Burning Money

This novel tells a true story. This is so crazy that the story does not need to be made up because, in reality, the most unbelievable and the most cruel things can just happen.

After reading this book, I really want to say every person could be bad or good. It really depends on what they have been through and their surroundings. The society is the one who can destroy them and blame on individuals. Dorda! The “psychotic”, the “animal”, okay, well he hears voices randomly inside his head all the time, he hates police to that extreme level. But if he was treated properly since young, being protected and understood, will he grow up and end up becoming that crazy killer? His family and the hospital will not take the responsibility, not to even mention the society, the system! Such a poor guy, Dorda…. The other character Blanca Galeano, the fifteen year old girl, wanting some love, care, gifts, so living with Mereles, doing drugs and ended up getting judged and humiliated. She is just a needy child but what others see is a crazy, bad girl with gangsters. People will see her problems, blame the criminal using her, but they will never say this is Blanca’s family’s fault or the society that actually provides no help to her. And now the society finally come and just judge her? This is horrible.

Also during the robbery on San Fernando Square, the one was just passing by, Diego Garcia. He is so innocent to experience this. 23 years old, but died because of this fight?! Well, it just made me feel like these kinds of real innocent victims actually always exist in some real-world crimes. But what people remember are always those polices, and criminals, but never someone like Diego Garcia. His death represents so many characters being neglected, but actually sacrificed.

The scene – burning money, making bills look like butterflies of light. Burning those money made people so mad, so angry. They think those criminals are crazy. Then how about thinking about those criminals getting ruined and destroyed by money? I really hate normal people just focus on the outcome, focus on what they see but they hardly think about the cause. Money can destroy other people, which is totally fine, but they cannot destroy money? Or else those other people will be angry and think this is crazy. Who is crazy? Every one can be criminals. Everyone can be victims as well. I really feel like this is the society’s problem. 

So my question is: should we  blame more on the society, the structure when something like this happen?

Marguerite Duras

Just finished reading The Lover by Marguerite Duras, I feel so tired. 

It is like emotionally exhausted. The story line seems like she just writes things when she thinks about it.

First of all, I really like how she sees her ravaged face as the only image of herself she likes, also as the only one in which she recognizes herself. It just makes me feel that after experiencing so many things, and the look became more real you, means something deeper. Also, the hat that she wore when she was young is a man’s flat-brimmed hat, a brownish-pink fedora with a broad black ribbon. But also she wore dress and high heels. This is so cool for me. She mentioned that this is a provoking choice a nature and a choice of the mind. I like how she is being proud of herself in the past, being cool, unique, and “rebellious”.

Moreover, I really like her honesty! As a young girl, being with a rich and elegant Chinese man who is way older than her, she honestly told the man that “that I show she desire him, with his money, that when she first saw him he was already in his car, in his money, so she couldn’t say what she’d have done if he’d been different”. For me, this is way too honest. Normally, they might just hide that desire or at least not telling ALL. This is cool but also kinda cold to him.

                                                                                                                         via UniFrance

I started to wonder if she is telling the truth, if this honesty is real.

The first time for her, being in a room with a man alone. Her reaction was like “does not feel anything in particular, no hate, no repugnance either”. How come? Also, she was the one who is slow, patient, undressing him. But who is the one that is younger and more innocent here? Until she told him that “I’d rather you didn’t love me. But if you do, I’d like you to do as you usually do with women.” I suddenly realized something is off. She refused his love, but accepted his body, and sex that he offered but should be in a way that is not special for her, not unique but to every one else. I do not think she was just being cold and careless. It is more like she was trying to protect herself and trying to be cold and careless. Because if she was that careless to him, then how come she wrote this whole book?

My question: What happened between them is a love story or just something happened, as a part of her memory, something complicated to tell the feelings?

Doves kept in Dovecote, Just Like Natalia

 Hi, everyone.

Just finished reading the novel The Time of the Doves by Mercè Rodoreda. I actually like this book a lot! It is not abstract at all. I like it because it feels real. This is Natalia’s life experiences. There is no big drama or like, betrayal, but a day-to-day life.

I want to talk about Quimet, this character. Natalia told him already, her name is Natalia, instead of "Colometa". But Quimet did not listen to her, and kept calling her "Colometa". Well, maybe this is cute way because he likes her. But also, at the same time, I think it is a little bit disrespectful because he is not listening to her, also not caring about what she says. And naming her something else, it is like he somehow gets the power of naming her, which is also like the power being above her.

Also, Quimet always just said “poor Maria”. At first, he did not even explain who is Maria, which just made me so confused.

