Simple Passion

I think that Ernaux shows how self-conscious the act of writing is and draws attention to it. She often presents the difficulty in representing her subjective sense of desire, and herself in general. Ernaux understands that even what she writes about herself, it is incomplete in ways, just like any autobiographical piece is. She tries to detail as much as she can, but she’s not even sure of her purpose sometimes. What she writes is very personal by explaining (or attempting to explain) how she feels about A. It is really a way for her to work through her emotions. Overall, her tone in the narration is uncertain. With this, she, like other writers, is trying break readers of certain ideas they have of writing and reading. This idea shows up on the second page when she writes, “Writing should also aim for that… a feeling of stupefaction, a suspension of moral judgment.” In going on about her obsession with A, she defies conventional modes of storytelling, and readers are thrown off by this. For example, there is no real resolution or plot, and Ernaux’s voice doesn’t seem very authoritative like readers might expect. So, after reading this novel, readers can indeed be “stupefied” to a certain degree.

The novel consistently conveys the image of the narrator as an obsessed lover, and A as an unreliable man who grows tired of her and eventually ditches her. This does seem to be a problem as it reinforces the stereotype of a dependent woman who has nothing to do but dream of a man. Although it seems really extreme, I think this portrayal is also realistic in ways. As we’ve seen in previous readings, love and desire tend to affect their “victims” in strange ways. It is more like an unhealthy obsession sometimes than anything else. Even though Ernaux would probably not think of herself as someone who revolves her life around a man, she shows how deeply desire affects people with “I discovered what people are capable of… sublime or deadly desires, lack of dignity, attitudes and beliefs I had found absurd in others until I myself turned to them” (60). Maybe reason cannot always trump the power of emotion or desire. It might be easy to criticize Ernaux reading this, but maybe if we found ourselves in a similar situation it wouldn’t be. 

Beyond Silence

I see Lara’s home as the place where she feels she can’t develop into a complete person. This is because she is constantly tending to her parents’ needs over her own. She gives so much of her time and her energy to them that there is little left to do things for herself. Clearly, she and her parents had a loving relationship, but her parents depend on her a lot. Since they depend on her, it almost seemed like she was parenting them. At the same time, her parents were pretty protective of her. So while she is at home, she is caught in this duty of taking care of her parents, while also being sheltered by them. However, once she goes to Berlin, she is easily able to focus on her needs and decide what she really wants. She builds a relationship outside of the family when she meets Tom. Before, it seemed like her life was centered on her family, and the film didn’t really show her spending time with friends.

I think that if Lara were a male, things would have been different in this film. I think that the relationship she had with her parents would not have been the same, especially with her father. Since the parents deaf, they rely on her completely to help them. This is clear in the film by the way Lara had to speak for her parents at the bank, and in other public places. She is tied to her parents and their house until she becomes an adult. When she turns 18 (the typical age to go to college), it seemed that her father was really upset not only that she was going to learn music with his sister, but that she was leaving home. As a female, Lara was under more pressure to remain at home and help her parents, than she might have been as a male. Maybe if she had been a man, her parents would not have expected her to do so much for them. They might have allowed her more freedom to do what she wanted, instead of trying to control her (as her father often did). Her parents might have understood the need for a son to leave the house and provincial life more than they did for their daughter. 

Music is a very important theme in this film. Even though the film shows how music is something that is physically heard, it also shows how it can be more of a feeling (internal) than a sound. A good example of this is when Lara visits Tom at the school he teaches at. The children in the class are deaf, yet when they play the game in which they put their ears to the floor, they all sense the music, and Lara doesn’t. Another scene I thought showed internal music was when Lara spoke to her aunt about the pieces she was planning on playing for her audition. Her aunt told her that she was choosing music that was too sad, and that happier tunes would be better. Lara responds by saying that the music she hears on the surface is not all that she hears. She says that she hears something hopeful in this music on a deeper, internal level. This deeper level involves how she perceives the music emotionally, rather than how she physically hears it.  

Like Water For Chocolate, Section 3

“Growing up, one realizes how many things one cannot wish for, the things that are forbidden, sinful. Indecent. But what is decent? To deny everything that you really want?”(171). I think this passage is interesting because it addresses how we are all socialized to adopt certain morals. And the older we get, the more these morals are impressed upon us. As Tita explains right before these lines, it was easy for her to ask for things she wanted because as a child because she was not yet completely indoctrinated into this moral system. But now that she is a woman, she feels especially oppressed by what she is told is right and wrong. She is more conscientious of how she is expected to act in society and in her family. She is told that what she is doing with Pedro is wrong, yet since they both love each other, she wonders how it could be. In this excerpt, Tita questions why what is “decent” should deny people the right to fulfill their desires. If what is “decent” opposes a person’s right to be happy, then the word actually seems to take on the opposite meaning. There isn’t really a point in trying to fit some predetermined idea of decent if it is arbitrary and oppressive.

“The truth! The truth! Look, Tita, the simple truth is that the truth does not exist; it all depends on a person’s point of view”(184). I find that what Gertrudis claims here about truth relates very well to the passage above about morals, or what is considered decent and indecent. At this point, she and Tita are speaking of the dilemma Tita is in: that Tita might be pregnant with Pedro’s child. Tita is very distraught about her situation because she is afraid that Rosaura will find out and think that she is terrible sister. As we see, Gertrudis tells Tita that it is not true that she is betraying Rosaura because truth is not determined by one person or in one way. So, thinking of morals in the same way, it seems that the truth of what is right and what is wrong doesn’t necessarily exist either. What Gertrudis says makes a lot of sense when she reminds Tita that the truth could be that Rosaura betrayed Tita in a sense by marrying Pedro when she knew he and Tita loved each other. In other words, the truth of the matter looks different to Rosaura than it does to Tita. All in all, this passage argues that each person can see his or her own truth in any situation.  

“She would have to find some way, even if it was an artificial one, of striking a fire that would light the way back to her origin and to Pedro” (239). I feel that this passage relates to what we’ve discussed in class about how one cannot fulfill his or her desire while still alive. It seems that the only way to satisfy such overwhelming desire is to die. Tita’s desire for Pedro is so strong that she burns up all the matches she has inside of her, which almost kills her. Somehow, she manages to temper her desire enough so that she doesn’t completely succumb to it. Though she remains alive, she says that she is incapable of feeling anything because she has just burnt out all of her desire. Therefore, we see how even though desire is deadly to fulfill, at least some of it (some matches) is necessary to feel and to be alive. Because Pedro died satisfying his desire, Tita is compelled to try to relive hers so that she can be with him in eternity. Since she used up her matches, she eats candles and, thinking of Pedro, is able to relight them and experience that burning desire again that will kill her. 

