Conclusions and Thoughts

Ah! term is almost done!

Although I was a little skeptical at first, I really enjoyed this class (only skeptical because i'm a spanish major and i expected to read/hear more spanish). But! it turns out that chicano literature is very interesting and not necessarily written in spanish. Ultimately I thought it was very appropriate that we speak in spanish when the book was written in spanish and english when in english.

The novels were well-chosen and none were tedious to say, although the Martí readings were a little difficult to get through because of his use of colloquial language. 

In-class discussion was always exciting and was impressed that the majority of the class participated. i think that this was facilitated by three things. One, that we were given sufficient time to read the books. two, that the online blogs forced us to do the readings on-time and develop our own opinions prior to class. and three, that jon presented ideas and questions that always got us talking or thinking.

It was so refreshing to read contemporary novels; so many of the spanish major prerequisites focus on ancient spanish literature. 

This class had a different format than any other class i have taken. The weekly online blogs, commenting and wikipedia contributions made the class modern. It was at times frustrating and confusing and other times new and refreshing. I felt that the blogs facilitated communication with other students outside of class and the development of independent thought. They also, as i said before, forced us to do the readings on-time. I have written journals for other courses that were due at the end of term, this was a huge disaster because people would try to write it all at the end and didn't necessarily promote unique thought from students.

The wikipedia article gave me mixed feelings though. I have found it tedious, frustrating unrewarding.  I think its a really interesting concept and i do use wikipedia frequently. Its a very useful thing as a student to get a broad, unbiased study of a subject or concept. it also leads you to sources (if sourced properly) for research essays etc. I do like the idea that I am giving back to the wiki community but i also feel a certain resentment maybe or anxiety every time i open up my tomas rivera wikipedia page. 

Everything included, I think that the class was structured very well. I might actually enjoy working on another wiki article now that i know (more or less) how it all works. I think Jon has a great ability to get conversation flowing which is such an important skill for a prof to have ( no i am not trying to stroke your ego Jon ). It was the class I felt the most comfortable in, contributed the most in and did the most readings for; all of which are my responsibility but at the same time are things that the prof can definitely encourage in other ways than just instructing. 

I think i only have enough time to say hi at the gallery, term paper to write :( 

and a body to remember with

I learnt about the Chilean coup and following dictatorship in a latin-american studies class last year. The stories Rodriguez tells of her rebel experiences during this time and exile to Canada are much more personal and honest than the textbook i was reading. 

This brings me back to a question that was asked of us this first day of classes; why are  latinos/chicanos in Canada? Not just Chile but Brazil and Argentina had military dictators that acted in similar ways. Torture and death as punishment for conspiring against the dictator were extremely common. It was much more sick than just torture, as Rodriguez writes. Doctors were used to keep victims alive, or just alive enough to keep on torturing them. Women's unborn babies were taken away from them and given to hopeful, rich women that couldn't have babies themselves, oblivious of their origin; groups of people were pushed off flying planes. This type of history begs the question that when the dictatorship is over, how do you punish the guilty, or do you move on and try to leave the tragedy in the past? How would it feel to be rejected or hurt and violated by your home country?

Rodriguez's writing style is blunt and raw. In Canada she can write and express herself in ways that she could not have in Chile. Yet in Canada, she has to learn how to express herself all over again. 

I find the stories to be very emotional and i wonder how much of their content is based on events in her life. So far, to me, the stories are quite similar and thinking back on them, they seem to converge and form one story with different actors and a similar past. As a writer, i wonder if Rodriguez ever feels the need to branch out or try writing about something else, something not so connected to her own life? 

Julia Alvarez pt. 2

I think I must not be alone in feeling a sense of confusion and curiosity at Alvarez's choice of ending. It seemed there might have been a mistake and that the last chapter of the book was accidentally missed out. Told in a reverse chronology, the book begins with a grownup Yolanda in "Antojos" and ends with Yoyo the child in the "The Drum". 

The last chapter and the last couple of paragraphs especially seem rushed. Alvarez writes: "You understand I am collapsing all time now so that it fits in what's left in the hollow of my story?...I grew up a curious woman, a woman of story ghosts and story devils, a woman prone to bad dreams and insomnia" (285-6). The narrator is the same at the beginning as the end yet the story does not come full circle. Is this abrupt end on purpose, to prove a point maybe? Authors often leave stories open for their readers to make their own conclusions but this ending left me wondering.

