Blogs

‘Amulet’ by Robert Bolaño gave me an insight on how much my reading patterns have changed since I was in high school. I had to read a boom much akin to ‘Amulet’ in my second to last year of high school; I’m sure many of you know it. ‘Chronicle of a Death Foretold’, by Gabriel García Márquez is one of the most famous books in the genre of magical realism. Back when I first read it, I was interested, but I found it incredibly hard to read, as I think many people who had never read magical realism would. While I understood I also did not understand. It was never quite clear what happened and what didn’t, whether there was a meaning or there wasn’t. This same feeling was brough into my reading of ‘Amulet’ as well, however, this time I enjoyed the confusion. Instead of searching for answers to everything, I just read the text as it was, which allowed me to absorb the story much better with less confusion.

As I read,  I understood that anything was possible, that the events happening were often just extended metaphors for Auxilio’s emotions and what was occurring around here. Although, in a sense that I remembered I should question everything occurring in the story. All of the stories Auxilio told of her future, I realised half way through, may not have even happened in the end. Maybe she was purely imagining her future as she was slowly affected by her lack of food and life in the university bathroom. Really, we can never find out her true life. Even her past, in which she talks about living with famous poets and gallivanting around Mexico, could have been falsehoods she came up with during her days of isolation. At the end of the story, I found myself wondering what being the “mother of Mexican poets” actually meant. Was this truly Auxilio’s life and status, or was she simply imagining herself in a life she would rather be in? Even in the end of the novella, when she is rescued and the story of her survival is shared, she is ascribed many other realities by the people telling her story.

While I know we don’t often discuss the author’s role, something I couldn’t stop thinking about was the reason behind Bolaño writing this story the way he did. While questioning Auxilio, I found I was also questioning Bolaño. I understand his message (I think), but his use of showing Auxilio’s future (which has not happened yet), his use of a female narrator (who was based off of a real person, but it still seemed odd to me), and his strange fixation with Auxilio being a mother without actual children, were hard for me to fully comprehend. I can appreciate his choices, but at the same time, I still cannot understand why some of the literary choices he made were important. I wonder whether everything has a very specific meaning, or whether some of his choices were made on a whim with no connection or attempt for them to make sense – lending to the magical realism genre.

My question for this week builds off of this; why do you think Bolaño felt the need to tell this story from the perspective of Auxilio as opposed to a character more similar to himself? I am aware the basis of the story comes from a real situation, but I wonder what compelled him to tell this story the way he did.

read full post >>

‘Amulet’ by Robert Bolaño gave me an insight on how much my reading patterns have changed since I was in high school. I had to read a boom much akin to ‘Amulet’ in my second to last year of high school; I’m sure many of you know it. ‘Chronicle of a Death Foretold’, by Gabriel García Márquez is one of the most famous books in the genre of magical realism. Back when I first read it, I was interested, but I found it incredibly hard to read, as I think many people who had never read magical realism would. While I understood I also did not understand. It was never quite clear what happened and what didn’t, whether there was a meaning or there wasn’t. This same feeling was brough into my reading of ‘Amulet’ as well, however, this time I enjoyed the confusion. Instead of searching for answers to everything, I just read the text as it was, which allowed me to absorb the story much better with less confusion.

As I read,  I understood that anything was possible, that the events happening were often just extended metaphors for Auxilio’s emotions and what was occurring around here. Although, in a sense that I remembered I should question everything occurring in the story. All of the stories Auxilio told of her future, I realised half way through, may not have even happened in the end. Maybe she was purely imagining her future as she was slowly affected by her lack of food and life in the university bathroom. Really, we can never find out her true life. Even her past, in which she talks about living with famous poets and gallivanting around Mexico, could have been falsehoods she came up with during her days of isolation. At the end of the story, I found myself wondering what being the “mother of Mexican poets” actually meant. Was this truly Auxilio’s life and status, or was she simply imagining herself in a life she would rather be in? Even in the end of the novella, when she is rescued and the story of her survival is shared, she is ascribed many other realities by the people telling her story.

While I know we don’t often discuss the author’s role, something I couldn’t stop thinking about was the reason behind Bolaño writing this story the way he did. While questioning Auxilio, I found I was also questioning Bolaño. I understand his message (I think), but his use of showing Auxilio’s future (which has not happened yet), his use of a female narrator (who was based off of a real person, but it still seemed odd to me), and his strange fixation with Auxilio being a mother without actual children, were hard for me to fully comprehend. I can appreciate his choices, but at the same time, I still cannot understand why some of the literary choices he made were important. I wonder whether everything has a very specific meaning, or whether some of his choices were made on a whim with no connection or attempt for them to make sense – lending to the magical realism genre.

