kdkonyk

OK so this is the actual end, my real last post! I never wrote my ‘I the Supreme’ blog because I just did not know what to say and my feelings about the book were very mixed. On the one hand I recognized its brilliance, thanks in large part to our class discussions, for I think if I had read this on my own I definitely would not have gotten its importance. On the other hand, I really did not enjoy reading it! I suppose I prefer more novels that tell more of a story and I end up feeling immersed in that word. Whereas with this novel, I felt like I was just following the Supreme around in his daily life, and I guess that’s a type of immersion but I don’t have a particular desire to follow a dictator around. Furthermore, I just don't like stream of consciousness writing style. I know The President had some scenes that used this technique but they were separated by chapters with actions that I could understand. And even then, I wasn't able to understand those few chapters until we had analyzed them in class and with further analysis for wikipedia! I just did not have the time to do that for the 400page I the Supreme. So lesson I learned: I enjoy stream of consciousness when it is incorporated into stories to emphasis certain themes, but when it is most of the book, it goes way over my head!

One aspect of the novel that I did enjoy was how the Supreme realized that he cannot control language but as he realizes this he desperately tries to control it even more! I noticed this theme was not unique to this novel alone but a common problem for the other dictators. I think that because of this obsession the Supreme definitely would not have wanted any memoir written about him and so I wonder why he didn’t write down his own history before he died. It seems that all that is remembered about a dictator is what an editor has compiled or what an author has taken upon himself to write. These are the words we remember, those of the writer interpreting the dictator, not the dictator himself. From what I gathered about the Supreme I don't think he would have liked this. What is also interesting is that, as the reader, I found myself confused about the language in the book and wanted more control over knowing what words were true. I was constantly trying to decipher what was fact or fiction without realizing that is not really the point of the book. I too like to have control over knowing the exact meaning of words.

Anyways, good-bye for real this time! I hope you all have a lovely summer and get to do some cheerier reading! I hope no one gives up the dictator novel for good, but try to read at least one novel with a happy ending.

I can’t believe that the end is here already! Writing blogs has been a new experience for me and while I haven’t hated it I don’t think I’ll be revisiting my blog anymore. I personally prefer to talk about whatever is on my mind to whoever will lend an ear than to sit down and write it out. As for the dictator novel, will I be revisiting this genre for my summer reading? Yes and no, let me elaborate…

What I have found interesting about this genre is that by only reading five novels we have see so many different sides to the dictator novel. I think it is fair to say that all five novels, from Facundo to The Feast of the Goat, are extremely different (in case you’re wondering they rank, from my least to most favourite: Facundo, I the Supreme, The General and his Labyrinth, The Feast of the Goat and The President). What I have found to be the biggest difference between the novels is that some focus on the actual dictator himself while some focus on the people effected by the dictatorial regime. Interestingly, our last book combines both these perspectives by telling the story of the dictator and those brutally effected by his regime. You can probably tell by looking at my ranking that I prefer the novels which tell the stories of those impacted by the regime. I just felt that the books which only focused on the dictator didn’t really engage me whereas I could get emotionally invested in those that looked at the people. While I didn’t really like the dictator focused novels I did appreciate reading them because they actually were not what I was expecting. I came into the class expecting the novels to be like The Feast of the Goat and even if I wasn’t a huge fan it was a learning experience to read the different sides of the dictator novel. So in answer to the above question, I think I will probably read more dictator novels that look at the impact to the people but don’t see myself picking up anymore books that focus only on the dictator.

The only thing that I felt really missing from these novels was a look at how the dictatorship effected women. While the last book did an excellent job at looking at the different aspects I was disappointed that it was more or less absent from the others. While we had a number of discussions on gender I felt it was a very underlying theme and would have preferred to read another book which looked at the different experiences of women under the dictatorship.

All in all, I really enjoyed this course. While most of the books may not have been ones I would have picked up myself being able to read them with the theme of writing and power in mind was really helpful and engaging in the discussions in class was even more beneficial in developing my appreciation of them.

