El Blog de Twanda

When I began reading the Cubs, I had to take a second look at the text to figure out who was speaking and when.  The sentences run into each other and speakers change in mid-sentence.  In his preface to the book, Vargas Llosa mentions that he wanted the reader to feel like he was listening to the story being told rather than feeling like he was reading it.  I think that this style of changing voices is the author’s method of creating such a feel for the reader.  Rather than setting quotes up as,  ” Cuéllar said, ‘I  . . .’” and  “His father said, ’Why don’t you . . . ‘”, Vargos Llosa runs things together as things tend to occur in everyday speech.  Rather than one all-knowing narrator, the voices of the people in the community are heard by emplotying this technique.

Vargos Llosa also includes an interesting use of pronouns in the story.  Throughout most of the text, the pronouns “we” and “they”  are used interchangeably. For example,  “They gave in to him, and we went along with him,” and “What we liked most in the world were sports and movies, and they would give anything for a soccer match.”  There is even one instance where the two pronouns are used side by side. “They we’re getting even”  The use of these two pronouns seems to reflect the voice of the group as a whole, for it is difficult to identify two separate groups with which to associate each pronoun.  The group voice consists of Cuéllar’s peers in the barrio, and possibly at times the community as a whole.   

One of the passages that stuck out to me in the Notebook is the one where Césaire cites some of the African heritage of his people (princes of Ghana, Madhis, etc.) contrasting this heritage with their present-day reality (mediocre dishwashers, etc.).  Dr. Sol’s lecture helped me see the big picture in this text.  She suggested that this was a point in which Césaire was working through which group he identified with.  In this passage, Césaire  seems to identify with the black people in his country.  In speaking of the history of the black people in this passage, he uses the pronoun “we,”  which implies that he is part of the group being described. I wonder, though, what he means by the phrase “I laugh at my former childish fantasies,” which precedes the history he cites.  Is he suggesting that as a child he fantasized about these “glory days” for the black people, in a time when they were not slaves, but proud warriors?  Were these the stories that black children acted out as they played with each other, similar to the cowboys and Indians that children used to act out in the U.S.? Or, is Césaire referring back to his fantasies of how he would return to his native land and speak for all those who could not speak for themselves? It is hard to say for sure what Césaire intended by this statement, but it could fit all three interpretations.

When I read End-Game, it was hard to visualize exactly what was happening on stage.  Watching the video in class helped a lot.  I also did not catch the reference to a chess game in the title, but it makes a bit more sense after having that reference. 

Although I don’t think Beckett intended for us to understand all of the situation in his play, the feeling of hopelessness comes through clearly.  The characters exude a lack of purpose, meaning, and dissatisfaction with their lives.  Hamm remarks that “this is not much fun . . .but that’s always the way at the end of the day.”  There is no purpose to their lives.  Hamm even asks why he was born, as if implying that he should not have been. 

The characters try to pray, but end up saying that God doesn’t exist.  He couldn’t in such a messed up world.  Ironically, Nagg’s story of the tailor also suggests that it is God’s fault that the world is in such a state, since he threw everything together in only six days. 

The only meaning that seems to be found in the story is the daily routine in which the characters interact with each other.  Every day is the same.  Hamm says to Clov, ” We’re not beginning to . . .to . . .mean something?”  Clov, of course, rejects this idea, but in a sense it is true.  Hamm needs Clov because he can’t walk or see.  Clov must find some purpose in being with Hamm, or why else would he stay for so long? 

At the first of the book when Juan told Abundio that he was looking for his father, Abundio said, “Pedro Parramo’s my father, too.”  This was puzzling to me at first.  Was Abundio really Juan’s brother, or was there more to it than that?  After finishing the book, I think that Abundio was not being literal in saying that Pedro was his biological father.  Although Pedro may well have had any number of illegitimate children based upon his habits of sneaking into the servants quarters,  I think that Abundio’s statement was a figurative reference. 

Pedro Parramo was in a sense a father figure to the whole village of Comala.  Everyone’s livlihood depended upon him.  Economically, legally, and spiritually, he controlled the town.  He owned the majority of the land.  Both the priest and the sherrif answered to him.  Dr. Ruiz Perez mentioned that one aspect of the novel included the migration of people from the rural areas into the cities.  Perhaps one reason for this movement away from the countryside in Mexico is that the situation in many rural villages was not unlike that of Comala.  One or a few wealthy landowners controlled life in these towns, and there were few opportunities for the poor to prosper, depending upon the whims of the landowners.  In this sense, all of the villagers look to Pedro as a “father.” The fate of Comala is tied to that of Pedro Parramo.  When Susana San Juan dies, Pedro say, “I will cross my arms and Comala will die of hunger.”  The narrator then states, ” And that was what happened.”  The vitality of Comala turned upon what Pedro did.  When he lost interest in Comala, it did indeed die. 