Like Water For Chocolate, Section 2

“Tita grabbed it so tightly that there was no choice but to let it drag behind the carriage like the huge train of a wedding gown that stretched for a full kilometer” (97). In this bit, Tita is finally able to escape the ranch and Mama Elena. And as she goes away, she drags the bedspread she had been knitting behind her, which, as the passage demonstrates, evokes the image of a train on a wedding dress. This is important in linking the idea of Tita's freedom to marriage. Tita is basically doomed to spend the rest of her life trapped on the ranch with Mama Elena because she can’t get married. Of course, she is not supposed to be leaving the ranch at this point, but she rebels against Mama Elena. Although she finally challenges Mama Elena directly and does not want to live with her, she does not leave the ranch on her own. In fact, John Brown (the doctor) has to rescue her. It is as if she could not have left without him, which seems to show that Tita is dependant on the man. I think that this is related to the belief that women must wait for men to save them and help them fulfill their lives by marrying them.

“He was convinced that only there would he find the most advanced medicine—if he could scientifically prove all the miracle cures Morning Light had accomplished” (110). I think that this passage could be read in at least a few different ways. One is that John (the white man) depends on the work of his grandmother (the Native American) to understand medicine. It seems that he might respect traditional, native forms of medicine because they are more effective than anything he learned in medical school. In this case, it would be a little ironic to compare John embracing tradition to Tita who wants desperately to escape it. The other way to read this is to see John as trying to make his grandmother’s work more valid with his medical school knowledge. This would mean that, as a white man, he couldn’t simply accept the work of his native grandmother, even though it was obviously effective. In order for it to become credible, it has to pass the tests of a white man. If the latter is true, than John might be putting his grandmother’s work to the test unconsciously, and not because he thought she was actually incapable.   

“Without words, they made their mutual reproaches and thereby severed the strong tie of blood and obedience that had always bound them together, but could never be reestablished” (126). It was apparent from the beginning of the book that Mama Elena did not show Tita any love or affection. And Tita not only resented her mother not allowing her to marry, but actually hated her for her unnecessary cruelty. So, it is interesting to consider how two people who feel nothing positive toward each other are tied together because they share blood. Of course, sharing blood is an idea rather than a truth, so really, the only relationship that exists between Mama Elena and Tita is imagined. The only other factor that contributed to their relationship was that Tita obeyed Mama Elena. Once she finally rejected being in this subservient position, nothing could exist between them anymore. In a way, this calls some family relationships into question. Do some relationships between parents and their children only work when the children obey and serve their parents? If so, can that be a loving relationship? Esquivel seems to suggest that this type of relationship results in unhappiness on both ends (but mostly on the child's).  

Like Water For Chocolate, Section 1

FYI: My copy of this novel might be different than everybody else's, so the page numbers could also be different.  

The dish prepared in each chapter plays a pivotal role in the story. It always seems that the most important events that occur are connected to eating or preparing food, and these events are important because they allow repressed desire to be fulfilled. A few examples of this are when those attending the wedding vomit uncontrollably, and when Gertrudis runs off with a man. What happens in both of these moments reflect Tita’s desires or emotions, which are infused into the food she prepares. Tita was very upset that her sister was going to marry Pedro, so she cried and her tears went into the cake’s icing. The icing then took on Tita’s state of despair, and when people ate the cake, they reflected this overwhelming despair by being physically sick (vomiting). Also, when Tita makes the quail, the rose petals she puts in it have soaked up some of her blood. So again, a part of her goes into the dish, but this time, it represents her sexual desire. So when Gertrudis eats some of this, she burns with uncontrollable passion and runs away with some man. It appears that in a way, food allows a freedom of expression for Tita that she otherwise can’t have because her mother is always watching and ready to punish for her disobedience. Her safe haven becomes the kitchen because it is the only place where she can exercise any control.  

From the moment Tita is born, we sense that her life will contain a great element of sadness because she was “washed into this world on a great tide of tears…” (4). When she grows older, this sadness comes from the fact that the man she loves (Pedro) is going to marry her sister (Rosaura). This comes about because Mama Elena claims that Tita is bound (as the youngest daughter) to care for her until she (Mama Elena) dies. Of course, Tita strongly resists the idea that she can’t marry. Therefore, we find that Tita is the character that questions and defies tradition in this story. She cannot accept the role that Mama Elena tries to force her into because it makes no sense. So, in a way, Tita displays some characteristics of a feminist. She is constantly struggling to gain a sort of independence and suffers at the hands of Mama Elena for this. She has no outlet for her intense emotions besides the kitchen, which is the traditional realm of women. But we see that she uses this traditional setting to express herself and challenge her limited status.

Mama Elena comes off as very authoritarian and not very loving. She is the antagonist in this story because she constantly prevents Tita from leading the life she wants to lead. The reason behind her repressing Tita is tradition, which is hardly logical. Nonetheless, Mama Elena embodies the conservative attitude of sticking to tradition because it’s been around for so long. She represents women that oppress other women by upholding patriarchal tradition. The ironic thing about this is that Mama Elena claims that she has never needed men in her life even though they have determined the tradition she abides by (79). Like the stereotypical male who runs the household, she treats her daughters like objects. This is especially evident when Pedro comes to ask to marry Tita, and instead gets permission to marry Rosaura. Mama Elena clearly doesn’t consider how Tita and Rosaura feel, but substitutes one for the other to be a wife for Pedro.      

Volver

I think that in this film, Raimunda’s character shows how the role of women is not limited to being a mother or wife, even though she is both. She is a hardworking, decisive, practical, and intelligent individual who deftly handles the horrendous situations that occur throughout the course of the film. For example, when she comes home from working all day she is bombarded by the fact that her daughter murdered her husband because he was trying to rape her. It is an extremely traumatizing situation, but she deals with it unimaginably well. She decides to take full responsibility should the incident be discovered because she loves her daughter. She cleans up all the blood around the body, and later, puts it in a freezer so it doesn’t rot. Raimunda also works really well with others, and displays qualities of interdependency, rather than either the stereotypical dependence of women or the independence of men. We see that she is a skilled businesswoman in the way she negotiates with her friends to get food to make meals in the restaurant. She manages to borrow food from them, but doesn’t take advantage of them in any way.