After their wedding, Natalia’s life gets harder and harder. Quimet let Natalia to do many things for him, for example, she has to press his pants every week but she never pressed pants before. And Quimet’s legs always hurt but he will let Natalia rub the whole body with alcohol. I just feel like their relationship is not equal to each other. It is always Natalia who is the busy one, who is the one that “serving” the other.

And as for doves, Quimet and Cintet cleaned out her storage shed, threw out her things to build that dovecote. It is also her home but it feels like she does not have the right to speak for herself. It also shows that Quimet is actually careless towards her.

And when Antoni was born, he hardly sucks, his weight kept dropping. Then Quimet went to the war, then Natalia, as a single mother, trade things for food to survive. She even sold her brass bed. And end up, she lived with another man not because of love, but the surviving needs.

I feel really sad to see a woman, like Natalia, under that background, suffering because of the marriage and the war. It is not like obvious or severe violence but the life already can make someone numb. And what I feel the most is Quimet and Natalia’s after marriage life. Gender stereotype made Natalia become the one who serve the husband and listen to him. That kind of gender power problem is so real that maybe to most of couples today, it still exists.

My question is: Do you think Quimet is a bad husband?

Black Shack Alley by Joseph Zobel: Showing Only José's World or Our Current World?

Hi, everyone!

Just finished reading the Black Shack Alley, I feel a little sad because of José. I am sad because in José’s world, the life constrained by structure is sad.

M'man Tine as a perfect example of being constrained by structure, is working as a cane field hand/weeder. “Her black hands, swollen, hardened, cracked at every joint, and every crack incrusted with a sort of indelible mud.” This comes with working and be with her for the whole life. So I really understand why she tries so hard to let José get out of this fate, by disciplining with punishment like spanking. I know she loves José, but that love under that situation became distorted. Because of their race, class, poverty.

I remember M'man Tine sacrificed so much just to let José get education – moving to Petit-Bourg, living in poorer conditions. This is love. It is like no matter what I will suffer, I will try my best to let José have a better life. I wouldn’t say my family is exactly like M'man Tine, but I can relate strongly. My scores used to be really low in elementary school. Normally, I wouldn’t have been able to attend any good middle school, as they required entrance exams and had high standard for admission. However, I got admission to an famous school without having to take the entrance exam. This was because my family bought an apartment right beside the school, which granted me a guaranteed admission spot. My family and I moved directly from a small town to a big city just so I could get better education. This is somehow like what happened to José.

I realized the ugly fact, the reality. Even José went to Lycée Schoelcher later on, the difference between him and other classmates is still obvious. For example, Serge, wearing gold watch, velvet breeches, and silk jacket. Then look at José, wearing old clothes and rubber-soled shoes. This is just killing me. The difference in school should be the score, or your morality or smt, but in reality, it is still your family background, your wealth, your status. This book impressed hugely because our society nowadays is just having same logic. There are many students like José in Lycée. Some take student loans to attend universities, and some are taking five courses while working part-time, while some just exploring fancy restaurants or traveling during reading weeks.

We all have been told that “Knowledge changes destiny”, however, this book reveals the reality of inequality, making those who have disadvantaged social origins suffer. 

Do you find the quarter scholarship as a good thing or bad thing? In my opinion, it is like the institution shows that they are offering opportunities, but the fact is giving you something that hard to reach and bring out the inequality issue. 

Moravia's Brutal Way of Telling Agostino What Adult World Looks Like

After reading Agostino by Alberto Moravia, I feel really sad for the kid. 

I feel like most of kids nowadays, our sexual awakening is through parenting or school education about sexuality and health. But for Agostino, I would say it is through a forced intrusion and sensory "violence"! 

Among the whole book, what troubled me the most was not Agostino's jealousy of the mom, nor his conflicts with that group of local boys, but the man with six fingers - Saro! I was thinking well, this is a novella. It can happen in the story that someone has six fingers. But the more I think about it, the more I realize – it must has some deeper meanings!

First of all, Agostino grew up in a really typical middle-class world, which I would say is an ordered, complete, logical environment, given by his mother. And the way that he thinks of his mother’s body is “lying there behind him, naked in the sun, was shrouded in a mystery to which he owed the greatest veneration”. But Saro showed up and broke his perfect, complete little world. In my opinion, that extra sixth finger represents kind of surplus but it is reality. It is something out of Agostino's knowledge, that he can not decode with his own existing mind.

Moreover, I feel it strongly when I read how the author Moravia described the 6 fingers: “Agostino felt it close over his own hand not like a hand, but like a steel trap... those six short, thick fingers covered his hand, went all the way around, and met underneath in a grip”. Steel trap holding his hand! The touching does not bring any happiness or comfort but sensory violence I would say.