Although there are many threads woven into the fabric of the Sentimental Education (the political situation, social class, etc), Frederic’s obsession with Madame Arnoux is the frame upon which the rest of the tapestry of the story is built.  Looking at the big picture, it appears that Frederic falls short of being a courageous hero.  In his dealings with the other women, he is pretty much pond scum.  In his eyes, however, he sees himself as Mme. Arnoux’s champion.  When her husband cannot provide for her, Frederic steps in and pays off debts for her.  It is Frederic who consoles her when her husband is unfaithful to her.  Frederic even fights a duel for her honor.  He calls himself her “true husband.” 

Seeing that Frederic is so in love with her, why doesn’t he sleep with her at the end of the book?  Earlier in the book, this was definitely his intent when he rented the apartment for their rendevous, but when she comes to offer herself to him at long last, he holds back.  One explanation is that she is now old and unattractive to Frederic.  I was a bit miffed when he was dumbstruck at her white hair.  Perhaps this shock was due to the fact that the last time he had seen her, she was still relatively young and beautiful, and this was the picture of her that he carried in his mind.  I think that Frederic got over his surprise  because as he spoke to her as he was on his knees, he relived his feelings for her and what she looked like when he knew her. He was able, thus,  to look past her current appearance and to feel a “frenzied, rabid lust,” like he had never felt before.

If Mme. Arnoux’s appearance was not an obstacle, then why did Frederic let her leave?  I think that had he slept with her, she would have ceased to hold the place in Frederic’s heart to which he had assigned her.  He had placed her on a pedestal in his mind.  She was the epitome of beauty and goodness for him.  Although he felt desire for her at the end of the book, the author notes that Frederic constrained himself out of “fear of being disgusted later.”   Even though he felt he was her true husband, he was not her husband.  To cross that line would have destroyed the image of her he had created.  She would become to him as the other females he had been involved with.   I wonder, if Flaubert had had Arnoux die and Frederic had been able to marry Mme. Arnoux, would she have lived up to his impossible fantasy?  Would he have been happy for a time, only to have his ardor fade with the years?   Though the book is a Realist text, it seems to ironic that Frederic so idealizes Mme. Armoux.  He doesn’t really see her as she is until the end.

As for me, I kept hoping that Frederic would wake up and marry Louise.  He would have been rich (a must for him) and Louise really loved him.  He seemed to have a genuine affection for her, especially when she was a girl.   Realistically (no pun intended), this would have been the most practical choice for him.     

Whereas in the Wordsworth poem nature is the source of the sublime, love is the focal point for the sublime in Sab.  As Carlota contemplated him, Enrique became the ideal lover, the “sublime creation of her imagination.”   He only sought to be united with her into a “poetic ecstasy of love.”  While he was absent, she passed the time imagining the next time they would be together.  As they traveled to Cubitas, nature would be more beautiful because of his presence, his voice blending in with the whisper of teh trees and the babbling of the stream.  

Unfortunately for Carlota, Enrique is not the man who could love her in such a way as she imagined.  His motive was financial gain.  Sab, rather, was the ideal lover for Carlota, though she was oblivious to this fact.  He sought only to make her happy, and she was the source of his happiness as well.  Sab relates to Teresa an instance when he was overwhelmed by his great love for Carlota.  One night when Carlota came outside her window, Sab was ther and crept close to her.  She seemed to him ethereal and supernatural with a divine halo around her head.  Sab felt so transported into a “sublime ecstasy of divine and human love,” that he believed that both he and Carlota would die and ascend to God’s throne.  This scene reminds me of the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet where Romeo compares Juliet to the sun.  Juliet dares to love a man who is unacceptable to her family, but Carlota does not recognize that the very love she seeks is right under her nose.  Sab is Carlota’s hero, the one who sacrifices himself for her by giving her the lottery, and  dies of a broken heart, a “sublime martyr,” unrecognized by his belived.  Upon reading Sab’s letter, Carlota finally gives Sab that which he sought- one of her tears.

In class, Dr. Sol mentioned that Candide’s adventures were his journey of maturity.  This maturation ties in with the Enlightenment emphasis on questioning everything and reasoning out what is true through observation.  At the beginning of the book, Candide believes all that he has been taught by Pangloss-namely that this is the best of all possible worlds.  It is only when Candide is exiled from the Baron’s castle that he begins to experience the real world and to make observations about what the world is really like.  He hangs on to what he has been taught even while seeing the evil that men do to each other in battle, but when he is whipped and sees Pangloss hanged, he begins to doubt, saying, “If this is the best of possible worlds, what then are the others?” In his travels he hears the stories of others who have suffered more than he has and he witnesses the mistreatment of man toward man. In Surinam Candide despairs of trusting in Pangloss’ teachings, maintaining that it is the, “madness of maintaining that everything is right when it is wrong.”   As he continues on his journey, Candide vacilates between embracing and discarding the optimism that he had learned from Pangloss.  When he is hopefull of reuniting with Cunegonde, he remarks that “all goes as well as possible,” but reverses his position when she is not in Venice, saying,” all is misery and illusion.”  When he reunites with Cunegonde, however, he is not happy.  Even Pangloss does not believe his own tenets, though he continues to champion them. 