The main theme of the “return” in this film is apparent when Irene comes back. I think the purpose of her return is to bring all the women (Sole, Raimunda, Paula, and Agustina) together and help them heal their wounds. We don’t realize all of their problems right away, but each one’s issues are serious. Sole’s husband left her; Agustina has cancer, doesn’t know whether or not her mother is dead; Paula kills her father who is not really her father; and Raimunda is not only widowed, but was abused and impregnated by her own father. It seems that all of these women function well enough on a daily basis, but on a deeper level, are very distressed. They all support and comfort each other, but none of them seem to completely resolve their issues until Irene returns. This is especially evident in Agustina’s and Raimunda’s cases. Irene fills the role of Agustina’s lost mother and cares for her when the cancer overcomes her. Also, after she talks to Raimunda about how her father abused her, we get the sense that Raimunda will be able to address and move past the psychological issues she has repressed for years. 

One scene I found interesting was when Sole attended her Aunt Paula’s funeral. After she came into the house, she was in an empty hallway. Suddenly, her late mother (Irene) appears and says, “I have to talk to you.” Because Sole is terrified of her mother’s ghost, she shrieks and runs in the other direction. She runs through a doorway and stops, only to find that a whole crowd is staring at her. The strange thing about this crowd was that it was made up of all men. As the camera pans over all these men, it shows that they are scrutinizing Sole without any real expressions on their faces. I thought the men were acting abnormally in this situation because Sole is running, screaming, and is obviously distressed (at her aunt’s funeral), yet instead of asking her what’s wrong, they silently stare at her. This made is seem like the men were unsympathetic, and with their staring, also seem to be judging Sole. Agustina shows up to “rescue” Sole from the situation, and right after, we see her among a large group of women. In contrast to the men, the women seem more concerned, and far more personal. Sole is far more comfortable in the latter situation, is treated less like an object, and more like a subject.   

Moderato Cantabile, P. 3

The following passages I chose come from chapters 6,7, and 8.

“Really, I know very little about it. But I think that he couldn’t make up his mind, couldn’t decide whether he wanted her alive or dead. He must have decided very late in the game that he preferred her dead”(102). Anne and Chauvin are speaking of the ill-fated couple again. But as they do this, we see how they are also discussing their own situation indirectly. It seems as if, like this couple did, Anne and Chauvin are heading toward that point in which he will kill her. They have been meeting regularly, but in that time, they haven’t yet figured out why the woman would want the man to kill her, nor why he would want to do it. This bit represents how Anne and Chauvin begin to understand this. Soon after this, the nature of their interaction changes. Chauvin no longer wants Anne to speak, and even acts cold toward her. It appears that he is trying to drive her away so they don’t end up like the other couple. 

“Tonight one of them does not share the others’ appetite. She comes from the other end of town, from beyond the limits imposed upon her ten years before, where a man had offered her more wine than she could handle”(108). In this part about the dinner party, Duras goes to great lengths to describe the ritual in consuming food at this type of event. During any normal party, Anne, like the other women, would be eating the food offered her. However, Anne refuses to eat, and draws negative attention from the guests in the process. It seems consuming food takes on the symbolic meaning of taking in values of society, which are served to you in a sense. Accepting these values, like eating, represents a sort of fulfillment. So basically, Anne is finally refusing to take on these values, and refusing to do so in front of others. Until this point, she had tried to fit expectations that determined how she should behave and what she should want out of life. But now, she is trying to resist. The only thing she has consumed, the wine, is too much for her. This wine can also be thought of as the values Chauvin represents, that her poured for her to drink. It is the idea of freedom, and she is left literally, and figuratively, drunk from it. 

“She arrived only slightly later than usual. As soon as Chauvin saw her… he went back into the café to wait for her. The child was not with her”(113). This is the first time that Anne has not had her son with her at the café. It seemed that before her son represented her own desire to be free of her society, and to rebel against it. So, by showing up at the café without him, it is as if Anne doesn’t need him to be that part of her anymore. Because of what she did at the dinner party a few nights before, she might have finally freed herself from the social conventions that had so long repressed her. Anne has changed. However, being alone feels pretty unnatural to her, as the dialogue following this quote reveals. But just because she is alone and has denied the expectations that society has imposed on her doesn’t mean that knows how to fulfill her desire with Chauvin. At this point, Duras makes desire seem confusing.  

Moderato Cantabile, P. 2

The following passages I chose come from chapters 3, 4, and 5. 

“It’s difficult for a woman to find an excuse to go into a café, but I told myself that I could surely think of something, like wanting a glass of wine, being thirsty…” (79). I thought this line was significant because it demonstrates Anne’s self-consciousness. In other words, she is very aware of the behavior that society deems appropriate for women, and especially women of her status. She knows that it is improper for her to go into this café and drink wine, especially since she gets looks of disapproval there. What she says here is also important because it is the second time she goes to the café. She goes to the café under the pretext of learning more about the mysterious murder. However, the reason she starts frequenting this place really seems to be that she is trying to recover a part of herself that she is not allowed to express in her society. The fact that she is making excuses to go to the café like being thirsty or wanting to find out about a murder shows how insecure she is with confronting her own feelings. These feelings are obviously powerful because they frighten her to such an extent that she trembles. And drinking wine is what helps her get into touch with her own emotions. This line also shows how Anne is worried about keeping up a certain appearance for society to see. She has to concoct some reasonable purpose for her being in that café, or it is otherwise unacceptable that she goes there. She cares about what other people think, and unlike her son, does not challenge the societal values that are imposed on her.  