The most brutal thing happened after Agostino escaped from Saro's boat back to the shore. After feeling that touch, his view of the world became alienated. “He looked at her and no longer saw her as his mother; she had become 'una donna'—a woman, like all the others, a creature with a life of her own, a body that could be touched and desired.” Saro's six fingers means deformity of human bodies, also means Agostino's distorted way of sexual awakening.

From this six fingers' existence in this story, I realized in Moravia's world here, growing up is not smooth and happy. It is really brutal that you suddenly, without any preparation or being cared for, acknowledged that: Oh! Humans can have 6 fingers on one hand. Oh! Humans can have illogical, "excessive", even ugly thoughts and desires.

                                 Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion by Francis Bacon, 1994

These paintings focus on an existential horror of human existence, just like the deformity of the six fingers on Saro's hand. These all use an abnormality of physical bodies, stripping the cover of civilization and giving you instinctive fear or disgust.

These are just my opinions. Do you have correction or other different analysis about it? 

The Shrouded Woman Ana María

Hi, everyone! 

After finishing the book The Shrouded Woman by María Luisa Bombal, a question came to my mind – why does Ana Maria care so much about her image after death?

She cares about her embroidered sheets, perfumed with lavender. She also focuses on her robe of white satin, making her look very slender. These fabric descriptions and also details of her hair. The author Bombal is really good at describing it. During her illness, her hair was heavy and moist. And now, Ana María's hair is thick and parted over her forehead, giving a “disturbing charm”. Also, Ana María notices herself without a single wrinkle, which she thinks that her face pale and beautiful. This whole description and focus are like pursuit of beauty and charm. For me, this is really “crazy”. Ana María's situation now is death! This might be the weakest moment already, and she cares about her beauty! I just found the protagonist super narcissistic. Especially, when I read that she observes her own hands and describes them as “frivolous delicacy of two peaceful doves". And I start thinking why.

Why is Bombal trying so hard to make Ana María be intensely "narcissistic"? Why does María care so much about her image even after death? I think in that context and environment, her body might be the only thing that she feels like she can control, somehow. She cannot control her husband's love. She cannot control her own fate. The way that the author describes María's heavy and moist hair during illness is really like losing dignity as a woman. And then getting back the beautiful hair is like gaining back the charm. Therefore, I would say this is using beauty to regain her image and dignity. 

                                                                                                                    Mirror (1939) by Paul Delvaux

In society, in general, I do think women have always been objects of the gaze. And The Shrouded Woman shows readers the fact that women, like María, acknowledge that gaze from others, and care about their images as women, letting all other people gaze upon themselves. So the self-obsession of women's own bodies is definitely not shallow vanity; it is a fact of self-consciousness and acknowledgement of women's role and situation in that society. This is tragic, I would say. If the main character is not María, but a man. Will he care so much about his hair, deathbed, clothes, skin after death? Probably not. But the main character as a woman, yes, and she cares a lot! I would say, the author tries to tell us that in that era, women's thoughts and souls were always ignored by others, but their bodies, their images. 

Therefore, in my opinion, that is why Ana María cares about her image after death - because that is the almost only thing that she feels like other people will see from her. And that is her mark in this world at the end.

Writing Under Shadows: Is the Mad Toy a Fiction, or a "Traumatic Biography"?

Hi, everyone. 

I would like to share my opinions about the Mad Toy by Roberto Arlt.

When I was reading, I did search a little. The Mad Toy was published in 1926, and the author, Roberto Arlt, was 26 years old. When he was 19 years old, he started writing this fiction. I was so shocked because I am 21 years old now and I can't even write a fiction with deep thoughts. So, I read many of his background stories.

                                                       

                                                                                                 by Biblioteca Nacional Argentina via Pinterest

His dad is a violent and tyrannical Prussian. He used to always punish Arlt so I would say Arlt's intense fear, every time he got punished, might lead to higher anxiety, emotional numbing to relationships, and even higher sensitivity towards “authority”. When Arlt was 16 years old, he left home and tried many jobs, like a bookseller, and a blacksmith. It is really similar to the protagonist Silvio in the Mad Toy! Also, he loved to read, especially Russian literature. Well, the Russian literature in the 19^th century is full of criticism, suffering, and moral questioning. I think this influenced him greatly in the way he sees life and society. He went through patriarchal suppression, poverty, and many cheap labor works at a young age. With that great talent of thinking and writing, this book could be published in 1926!

                                             

In the Mad Toy, Chapter 2 was the hardest for me to get through. The owners of the secondhand bookstore kept fighting, using ugly language. And the environment is poor and dirty. Watching Silvio stuck in that environment just hurts me. 