Even though I wasn’t a huge fan of the ending The Feast of the Goat is still probably my favourite (or second favourite to The President I can’t decide) book this term and definitely the one that I am going to recommend to friends. As far as the ending goes, I just personally prefer nice and neat, if possible happy, endings. I suppose that is a tall order for a dictator novel, and this is definitely the happiest ending so far, which is weird considering all that is revealed in the last chapter.
One moment that I found very intriguing at the end was when Urania is going back into her hotel and a tourist asks her if he may buy her a drink. At first I had no idea why Llosa would include this comment in the end, it seems really irrelevant and kind of a distraction to the story. Then when we were talking in class about how Llosa wanted to portray Trujillo’s regime as a regime built on machismo and the sexual subjugation of women this comment started to make a little more sense. What I thought was perhaps this was to contrast to the very first chapter where she is thinking how different things are from the change of the city’s name to the new Hotel Jaragua. She keeps asking herself throughout the book if things are different from what she remembers or have they not changed at all. What I thought was that no matter how you redecorate the city or change its name, there are still lingering pieces from the Trujillo era, from her decrepit father to the machismo attitude among men that they can have any Dominican woman.
I was also trying to decide how this book fit into our theme of writing and power and while we don’t see a lot of dictation or writing from Trujillo, at least not in comparison to the other dictators, I thought about Urania’s reference to all the books written on Dominican history and the Trujillo era. For a woman who wanted so badly to leave it all behind it was these books that kept her tied so strongly to that time in her life. Furthermore, even though it seems she has read every book on Dominican history, the written word has still not helped her to sort everything out. It seems that the only person who could provide her with any answers, who was part of the regime, is unable to speak and isn’t that the way it goes in these dictator novels. When answers are wanted for atrocities those at fault are no longer able to provide any explanation and often we may be left more confused by the words as we try to figure out what is fact and what is literature.

I know this is extremely late, but I still wanted to write my late, late blog anyways because I really like “Feast of the Goat.” When signing up for this class “Feast of the Goat” is more what I imagined a dictator novel would be like. It is suspenseful to the point where I can’t wait to turn the page, in fact often when I get to the end of one chapter I have to skip ahead another two chapters to get to the same story and read a couple paragraphs to settle my nerves. It’s obvious I don’t handle suspense very well. I also think I am enjoying this novel more because it is more modern, obviously the story is the most recent but I feel that shines through in Llosa’s writing style, which makes me feel like this is a book I would read without having taken this class. It is not that I didn’t enjoy the other books, in fact I am glad we had to read them because I feel it shows the range of the dictator novel genre.
Another aspect of this book that I really enjoy is how part of it is from a woman’s perspective. This is the first dictator novel we have read that I feel has given a voice to a woman and seen the dictatorship through her eyes. I am enjoying her story with her father but I still feel, even though we are given lots of flashbacks into her past, that she has her guard up and that we are missing something very important, something which I think will really make me understand her and feel for her. Whereas with the four men waiting in the car to kill Trujillo I love how in each chapter we are given their dark story into their past so we can understand why they want to kill the Goat. At one point they were loyal, except for Salvador, to Trujillo and his regime but something has made each of them realize that murdering this man is the only way they can live with themselves. The stories of the men in the car remind me of Angel Face, they are men struggling with their loyalty to a terrorizing regime but don’t know how to break free. I find this a very interesting aspect to the dictator novel, looking at those who are loyal but deep down do not have the evil in them to stay loyal to a dictator.
A final aspect of the novel that I wanted to comment on is the description of Urania’s father: the physical breakdown of a man under and loyal to the dictatorship. He reminds me of Bolivar in that sense, seeing how their bodies are failing them as the dictatorial regime is failing.
I am really loving this book, it is probably my favourite. I think this is the first book so far that has really made me want to read more of the authors work. Llosa is brilliant and by weaving three intense stories together gives the book a modern day feel, almost like the movie Traffic, and I cannot wait to finish it.

I know this is a book in a course about Murder, Madness and Mayhem but at times I felt it could be read as a novel about friendship and lovers. The reason I say this is because the scenes that most grabbed my attention were those that talked about his numerous love affairs or those that found him surrounded by his loyal entourage, especially Jose Palacios. While the General or narrator (not sure who) would comment, whenever he arrived in a new town, the reception was not as grand as it used to be, I found the opposite. I thought he was so lucky to be surrounded by a group of men (large or small) who were willing to wait around with him, playing cards, not knowing when their next move would be. I did wonder why all these men were willing to follow the General. Were they following the General or the ideas that the General embodied? Furthermore, he “loved” a range of women from a loyal, passionate lover in Manuela to a woman who thought it necessary that the General die next to her in honor of his love for women. I loved these scenes, which were scattered throughout the novel, for they set quite a different tone for me than that of the rest of our novels.