Candide finds an answer to his question of happiness in life by observing the farmer who is content by cultivating his garden with his family.  Candide’s newfound belief is not something that he has been taught naively embraces, but a belif that he has arrived at through experience ad observation.  The answers to life’s big questions may not be answerable,  but one can find happiness through contributing to his society of friends and family by working together with them to accomplish a goal.   This combination of experience and seeking one’s own answers in life is a process which we all go through as we mature.  Our parents teach us what they believe is true, but to grow up, we must examine their beliefs to see if they are valid for our lives.  Sometimes this process results in embracing the very things our parents taught us, and sometimes we reject what they believe, as did Candide.  In either outcome, we end up with our own beliefs about life instead of borrowed beliefs that are unexamined. 

        What I noticed in Petrarch’s verses was the vivid imagery that contrasts his emotions.  His elation is evident in the stanzas in which he extols Laura, his lady love.   In verse 61, he begins each stanza with, “Blessed be . . .”  He talks of the sweet suffering that he felt as the arrows of love pierced him to the “depths of [his] heart.”   He talks of,  “the sighs, the tears, and the passion.”   In verse 126 he talks of her in terms of, “her beautiful limbs,” her “angelic breast,” her hair like, “gold and pearl.” and her “divine bearing.”  In her presence, he forgets where he is and feels as if he were in heaven.      By contrast, Petrarch’s world has crumbled around him in verse 189.  Here, he uses the image of a ship tossed by the wind and rain to describe his despair.  His ship is “full of oblivion,” sailing between Scylla and Charybdis, with danger on both sides of him.  Sighs, hopes, and desire are the winds that blow the ship around.   Tears and disdain are the rain that drench the sails.  He loses hope of finding a harbor.  Something has happened to cause this hopelesness for Petrarch.  The verses that were included in teh reading do not articulate the cause of his despair, but by inference, he has lost his love somehow.  At my first reading, it seemed to me that Petrarch (as narrator) dies, and his despair is a result of this separation from his love.  After reading a second time, I think that he lost his lady somehow.  His descriptions of her are told as remembrances.  When he talks of his his death, it is not an immanent event, but an, “if it is my destiny.” The sails of his boat in verse 126 are made of “error and ignorance,” perhaps referring to his naive love for his lady.  Because of his despair at losing her, his guiding lights, reason and art, do not serve him, and he feels that he will never find a harbor again.    

        In his essay on the origins of humanism, Nicholas Mann notes that the emergence of humanism  reflected both a continuity with and a sense of renewal of the past, specifically of classical Greek and Roman literature and of incorporation of the ideas that they contain into one’s own time.  Through their search for ancient texts, the humanists “rediscovered” the thoughts and ideas of ancient times and sought to emmulate them.  They did so through such means as imitating the ancient style of writing in the form of eloquent letters and even writing Latin verses of poetry, as well as the application of Roman legal codes to contemporary legal problems. 

        While the humanists were inspired by Roman and Greek literature, it was incumbent on them not merely to copy the ancient writers, but to imitate said writers.  Mann notes that Petrarch made this point clear.  A writer may, “follow in another man’s tracks, but not exactly in his footsteps. ”   From Petrarch’s point of view, the correct analogy between the humanist writers and the ancient writers was not that of the portrait to the model who sits for the artist, but that of the son to a father.  The son is similar to his father, but not identical.  Petrarch himself, in his writings, demonstrated his own individuality.  While incorporating ancient themes into his writings, such as the imagery in song 189 where his boat sails between Scylla and Charybdis (mythical figures in Greek mythology), he also highlighted Christian virtues from Roman history.  After penning verses in his Bucolicum carmen, he realized that they were too close to the verses of Virgil, Ovid, or Horatio, and subsequently, he modified.

       The concept of continuity with the past is not obsolete today.  It touches the realm of writing as well as other venues in life.  From the contestants on American Idol who attempt to take someone else’s song and make it their own to the art student who studies the masters in the search for his own unique style, we are all apprentices who must find our own voices as we seek to further the body of knowledge that we all share.  In his sociocultural theory of learning, Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky  proposed that from infancy, our cognitive skills develop as a result of internalizing and assimilating what we hear our parents and others tell us throughout childhood.  Learning is this mediated through our society’s shared knowledge.  In appropriating this knowledge, however, we are not merely parrots of what we hear, but imitators who apply the learning in unique ways.      

        Hello everyone!  I am a student at UTA working on a Masters in Modern Language at UTA.  This blog is part of the course assignment for Dr. Conway’s Currents in European Literature class.

       Just a bit about me:  I have lived in Fort Worth for almost eight years, but I am at heart an Arkansan.  I grew up there and earned my bachelor’s at Arkansas Tech University while spinning flag and playing clarinet in Arkansas’ Band of Distinction.  After graduation, I taught Spanish and U.S. History for four years at Russellville High School.  In 1999 I moved to Texas to attend Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where I graduated with a Master of Arts in Theology in 2003.   After moving to Fort Worth, I met my husband at church.  We have been married for four years, and we have a son who is two and a half.          

After I graduated from seminary, I returned to teaching, and I am in my fourth year at my current school where I teach Spanish I at the Jr. High level.  Because I teach full-time, I am taking only one class at a time, although I plan to take some time off from teaching for the next two years to concentrate on my classes at UTA as well as spend more time with my son at home.