OfTheClass

I think that because of the situation of Trump, the fact that Mexico has increase this nationalist feeling is undeniable. When I read “Río Grande, río Bravo ” by Carlos Fuentes, a particular part catch my attention, the encounter between Eloíno and Mario. 

From my perception there have been discrimination inside the Mexican society since the beginning, but this story pulled my heartstrings because I’m sure that the inexplicable moment that is described in this “hug” is the empathy. I believe that this is an example of the mutual help that must be encourage in our society, because I perceive that the competition is a value that is more exalted than the cooperation one. 

Even if we are conscious about the importance of teamwork, we still want to be the best as individuals; maybe a turn in our thinking might help to be the best as a country and society.

The Crystal Frontier by Carlos Fuentes is one of that books that moves your heart in many ways, through the stories you feel angry, sad and there are moments in which the happiness is reflected. I mean that what is narrated is so close to our context; every page has this description of the needy Mexico.

I think that one of the main topics along the novel is the disinformation, the illiteracy and the lack of education in general; we can find it in each separate short story. Clearly it is manifested when José Francisco appeared in the book. His intervention let us this interaction that make us thing about who are the ones that have the power to communicate and who are the ones of which silence is expected.

-¿Qué traes en tus morrales? -Escritos. -¿Políticos? -Todo escrito es político. -Subversivo, entonces. -Todo escrito es subversivo -¿Qué dices?

One day I was reading a little bit about Stephen King, and a fact that surprised me is that he published several books under the pseudonym of Richard Bachman.

These stories were rereleased few years later, but now under his name (so Wikipedia says). So at first glance it’s seem that the editorial just wanted to earn money, 

I don’t know how much more they produce, or which was the difference between Richard Bachman success and King’s. I related this situation to the text “The death of the Author” by Roland Barthes. I haven’t read any declaration of King about the why of his decision of publish under a pseudonym, but I believe that he wanted to prove the value of his writing. That the name is just a publicity factor, and it doesn’t represent the value of a text. And it must be judge only with the worth of the language. I think that if we start to give the chance to more books, not caring the author (it precedent), we might found a lot more that we have missed for just repeating the same reading patterns.

While I was reading Damned by Chuck Palahniuk, I was really impressed because of the creation of a character like Madison. She used this kind of complex words, but after that she reminds us her age, from my perspective this is part of a sense of underestimation that she has developed in her life. 

There are some things that she refers to, that make me compare she with other 13 years old girl, I mean it's hard to believe that she sees the world in that way. One of the thoughts that amused me was: "...and in a world where people say you're lazy for not shaving your legs, then being dead seems like the ultimate flaw".

Because in one hand I thing that shaving the legs only apply to more grown girls, when you are 13 years you still like in this entrance to the puberty in which you may be excuse of this practice, so I think that she is a reflection of the world that her parents are living, in which appearance seems everything. 

Also referring to the adjective 'lazy' related to 'death', what came to mi mind was this:

Cuando tengas ganas de morirte esconde la cabeza bajo la almohada y cuenta cuatro mil borregos.

Quédate dos días sin comer y verás que hermosa es la vida: carne, frijoles, pan.  Quédate sin mujer: verás. Cuando tengas ganas de morirte no alborotes tanto: muérete y ya.

Jaime Sabines

I remember this poem because for me the actions described, stay all day in bed and not been capable of served your own food, are real example of laziness, but not shaving your legs...

In every class that involves the study of the society, there is always a relation with the exertion of power and Focault’s text, “The order of the Discourse”, is one of the analysis that let us understand from the theory what a discourse is and under which principles it develops, all of this always under the axis of the invitation to identified this practices and to avoid it.

From my perspective I explain the idea of the discourse under the comparison with the power of the words. Imagine you go travel with your friends and during this vacation you end up visiting a lot of museums (just because they were near and you don’t want to regret of not entering to new places), but not common museum. No. You end up in the Museum of Bad Art, British Lawnmower Museum, Salt and Pepper Museum, The Lunch Box Museum and when you think it can’t be more ridiculous you are at the Museum of burnt food.

When you return, your mom asks how your journey went, but you are tired so you just answer “it was okay, we went to a lot of museums”. Two weeks later you find by chance with Ms.A, one of your mom’s friends, she is very happy to see you, she can’t believe how tall you are now, you apologize because you have to go, otherwise you will be late for school, and before you keep walking she comments: “Yes, your mom told me how a good student you are that you spend your vacation studying”

This dumb story let us see the discourse in ‘museum’, this set of believes that is behind the word that makes “m o m” proud of you, because a museum have positive connotation, it is meant for intelligent people, whatever they present it’s part of the cultural elite. NO.

In fact the Museum of burnt food exists.

But the use of the word ‘museum’ for this exposition is suitable, because one of the meanings is: “Place for exhibits objects or curiosities that can attract the interest of the public, for tourist purposes.” 

So we must be careful with this, because it might sound like something unimportant, but place this situation in other context: “immigrant” we all know the meaning of the word, but in the practice they impose certain characteristics to the people marked as such. In other hand we have the word “refugee”, another set of signifiers, that it might be similar to “immigrant”. 