Even though I knew from the start that the General dies at the end I still found it so heartbreaking. I think it was the way Marquez describes the General’s last look around his room, how he sees everything for the last time. This last paragraph is probably my favourite of the entire book and it gave me goose bumps. I feel he perfectly captures those last moments of the General’s life as he finally realizes that he is leaving this world. It is no longer about his legacy as Simon Bolivar but simply that this man will not be there to see the yellow bellflowers bloom. Marquez made me feel as if I was laying there taking in my surroundings for one last time.

In the last paragraph I felt Marquez completed what he had been doing the entire book; he really humanized the General for me. Throughout the novel we see the General struggle with his physical health, the fact that his decrepit body no longer mirrors his strong mentality, and his struggle to let go of the power that he held for so long. It seems to me that, not counting Asturias, this is what the other authors attempted to do, humanize the dictator (I know the General was not a dictator like the others) but personally I feel Marquez did the best job. Perhaps it is because the General was not an evil dictator so it was automatically easier to feel compassion for him or maybe because we see mostly a dying man trying to end his life and rule with dignity. I am not sure but either way the General is a character that I will always remember and have a little soft spot for.

One final note, as the General said: "there is nothing more dangerous than a written memoir" (154). I feel this quote really works well for our class's theme of writing and power. I find it interesting because when I read works about real people I am left trying to figure out what was real and what was fiction and that is probably not the point of these works and would probably drive the real Bolivar crazy.

As always, only finishing the first half of a book leaves me with more questions than answers; questions that I hope will be answered in the second half of the book. First of all, I feel the portrayal of Simon Bolivar is rather different than the other men we have looked at. So far we see the General at the end of his life and reign of power interrupted by the occasional story of his glory years. This leaves such a vulnerable image of a man who was once extremely powerful. While the other authors have portrayed psychological weaknesses in dictators (for example, the need to be in total control and how that destroys one from the inside because it is so impossible) Marquez is illuminating the physical weakness of Bolivar. Yet while I see how the General is physically deteriorating because of his illness I am also confronted with scenes of how the General is persevering through his sickness and therefore is a very strong willed man. This leads me to my next question: why is Marquez writing this book and what image of Simon Bolivar does he want to portray? For example, in Facundo we saw that Sarmiento was writing against Rosas while contemplating the dichotomy of barbarism and civilization. Therefore I wonder what the greater message(s) will be from Marquez.
So far, something that I have noticed is how the General is not leaving in the glory that he arrived. It seems that he is leaving with less than what he even arrived with as he says: “we never would have believed, my dear Jose, that so much glory could fit into a shoe” (31). My knowledge on Simon Bolivar has mostly faded away, so I hope we have a brief overview in class, but I am wondering why at the end of his life he is left with less than what he had at the height of his battles. He seems to have lost the respect of most people around him and I find myself feeling sympathy for this “Liberator.”
To conclude I have a couple, general comments from reading this half. First of all, it struck me as interesting that we have read four books and in each the dictator/leader has had a different nickname: well in Facundo it was just his real name, then there is “the president,” “the supreme” and now the General. Also, the scene where the General is playing cards against Colonel Wilson reminded me of the scene in Facundo where he won’t let anyone leave the poker table. Finally, in this novel we again see the faithful sidekick and I am so curious as to what makes these men “resolve to share [their master’s] fate to the end” (55). It will be interesting to see if this novel gives us anymore insight into that question.

I have yet to determine whether or not I like “I The Supreme.” On the one hand, I can recognize its literary brilliance and how it perfectly ties into our major theme of writing and power. On the other hand, there are points where my eyes glaze over and I have no idea who said what, (the President or was it his scribe?) or what the point of certain anecdotes were which often seem detached from the goal of finding out who wrote the note. I am trying very hard to appreciate a type of literature that I would never voluntarily read. What I mean is that personally, I need an emotional attachment to at least one character for me to want to finish a book. I think that is why I loved “The President” so much, I enjoyed being invested in the characters, their story and truly caring about what would come of them. It is funny that while Asturias was keeping the reader distanced from so many details I still felt so close to the characters. As for “I The Supreme,” there is not that same grab for the reader’s emotions. I also find this aspect quite different from any movies that I have seen, on dictatorial regimes, which tend to focus more on creating an emotional connection for the viewer and yanking at the heart with sad, horrific stories of what the dictator or his government has done to these innocent people. While this approach is often more disturbing I find it more effective in portraying life under a dictatorship.

