Octavio Paz - La "Inteligencia" Mexicana

 … La nueva educacion se fundaria en “la sangre, la lengua y el pueblo”.

Chapters 7 and 8, La “Inteligencia” Mexicana and Nuestros Dias, were both good chapters that included a lot of history of Mexico. I liked Chapter 7 and the numerous important people that Paz introduced. Among them all, Jose Vasconcelos stuck out most for me. Paz describes Vasconcelos as the “fruto de la Revolucion”.  After doing some research on him, I learned that he was a Mexican writer, philosopher and politician. He was one of the most influential and controversial people in the development of modern Mexico. Chapter Seven uses historical figures, like that of Jose Vasconcelos, to demonstrate the “intelligence” of Mexico’s ancestors. Through the reading, and more research on Vasconcelos, it is learned that he began to build schools throughout the republic.

Foreign trade also opened the door of Mexico’s intelligence. The history reveals that the Mexican Revolution brought Mexico to a point where it would be able to accommodate its future? Still a little bit confused on this theory but it’s what I made out of the chapter. Is it that the revolution was what brought on the modern Mexico?

The chapter names of Paz’s work appear fitting and appropriate to the story he is trying to tell. It is known that his essays were written individually and put together for this work. La “Inteligencia” Mexicana proves where the intelligence of Mexico’s history comes from… that is, from people like Vasconcelos, Ramos, Cuesta, etc. Nuestros Dias, on the other hand, which translates to “our days” is somewhat a play with words. I wouldn’t say the work was meant for current, present days, but what Mexico is to come… it is because of the days that Paz experiences is what brings the country of Mexico to its future. Hmm… either way, still pondering on a lot of this.

Octavio Paz - Soledad

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1990/paz-speech.html

I like the humour of Octavio Paz’s banquet speech opening lines... “I shall be brief - but, since time is elastic, I am afraid you are going to hear me for one hundred and eighty very long seconds.” He sets a tone much different than that of other Nobel Prize winners we have encountered to date. Perhaps it is the fact that we are now nearing an era where things were a little less serious and humour is accepted in our society... even during important ceremony speeches! We would most likely never see Mistral open his banquet speech with a one liner.

Reading Paz was not the hardest assignment to date for this class. The split of the works was easy to comprehend. Language and flow was also easy to read and relate. The three essays that were read each had their own unique characteristics. Even before reading “Mascaras Mexicanas” I thought of masks. While reading, it’s learned that Paz believes Mexican people hind behind a mask in defence. Obviously not literally, but this got me thinking a bit. Does Paz believe that Mexicans need to hide behind masks? And why so? What does the defence mechanism signify? Uneducated? Lower social class? Or is that Mexican people do not like to be in the lime-light, they don’t like to bring attention upon themselves and in that instance, like to “hide” or sort of be in the background?

With the way Paz opened up his banquet acceptance speech for his Nobel Prize, I’d believe he’d done anything then hide behind a mask. He is extremely forward, includes a bit of humour and at one point, bombards his listeners with a million questions. If he classifies Mexicans as people hiding behind masks, he definitely doesn’t include himself in this cluster.

An obvious theme of soledad throughout the reading... as the work is even titled “El Laberinto de la Soledad” which I am still trying to find meaning for. The title translates in English to “The Labyrinth of Solitude”. Any ideas? Is he classifying Mexico as a whole as part of this solitude? I would relate Paz’s work to that of Asturias in a way that its topics and themes encompass that of history. Paz discusses Mexican history and his perspective and view on things during his time.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez - La hojarasca

Font = too small.

“In a South American town, Macondo, during the early years of this century, a retired doctor long known as an eccentric flatly refuses treatment to victims of a riot. Years later, the doctor hangs himself. For the vengeful town, the issue becomes whether he will receive a proper burial or be allowed to rot in the house where he had lately secluded himself.” – how could this not be an interesting read.

I continued to read that La Hojarasca is the worst of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s work. To me, it was interesting enough to continue reading and not as bad as I thought it would be. I had done a bit of research and background on La Hojarasca before reading and realized that not only one critic said this about the work.

Reading from different points of view of the main characters, the Colonel, granddaughter and other child was interesting but at times a little hard to understand who it was that was retelling the story. The different narration voices throughout the reading made it seem a little jumpy. At times there was a smooth transition but at the odd point I’d have to think back at whos interpretation of the events I was reading.