“You go to the railings, then you go away and walk around the house, then you come back again to the railings. The child is sleeping upstairs. You have never screamed. Never” (90). From the previous chapter, we learned that Chauvin knows where Anne lives, and has been observing her from afar. It seems that by saying what he says (above), he understands Anne’s repressed condition in her marriage and in her society. She is incomplete, and this is emphasized in this quote by the fact that she never screams. As we discussed in class, screaming is vital to expressing anguish or frustration. Anne is likely frustrated by her condition. She seems to live a mundane life deprived of profound meaning. She repeats the same actions daily and without passion. It seems like Chauvin is more aware of Anne’s problems than she is. And by saying this, he is trying to lead her to speak more about herself and understand her own discontentment. It almost seems that in their time together, he is Anne's therapist. He often urges her to speak whatever is on her mind (even when she doesn't know what to say) so he can help her uncover and recognize her issues. 

“They don’t ask to come into this world… and then we force them to take piano lessons. What can you expect?” (94). With this bit, we return to the familiar scene of the piano lesson. Only this lesson is different than the previous one. In this one, instead of just calling the boy stubborn, the teacher and Anne try to explain why he is. I think that is what makes this quote important to think about. Anne is justifying her son’s rebellion because she identifies with what it is like to be stuck in a predefined role in society. After we are born, it seems like parents (and others) have mapped out our lives for us to some extent. We don't ask to be born into these roles, so why should we abide by them? Anne is emphasizing the lack of freedom that we have, and pointing out it is natural for us to want to challenge stifling authority and expectations. So here, she is explaining to the teacher that her son acts this way in an attempt to regain a sense of control over his own life. Of course, this links to how Anne yearns for freedom. In chapter one, we sense how Anne admires her son for rebelling against his teacher. This is because he did something that she never dares do herself; that is, cast off societal expectations. Anne is aware that she leads a repressed life and she wants to change that. Therefore, she experiences a lot of emotional conflict, and constantly tries to ignore her true desires. It seems like her son represents the person she wants to be. 

Moderato Cantabile, P. 1

The piano lesson is a frequent routine that Anne, her son, and the instructor go through. However, it’s not a very enjoyable one because it is forced. The boy clearly isn’t interested in playing piano because he says so and doesn’t pay attention to his teacher, but instead stares out of the window at boats passing by. His teacher gets angry because he never remembers what “moderato cantabile” means, even though it is simple, and she has told him before. The teacher is very angry that the boy doesn’t care at all about the lessons, and she mentions to Anne repeatedly how he isn’t well behaved. Even after he actually plays the sonatina, he doesn’t do so for long. In this forced situation, each person fits a sort of predefined role. The boy acts like the spoiled son of wealthy parents. He does what he wants when he wants. He also acts like the stereotypical little boy that is easily distracted and even a little rebellious. The teacher fits the role of the strict woman that believes children must be absolutely obedient. She seems temperamental, and harsh toward the boy, especially since the text hints that she had to restrain herself from slapping him. Anne is the doting and concerned mother whose life revolves around her child. Her days are probably structured and boring, she makes her son learn piano because it’s what all wealthy parents have their children do. I thought that overall, Duras’ style of writing reflected the forced nature of this piano lesson. This is because the scene is not narrated in a straightforward way; in fact, it seems distracted with plenty of digressions. The chapter alternates between small bits of dialogue and descriptions of scenery, so the focus never really remains on the lesson or what the teacher is saying. One example of this is on page 64 when the teacher asks the boy what “moderato cantabile” means for the final time, and then Duras describes the motorboat going by. Right after that, Duras writes in another thing the teacher says, and then describes the teacher’s thoughts. As a reader, I felt distracted and couldn’t focus on the piano lesson either.  

I think that one of the important functions of the scream is to jar Anne and her son out of their usual routine. They live in a world that is sheltered and is out of touch with, or desensitized to reality and profound human emotions. This might be because their daily lives are more concerned with being proper and structured, not allowing for powerful emotions. Music can be an expression of emotion, and so can a scream. So, in that way, the two are linked. Only the emotion of the scream is much more powerful and raw than the emotion of the music the boy plays. A scream can represent deep emotions like fear and suffering, and Duras describes this scream as piercing, intrusive, and frightening. They are all alarmed by the scream, but Anne and her son are more disturbed by it. This is apparent in the text when after the teacher notes that Anne and her son are nervous, she “look[s] at both of them with a disapproving air” (65). The teacher is hardened to emotions in general. She does acknowledge the scream, but is still willing to ignore it to continue the lesson. Anne tries very hard to ignore and deny it, while the child keeps drawing attention to it by asking about it. 

Under the Sand

Marie is very traumatized when Jean disappears very unexpectedly at the beach. I think it’s so traumatic because she can’t mourn over a body that can’t be found. In other words, she has no closure and can therefore still entertain the idea that he might actually be alive. In my English class, we’ve discussed how traumatic events are represented. Many believe that when a traumatic event occurs, the person or people who witness it are so shocked by it that they can’t actually understand it or take it in when it happens. Eventually, they might grow to remember or understand what happened better, but what does come back is fragmented. I think that Ozon is working with the same idea in this movie. Marie doesn’t understand what happened, so her experience is mirrored for us.

Marie denies that her husband disappeared and represses memories connected to his disappearance. She speaks of him as if he was still around and imagines him actually appearing and speaking to her. I don’t think she knows how to cope because she hasn’t seen a dead body, and can still cling to the most infinitesimal chance that he is alive. She probably feels that she should delay mourning until she knows exactly what happened to him. So to try to get past the trauma of the situation she tries to pretend that nothing happened at all. She tries to push away threatening memories. One example of this is when she tries to move away from this traumatic memory by moving to a different apartment. She ends up not being able to move there though because something in the view reminds her of Jean. I think it is finally after she receives a call from the morgue that she tries hardest to face that her husband died. Suddenly she changes her tactic of dealing with this situation from ignoring it to exposing herself to it completely. Marie visits her mother-in-law so she can tell her that a body that might be Jean’s was found. She also faces the possibility that it might have been suicide when she tells her mother-in-law that Jean was taking medication. When in the morgue, she demands that she see the recovered body so that she can finally be certain of Jean’s death and hopefully begin the process of mourning.

I don’t think Marie wants to believe that Jean is dead for a few reasons. One is that he was such an important and constant part of her life. She said at one point that her relationship with Jean had always been her priority. I think that she uses the fact that nobody is sure of what happened to him as an excuse to hold onto the smallest hope that he’ll return alive and well. Another reason she might not want to face his death is that if he died, she has to wonder why: was it an accident or did he actually commit suicide? If he did commit suicide, why did he? It seems that she is afraid to answer such questions because then she would feel responsible in some way for what happened. It’s possible that she feels guilty in some ways because he asked her if she wanted to swim with him before he disappeared. Or she might feel like she was not a good wife, and could have contributed to his depression, as her mother-in-law suggested. But if she continues to think that he didn’t die, then she doesn’t have to implicate herself.