So far it does not seem that I am likely to get invested in any character from “I The Supreme” but that does not mean that I will all together dismiss the book. In only the first 20 pages I started to grasp the importance of this book to the course. I do not like the stream of consciousness writing style or his aside stories but I do thoroughly enjoy the President’s rant on words, their importance or lack there of, writing, memory and language. For example, in his private notebook he writes that: “To say, to write something has no meaning whatsoever” (202). This seems ironic in light of the fact that the President is so consumed with finding who wrote the note on the front of the church door; for if words truly had no meaning he should not care.

Finally, it is hilarious to see the insecurity, which we saw a glimpse of in “The President,” in full force here. He seems to truly believe that two men in a dark prison could have posted the note. I think this insecurity in himself, his power, parallels his insecurity with language and writing. This is interesting because as insecure as he can be he also writes: “I am the final judge. I can decide how things will go. Contrive the facts. Invent the events” (196). Perhaps because he knows the power he has he also knows how unreliable language is, which therefore heightens his insecurity.

As much as I enjoyed reading The President I was not only saddened by the ending but a little confused. I thought I would have a better understanding of Angel Face, being the main character and all. I was waiting for him to do something unspeakably horrible to finally explain the constant “he was as beautiful and wicked as Satan” references. Instead I started to believe that he was a good guy and him and Camila had found real love amongst all the terror of their country. Perhaps why I liked parts of the second half so much was I felt like I was being taken into a love story, which may seem ridiculous in such a gruesome dictator novel but it was a welcome reprieve from all the injustice. I feel because we saw how much he loved Camila, perhaps it was symbolic of his choice to from then on do the right, moral thing, it made his slow death even more tragic and I really felt sad for him. This still leaves the continual “he was as beautiful and wicked as Satan” unexplained. Was it to make the reader understand that before we were introduced to this character he actually was a horrible person and the President’s favourite for that reason; he would carry out any act no matter how unjust. Or was Angel Face just not that smart of a character? I mean he realized too late that he was involved in trapping General Canales and his own trap. In the end I really liked Miguel Angel Face and just wished that he and Camila could have lived happily ever after, but it didn’t seem that there was a happily ever after for many characters. In the end I felt really confused as to how and why the entire government turned on him, perhaps I am not understanding something.
Other than my confusion over Angel Face’s character I feel Asturias did an incredible job with characters showing the different aspects of the dictatorship and its effects on the people. I think the chapter of the President’s mail bag further showed how you could trust no one, everyone was looking to get on the President’s good side and did not seem to think twice about ratting on a friend. One comment that I found interesting was in letter 14 which stated that the death of General Canales “was due to the President’s fear of able leaders” (157). I was really unsure about why the President would want to get rid of two men who were actually loyal to him and by turning on them he actually creates more enemies. I feel like this may be an explanation for why Canales was unfairly blamed. Furthermore, if that is the case, it shows how insecure even the President is; the man who is making everyone else live in fear and insecure about their safety is just as insecure about his own future.
Part of me really hoped that The President would end on a more positive, hopeful note for humanity but as Judge Advocate says: “the President’s rule of conduct is never to give grounds for hope, and everyone must be kicked and beaten until they realize that fact” (234) I definitely felt that by the time of Angel Face’s death the hope was beaten out of me.

I am halfway through The President and other than it being very emotionally disturbing and upsetting I am still enjoying this novel. Asturias is a brilliant writer and I feel each page contains more than just plot which of course has left me with some lingering questions which hopefully will get discussed in class.
First of all, I find it interesting how little we have directly seen of the President, considering he is the title. From the title, I thought this novel would take us into the mind of the dictator and with him on his acts of terror. Instead we are introduced to characters that are either players in his reign of power or those of the city who all seem to be innocently hurt. I doubt we will encounter more of the President in the second half because we are immersed in so many different characters’ stories and therefore I wonder what the significance is of naming the book The President and having the reader rarely encounter him. I wonder if it is to show how a dictator can alter the lives of so many innocent people which may make for a more emotional story than a description of his life. Also it shows how a dictator does not act alone actually so far it does not seem like the president acts at all, instead he simply gives occasional orders which have shaped the horrific events of the novel. I wonder if the rare glimpses at the President are symbolic of how rare it is for anyone to encounter and get to understand a dictator. Even the “favourite” does not realize until later that he was set up not to help General Canales escape but in his death. Perhaps as I get further along in the book it will become more clear why we do not see much of the President.
An aspect of Asturias writing which I am not yet sure the significance of is his constant use of repetition. For example, in Chapter XIV there is the repeating of “Senor! Senor! Heaven and earth are full of your glory” (96). Throughout the novel there are more subtle repetitions and one that has yet to cease is the description of Miguel Angel Face: “he was as beautiful and wicked as Satan.” I am hoping that this quote will become clearer throughout the novel because I have yet to believe that Miguel Angel Face is an evil man. In fact I enjoy meeting his character because it seems like he has a conscience, refreshing in a dictator novel, and I am beginning to wonder if he really is falling for Camila. I may be reading in between the lines completely wrong but so far that is the impression I have gotten.
A final character which has left me a little confused is the Zany. I think he is meant to show the psychological effects of the oppressive government but it is some of his dream sequences which I am having a hard time understanding. For example, Chapter III, The Flight of the Zany, to me was indecipherable at times and I was worried that if the rest of the book followed suit I would not understand a thing. I was also surprised to see him die so early, I thought as the “crazy” character he would have been be a good medium to see more of the psychological impact of the President.
Hopefully by the end of the novel I will be left with more answers than questions but so far I am enjoying this book as much as I can a book about terror, murder and total injustice and I think it is a refreshing change from Facundo.

