Feast of the Goat

First impressions:

A modern book. This is instantly easier to follow, in the format, the language, the layout, the sentence structure. An evident difference between 1800s literature and Feast of the Goat that my modern brain understands and follows much more fluidly.

Format: 3 cheers for chapters. I find that chapter organization not only helps break up the book (instead of resembling a 400 page monologue), but also gives the book a much more "novel" feel than the psuedo-quasi-fiction-non-fiction of some of the other books. This alone allows me to distinguish easier that I am in fact reading fiction, and makes it a much more leisurely read.

Language: 3 cheers for swearing! Finally a book where words are not made up; where I understand all the words, even those in spanish. However, what is OAS? And excuse my momentary immaturity, but the swearing does keep reading interesting. I feel like I'm reading work from a peer more than from an academic or an old isolated man.

So far the story seems interesting. With a name like Urania it ought to be. I am intrigued though, why has she gone back to Santo Domingo? What are her motives? As well, the switch to read about Trujillo and mornings from his point of view are interesting, as I have gotten as far as to learn about him personally, but not his political interactions, which is backwards to other books: usually we read about political interactions first, and then possibly a dictator's personal life.

Vargas Llosa does like to name drop, and I must admit I've become a bit confused with all the names he's mentioned, from starlets, gringos, senators, crazies, and whoever else they may be. It's starting to get sorted out a little bit, but probaby with reading he will reveal who he is talking about, and all their relations.

I look forward to this book however, I feel I am going to enjoy it.

The General in His Labyrinth Beginning

So, to start off this book, it is noticeably written in a different style than the others we have read. This writing style seems less personable, written from a narrator's voice, unlike I the Supreme or Facundo in which you could read the more intimate thoughts of the author. The General in His Labyrinth strikes me more as a chronological series of events so far, an account of this General with stories and anecdotes relating back to his past.

I found the beginning of this book very confusing. Marquez name drops so many generals, presidents and field marshals from so many different countries that I just got lost amidst it all, and found it confusing to remember and note who I was in fact reading about. Add to that the General's bipolar energies and intense mood swings, and it is not any easier.

It is interesting however to read about this General who already seems to be defeated, who is ill and decrepid, who is weak and inconsistent with bouts of delirium. This seems to be in such contrast to the idea of the strong minded dictator, to the invincible man who rules a country: this general is obviously physically vulnerable and is not in total control of his mind.

It is also interesting that this General managed to have a woman love him for years. From other accounts, it has sounded like dictators and generals are more lonely, independent men - too vile, vulgar or violent to allow for a woman to fall in love. This general, amidst a country of enemies and only a few to support, appears more humbled and human with Palacios at his side and a woman to say good bye to before he leaves the country.

I like the layout of this book much better than I the Supreme i.e. margins and a reasonable number of pages, and more of a modern novel layout. I think this will be easier to follow and continue reading, if he manages not to confuse me with multiple names and countries free from explanation.

Supreme Round 2

I find Bastos comments on writing and authors very intriguing. With his ambiguities between "he", and the ever-mentioned "I", it is obvious he is not only discussing the Dictator, but also himself as an author. While we have talked about this in class, to me it seems as though Bastos is struggling with his choice to write, verifying it in his own mind, a stream of consciousness. Is he not the Supreme himself?

Bastos also seems to struggle with the idea of writing for a more historic sense. "Two hundred years later, the witnesses of those stories are no longer alive. Two hundred years younger, readers do not know if they are fables, true stories, pretended truths. The same thing will come to pass with us. We too will pass for real-unreal beings." pg 66. This book was published and copyrighted very recently, but did we not just have that struggle with what was written of Facundo mas o menos 150 years ago? We struggle to imagine what is falsified, what is truth, admist all of the jargon in that book. I find this interesting to read these thought patterns of Bastos. While I mentioned last week that this book is much more personable from the first person perspective of the Dictator and Patino, from continuing on it is also much more personable to Bastos. Sarmiento fought to tell us his ideas and conclusions then relating them to "facts" or anecdotes; Bastos easily describes his inner thoughts with obviously fictional accounts. I find myself noting things down that Bastos writes, sentences in transition, string of consciousness, but are outlooks onto life, memory and human activity that seem more raw than fiction usually allows.