This book is not so much a probe into identity as it is a reminiscence of Chicano/Chicana life before it can be necessarily be acknowledged as such. We experience the various memories, first-person narrative coming-of-age tales, and third person observations without knowing much back story or mythology about these seemingly endless protagonists. However, I'm going to try to be more specific in my musings than I tend to be...
This book, unlike the others, is modern in its revelations, new in its creation, and abundant in its pop culture references...I love the mention of Alarma! the gory Mexican tabloid magazine which is actually quite an entertaining read if you are able to desensitize yourself enough from violent pictures that you can read the rather comical articles...probably no worse than the video games we play here. It is a pretty disgusting rag, nonetheless I enjoyed the allusion.
I'm not sure if Cisneros intended to make all men look like insensitive misogynists that lack any sense of responsibility or humanity but she does a revolutionary job of portraying them as such...I guess it's pretty accurate. I don't take offense to be honest, it in many ways rings true...I just don't like how the female characters are ignorant to the fact that men are like this, how they are bloodthirsty dogs who want to copulate with them yet they romanticize the memory of them after they never make contact (p. 30).
I'm not trying to discredit Cisnero's personal experiences with men in her community, but other than a few mentions of boys experiencing discrimination because of their race I felt the novel was a never-ending well of female emotion being either drained or poisoned by men. There are brief descriptions of romance, passion, and then indelible consequences, eternal pain, of these men impregnating women, breaking hearts, deaf to the cries of their victims. These women describing their experiences are intelligent, are aware, but seem to blame rather than take control of the unfortunate situation bestowed upon them...I find it to be more demoralizing for women than it is empowering, as I read on page 100 of the details of a man charming and beautiful, impervious to guilt, and irresistible to all, yet never does a woman become wise to his irresponsible actions.
Still, the sense of togetherness in family is charming throughout, and unconditional love is a major theme in this opus...the imagination of Cisneros is so beautiful and limitless, dreaming up images, smells, both malodorous and pleasant, it brings to mind a photograph interactive in every way. She effectively combines nostalgia with conflict, and in many of these short stories she creates spirits unchained; dramatically pained in their existence but never stagnant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Great observations!
I noticed that the husbands or any man participating in the lives of women tend to be portrayed as "insensitive misogynists". From what I've read so far, Tristan seems like the only man who does not fall under the same category and is seemingly pedestalized. Perhaps it is his social distance that lets him achieve such status. Is it an optimistic outlook that "better" men exist? Or do all men look good only from a far?
I do get the sense of family as well. The women want to go back to their families but something usually prevents them such as the imagined feeling of shame or their is nothing to go back to since their mother has died and the house now belongs to their half brothers.
Thanks! Your entry was insightful
I think you make some very good observations. I felt very much the same after reading several of the stories, especially those concerning these violent, predatory men. It is well-known that Cisneros is a quite the feminist. The fact that the women, as you said, are ignorant to the treachery of these men is what I find frustrating. You are absolutely right! These women are either too ignorant to realize what pigs they are dealing with, OR if they ARE aware, they play the victim card and resolve to do nothing about their plight. For "feminist" literature, there is not a lot of female empowerment going on.
To me, Cisneros appears so far to be much more of a misogynist than a feminist.
I enjoyed reading this post – you write well and make good observations. I would argue that while the women get caught up in the cheesy romances of novels and telenovelas there is at least Clemencia who is completely frank about her disillusionment with men and the institution of marriage in “Never Marry a Mexican.” You’re right though, many of these women just don’t see it, and it’s heartbreaking to read about Cleofilas stroking the head of the man who just beat her. Many of the stories are demoralizing when you see how much Chicanas are up against, but in “Woman Hollering Creek” Cleofilas eventually escapes her abuser and realizes that the “Woman Hollering” can make this sound not just in pain and sadness but anger and defiance.
Wow you have very well analyzed the book. It true that there are endless protagonists and different little stories, but it’s not so much like Rivera where you get confused, even though there is one central figure in his novel. Cisnero does such a great job of introducing these protagonistas, because even though she doesn’t give a lot of back ground information about them she shares an important characteristic about them, and their interaction with the society, chicana and Anglo-Saxon. I really like what you have written here “There are brief descriptions of romance, passion, and then indelible consequences, eternal pain, of these men impregnating women, breaking hearts, deaf to the cries of their victims.”
Deaf to the cries of their victims, very nicely put into words, goes really well with the title.
You've analyzed this thoroughly!
I agree that these smart women seem blame rather than take control of the terrible situations they are in. The women realize the nature of men but yet do not do anything to help themselves out of a vicious cycle.
Post a Comment