From the outset I did not believe Facundo would be a book that I could really get immersed in. I expected it to be a tedious and detailed history of a dictator which I would have to trudge through; I was proven wrong. Instead Sarmiento has told the story of Facundo in a manner unlike any other typical history or biography and I found it extremely interesting and unique to read. What I feel is so unique to Sarmiento’s approach is his constant explanation of events through a description and understanding of the geography, people, cities and customs which “explain a bit the phenomena we are about to witness” (105). I feel Sarmiento went deeper than just describing the actions of an evil dictator but attempted to explain why dictators were able to continually (Facundo then Rosa) rise to power. For example, by describing the ideas and interests of each Cordoba and Buenos Aires, I felt it provided me with a better context to understand Facundo. This is not to say that I agreed with all Sarmiento’s explanations of cause like the statement that “the quarrels of the Ocampos and Davilas shape the whole written history of La Rioja” (104). I feel he exaggerates certain ideas as the cause for other events and in turn I think it discredits him. I wonder where he got these ideas from or if they are his assertive, personal opinions. Either way, while it makes for a more interesting read, I worry about the affect of always finding an explanation for events in the geography, or nature of people, which is something he continues to do throughout the book.
Even though I did find Facundo an engaging read I still feel there are aspects of the book which are disconcerting. I worry about Sarmiento’s overall picture of Facundo and at times felt he was trying to bring him honor or even idealized him in a sense. Like the story he has to tell in chapter VI because it “brings honor to Quiroga” (109). While he did record the horrible acts I feel they never were written without a disclaimer that it was just the way Facundo was: “just a barbarian who didn’t know how to contain his passions” (175). I wonder what hope can be inspired for Argentina if these dictators are purely products of their environment and are not left responsible for their actions, at least in Sarmiento’s account.
A final note, not one of much overall importance, but I am curious as to why he continuously switches from Quiroga to Facundo. I wonder if this has any significance as to when he calls him Quiroga versus Facundo or if it was just for variety.

The first part of Facundo left me with mixed emotions on the author and what to expect from the rest of the book. First of all, I think it is very unique and interesting how Sarmiento gives the reader a geography and history lesson of Argentina in an attempt to supply him/her with not only a better understanding of the country and its people but some explanations for such horrible dictators. Rather than simply write a life story of Facundo I like how he tries to explore why these dictators are gaining power in Argentina. I am not sure if he was almost defending the atrocities by blaming it on physical aspects of the country and the ‘nature’ of the people. I do not think that was necessarily his goal, or else why would he write the rest of the book, but it leaves me feeling curious as to how he will respond when directly talking about Facundo’s actions. Unfortunately, while interesting, the first five chapters left me feeling more unsure and uneasy about his portrayal of Argentina and its people than feeling confident with the subject.
First of all, I feel that by taking the five beginning chapters to provide a history lesson, Sarmiento is implying that this book was not written for the Argentine reader. He seems to be catering to an outside, more cultured audience which he seems to believe is small in Argentina. This makes me wonder why he wrote Facundo. Was it to immortalize a horrible dictator or a political work to inspire a movement against the current dictator, Rosas? I assumed it to be the latter but now I am not so sure especially with his portrayal of many Argentineans. By the end I was tired of his degrading descriptions of the people, their customs and culture. I suppose it is important to read the book keeping the time period in mind but even so I am left upset at his insulting and mostly ignorant depictions of the uncivilized, barbaric peasants of Argentina.
So far I mostly see Sarmiento as ignorant and exclusive in his writing but am hoping he will take a different tone in the second half of the book.