I The Supreme part 2

(Note to teacher: I've finished all my blog entries, I The Supreme is just out of order...)

I think I might have had it wrong in my first post. Earlier I suggested that Bastos, in saying the memory was the stomach of the sole, he was saying the memory is really actual history in this chewed up messy form, and that the narration of the book itself was trying to reflect this messy nature of memory. But I’ve changed my mind. The dictator comments at one point how some one with a good memory remembers nothing because he forgets nothing. In what sense then can then can you have a good memory if you remember nothing? To make sense of this, there must be some kind of distinction between what the memories of someone with “good memory” consist of, and what normal bad memory is. I’m going to take a guess, but I imagine this bad memory is some how the translation of actual experience in some kind of story. With good memory, you never have bad memory because you never forget the actual experience.

But of course good memory, experience, can’t be communicated, it has to be translated in to words, and then in some sense the reality of it is lost. The memory becomes subject to the uncertainty of language. But more importantly it really undergoes a change in kind. The recall of an actual experience a different sort of thing than reading about it. And Bostos forces us to see the fragility of this written form of history as he notes how in this novel characters and facts earn “…through the fatality of the written language, the right to a fictitious and autonomous existence in the service of the no less fictitious and autonomous reader.” That is, when these history turns into written form, it becomes fake, something separate from reality.

I The Supreme

I want to understand what his ranting about memory means. In general kind of way, I suppose he’s simply allowing himself to undermine the legitimacy of the memory of those who oppose him. “Memory is the soul of the stomach”…Memory then, is like chewed up actual history, all cut up and mashed together sitting inside you. This image, of memory being reality scrambled sitting in your stomach, sort of captures what the whole book is about too. We have all these different historical sources, and they’re all meshed together to create a memory. Ironically, he mentions “the memory of one person is useless.” But the book is a bunch of different people’s memories, and it seems to be as much of a mess as an individuals memory(based on how he describes a persons memory.)

“Madness is memory in reverse that forgets its way as it retraces it path.” But the thing is, given this scrambled nature of memory, how can we ever accurately retrace it to reality. How can we ever know what actually happened? All memory then, all attempts to look at the past result in madness.

I also think Bastos is sort of mocking the dictator novel genre. He mentions how you can’t really make him dead by writing it, in response to the poster. That is, words don’t have the power to kill him or stop him. Writers then, in trying to expose dictators are really just waiting their time. But at the same time he’s obviously extremely bothered by the words, they really even seem to drive him mad. Words then, perhaps don’t stop dictators, but make them paranoid and more brutal. Maybe the writers are doing a bad thing…

The Feast of the Goat part2

At a point in the novel the general is being attacked in a dream, he reaches for a gun to protect himself, but in reality, he is grabbing the alarm clock. I believe this is suggesting that the general ultimately finds comfort in punctuality and order. By ordering everything in his society, he is able to preserve his position of power, but when starts to lose grip on this ability to completely manipulate society, that’s when his security is threatened.

It’s also interesting that obsessively controls his own body in this way. Making himself get up at exactly 4 am. Maybe this is compensation for a dictator who is actually in many respects losing control of his body. It might be seen as a pathetic attempt to maintain a sense of control over himself, while at the same time he cannot even control when he urinates.

We discussed this in class, but it really is a theme we keep seeing in the dictator novel genre, the whole irony about an all powerful leader losing control of their own body. The whole being all powerful thing, while at the same time being powerless in the sense that no dictator can really control these biological processes that ultimately control them.

The dictator is also is constantly trying to emphasize the amount of physical control he has. Or he is putting make-up on to cover up darkness in his skin. We get the sense that the dictator as presented to the people is just this mask. It’s like a Wizard of Oz type thing where we find out the man behind it all, pulling all the strings is pretty pathetic. I think this idea actually came from class though, i remember talking about the wizard of oz...

But ya, in the end we get this man who rapes the girl and then is ashamed after. This is a man without self-control, who is endlessly trying to present himself as having complete control. The novel is in the end, really an attempt to lift the mask, and show what these dictators really are...

The Feast of the Goat part1

I’ll just try to explore some idea’s I felt the novel presented.

The novel starts with Urania walking through the city which she had lived in as a child. She notices how the city has changed since she was a child. But she also notices her neighbourhood, along with other parts of the city really haven’t changed. This reminds me or Urania herself. She’s changed dramatically since that time, but that memory of what happened hasn’t gone anywhere.

“Animated chaos, the profound need in what was once your people, Urania, to stupefy themselves into not thinking and perhaps not even feeling.” Urania has been in America, working obsessively in order to escape her past, perhaps then, Llosa is saying that the entire country has been doing what it can to purge the awful memory as well. Urania has become inhuman in the sense that she’s like a working machine, and these people have become inhuman by giving up thinking altogether, by becoming simple instinctual creatures.

Or perhaps she’s saying that her people have been instinctual and unfeeling all along. The dictator was just an extension of this sort of people, and they allowed the dictator rule because they were stupid unfeeling animals. Maybe in this sense, they are all responsible for her being raped, and at the same time no one is responsible, what sense does it make to attribute moral qualities to non-rational creatures?

I think the 2nd person stuff in this story is some sort of split of Urania’s conscious. On page 4 the narrator speaks, and then right below, Urania bursts into laughter, as if shes responding to the voice talking to her. The voice and Urania are interacting. I can’t see it then as being Llosa’s voice. It could be him talking to her, but it would be very bizarre if she could hear him… So I’m going to suggest it’s coming from inside her head. Why does she have this personality? I imagine it’s some sort of self-defence mechanism that’s resulted from her trauma. The voice seems to advise her to turn around, to not go where she’s going ect. In sense then, she’s fighting against her self. To face her past she must confront and ignore this side of her that has been protecting her, but likely making her work far too hard, and avoid personal relationships(I seem to remember this.)

This defence mechanism has been alienating her from herself, and she’s got to regain her soul.

About the protest at the UBC trek park

It's not about Spanish literature... but it's about school. On Friday night a there was a protest, and some students started a fire on the sidewalk. When firemen tried to put it out, several of them got in the way and some were arrested. Following this, many of them surrounded the police car preventing it from moving. I want to consider the ethical the grounds for the students interference with the police and firemen.

I assume that the fire itself was a part of the protest, and the students interfered with the firemen/police because they believed that the police, in tampering with their fire, were also unfairly infringing on their right to protest. The fire was big, on busy walkway.
So it was a little dangerous.

But a little potential harm shouldn't be enough to limit the right to protest. Especially I imagine if the protest is designed to draw attention and prevent some far greater actual evil. So the questions I think are whether or not the importance of the protest justified the degree of potential danger, (which it probably did, the fire wasn’t that dangerous), and secondly we should consider to what extent the factor responsible for the danger was actually necessary for the protest. I don’t see how removing the fire would necessarily take away from their ability to express whatever their concerned about, and because of this I don’t think they had reasonable grounds to interfere with the police…