Now that I've finished the book, I can definitely say that my opinions about it have drastically changed since reading the first half. I found complete changes and of course similarities in the style and form in which Cisneros brings these stories in the second half to life. Her creativeness, attention to detail and absurd way of writing actually astounded me, rather than annoying me like it did in the beginning. Anyway, I'll begin, as there it so much which can be said about this book!
I found the "Eyes of Zapata" to be the most curious of all the stories. It stuck out from the whole book because, although it was the same in the sense that it spoke of a woman and her experience with a man (like most of the stories did) it had a completely different impact on me, as I'm sure it did for many of you (?). Obviously Cisneros was not alive during the revolution, so we can assume that this story was not about her. From this a few interesting things pop out. On the one hand, how on earth can she describe with such passion the situation of this woman during the Mexican revolution (Emiliano Zapata's mistress...I think) without having any sort of personal connection to her. On the other hand, she mentions her last name (Cisneros) as a man involved in the revolution, bringing us to guess that she has some sort of family tie to the revolution which she is perhaps quite aware of. I would guess that she (Cisneros) is most probably a Zapatista, and she, relating her experiences and hardships with men, decided to express what it was like for Chicana women during the revolution, and that no matter how famous or "sucessful" your husband was, they all face the same or somewhat similar issues. She describes a universal issue by highlighting the experience of a woman involved with one of the most famous Mexican revolutionaries. I'm going to go a little deeper and say that I believe she is trying to say something about Contemporary Mexico. Obviously people wonder "Why Mexico?" "Why so many problems?" Poverty, corruption, etc, the list goes on...I think she is focusing on Mexican society in addition to a man-woman interaction. If Emiliano Zapata, one the most praised revolutionary men in the Mexico is treating a woman like that, what does it say about the country?
"Bien Pretty" the second and conluding story in the book definitely merits some attention as well. Cisneros documents the experience of a Californian artist who courageously moves to Texas, almost to leave her past behind. In this case, I think it's interesting how she describes her possessions which she takes with her in her truck having all came from different parts of the world. She automatically shows us that this Chicana is an established American who clearly is very knowlegeable and conforms to the upper class. A true San Franciscan. I believe Cisneros highlights this womans life and experience as a way to embrace diversity as an essential component in the way she describes these different Chicana women. I love the way she compares language to love, and how it comes into play during the relationship between Lupe and Flavio. She says "I've never made love in Spanish before" (Pg 153) I think this whole page says a lot about communication and the culture barrier between these two people who share common hertiage, but lead such different lives. Is their common bond their Mexican roots? I would think not, seeing as Cisneros almost seems to consider herself a "Mexicana light".
Overall, I ended up really enjoying the book. I found the stories in the second half really brought her artistic ability to life, and I was really able to connect with the author through the stories. A great read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think it's really interesting, your question about what Cisneros is trying to say more broadly about Mexican society. I thought about it, in terms of gender relations, for a while: what makes Machismo a very prominent element in Latin American and other Latin (Spain, Italy...)nations, while we Northern Americans and Europeans have a much more egalitarian, rational view of gender relations? I can only hypothesize; there is no scientific process here. To me it seems that an integral part of the cultural personality of these peoples is a very emotional and tempermental character. Emotional and spiritual elements have a much higher value in their culture, and play a huge part in the decision-making process. Since most people seem to have this very emotional side, it is socially acceptable to express it as such, without too much constraint. I'm pretty sure all men are excited by a beautiful woman walking down the street, no matter where they are from. But people with Latin blood are more expressive about what they feel about it, that's all. Northerners, on the other hand, place very much emphasis on science, rationality, politeness, and privacy of emotions. For this reason, a Northern man may say nothing.
It's this "hot" blood and expressiveness that makes Latin love very volatile, because emotions change quickly and aren't evaluated rationally. That's why people get hurt more easily, but maybe they love more deeply.
Just a thought, don't take it too seriously.
Hey Kaan!
I thought the same thing about your view of this 'great famous revolutionary' treating his wife so terribly. It kind of shows that this is in a sense universal...not to all humans, but perhaps that this kind of abuse is embedded in human nature. It has occurred to me that although Zapata may have been this amazing historical figure...he is just as bad as the husband described in "Woman Hollering Creek". Even historical figures have character flaws.
It was interesting to note the connection you made between the lovers' language in "Bien Pretty". I think that there are many things that will tell you which culture you belong to, and one of them is language. I believe that the language you use when you are scared, when you are thinking, when you are talking to a baby, and of course, when you are speaking of love, reflects hugely on the culture you base your identity in.
As you seemed a little confused about the protagonist, I'd like to add that I think she is Emiliano Zapata's wife, albeit he was apparently never faithful to her and she may as well had just been a mistress.
This is great, Kaan. I've really enjoyed your insights here. And I'm definitely betraying my own ignorance here... but I've actually never heard of Zapata. Hah, I wasn't aware that this was a historical figure. I'm really glad you pointed this out. The story has a very different feeling for me now. I did, however, pick up on the pointed use of her own last name for a Mexican revolutionary. I thought that was really interesting. Great observations. You have so much historical knowledge of the subject, I love it. ( I sound like such a valley girl right now, haha).
Post a Comment