It's noted that Garcia Marquez's grandmother was the inspiration of this book, 100 Years, and it shows that the world Marquez saw through his own and sometimes his grandmother's eyes was one of violence, corruption, passion, greed and sorrow. This world or place is one that seemed to have a unending cycle that started with their version of Adam and Eve(Ursula and Jose Arcadia Buendia).
Marquez uses magical realism to describe his world and in part to entertain, but in part to show a sense of his belief that if we get caught in a cycle of violence, corruption, etc that we tend to lose our selves and follow a path that we can not find ourselves out of. A labyrinth is a journey that one takes to find thy self. As I read 100, I see starting with Jose Arcadia Buendia, that he chose a path that started this trend to disaster. Ursula, his wife, warned him about the prospects of children in their marriage and he refuse to believe what would happen. Thinking that she meant their kids would become mutant-like was not the real problem, but how they would grow up and affect their world around them was. Each member of the Buendia family had choices that came with consequences that mostly ended up ruining the family.
Like regular life itself, this book touches on the real problems facing our world (violence, poverty, greed, war, family values, etc) and maybe Marquez was critiquing what he saw in a very unusual way. Going back to the labyrinth example, we all have a journey that we have to go on to find ourselves. Take for example, A Wild Sheep Chase, by Murakami, we read how Boku went on his own spiritual journey and how his own isolation of his feelings cost him a lot if not everything. In One Hundred Years , a spiritual journey critique on life and the aspects on how it can affect certain people is why I see this book being very important to read. I'm learning more and trying to relate it to my own journey in life. I think this book is very thought provoking in how our society is and what we might need to do to change things. I do not think this is a "solitude" experience or problem. As for this labyrinth, the choices made or not made are not mysterious to figure out. Once you find yourself, you can go back out again. The simple part is the choice to go in or not. The hard part is to figure out who you are and why you are. That can help guide you out. I'm looking forward to finishing this book very much.
OMT, I think the Castro connection is not that important or at least not in a negative way. I believe that American propaganda has put some of us in the boat that socialism and Castro is evil. I do not see it being that simple. I'm glad that you steered away from that in class. Its like the current political news, oh Obama is a socialist, that means he is evil! Wow. Sorry, I got off the subject there.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
100 Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Sorry about the time, I have been busy.
As I have delve into this book, with all of the prestige of this being a winner of the Nobel Prize, I can see why. This a a complicated book which touches on a lot of different aspects of a culture very foreign to most Americans. Magic realism is very evident in this book. Using magic realism to tell a story is a way to explain what your beliefs and tell a story that can reflect on what the author sees and experiences. Some of the over the top like experiences in this book about the Buendia family is intriguing. Lets start with Jose Arcadia Buendia, the patriach of this family. Here is a man that did care about the potential consequences of his actions by marrying and having children with his own cousin. They bore children that have went on to live very different lives and this affected the community they live in. Marquez own personal experiences are brought to this book and some elements of magic realism can be found in different ways. For example; a town that did not grow old or died, as this was Marquez's way of explain a paradise-like state for this small community. How about the ghost of Prudencio? Buendia's violent reaction to a simple joke was so overblown that was Marquez trying to tell his readers how violence was simply a way of life? Or how easy one can become violent? Our society today is unfortunately very violent and to not be able to respond peacefully, one can have things come back on them. As for Jose Arcadia Buendia, he and his wife, Ursula, became haunted by Aguilar's ghost. This ghost would not rest until justice was done, maybe? I found it ironic, a common theme to post modern writing, that this ghost came back to haunt Buendia until his death. He saw how that night helped started trouble. I personally, can not understand the meaning of the flowers that came down the night of Buendia's death. What was the meaning? Was it a symbol for peace that was not found by Jose Arcadia Buendia? His going mad was a sign as well maybe of regret. Maybe he knew that he should have not follow the path he took? What I'm taking right now is this: one must be careful about there actions as they can have a domino affect that can cause a lot of problems. I do believe that while the town of Macondo was living a bit in solitude, government's involvement was something that help turn things bad in part because of the parties(liberals/conservatives). Interesting how these parties represent a country torn by them, similar to another country, us. I see Marquez's commentary, but I'm interested in more and what else or where else he is going.