The story line didn’t really have much to it. It was a huge change from the violence we had read in Austurias work. I did feel though that it was a lighter read than other works we have read to date. It was definitely shorter, and easier to comprehend in terms of vocabulary. In comparison to other readings, like that we just finished by Asturias, is barely a comparable! Right, some of the main themes could be there but the presentation of writing was extremely opposite.

The theme of magic-realism will definitely be brought up for discussion and as has been noted down, the theme of time and memories tie into this well. Particular dates, and times are repeated throughout the work. Maybe for emphasis? Perhaps because the memory is still so vivid? Maybe not at all and the only thing that can be remembered was what day it was? The past/present/future theme was good to pick up on. Another way that the story was a little harder to comprehend.

El Senor President - Miguel Asturias

El Senor President, is written by Miguel Angel Asturias in 1946. It explores the nature of the political dictatorship and the effects it had on society. This story was developed from an earlier piece by Asturias which was meant as a protest of social injustice.

Here is a little bit of background information to better understand why Miguel Asturias wrote this story:

In 1847, the conservative Rafael Carrera manages to separate the United Provinces of CentralAmérica, unión formada por El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua y Costa Rica. America union formed by El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. La situación en este momento The situation at this time en Guatemala es de gran inestabilidad debido a la lucha entre liberales y conservadores, el nacionalismo y los in Guatemala is highly volatile due to fighting between liberals and conservatives, nationalism and golpes de estado. coups. Tras los sueños progresistas de Justo Rufino, en 1898 comienza la presidencia de Manuel After progressive dreams Justo Rufino, in 1898 the presidency of Manuel begins Estrada Cabrera. Estrada Cabrera. Éste someterá al país a un régimen autoritario y será acusado de crueldades con las clases This put the country into an authoritarian regime is accused of cruelty to classes campesinas y de haber entregado latifundios a extranjeros para su explotación. rural estates and he has given to foreign exploitation. Finalmente es derrocado en Finally, it is overthrown in 1920. 1920. Cuando se desarrollan los hechos el autor vivía su niñez y adolescencia, el narrador exterioriza el propio When developing the facts, the author lived his childhood and adolescence, the narrator himself exteriorized sentimiento de Asturias. sense of Asturias. (http://html.rincondelvago.com/el-senor-presidente_miguel-angel-asturias.html)

To start reading this story without any general background was a bit of a mistake so when I went back and did some research I was able to understand the plot/characters/dialogue much better. I was a little lost to start out, soon realizing Asturias as, of course, not only the narrator of his story but as a spectator during his life of the government which ruled around him.

I found the narration at times difficult to understand but the dialogue helps make  it an easier read since there is so much discussion throughout.

Mistral vs. Neruda

Needless to mention that both Gabriela Mistral and Pablo Neruda were recognized for their artistic literature and both won Nobel Prizes. Both Chilean poets, Gabriela Marquez received her recognition in 1945 for the work of her many poems and other writing. On the other hand, Pablo Neruda claimed his Nobel Prize in Literature in 1971, 16 years after Mistral.

Both authors share common ground. For one, they were both born in Chile and they were both highly recognized for their talent in writing. At one point, it is apparent that Gabriela Mistral taught Pablo Neruda in school. As I’ve read and researched, Neruda was too shy to show any of his work to Mistral.

One difference that both authors demonstrate in their writing, is the emotion and passion that the words reflect. For example, Neruda appears so passionate when he writes his love poems. It feels as if he has poured out his heart into his words on the page and they transpire so much greater meaning than the reader can interpret. I find that in Mistral’s writing, she is not as passionate as Neruda is. Oddly, you would think that the female would have more emotion in her writing but this is not the truth. Moreover, Pablo Neruda and Gabriel Mistral do share some common elements. For example, they both write about women – in different ways, but they do.

Neruda discusses the love that he has for women in his poems. We as readers do not know if he is referencing one woman alone or if he is talking about all women in general but it appears that with the depth of his writing he may be talking about one women – the love of his life. In Gabriela Mistral’s writing, she describes more than one woman. She characterizes them differently by naming each poem. Gabriela Mistral is more descriptive in who she is writing about in her work. She attaches a name to each figure where Neruda does not.