The "hollow story" that Yoyo speaks of contrasts with the colourful yet complicated story we have just finished. The detail in the story leads us to believe that it is being told from the child's point of view yet the adult perspective ("I grew up...") says the opposite. This discrepancy asks us to question the narrator. This final quote introduces themes that weren't introduced before. Yolanda has never mentioned insomnia, frequent bad dreams or haunting ghosts (besides her short stint in the mental institute). The end of the book makes me rethink the beginning of the book just as I refer back to the family tree sketch, to try and connect these two seemingly different narrations. 

Other aspects in these ending chapters make me question the congruencies and connectedness of the stories. Our narrators are young and are often unsure how to interpret the actions happening around them. Imagination plays a large part in their young minds and their inventions often incorporate themselves into the storytelling. An example of this is the boy/creature Carla finds in the garage behind Doña Charito's house. Carla was on the hunt, alone, looking for something that would incriminate the Doña. She did find what she was looking for but what was it exactly that she found? A small man locked up with a metal collar in the garage carving statues for the local church? Do the maids keep their masters secret? Do the families that come to stare at the odd architecture hear the screams of the prisoner? Does it really exist?

When one hunts for trouble, it is usually not far off, especially if your imagination is young and frightful. 

I don't think that Alvarez was trying to make us question the validity of her story but instead points us in a certain direction. Children exaggerate stories in their own favour, the imagination of the young is wild and at times they'll have difficulty distinguishing reality from imagined, children lie to win or obtain something they want for themselves; all are normal occurrences for children. If they are unable to distinguish reality from imagined then the imagined is what they remember and that becomes the story of their life. Because our narrators are for the most part children, these are details that should be acknowledged. 

The story in its entirety is a mix of imagined, multi-perspective, and reality but who is to say which is which?

How Yolanda Lost Her Accent

I have just finished the first of three parts to this book. I am not completely sold on it but I think I can account that to the fact that I am only a third of the way through and nothing has really come together yet. 

So far the story has been told from Yolanda's point of view. In the first story "Antojos", she contrasts the lives of her sisters to those of her cousins who stayed behind on the island. While blowing out the candles to her birthday cake she compares her two homes; "But look at her cousins, women with households and authority in their voices. Let this turn out to be my home, Yolanda wishes" (11). Yolanda is stuck between two worlds in which she fits neatly into neither. She has spent the majority of her adult life in the US and can now speak english without the old hesitation or inability to find appropriate words for her feelings and thoughts. Those were the justifications for the end of her past relationships; with Rudy, the reasoning behind her abstinence was clear in her spanish thoughts but confusing in her english vocab. Likewise, John was unable to take her seriously, constantly misunderstanding her mastery of the english language. Now Yolanda seeks solace in her old, foreign home in the Dominican. But is this really what she needs?

Yolanda seeks 'authority' with men and family, a issue that stems from her father's authority and her failure with relationships. I am not convinced she will find it in the Dominican, at least not yet. When she is caught off-guard by the two campesinos in the night, she becomes mute, not at all the authoritative woman she hoped this country would allow her to be. I think Yolanda, as well as her sisters, have spent enough time in the US to feel comfortable but not at home and too much time away from home to feel like a Dominicana. 

Once again, this adds a whole new facet to the chicano/a subject. I am starting to feel like chicano is too broad a term but then again white is as well. 

FORM

After class on friday, I kept thinking of how form was important to the telling of these particular stories and what it meant to use differing perspectives, one-sided dialogue, slang, and all the other literary techniques employed by Cisneros. It is the question I kept at the front of my mind while reading the second half of the book but still not an easy one to answer. 

The conclusion I have come to without anyone to banter back and forth with is that Cisneros uses these varying stories and perspectives to break down the stereotype that the world (mainly north americans) has regarding Chicanos. That there are infinite variations on the chicano story; girls born with mexican mothers and mexican-american fathers, chicanos that can't speak spanish, girls born north of the border only to be sent south of the border. Back and forth, mixing this with that, Cisneros shows us how different one chicano's life might be from the next. I think that she reinforces this idea with the reoccurence of popular culture.

