Post Colonialism

This past Wednesday in class we discussed the idea that in BT the author presents this idea that we are meant to reject eurocentric ideas and the universalism created by colonists. Yet, as our "guest speaker" reminded the class he goes on to categorize post colonialism into the adopt, adapt, adept stages (if I recall). Would this not contradict the original statements made earlier in the chapter? 

I feel however, that you are who you are, although the author is supposedly contradicting himself, because he most likely is using a eurocentric view, he can't change that. One aspect of this criticism was the idea of duality in persons. It seems that most people whether they are a "colonist" or one who was "colonized", may have a little bit of both. Where is that boundary? Where does it end? How can one person not have influences from their ancestors or the people who colonized them? Is that not history as well? 

But maybe I am also just thinking way too much into this theory. I feel that in most of these chapters I don't agree with the theory or I find something wrong about it, whether I feel it is not realistic or not plausible, etc. Perhaps I just can't truly except just one "theory" or a categorized theory to interpret literature. I think that one theory will never be able to fully help readers understand literature and even labeling them, may not help. 

It also could be that after reading so many chapters of different theories I am completely turned around in each different direction. Or most likely, because it is April and so close to the end. 

Chronicle of a Death Foretold

As I go through this novel once more I continue to find little details that truly perplex me. For instance, Bayardo intrigues me a lot, for the reader is able to divulge that something is hidden behind this unordinary man, he is too much of a man and no ordinary man (34). Plus, he plays his cards just as Santiago does (41). Not sure what cards are being played, but something is going on. 

Also it mentions that he is the true "victim" because he has no destiny to fulfill. Santiago fulfills his destiny by being murdered, the twin brothers fulfill theirs by murdering,  and Angela fulfills her by regaining her honor. Yet, why is it that he falls victim, solely because he does not have a destiny? 

It is also interesting to note that on page 85: "I remember thinking that distress like theirs could only be put on in order to hide other, greater shames." I have been looking through this text to try and figure out what this shame is and trying to think about other possibilities. At one point I thought, is he gay, is he inadequate in bed, etc. 

Hopefully, my next blog will be able to divulge some more details. 

The Lover

In our group discussion in class we talked about how Duras' The Lover illustrates or exudes the "feminine style". I think that one of the main thoughts that really struck me was the idea of the fragmentation of this novel and the idea of emotions. 

Women are stereotyped and maybe for a reason to be more "emotional" creatures. I think that this style of writing, with the fragments, lets the reader travel emotion to emotion. There is no build up or climatic climb towards one emotion. Duras goes from one emotion to the next, or one memory to the next. The non-linear narrative keeps the reader and the "emotions" of the narrator on their toes. 

I think that unlike other novels, where suspense, surroundings, characters, and other techniques are utilized to keep the reader entertained, emotions are key to Duras' stylistic writing. These emotions which are used to describe certain instances, when no emotion is needed, and to subtly imply certain family dynamics, etc. power the novel and the "female style" of writing. (If that can be defined).