Marie went down to the beach to mourn because it was the last place she saw Jean. So it seemed like the movie was going to end with her finally confronting everything she ran away from. She was digging her hand into the sand as if she was unburying all that she buried from her consciousness (under the sand, like the title). However, when she gets up and runs toward an illusion (of her husband), it is clear that she is not committed to facing reality and trying to move on. She still can’t accept the truth, so she runs away from it toward an image. Since she is so broken by her husband’s death, she might have decided to drown herself in the same place that he drowned. She seems not to have much of any hope, so death is the only way to make everything right. 

Dora, P. 2

Freud often mixes fact and fiction together. However, it stood out to me when Freud was interpreting Dora’s thoughts, and writes how she could express her desires. One example of this is when Freud states, “The resolution might have been consciously expressed in some such words as these: “I must fly from this house, for I see that my virginity is threatened here; I shall go away with my father…”” (77). He writes in Dora’s voice, which is like fact, but since she didn’t actually say those words, they are fictional. Since psychoanalysis interprets each thing a patient says (or clue), then connects it to larger themes, Freud has to jump between the facts of what he is told to the fiction of what he believes it means. After he does that, he can show how all the clues come together to form an entire picture of the patient’s problem. This shows how much guesswork psychoanalysis takes. It is mainly conjecture, and can’t really be proven.

 Dora’s father put her in psychotherapy so that a therapist (Freud) can convince her that he and Frau K weren’t having an affair. As Freud interprets what Dora says, her dreams, she is annoyed by him telling her that she doesn’t really know what she is thinking about, and that he does. In a sense, Dora feels that Freud is treating her like her father would, so she transfers her feelings about her father onto Freud. That is why she quits therapy only after a few months to “take revenge” on Freud, much like she did to her father by leaving him letter and leaving the house. This action also shows that Dora might also transfer her feelings about Herr K. onto Freud because he is another middle-aged man that she wanted to defy. Freud also shows transference of his feelings onto Dora. I think that he often thinks about colleagues and others who criticize his theory of psychoanalysis, and feels the need to defend his ideas. It seems like he uses Dora and her case to prove psychoanalysis is legitimate. As we mentioned in class, “dora” means gift in Greek, and Freud considered Dora’s case as a gift to him to refute what his critics say. The way he interacts with Dora also indicates that he is “speaking” to his critics. He listens to what she says, and then corrects her or tells her she doesn’t know what she is talking about. Freud believes Dora is wrong about her own thoughts just as his critics are wrong about psychoanalysis and dream interpretation when they discredit them. He also claims several times that this case that he only “failed” because he didn’t have enough time with the patient, and not because his methods were inadequate. 

I think he is right about how dreams include specific real scenes and imagined ones; they are a combination of our waking reality and representations of our wishes. We don’t really understand or remember our dreams, so it seems that they do come from an unconscious, or source we are unaware of. Dreams are also a “safe zone” for people to express their deepest thoughts or wishes because nobody else can see what they are dreaming, and therefore can’t criticize them. However, his associations with words and symbols seem outlandish at points. He clings to certain ideas obsessively like the jewel case and bedwetting. In the postscript, he defends his methods of dream interpretation. He states that he wrote less about technique because if he hadn’t, “The result would have been almost unreadable” (103). He also claims that his theory isn’t just psychological, without mention of organic basis. Freud mentions that sexual function relates to organic cause, and as we know, he speaks a lot about that. 

Dora, P. 1

Literature is difficult to define because it encompasses so many genres, from poetry to nonfiction. I feel that there aren’t many texts that can’t qualify as literature. But it seems that since literature relates to scholarship, it would take an expert or someone who has authority on some subject to write it. This would make the case study literature because Freud was trained as a professional psychologist. Literature can be considered as writing that reflects a certain period, culture, or school of thought. In this case, Freud’s case study also qualifies as literature. Hysteria was more common during Freud’s time and was not completely understood. Dora is literature that shows Freud’s attempt to explain this condition, as well as some of the sexist assumptions of his time and culture made about women (since they more often had hysteria than men). Sometimes people think of literature as artistic expression or a creative outlet for authors. For that reason, some read literature for entertainment. While Freud has some creative explanations in this case study, I would not say he intended it for an audience that would read it for fun. However, people often read literature to learn or inform themselves on particular subjects. For example, in school, we’ve all read different types of literature to become more aware of different theories, events that occurred, and more. Psychoanalysis is a concept we can learn more about by reading what Freud wrote. Many times, literature can be a study of the human condition or behavior and attempts to provide insight into those things. In this way, literature is highly interpretive. Psychoanalysis is certainly interpretive. In fact, it is the therapist’s (Freud in this case) duty to interpret everything a patient says and lead him or her to figure out what hidden desires are lurking around in his or her unconscious.

I think there are several instances in which Freud doesn’t see what’s really going on with Dora. It seems that Dora might actually be disgusted by Herr K.’s advances, and instead of being secretly in love with him, she’s actually uncomfortable around him. However, in Freud’s mind, everything can be pushed into the unconscious and patients are always hiding something from themselves. He tends to take everything Dora says and turns it around on her. Whatever Dora says only reinforces Freud’s conclusion that she is in love with somebody: Herr K., her father, or Frau K. He never takes things as they are, but always applies a strange logic to what Dora says, and strings together coincidences in order to support his psychosexual ideas. Coming into this case, Freud already had ideas of what caused hysteria, which he alludes to with, “hysterical disorders are to be found in the intimacies of the patients’ psycho-sexual life… hysterical symptoms are the expression of their most secret and repressed wishes…” (2). Because of this, Freud was so convinced of his own theories that he couldn’t actually judge Dora’s symptoms objectively. Plus, as Freud mentions, his treatment with Dora lasted only three months, which probably wasn’t enough time to understand her or her issues. 