As I have delve into this book, with all of the prestige of this being a winner of the Nobel Prize, I can see why. This a a complicated book which touches on a lot of different aspects of a culture very foreign to most Americans. Magic realism is very evident in this book. Using magic realism to tell a story is a way to explain what your beliefs and tell a story that can reflect on what the author sees and experiences. Some of the over the top like experiences in this book about the Buendia family is intriguing. Lets start with Jose Arcadia Buendia, the patriach of this family. Here is a man that did care about the potential consequences of his actions by marrying and having children with his own cousin. They bore children that have went on to live very different lives and this affected the community they live in. Marquez own personal experiences are brought to this book and some elements of magic realism can be found in different ways. For example; a town that did not grow old or died, as this was Marquez's way of explain a paradise-like state for this small community. How about the ghost of Prudencio? Buendia's violent reaction to a simple joke was so overblown that was Marquez trying to tell his readers how violence was simply a way of life? Or how easy one can become violent? Our society today is unfortunately very violent and to not be able to respond peacefully, one can have things come back on them. As for Jose Arcadia Buendia, he and his wife, Ursula, became haunted by Aguilar's ghost. This ghost would not rest until justice was done, maybe? I found it ironic, a common theme to post modern writing, that this ghost came back to haunt Buendia until his death. He saw how that night helped started trouble. I personally, can not understand the meaning of the flowers that came down the night of Buendia's death. What was the meaning? Was it a symbol for peace that was not found by Jose Arcadia Buendia? His going mad was a sign as well maybe of regret. Maybe he knew that he should have not follow the path he took? What I'm taking right now is this: one must be careful about there actions as they can have a domino affect that can cause a lot of problems. I do believe that while the town of Macondo was living a bit in solitude, government's involvement was something that help turn things bad in part because of the parties(liberals/conservatives). Interesting how these parties represent a country torn by them, similar to another country, us. I see Marquez's commentary, but I'm interested in more and what else or where else he is going.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy
After concluding the book, I found myself seeing Roy showing that different cultures are not as different as they seem to be. At least, after they have been assimilated anyway. When she tells her story about they way things are in India, how people there are separated by class, is this not the case with the same country that it seems to want to be like? The people's culture there is it's own, but it seems to be blended into a western idea of imperialism. It wants what we have or imitates in a way that it might not know how similar it already is or as become. India being a far East country and Orientalism which is by Edward Said, touches on the interplay of cultures or more exact, the dominate culture and how it can change one's society not so much for the better may I add. When reading Small Things, you see how Roy shows the fascination of India and its people with the Western culture. The characters reflect how once again, the West can influence its greatness upon people because we seem to be the country without problems or the country that seem to be more right, but is this more because of that power of influence that we can impose our will upon people? One thing that jumps out to me about this story is how wanting to be something you are not, being fascinated by another culture too deeply, can be very harmful to you and the people around you. The influences was spreading from the government, with their bigotry or separation of classes, which seemed to be in part base on color? Take the character, Velutha. here is a guy in which the book mentions how he had a brain fit for engineering, but was trained to be a carpenter, why? Was this because he was a "touchable" and was look on as beneath that potential, so he was forced to accept, in part the confinements of his situation? Speaking of confinements, his love for Ammu and her children played an interesting tale about how close India was and is to the same country it wants to be, America. Thanks to this separation, these two could not be together, publicly and once their relationship was found out, things got a lot worse. It cause the lose of two lives(Velutha and Sophie Mol), the destruction of an immediate family(Ammu and her children), not to mention any sort of reconciliation from a former couple(Margaret and Chacko). When one simulates one's culture, not only does one take the good, but apparently the bad as well. What I would like to take from this book is a sense that what Roy was trying to tell was that when you simulates into a culture or try to bring one into your own, you must be careful not to overlook the dangers of this discourse. This pattern can lead to a sense of self-destruction of not only people, but a culture as well. I do not think being a hybrid of a culture is a bad thing, but you must stay true to one's self and not let outside influences dictate what you are truly about.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Blog Paper
When I first read books, to be honest it was for entertainment. I was not interested in the nature of the book in the sense of what it was about as it was to what it was about to my enjoyment. When I read books, I would reed it for what I thought it was and take myself out of the context of my current world environment. I have read books like: The Shinning, Dune, In the Heat of the Night, Things Fall Apart to name a few. Most of these books were for entertaining purpose rather than for education or thinking about things and how they can relate to the world we live in. Some of these books, like Apart did came from a class and they did have me think a bit about what the author was trying to say. When I finished reading the text, I did find myself enjoying or confused or glad it was over with. “I” was the word that was most common when I looked back at my readings and responses and what I took from those experiences. Thus, I would say that I was in stage 1, Text-Self of my development. The more I read, I did started to sense that I was comparing books with books, but I personally did not see myself doing that as much or going out of my way to think about it.
