Lo real maravilloso

I just kind of wanted to add my thoughts from friday's class before I delve into Alejo Carpentier's novela. I've been considering the idea of storytelling, myth, magical realism and other themes we have discussed in class. When we look back at the things created, thoughts and theories conceptualized, and struggles overcome by humans, they are difficult to comprehend when taken out of context. Political and intellectual revolutions for example, are products of their time. Generally speaking they do not simply occur but are the result of political and social agitation, suffering, and stimulation. The stories of our origins are even more difficult to believe the farther we grow from our roots. In the Maya culture, stories about their beginnings, - steeped in nature - were passed down from generation to generation; each storyteller adding emphasis and elaboration to what they found interesting and to keep their audience listening. So, hundreds of generations later, how are we to distinguish what is real and what is magical? As words take on new meaning, is it possible to make this distinction? Maya leaders dressed in quetzal feathers or the skin of a jaguar could have been named quetzal or jaguar in a story. Isn't it possible that myth and legend only became categorized as such as we separate ourselves from our past with time? I would like to think that whether we call a story "magical" or "real" should depend not as much on our interpretation of the story but by contextualizing it within its culture and history. [b.t.w. i am not talking about contemporary magical realism but the kind in Leyendas]

As for El reino de este mundo, I am just getting into this story which so far I am enjoying. Bit by bit I am coming to understand the genre of lo real maravilloso (or at least I think I am). Told in chronological order, El reino de este mundo follows the story of Ti Noel, a black slave. Unlike the Leyendas de Asturias, this novela doesn't have singing flowers or guacamayo bird as the protagonist. The genre created by Carpentier in this story is based loosely on the very real revolution in Haiti and (as wikipedia so nicely informed me) includes some historical characters as well, such as Mackandal. His character is based on the rebel leader of the same name. At this point in the story there is definitely as aspect of lo maravilloso although it is nothing I can specifically pin-point. Could the voodoo interests of Mackandal qualify? Mackandal seems to me to be a very unlikely candidate to be a leader. He is one-armed slave who busies himself with collecting mushrooms and other natural remedies and poisons for his brujería. I think there is more to the maravilloso genre than voodoo but I'm still figuring it out.

el Palacio de los Tres Colores

Magical realism is not an entirely new genre to me. I have read a few Garcia Marquez books and other stream-of-consciousness style books. However, the genre comes to its readers in many shapes and forms. There were several elements in the "cortina amarilla/roja/negra" stories that I identified as being part of the genre. Some are more obvious than others such as the dream-like structure of the narrative and the mythical characters that are at times humans, animals, spirits, gods, and plants. There were other aspects in this series of stories that confused me though. Maybe my compañeros can help me out... I was wondering if the characters such as Guacamayo and Chinchibirín exist in all the amarilla/roja/y negra stories at once. For example, in Primera cortina amarilla, Chinchibirín asks Guacamayo to tell him about the night saying "Sí, cuéntame de la noche!" (84). In Primera cortina roja, Chinchibirín asks the same question (88) either having no recollection of asking it in the first story or more likely that these stories and characters exist at the same time and not in a chronological order per se. This would explain why lessons learnt in one story are not necessarily passed on to the same character in the following story (also allusions are sometimes made - p.95).

On a different note, something else that interested me about these stories was the character of the Guacamayo. This colourful bird plays many parts in this series of stories. He is sort of an omniscient character who watches over and listens to the action below the treetops. He takes pleasure in arousing conflict and confusion such as in in 1era cortina roja as a drunk and in 2nda cortina roja, warning Yaí of her emanating sacrificial death. There was tension not only between Cuculcán and Guacamayo but between him and Chinchibirín as well. He seems to see through the long held customs and traditions of the Maya and likes to meddle in their problems (or make problems). Although he is definitely a trouble maker, it seems his intentions are somewhat good such as warning Yaí, flor amarilla that after spending a night with Cuculcán, she would be sacrificed. It might be beneficial to learn about the Maya's symbolization of plants, flowers, and animals in order to better understand (if thats possible) the significance or the stories and characters.

Finally, I found the form of the stories to be very interesting such as the use of the three cortinas with reference to the three parts of the day - morning, afternoon, and night - in order to create three different trajectories of storytelling. The image of the guerreros shooting arrows at the cortina roja gave me a vivid visual of hundreds of warriors shooting their arrows into the reddening, late-afternoon sky. The use of colour and imagery in the stories is another theme that I would love to discuss - possibly in class - because its time for me to sign off!

My interpretation

In Leyendas de Guatemala, Miguel Angel Asturias combines nature with human traits, personality, and myth. It is more than simply personifying nature; mythical creatures and people exist within nature. In these stories, nature breathes and is brought alive by the many characters and creatures introduced to us.

The fluidity between human and nature reflects the stream of consciousness style of narration. At times, I found this style to be confusing and difficult to follow. The thoughts that begin one story continually transform so that by the end of the story we are either in a completely new place with new characters or we are brought back to the original characters, reminding us of where we started off.

In Leyendas de la Tatuana, there is an example of how the author connects nature with humans. Humans speak with nature and one understands and works with the other. Asturias writes that the Maestro Almendro "[sabe] el vocabulario de la obsidiana - piedra que habla - y leer los jeroglificos de las constelaciones" (41). Maestro Almendro (a tree or a sacerdote?) has a strong connection with nature. He knows the language of the obsidian stone or the stones many uses and he reads the stars as if the were written by humans (like jeroglificos) or as if they could teach him something. The focus on nature and humans reminds of that these leyendas are based on myths from the maya culture, a culture that had to speak the language of nature and understand it in order to survive.

In the introduction by Paul Valery, he speaks of a translation saying that "la traducción de su trabajo es deleitable, por lo tanto, excelente". What he means when he speaks of a translation - as we spoke about in class - is not entirely clear. He could have read the Leyendas in another language but to me, the translation is from an oral story to a written story. The maya culture depended (although not completely) on storytelling in order to pass on their history to younger generations. The way the stories are narrated follow a stream of thought integrating as Valery says "historias-sueños-poemas". So to me, the translation is from oral history to a modern legends in a postmodern form. From something tangible in ones own mind or in the words of another to words, history, fact, dream-like poetry onto paper. What I like is that even though history and imagination are combined on paper, nothing is final. Not time or meaning. Everything is left open to interpretation.

introducción

Hola todos!

Todavía, no he venido a clase pero mañana, les prometo que vendré. Me llamo Tessa y estoy en mi cuarto año en el UBC. Estudio relaciones internacionales con un menor en español. En el año pasado, hice un intercambio en México en la ciudad de Guadalajara. Estaba allí durante todo la confusión del pinche swine flu. Durante mi seis meses allí, viví con una famillia y me gustaría pensar que mi español ha mejorado pero la verdad es que...bueno, vamos a ver.

Me encanta el género del realismo mágico y estoy emocionada de leer y aprender más sobre el. Bueno! voy a comer mi desayuno. Nos vemos en clase el viernes.

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?