The Answer, Section 3

Sor Juana’s poetry addresses depictions of love and images of women. I think that like her letter to Sor Filotea, she uses this poetry to give a voice to women and challenge traditional attitudes of men. She also displays her skill in writing poetry to show anybody reading that women are capable of writing brilliantly in such an elevated form. I believe that poetry is actually more enjoyable for Sor Juana to write than prose is. She even mentioned in the letter that she thinks in verse and it comes naturally to her. In writing in verse, she might feel freer in her expression, plus composing poetry makes her an artist of sorts. There is also a lyrical element to poetry that prose does not have. Writing poetry allows Sor Juana to apply her musical talent and rhythm to words and lines. Thus, she can play with the meanings and sounds of words without having to provide explanation.

I thought poem 145 was interesting because it seems to be referring to women, and how men think of them. It begins by calling the woman “an object,” that is “a painted snare” which is referring to how women make themselves up in order to capture men, like the “cunning trap to snare your sense.” As the sentence before the poem states, Sor Juana “endeavors to expose the praises recorded in a portrait,” so this poem is about flattery men use on women too. Flattery is also mentioned specifically in the poem in its attempts to “overlook the horrors of the years.” So in this case, flattery is like a form of deception that men use to idealize women and make them something that men want them to be. “Philosophical Satire” (poem 92) also discusses images of women that men have. This attacks the double standard applied to women by “foolish and unreasoning men.” Because of men’s unrealistic expectations of women, they are to blame for any “faults” women have. Sor Juana shows in this poem, like Zayas did in her stories, that men “insist that woman be a sultry Thais while you woo her; a true Lucretia once she’s won.” In other words, men want women to abide by the way they define love, which is to have women be whatever they (men) want them to be (a whore or a virgin). 

The Answer, Section 2

In the second part of the letter, I thought Sor Juana raised some very interesting points. One passage I enjoyed was: “For there are many who study only to become ignorant, especially those of arrogant, restless, and prideful spirits, fond of innovations in the Law…” (81). With this, Sor Juana claims that instead of education negatively affecting women, it really did so to men, especially in the Church. Although these men study and should be able to interpret the Bible, their sexist attitudes led them to use passages and Church law against women. Instead of their studies enlightening them about women and their value, they were used to justify unfounded prejudices. A man who has delusions of grandeur before he even begins studying is strongly influenced by his arrogance as he reads and “interprets.” Calling the way men use Church law to oppress women “innovations in the Law” was subtly sarcastic because it implies that these men had to be creative in order to make up discriminatory laws. She also used a sort of antithesis by saying that those who study can become ignorant because most people would think that studying would help them and not make them worse. I think she does this to show how men in the Church embody many contradictions, but aren’t even aware that they do.

Another one I liked was: “And so, good lady, I fear applause more than slander. For slander, with just one simple act of patience, is turned to benefit, whereas praise requires many acts of reflection and humility and self-knowledge if it is not to cause harm” (101). Her entire letter is a response to Sor Filotea’s criticisms and slander against her. She understands that Sor Filotea meant to put her in her place with his letter, but she uses it as a way to refute his weak arguments and lecture him on the important roles women play. In this way, she is mocking him by inviting him to slander her because she can only turn it around on him with her brilliant rhetorical skills. However, it also seems like Sor Juana considers Sor Filotea’s attention as a sort of praise because she feigns humility as if he were complimenting her. Sor Juana seems invincible to Sor Filotea’s insults because she is a superior thinker and writer, which she demonstrates repeatedly.  

The Answer, Section 1

I think that part of what Sor Juana expects readers to understand is how hard women had to fight to educate themselves. Like Pizan, she tells her own story of trying to learn in a society that opposed this. Despite the fact that she usually lacked teachers to instruct her, Sor Juana still managed to learn about many topics like science, rhetoric, math, and more, on her own. She frequently describes her will to learn as a burning desire, something she can’t escape. In doing that, she challenges the thought that women are naturally disinclined to develop their intellects, and pins it instead on society’s repressing them. Sor Juana calls her desire to learn a sin, and thus, sarcastically insinuates that men, especially those in the Church, have imposed this thought on society. Rhetorically, Sor Juana uses a few devices frequently. I noticed that she used ethos to create a persona for herself that was very intelligent, yet humble. She suits this persona to her audience (Sor Filotea) to mock him with her seeming humility and also show that unlike educated men, educated women don't have to act arrogantly. This is also understatement because she calls herself weak and unworthy, when she obviously isn’t. She qualifies her statements to feign uncertainty about her own argument. To get her point across, she also uses rhetorical questions to lead into logical responses that refute Sor Filotea’s argument.   

One thing I found striking in Sor Juana’s answer was when she wrote “Without Logic, how should I know the general and specific methods by which Holy Scripture is written? Without Rhetoric, how should I understand its figures, tropes, and locutions? (53). As a woman, Sor Juana wasn’t supposed to be any kind of scholar. It seems that even nuns, who were expected to uphold God’s word in the Bible, were not encouraged to study the Bible in depth or understand it in the same way that their male counterparts did. Sor Juana could be pointing out that it is ironic that many nuns were simply taught to accept stories in the Bible with little interpretation when they were supposed to know it more profoundly than the average person. She mentions that in addition to knowledge of logic and rhetoric, science, history, law, and math help to know what is happening in the Bible. By bringing up all the different subjects that are integrated into the Bible, Sor Juana also displayed her knowledge of a great variety of topics to Sor Filotea.

Another bit of Sor Juana’s answer I found interesting was “The advantages of intelligence are advantages of being… And thus, as no one wants to be less than another, no one will admit that another possesses superior powers of mind…” (67). This means that intelligence makes those who have it threatening because it empowers them as human beings. Like Pizan and Zayas claimed, men think of the world as a hierarchy; one that they have to be at the top of. Sor Juana is pointing out that any intelligence in women is stifled so they cannot be equal to men. She has personally experienced this, which is part of the reason she has to defend herself in this answer back to Sor Filotea, a man.  

Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown

The film revolves around Pepa, and the stories of the other women kind of mix into hers. So I think that all the women that Pepa encounters represent extreme, stereotypical aspects of herself and her emotions. It is apparent from the beginning of the film that Pepa has a relationship with Ivan that strongly affects her emotions. She goes from being sad, to angry, vengeful, and later, to being independent. Candela represents how depressed and victimized Pepa felt; Lucia showed how angry, psychotic Ivan made her (Pepa); Paulina might have embodied Pepa’s disgust for herself at letting a man (Ivan) trouble her so much; and since Marisa is in such a deep sleep, then wakes up at the end, it seems she represents the way Pepa “wakes up” about Ivan, and decides she doesn’t need him in her life.