As I read back on some of my earlier blogs, you can see that while I did not use the word, “I” a lot, I still was referring to what I had read or seen in a Text –Self way. For example, the way I started my early blogs was like: “There was some interesting issues regarding this movie.” and “This was an interesting fantasy about a boy and his father who was this revered storyteller”. In these starting points, I was expressing my enjoyment of the movie and the book. It was as if I was a critic. That might be something to think about for a career, but for analysis that’s going deeper, this was not what I should I have stated. I was talking too much about the plot in the movie, Bride and Prejudice. Or at least I was not trying to make a bigger meaning out of what I saw and transform it to what I see in our society. The same can be said with Haroun and the Sea of Stories. This one was much worse in regards to my analysis. For example: “Haroun saw many things that started to make sense to why his father was the way he is and that made him understand his father better”, this quote from this first blog only told about the story instead of what was behind or a deeper meaning. After reading your responses, Paul, I knew I had to try harder to understand more what was behind these forms of media.
As of right now, I believe I‘m closer to the Text-World stage of reading, though I still have some text-self references scattered in there. When I looked back at some of my more recent blogs, I can see some improvements in this area. Take for example: A Wild Sheep Chase. This was a good example of what I’m capable of doing for understanding the text I read and transforming it to what I see in today’s society. With Boku and his journey to find the sheep, we notice how the author showed how one can go thru life as a rigid, maybe even soul-less person and how it can affect the people around you. What I found was that I was trying to relate this in ways I see in our society and try to see if the author was trying to make commentary on what he sees himself. I was trying to show what I understood what post-modernism writing is and I used examples of this. I showed some aspects and use examples like: irony is a big part of post-modernism and one piece of text I used was from my blog: “This all has got to be, patently, the most ridiculous story I have ever heard. Somehow coming from your mouth, it has the ring of truth, but I doubt anyone would believe me if I told them what happened today." Here it plays ironic in that the protagonist might see this all a dream, but he goes on. I wonder if this is a waking dream or maybe an alternative reality. “. Here, I had questions about what I was reading and what it meant and tried to find a meaning behind it.
As I read “Sheep”, I continued to try to read in a text-world way. I was following the disconnectedness of Boku more and relating it to what Murakami was trying to express. I used more examples of what I saw: “The disconnectedness seemed to drive the Rat crazy and maybe will Boku too. Is this a way Murakami is trying to say that disconnectedness can drive one crazy?” I tried to delve into what role the women played in this book and why they left. I was wondering about why the characters did not have names but more descriptions of themselves(Rat, woman w/ ears, the thin man, etc), were they symbols of people or how one acts? Was there more to what was being said? I can say that my blogs started to look more like someone that was trying to see more into what he read than what he was reading and enjoying.
What is my plan to continue to grow as a reader? Well, I first have to be open-minded. What I mean is not to read to enjoy, only. I need to read to understand what the author is saying and why he/she is saying it. I might want to do some research of the author prior to reading to get a better idea of the background and their way of thinking to understand better where they are going with their writing. I might try reviewing what other critics have said and characterize what these authors are writing about as in what themes or subject matter. This kind of research is critical to finding out where and what the author is trying to say and should make it easier for me to better understand what I need to look at. Hopefully, once I practice this, I can have better conversations in class about what I reading and grow more. Maybe even take from it something I can personally apply to myself and my way of living. I will be open and welcome any suggestions to better find a way to understand my readings.