Her various mentions of telenovelas, barbie dolls, latin pop music and fast-food mexican restaurants juxtapose the "authentic" life Cisneros wishes (and succeeds) to portray. In the story "woman hollering creek", telenovelas provide a stereotypical view from both sides of the border. While Cleofilas dreams in anticipation of her life in the US, she compares what she thinks it will be like to the cheesy, mexican telenovelas; at least she will have the passion and the pretty dresses they wear. Meanwhile, the woman who saves her from a life of abuse, Felice, breaks the stereotype that Cleofilas has of women. That they must depend on men (not just her husband but her father and brothers as well) to survive and be happy. The use of the soap opera  is then used in reverse when Felice hears Cleofilas' story. "a real soap opera sometimes" she says. Felice has obviously heard this drama story before.

In "Bien Pretty", Lupe falls in love with a stereotype. a short, poor mexican that comes to exterminate the cucarachas from her house. she wants to use him as a model for a painting of a mayan because he has that face that is perfect for it, that stereotypical face. she loves things about him like his uneducated bluntness and the language he uses when they make love but i don't think she really loved him. it was more the idea or the concept of being with a mexican that she had grown to love. even after seeing the tattoos on his body of the names of past lovers, she is still surprised to hear that he has children to feed and ex-wives south of the border? common lupe.

I think that popular culture and the stereotypes that pop culture create are very important themes throughout this collection of stories. i think that in every single story there is some reference, no matter how small, to pop culture. now we can either identify with these cultural references and slangy italicized words or not (depending on what you know). but i think in most cases we understand that there is much more depth to these stories than barbies and one-sided conversations. i don't know, i think i don't quite get it yet.

woman hollering creek pt. 1

I. My Lucy Friend Who Smells Like Corn

Once again we have multi-narration going on. or at least i think so. the first few sub-chapters or stories are told by a girl with many sisters, rachel i think. and then in "mericans" the protagonist is a boy with many brothers. i thought it was interesting the difference in the style of writing from "my lucy friend who smells like corn" with its run on, super-descriptive, slang sentences to the more mature style of "tepeyac". 

Both i love. after reading the first two pages i felt as if Cisneros was once a little person, sitting on my shoulder, commenting on my childhood. she talks about things that i thought nobody else did, like scratching your friends mosquito bites when they're not looking so they itch. who does that? i thought i was the only one. 

II. One Holy Night

"tepeyac" neatly connects the last story with the next. i noticed how at the beginning of the book, people are named by association to their smell, hair colour, appearance, demeanor etc which is perfect for these stories. when you are young you can't remember all the big peoples names, especially all those aunts and uncles. so you make mental notes of what they look like and then at least you remember, well, what they look like. 

another theme that popped up in both stories is age and time. in "eleven" rachel describes turning eleven but feels three when she cries and four when she can't speak up for herself. there are so many social constructs that go with age. people expecting that you are eleven and not five anymore even though that is sometimes how you feel. and then in "one holy night", chaq/boy baby/chato philosophically says that 'the past and the future are the same thing'. im not sure if i agree with this but as i look on my past, not yesterday past but maybe four years ago past, that all feels the same. 

i haven't decided how to interpret this book from our chicano study perspective, i think its to early on in the book for me. but what i did notice is that i think lucy is chicano and the rachel is not (from rachel wanting to be as tan as lucy in the first chapter).

in my opinion, our readings in this class have gotten better and better. probably going to finish this one tonight.

resumen

I realize this is a little late but the internet has either been unavailable to me or i have been studying for other midterms, but now its time to focus on this class!

I have really enjoyed the readings for this class. i think that the themes we have covered such as gender, discrimination, the search for acceptance within a foreign society, identity, etc all concerning a relatively small group of people in the world are essential to understanding chicano culture. a culture that i had very little previous knowledge of. in each book we get a unique perspective of a chicano living in America. each experience is different from the next and it has helped me realize that there is no common chicano story to be read. every chicano writer has a different story to tell with different criticisms on american culture. 

In "who would have thought it" Ruiz de Burton criticizes the unblinded attraction the new englanders have for money, the importance of (false) appearances and deception and the absolute rudeness of americans towards one of another race. 

In Jose Martí's writing, he sees a new population, growing quickly but completely unaware of their surroundings, or the advantages they have. he has come from cuba and seen a small nation strive for independence and was rejected for voicing his opinions. america lets him speak his mind and allows him freedom but the people that were born in to it do not seem to be so grateful. his outsider approach is essential to this perspective.

Salt of the Earth shows a large population of migrant workers striving for equality. the director shows the hardships borne by chicanos as well as the unjust, racist ways of his own kind from the chicano point of view.

its time to run to class. i really look forward to the books we have yet to read.