The telephone represents a connection to another person. Pepa is always waiting for Ivan to call her, to reach out and reconnect with her, but he only leaves messages. The messages don’t represent a real connection, especially since they seem so disembodied from the person (Ivan) who leaves them. Though we see Ivan in the beginning of the film, we are led throughout the film to think of him as voice. Ivan uses his voice, or his language, to deceive. This even shows in his career of doing voiceovers, which require imitation and deception. So when Pepa rips the phone from the wall, throws it through a window, and breaks it, we can see her struggle to sever the fake connection she has with Ivan. At some points she attempts to have the telephone fixed, which meant that she still wanted to renew her connection to Ivan. However, she eventually realizes that nothing real can exist between them, and breaks the connection for good.

This film is probably comedic to empower women. I think the point is to play on stereotypes of how women react while in relationships. It shows them as angry, jealous, psychotic, murderous, controlling, or suicidal, or in other words, constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The women in this movie experience serious problems, but stereotypes are funny because they have a way of being ridiculous to the point that you laugh at them. For example, Pepa faints a few times in the movie, and seems dependent on pills to make it through her day, which is a stereotype that women are weak or nervous. It is sad, but made to seem very funny. Since women in the film are acting out these stereotypes and making fun of themselves, it takes the power away from men to stereotype women in order to insult them. 

Disenchantments 7,8, and 10

It seems that Blanca should be happy about the chance to court her fiancé before marrying him. But she is actually unhappy about following through with the marriage. I believe the reason for this lies within the fact that in this relationship, Blanca feels like a commodity that has been promised to a stranger. She also might assume that once she and her fiancé marry, he will not try to love her because men are in love for the challenge of conquering women. Since she would already be “his,” she would become uninteresting to him automatically. Blanca is probably aware that true love cannot exist between them, and so, to gain a sense of control, she tries to learn to love through reason, not desire or emotion. She has to rationalize love by saying things such as “Before you buy merchandise like a dress or a jewel, you must always examine it first to determine…whether it pleases your taste” (246). What is interesting is that she is making him seem like a commodity instead of herself when she says that. The sonnet supports the idea that she feels objectified in this relationship. One line mentions “So long as I see myself in your eyes” which reminds me of our class discussion about men seeing their own reflections in the eyes of women. Of course, this meant that to men, love was more a form of self-love than actually caring about another person. Blanca knows she cannot enjoy a relationship like this.

Gossip can serve to validate or justify certain beliefs because it is a way to find others who will agree with you about something or somebody. It is also a way to scrutinize others and force them to obey the status quo (like the code of honor) because if they don’t, they will be rejected or punished. So in general, speech is a way for individuals, and sometimes, entire communities, to achieve an underlying motive(s). For instance, in the story, Clavela uses her power of speech to anger Alonso because her motive is to punish Mencía for being the center of Enrique’s affections. We have control over our words in a sense because we use them to persuade others. To do that, we have to choose just the right combination of meaning. Although we were all born using words with preexisting significance, we do understand different meanings and manipulate them. We see the power of speech on page 277 when the messenger convinces Mencía to love Enrique, be disgusted with her brother and father; on page 283 with Clavela; and on page 294 when Marco Antonio convinces Alonso to kill Ana. These different passages seem to exemplify how speech plays on insecurities as well. 

It is surprising that a female would be the perpetrator of all the death and destruction instead of a male. After thinking about it, I believe that Zayas was attempting to accomplish a few things. One is to reinforce the idea that through their deception and vice toward women, men have taught the skill to them. It is not just Florentina who deceives, but also her maid. But if women learn to deceive from men’s deceptions, then men are also to blame for the havoc women wreak using this craft. Another goal of Zayas’ could be to exemplify the perfect nobleman in Gaspar. He never tries to force Florentina into loving him, and he rescues her, helps her even though she caused many deaths. This seems likely when, after telling the story, Lisis asserts that true noblemen, like Gaspar, are kind, generous, and protect women. 

Disenchantments 4-6

Filis shines a new light on women’s suffering at the hands of men. As she claims, “It’s one thing to let oneself be deceived and it’s another thing to be deceived” (139). This means that sometimes a person is actually fooled by another and is a victim, while at other times, he or she chooses to be deceived and is at fault for his or her own problems. In this case, Filis is commenting on women who appear to be innocent and are deceived by men. As she reasons, if a woman lets herself be deceived by a man’s words, the man can’t foot all the blame. I think she says this so that her audience understands that she doesn’t believe men are constantly inflicting evil upon women, who seem to be helpless victims. She points out that men hold women to extremely high moral standards because they (men) are threatened by women. What Filis expresses in these lines seems to fit in with the idea of deception and self-deception. Because men are aware that women are equal to them, but they want to hold more power, they must convince or deceive themselves into thinking women are inferior. Of course, they also justify this theory of inferiority with a code of honor that makes women appear weak and deserving of punishment. Through men’s self-deception, women are actually deceived into believing that they must remain absolutely pure, and can’t do what men do (learn to fight and be educated). These thoughts introduce the story in which self-deception allows one person to be cruel to another. Jaime and his wife Elena love each other very much. But when a servant (negress) lies about Elena being unfaithful, Jaime deceives himself into believing this. He had no evidence but his jealousy.

The most apparent meaning of the skull is that it is where the brain, or reason is kept. I think that since Elena drinks out of it, it could mean that she possesses reason. On the other hand, Jaime does not carry around the skull, and is not capable of using reason. He allows a wild assumption and jealousy to take over his ability to think rationally and compel him to harm his wife, whom he loves very much. If the skull can be called a representation of reason, it is ironic that Jaime can see it (when Elena carries it) so often, yet never possess it himself to see his wife’s innocence. And as the skull is meant as a punishment,  reason is punishing Elena because she knows she didn't sin, but has to suffer anyway.

When Esteban pretends to be a woman, his appearance deceives both men and women. When around Laurela, he acts like a man in love with a woman, but nobody really believes he is a man because he has a pretty face and wears a dress. He didn’t have to try very hard to convince them he was a woman. This suggests that even though women are traditionally expected to be beautiful, this is not a feature that defines them exclusively. If it is so easy for Esteban to pretend to be what we would consider a female, then it seems our gender roles are not very truthful or reliable, but limiting.  

