like this novel. I wanted to title this post "burn this book instead, it's cheaper"...but that may be a little harsh. ;) 

Question for the class: Was there anything that infuriated you about this book? Or am I alone in this rage of hatred? What do you think about the ethics behind writing this story the way Piglia did?

The Lover (Week 9)

I'm at a bit of a loss on what to write about this week. I didn't particularly enjoy this novel very much, if I'm being honest it's probably one of my least favourite reads of the term so far. I found it a bit confusing, I didn't really get the point behind jumping from first to third person, and the overall theme of it bothered me a little. I think some things can have nuance in them, but underage child sexual exploitation should always be read as the exploitation that it is. In the lecture, there was a bit of back and forth about how her lover was almost the vulnerable, childlike one where it was to the point of who was using who, but at the end of the day, I still think she is a child and he is an adult. In addition, the social and racial components within the novel made it even more uncomfortable for me. Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to write about issues of exploitation as these things do actually happen, however, I think they should be written about from the perspective that it is wrong. Around halfway through the book when "the lover" and her family meet I also had issues as she doesn't speak a word to him in her family's presence, and then he essentially ignores her. While this part is written in the first person, I didn't see the point in including her family's complacency in this love affair in the presence of her lover. Nevertheless, it is interesting how her mother is silent when in the presence of her lover, but yells, hits, and shames her over it in the privacy of their home.

I think this just speaks to another level of exploitation shown through poverty and class. What Jon mentioned in the lecture about how this book has changed over time with the original character of the lover being white is also a fascinating point expanding on this. It made me think about the factor that race plays in this dynamic of whether or not the exploitation was perceived as wrong (again, I still think it is, but for the sake of this class, I'll entertain the argument). At the end of the day, race does definitely play a factor, but this novel was more nuanced as ultimately the lover was still in a financial position of power and she was not, not to mention the role that age plays in this as well. In the lecture, Jon says that both have power over each other, but again I'd have to disagree. At the end of the day, she is still a lot younger and poorer than he is. She was in a more vulnerable position and he abused that. 

Question for the class: How would your opinion of this novel have changed if her lover had remained white as in a former version of the text? Do you think if her lover was a different race the power dynamic would have come across differently?

The Hour of the Star (Week 8)

I am so excited for this week! I had actually already read this novel when I took a Latin American literature class with Jon last year and since then, I've basically forced a lot of my friends and family to read it. It's one of my favourite books and I'm so excited to talk about it again. 

Whenever I get into conversations with some of my friends about this novella there are always two themes that we end up discussing: feminism and poverty. One of the most striking things about this book that makes it so interesting to me is that it is told from the perspective/narration of a man. While some may think that this doesn't necessarily scream feminism, I actually argue that it does since it illustrates a point about how women are not often given their own voices to tell their own stories. What makes this even more meta is how Lispector's own place within the novel as the narrator is also told by a man. Not only silencing Macabea, but Lispector herself. 

This book also takes it even further to note how the narrator is uncomfortable talking about poverty. Given this, I want to focus on how this book builds on one beginning line in particular: "This book is a silence. This book is a question" (8). What a fantastic line!

Let's start by considering the role of silence in this novel. Firstly, there's a silencing of Macabea by having her words and actions interpreted by someone else as I've already mentioned. However, I believe the silence also speaks to the role that poverty plays in the novel, particularly regarding the narrator's uncertainty about Macabea's story/future and the role that the privileged play in continuing this cycle of poverty. Having the narrator not part of this world, yet telling its story continues a silencing of those in poverty, with an additional silence on their future. There is such an amazing last line in the book when questioning what Macabea's future could have been: "The sleek cat mangling some dirty rat, life eats life" (75). Additionally "the silence is such that not even thought thinks" (77). Both of these lines at the end of the novel make a statement to me about how the privileged continue to consume, ignoring those who are less fortunate. Yet it is through this consumption that they are becoming loud, silencing those unable to consume as well. 

There seems to be such a separation between the privileged (i.e. consuming) society and the impoverished in this novel in a way that I think is fantastically written. Lispector's touch of having a radio create a veil between these two worlds is brilliant. There is a real desire to be part of the "other" throughout the novel which is a very layered concept since the narrator ultimately creating Macabea's story is already a part of this world that Macabea so desires. It is also interesting how it seems that the main characteristic of this privileged world is that of racial whiteness and the desire for the blonde and blue-eye aesthetic. As mentioned in the lecture, Lispector's own role as a blonde, white immigrant writing herself about an impoverished racialized woman just adds another layer to this insane dynamic. 

I think even Lispector's role in writing this as part of consumable media is also pretty meta. I asked my Brazilian boyfriend (who is from a poorer area) if he had ever read Lispector and he said he never got the opportunity to in his education. Meanwhile, his white girlfriend is taking a university class on it learning about a culture that isn't even her own. I'm learning about his culture in a way that he never had access to, through Lispector's novel which in a way acts as her own metaphorical radio existing between these two worlds, except where I get to look at poverty, where Macabea was looking towards privilege. 

This brings me to what this book is trying to ask. I think this book is ultimately making a statement about our roles in generating and continuing this cycle of poverty. I think it is asking how we view poverty, how we view women in poverty, and how we view the aesthetic of poverty. The final word being an answer to a question (i.e "yes") is also just brilliant and gives me goosebumps every time. My mind is always so blown by this novel.      

Question for the class: What question do you think this book is about? What is it trying to ask of the reader?