Another difference between the two authors is that Gabriela Mistral focuses a lot of her work on naturalism, feminism where Neruda is so focused on the passionate women he describes the body a lot. He goes into detail about what the figures look like, what they wear, what color they are, etc etc. There is a more simplistic form that Mistral writes with. Pablo Neruda, although young writes with fire and flame. He is extremely entertaining in his works, much more so than Gabriela Mistral.

Evolving Neruda

In the last of Neruda’s poems, Poem 20, gives good closure to his collection. His writing style changes as there appears to be more emotion in his writing. His main focus is of how sad his writing is. He is without his woman, his love, in his last poem and the realization seems to have impacted him a lot.

Neruda emphasizes the phrase, as he repeats it several times in his poem, “Puedo escribir los versos más tristes esta noche.” As I looked up the translation, “I can write the saddest lines tonight” doesn’t actually translate to I am writing but actually I can write. Does Neruda really think that what he is writing is sad or is it more of an attempt to change the general themes of his poems?

I am also still trying to determine what Neruda means when he says, twice, “Yo la quise, y a veces ella también me quiso” and then again, “Ella me quiso, a veces yo también la quería”. He is trying to make the same point to his readers but rearranges his words to possibly have a greater impact. Can anyone help elaborate on this?

Also, I liked that Neruda changed his style in this poem. He begins the poem by inserting quotes, proclaiming what he could write about, “Escribir, por ejemplo: "La noche esta estrellada, y tiritan, azules, los astros, a lo lejos". This is different then what he usually does and it can prove that he has become more comfortable as a writer as his collection has grown. In his last poem, he shows a greater variety of characteristics in his style of writing. His s ad theme is not unnoticed from his regular love poems.

In Poem 19 he continues to generalize the woman in his poem, “Niña morena y ágil” … this is the first I remember that he is not writing about a “mujer” but a younger lady, someone with less power.

I liked Poem 19’s translation the most. It was more timid. Just when you think there are no sexual pretenses, the last few lines strike you, “and I love your beautiful body, your voice soft and think” …
Brown and agile girl, the sun that makes the fruit
which curdles the wheat, which turns algae did your beautiful body, your shining eyes
and your mouth that has the smile of water.
A black sun and anxious is braided into the strands
of black hair when you open your arms.
You play in the sun like a tidal
That leaves the eyes two dark pools.
Brown and agile girl, nothing from you about me.
All of you away from me as noon.
You are the delirious youth of bee,
The drunkenness of the wave, the power of the post.
My somber heart searches, however,
And I love your beautiful body, your voice soft and thin.
Sweet brown butterfly final
as the wheat and the sun, the poppy and water.

Poema 1 - the dark side

As we looked quite carefully at Poema 1 in Neruda’s collection in class a couple days ago, I can’t help but look at the poem in a different light. At first glance, we realize basic themes of the poem: love, passion, etc., but as we began to pick and choose words from each line, and then again from each stanza, I started to think we may have been missing the bigger picture.

Neruda starts off by classifying the female in his poem as “a woman”. He is referring to all women in general and not just one specific woman. As we read one, we see he changes his view and the woman is classified as “my woman”. What is the change?

“Pero cae la hora de la venganza, y te amo” … translates to, “it came time for me to stop hurting you (to have vengeance on someone), and I began to love you. He begins to change his view on the woman and starts to describe her more sexually.

In blunt terms, I think this poem does not represent love well at all. I think it represents hate. To me, the woman in the poem is possibly being attacked, or raped. Neruda points out the parts of her body in detail: white legs, white thighs, etc., “Para sobrevivirme te forje” shows the woman is acting defensive, she may be faking her love back to the man so he doesn’t kill her in his rage. Neruda describes her body in more detail, in this part revealing not only her legs and thighs but her chest and her pubic area. “Ah tu voz lenta y triste!” The woman is sad, she is being violated. L

“Mi sed” can represent the thirst he has to be with her. We represent we are thirsty or hungry for something when we crave something. In this case, Neruda craves the woman he speaks of. The last two lines wrap up my theory … “donde la sed eternal sigue, y la fatigue sigue, y el dolor infinito” – he has had his way with her and he is no longer “thirsty”. He is fatigued from raping her and the infinite pain remains. Here, he can be describing the pain the woman is feeling – what she has gone through, it will never stop hurting.

Maybe I’m completely out of my element but it’s nice to look at a poem in a darker sense then sometimes it is portrayed to be.