I mean, isn’t a refugee an immigrant?

As who would you like to be called?

As who would you like to be treated?

In 1967 Mario Vargas Llosa said that literature is fire, it's a very short phrase, but with a lot of meaning. The context under what this words were said might give a sense that can change if you put it under another context, principally because of the connotation of the word ‘fire’,sometimes it's associated with good characteristics or with destruction or purification or whatever, if you ask a hundred people about it, the answers will varied.

From the speech were the phrase came, I think that the explanation of the relation of literature and fire it's described with the next words:

“THE LITERARY VOCATION BORNS FROM THE DISAGREEMENT OF A MAN WITH THE WORLD”

Alma

This short have the basic elements of the narrative structure well define. First the image of aperture is conformed by this little snowflakes over a black background, I think it is a reflection of the souls that have been capture, after that it follows the presentation of the characters. The principal one is Alma, and the other one that follows the role of antagonist is the ‘shop’, we can see that the form of the window is similar to a mouth open, principally because of the arrangement over the window that seems like eyes and teeth.

Inciting event is when the doll disappeared, it’s important to establish that this doll isn’t a character, it is just an object that is manipulated by the will of the ‘shop’. The opponent argument is when Alma throw the snowball, because it reflects the frustration of not been capable of get into the shop, in this moment it seems that she gives up and decides to go away.

The false victory is when the door opens, and after that the point of no return is settled by the shut of the door. Because it’s a short, the mid point comes immediately when Alma finds out that the doll isn’t in the place it suppose.

The final battle is present when Alma starts to climbing over the sofa, and with the intervention of the doll in the tricycle  (principally with the noise that creates knocking the door) and the other dolls that moves their eyes leads us to the election of the hero, because of this signs Alma is capable to detect that something is wrong, so she has the options to stop her action or keep in the same road.

At the end of act three (hero returns home) Alma is trapped inside de doll, so it seems for the actions that there isn’t a happy ending, but the other elements, like music or the next takes suggest the contrary. The tone in the music creates a sensation of “everything is fine” and we are no longer available to see Alma and how is she dealing with this situation.

In my life I have taken several literature classes and the definition of literature have never been a solid topic in the class, but now after reading the introduction of Literary Theory by Terry Eagleton it's seems that it's a complicated to reach a definite meaning. 

Maybe that's why my teachers never took the time to define it or maybe they expect us to know the meaning or they didn't want to talked about it, I don't know, but this reading (Eagleton's one) make me curious about what that teachers of the past might said about this theme, because my actual teacher considers that Eagleton's text is the best option for us to understand the definition of literature (well, I think that he thinks that), but do the others think the same way?, I'm sorry for not been capable to ask them (because I don't see them anymore), but for sure I will ask to the future ones. 

Let's focus on the introduction offered by Eagleton, first there are several points in which I agree and a few ones that I don't really get: I believe that he never mentioned that literature is an art, but the points in the reading suggest it, maybe it is because of the nature of the book 'cause he's dealing with theory,  and that's why he took the language as the ground of any definition that is presented. 

In one of them he argues that the 'what' isn't the important thing, but the 'how' (formalist thought), because language should draws attention to itself for being consider as literature.

In other he stablished that maybe we can define literature in the way of reading, giving the attention to the readers than the writers. 

 From this two perspectives I respect more the first one, because I read once a book named "Azufre y sal" by Alejandra Torres, it was an assignment of my sister and I helped her with it, I knew that the book was destined to kids like her, but I have read other novels with the same target and after reading Eagleton's introduction I'm now capable of express what I felt while reading: From the begging I treated that book as literature, but the more I was reading the most I was shocked that someone decided to published it.

Because I don't found a value in the story (that doesn't matter for Formalists) nor in the language (this of course matters). But then I thought "who am I to judge the value of this reading?", and the sad answer is that I'm no one, my opinion is just important for me and maybe for a very very -very- small group of people that recognize me as tiny authority figure in the subject, maybe just my mom and a few friends.

So the conclusion is that the definition of literature (for me) is based on power relationships, the editorial that published "Azufre y sal" found the work as a good representation of juvenile literature that deserves to be publish, then the teacher of my sister also found value on it, so the classmates of my sister have the picture that this is an example of how literature is. That was just an example near to my context, but this happen in a great scale, take The Nobel Literature Prize, they are a highly value authority that have its standards of what is literature and they choose the winner based on the work that resemble to their criteria of literature definition.  

At the end Eagleton stablished that literature is an empty source of definition and he put the labor of define it on the context, I'm totally agree with this conclusion, but he takes an example that I think that doesn't suit with the conclusion. He said that based in the context it could be possible that in the future Shakespeare's work will be no longer consider literature, I don't know if because of my formation or whatever, I think this is absolutely impossible, even in hundred years I'm pretty sure that Shakespeare still literature, because the authorities recognized it as and even if they don't admitted it, (I think) the new authorities will respect the authorities of the past and if they don't, we must take in count the collective unconscious that will carry with the recognized literary works.