As I read back on some of my earlier blogs, you can see that while I did not use the word, “I” a lot, I still was referring to what I had read or seen in a Text –Self way. For example, the way I started my early blogs was like: “There was some interesting issues regarding this movie.” and “This was an interesting fantasy about a boy and his father who was this revered storyteller”. In these starting points, I was expressing my enjoyment of the movie and the book. It was as if I was a critic. That might be something to think about for a career, but for analysis that’s going deeper, this was not what I should I have stated. I was talking too much about the plot in the movie, Bride and Prejudice. Or at least I was not trying to make a bigger meaning out of what I saw and transform it to what I see in our society. The same can be said with Haroun and the Sea of Stories. This one was much worse in regards to my analysis. For example: “Haroun saw many things that started to make sense to why his father was the way he is and that made him understand his father better”, this quote from this first blog only told about the story instead of what was behind or a deeper meaning. After reading your responses, Paul, I knew I had to try harder to understand more what was behind these forms of media.
As of right now, I believe I‘m closer to the Text-World stage of reading, though I still have some text-self references scattered in there. When I looked back at some of my more recent blogs, I can see some improvements in this area. Take for example: A Wild Sheep Chase. This was a good example of what I’m capable of doing for understanding the text I read and transforming it to what I see in today’s society. With Boku and his journey to find the sheep, we notice how the author showed how one can go thru life as a rigid, maybe even soul-less person and how it can affect the people around you. What I found was that I was trying to relate this in ways I see in our society and try to see if the author was trying to make commentary on what he sees himself. I was trying to show what I understood what post-modernism writing is and I used examples of this. I showed some aspects and use examples like: irony is a big part of post-modernism and one piece of text I used was from my blog: “This all has got to be, patently, the most ridiculous story I have ever heard. Somehow coming from your mouth, it has the ring of truth, but I doubt anyone would believe me if I told them what happened today." Here it plays ironic in that the protagonist might see this all a dream, but he goes on. I wonder if this is a waking dream or maybe an alternative reality. “. Here, I had questions about what I was reading and what it meant and tried to find a meaning behind it.
As I read “Sheep”, I continued to try to read in a text-world way. I was following the disconnectedness of Boku more and relating it to what Murakami was trying to express. I used more examples of what I saw: “The disconnectedness seemed to drive the Rat crazy and maybe will Boku too. Is this a way Murakami is trying to say that disconnectedness can drive one crazy?” I tried to delve into what role the women played in this book and why they left. I was wondering about why the characters did not have names but more descriptions of themselves(Rat, woman w/ ears, the thin man, etc), were they symbols of people or how one acts? Was there more to what was being said? I can say that my blogs started to look more like someone that was trying to see more into what he read than what he was reading and enjoying.
What is my plan to continue to grow as a reader? Well, I first have to be open-minded. What I mean is not to read to enjoy, only. I need to read to understand what the author is saying and why he/she is saying it. I might want to do some research of the author prior to reading to get a better idea of the background and their way of thinking to understand better where they are going with their writing. I might try reviewing what other critics have said and characterize what these authors are writing about as in what themes or subject matter. This kind of research is critical to finding out where and what the author is trying to say and should make it easier for me to better understand what I need to look at. Hopefully, once I practice this, I can have better conversations in class about what I reading and grow more. Maybe even take from it something I can personally apply to myself and my way of living. I will be open and welcome any suggestions to better find a way to understand my readings.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy
So far, I can see some of the Orientalism in this book. I notice how stereotypes have been shown(women in there place beneath a man, woman not married being a bad and embarrassing thing, etc). I have noticed the classes and I never real thought there was a class struggle in other countries. I'm curious about the relationship of Esta and Rahel. How will that grow. Why did Ammu not see how upset Esta was about the man at the theater. Why did not anyone go with him outside? Why did he not tell her? Was he scarred? I noticed fear playing a part in this as well. Classes not mingling or "touching". What is Valutha's part in this? I 'll keep reading to find out and hope to have a more thorough blog next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)