Disenchantments 1-3

I can see how some might call Zayas’ writing feminist. However, I think it really depends on which definition of feminism you are looking at. Although different feminist movements strive for the same goal, lifting women from oppression, attitudes about men are not the same across the board. Some types of feminists are less sympathetic toward men because they claim that men are the perpetuators of a patriarchal system of values, and are to blame for women being denied equal rights. On the other hand, I also know of feminists that consider men to be just as much the victims of a patriarchal society as women are. This approach calls for men to be feminists along with women so both sexes can free themselves of the molds they have been forced into. If you try to judge Zayas’ writing by the form of feminism that views both men and women as victims, then I don’t think it would qualify as feminist. This is because, for the most part, her stories represent men as fickle deceivers and abusers of women. Plus, Zayas uses these texts to raise awareness of inequality, but at the same time, does not seek to redefine her society’s idea of honor, and the women are always punished. But it could seem at least like a step toward the feminism we know today as it calls attention to the fact that the law used to work against women’s rights rather than protect them. And the women argue that women are inherently equal to men by proclaiming things like, “Oh how many good women there would be if only men would let them be good!” (115).

 The code of honor greatly affects how characters act. According to the code, women are expected to guard their honor (chastity) against men, but should they fail, men must punish them. Men see the honor of women as something they are responsible for, so when she loses her honor, it is an insult to any man that is connected to this ruined woman. For example, in the second story, Octavia is afraid of her brother finding out about her affair with Carlos because of his “right” to punish her. This code allows inequality between men and women because it clearly gives men power. The code is also a sort of safe haven for men in the stories to avoid responsibility and blame, something the women cannot escape. For instance, don Manuel knows Isabel will not reveal that he raped her because then she would lose her honor (and her good reputation) if she did. As this code is the standard, women judge women with it too. Overall, the code implies that a woman’s chastity is what makes her worthy to be loved, and that since marriage is the only way to avoid dishonor, women should aspire to it. Men are expected to marry, but the code does not punish them harshly enough to enforce this. 

It was interesting that this story showed a man becoming a monk rather than a woman becoming a nun. Through being faithful to God, don Juan was saved from what Roseleta’s beauty would have “made” him do. I get the impression that desire is supposed to be a maddening condition that robs any originally decent person (like don Juan) of their reason. Desire is emotionally driven. The way Roseleta was eventually punished also reminded me that women were often blamed for causing this desire in men. This makes don Juan seem like a victim that couldn’t help but be tempted to do something dishonorable because of his desire. Since God saved don Juan, but did not save Roseleta (who was innocent), justice does not appear to have any meaning in this story. However, Lisis restores a sense of justice at the end of the story by explaining that God works in mysterious ways and does not punish every sinner in the same way. She also argues that the real justice is that Roseleta is rewarded by going to heaven instantly while don Juan had to “repent and earn his reward” in this life (136).

City of Ladies, P.2

In this section of the text, Christine introduces readers to a variety of texts that feature strong female characters. By doing this, she gives females a voice and presence in literature, which establishes her own feminine literary authority. Although the stories of these characters are different, one theme runs throughout; that is, that when these women face great obstacles and evils that are unjustly forced upon them, they overcome them by practicing their innate virtues. Christine cites the story of Florence of Rome in which the men Florence rejects plot to ruin her even though she never committed any sin against them. In fact, rather than using evil against them as they did to her, she saves them both from death, emphasizing her kind and forgiving nature. By referencing positive stories of biblical women in a time when the Bible was greatly revered and studied, Christine also improves her authority. As one of the ladies mentions, “In spite of what you may have found in the writings of pagan authors on… criticizing women, you will find little said against them in the holy legends of Jesus Christ and His Apostles…” (204). For instance, Christine includes stories like that of Queen Helen, who rescued saints that were preaching God’s message from dying of starvation (due to famine). With all of these examples, Christine demonstrates that women are “heroes” in stories. 

When discussing education, Christine also shows that learned women (like her) can refine their intellects and morals just as any men can. This is shows further evidence of her feminine literary authority. Christine draws our attention to two women, Hortensia and Novella who, through education, became skilled in rhetoric and law. She even shares her own experiences by mentioning that her father educated her against her mother’s wishes. This education is what helped her to become the skilled writer we recognize her as. As Christine is trying to prove, education is empowering. The way Christine places herself in this text as a character that evolves intellectually and morally during the course of the story is important. By the end, she demonstrates her authority in the way she advises women to stand tall and remain resilient to the cruelty and criticisms they endure from men. 

City of Ladies, P.1

At the beginning of the text, Christine concludes that women, including herself, must be wicked because that’s what great male scholars have claimed. She shows this naivety because through it, she is implicating the many women and men who have believed weak arguments that attack women, even against their better senses. One tool she uses is sarcasm, which seems evident when she asks God why she wasn’t born as a man so that she “would be as perfect as man is said to be.” Besides being sarcastic, this self-doubting tone also begs for somebody to contradict that women are resigned to inferiority. As Christine reasons, “God formed a vile creature when He made woman” but she doesn’t understand why the creator of humankind would make something that isn’t good. Readers sense that her questions, especially since they are asked of God, cannot be left unanswered. This sets the stage for the three ladies to come to Christine and dispel ignorant, flawed arguments about women. 

Christine uses the three ladies to argue on the behalf of women. Since these ladies came from God, it already seems that what they say will easily trump any flimsy human arguments. One of the ladies, Reason, provides several examples that contradict common arguments against women. One of these is that philosophers, though they are respected scholars, do not know truth, and often contradict each other. Also, later Lady Reason discusses that the men who insult women have done so because of their own internal problems like vice, insecurity, and jealousy. I think she uses these examples because she is trying to explain that though human beings prize reason and logic, claim to use it, they don’t always do that. This challenges the trust we place in the “authority” of educated and esteemed figures like classical philosophers (mostly men). Plus, it strengthens her argument because it emphasizes how many accepted arguments lack strong or factual evidence, and even seem ignorant or silly upon closer examination. In this way, she turns the argument that women are ignorant around and suggests that these men are instead.