                                                                                                                     By sms00644 via pixabay

Moreover, in Chapter 3, Silvio got discharged from the school, with redundancy as an excuse. It is like when I just have the hope, just as I reach the peak of my happiness, and you suddenly tell me the hope is gone. That is really enough to cause me fall apart! So I’ve started to feel bad for the author because I couldn’t help but wonder how much this actually reflects his real life. When he started working at the age of 16, how much pain did he experience?

My question is: do you like this book?

Personally, I dislike it because Arlt writes too well and all those stories still stay in my mind, which make me feel depressed. Even though the ending is not a failure for Silvio, I feel deeply sad after finishing this book. I would say, based on Arlt's real life experiences, that vibe is more similar to his main emotions in everyday life, and therefore, it is understandable that he was able to write Silvio's hard life so well and vividly.

Proust_Combray

I would like to share my feelings after reading Combray! 

I found it hard to read. It is like I know most of the words, but when words come together, I could not understand them anymore. 

As Professor Beasley-Murray mentions in the lecture video, "Modernist, such as Combray: texts remind us that literature is never simply a transparent window onto the world: we need to learn to see the window itself, and its framing, to recognize how it shapes what and how we see". I totally agree because most of the time of reading Combray, I am always trying to think about what Proust is trying to say and what he means by saying that. 

                               Image by Gravel Suzanne via Pinterest – La madeleine de Proust (pinterest.com)

This book is hard but indeed interesting for me, mainly because those books I read before usually have main characters and tell stories, which are really clear and easy to follow! However, Proust does not focus on describing each character, nor does not trying to tell stories clearly one by one. His focus on his feelings, his time, present or past. This is really cool! Here, I said he focuses on the “time”, which means that his current feeling now makes him go back to the feeling he had in the past! For example, the scallop-shell shaped dessert - petite madeleine crumbs with tea. That suddenly gave him an exquisite pleasure, made him stand still and bring out memory. This tea with dessert he drinking now calls his memory of the lime-flower tea madeleine that he drank in Combray. This is what I mean. He tells stories in a way of linking present to the past with feelings at the moment. 

He made me realize that some of my memories might not be called anymore, even once, but having these sudden, unplanned stimuli on feelings can help me to recall, even have visual images in my mind. I do remember I had this feeling once. When I was at my friend’s house, we were walking downstairs, and I suddenly smelled the air there. It is exactly like the smell of basement parking lot of my first home place! I lived there with parents, and that time, I was 6 years old maybe. In my mind, I can see the parking lot, and my mom and dad holding my hand, walking to the “Xiao Bai", my parents' first car. That car is a really cute Toyota but they have sold it many years ago. I am really sad about that. And I miss my parents in China. I wish they can hold my hands right now. Those were my feelings after I smelled the air in my friend's basement. 

I wonder, if Proust's unclear way of telling stories actually matches more with how we actually think and experience? Is this actually how our brain works?

Introducing Myself

 Hi, everyone! 

Welcome to my little world here, and I will try my best to explore our RMST, literature and cultures of the romance world.   :D

I am Jiachen Cao. And all my friends and classmates call me Miyaki, which is easier to remember. I am a 4th-year student at UBC, and my major is psychology. I do think psychology and our course RMST could benefit me together, because psychology can help me to know more about human's mind, and behaviors. Especially culture psychology, I studied a lot of things about human interaction and communication. What I think about literature is that it actually is one of the ways that people communicate. It is even more amazing because people nowadays can read books that people in the past wrote. So in a greater dimension and time, literature let more people to interact!

A fun fact about me is I AM SOOOOOOO OBSESSED WITH CAKES AND ICECREAM!! Also, I have a hamster. His name is Drake. He actually passed away few months ago. However, for me, if I always remember him and love him, he just physically passed away but always live in mom's world! Nice to meet all of you!

My expectation for this semester is actually improving my reading ability because I am so bad at reading. Choosing RMST this course is actually a great challenge for me. Even when my mom saw I chose literature course at first, she asked me do I want to switch to something else. One reason is that English is not my first language and I only stayed in English-speaking environment for 3 and a half year. The other reason is that I found myself really not patient enough to sit somewhere for few hours just to read some literature works. And I really want to change this situation! 

Our first RMST lecture is actually interesting! I love to see all other classmates' different ideas, which are amazing! Especially, when we discussed that literature does not always have a message, which changed my simple way of thinking about literature! 

Well, in my opinion, anything we write down, or display is to deliver information. And literature as a way to share, deliver that information should be the same as saying giving a message. I wonder if this could be a reason to say all literature have a message since it is something that you share to others and others get information from it. This is my question.