My question for this week builds off of this; why do you think Bolaño felt the need to tell this story from the perspective of Auxilio as opposed to a character more similar to himself? I am aware the basis of the story comes from a real situation, but I wonder what compelled him to tell this story the way he did.

read full post >>

For this week, we were given the task of reading Amulet by Robert Bolaño. I found this to be one of the best books we’ve read in this course so far. This book, like many of the other ones, have the consistent theme of memory, and I think repetition. The story is one long monologue, […] read full post >>

 

    One of the wonderful things I have realized throughout this course is that, despite how I have been often made to feel throughout other literature classes, it is not always necessary to pick out every detail and hidden theme from a book. I am all for analyzing stuff but I've noticed while reading and writing these blogs that often it really isn't necessary. Roberto Bolaño's Amulet was another great example of this for me. Last week I read The Trenchcoat and learned about an awful situation that I had not known anything about previously. This week I also found myself learning something new and once again questioning why the American school system taught me literally nothing about other countries' history. I am sure I could have found some underlying things throughout this novel but just reading it and understanding the situation was enough. 

    Amulet was a novel narrated by Auxilio who hides in a bathroom stall as UNAM is occupied by soldiers. She thinks about the past and, the future while she sits for some somewhat unclear amount of days. During this time we are sucked right into the past with her. This style (type may be a better word?) of narration reminded me a lot of The Shrouded Woman. While I found it all pretty interesting the multiple pages of prophecies is what really piqued my interest more. I think it is because we have already passed some of them and while I cannot say whether or not Anton Chekhov was reincarnated in 2003, 2010 or, 2014 it is still so interesting to think that in the mind of Auxilio, he would only has one more reincarnation to go now. Anyway, the recollection of memories seemed really on brand for this class. I also was reminded somewhat of W, or the Memory of Childhood just because of how she could not remember the details of her own story too well and the way fantasy flowed throughout the story. It is really interesting beginning to see these big similarities throughout the books we have read this term. 

My question relates to the fact that I know I and many others have been starting to notice similarities between all of these books: Which one interests you the most and why? I was skeptical at first of how all these books could share things in common while being written at different times and places but so far it has really proven to be true and it's interesting to see what these common themes are.

read full post >>

 

    One of the wonderful things I have realized throughout this course is that, despite how I have been often made to feel throughout other literature classes, it is not always necessary to pick out every detail and hidden theme from a book. I am all for analyzing stuff but I've noticed while reading and writing these blogs that often it really isn't necessary. Roberto Bolaño's Amulet was another great example of this for me. Last week I read The Trenchcoat and learned about an awful situation that I had not known anything about previously. This week I also found myself learning something new and once again questioning why the American school system taught me literally nothing about other countries' history. I am sure I could have found some underlying things throughout this novel but just reading it and understanding the situation was enough. 

    Amulet was a novel narrated by Auxilio who hides in a bathroom stall as UNAM is occupied by soldiers. She thinks about the past and, the future while she sits for some somewhat unclear amount of days. During this time we are sucked right into the past with her. This style (type may be a better word?) of narration reminded me a lot of The Shrouded Woman. While I found it all pretty interesting the multiple pages of prophecies is what really piqued my interest more. I think it is because we have already passed some of them and while I cannot say whether or not Anton Chekhov was reincarnated in 2003, 2010 or, 2014 it is still so interesting to think that in the mind of Auxilio, he would only has one more reincarnation to go now. Anyway, the recollection of memories seemed really on brand for this class. I also was reminded somewhat of W, or the Memory of Childhood just because of how she could not remember the details of her own story too well and the way fantasy flowed throughout the story. It is really interesting beginning to see these big similarities throughout the books we have read this term. 

My question relates to the fact that I know I and many others have been starting to notice similarities between all of these books: Which one interests you the most and why? I was skeptical at first of how all these books could share things in common while being written at different times and places but so far it has really proven to be true and it's interesting to see what these common themes are.

read full post >>

I truly enjoyed reading ‘Amulet’ this week. I think Auxilio as a character was really well developed and realistic. With her being ‘the mother of poetry’, the work was quite poetic with the metaphors and rhythm at points. My favourite line was ‘I was there with them because I had nothing either, except my memories’ […] read full post >>

Amulet by Roberto Bolaño was a very fascinating novel. I have always enjoyed books that blur the line between fantasy and reality, and I think Auxilio Lacouture’s recount does precisely that. In the violent context of the Tlatelolco massacre in … Continue reading → read full post >>

I found it very difficult to enjoy this book. I tried so intently to read the words and give them the credit they deserved but I stand firmly in that a book is significant as the feelings it gives you. This novella made me feel nothing if not frustration. The beginning line held me well […] read full post >>

 As mentioned in Lecture, the Mexico, or Latin America in Amuleto is a metropolitan one, where LaCouture holds court with various poets, and friends, and whiles away her monologue. In terms of “representation” it is very different from the Latin America, or rest of the Americas that we experienced in Black Shack Alley or the Old Gringo. The way that the setting weaves in and out of the narrative so beautifully and carefree reminds me of how Kerouac would display city scenes, as he passed through Denver, New Orleans and San Francisco. 

That being said, the situation which progresses then takes one back further towards the Old Gringo, with the Federales and revolutionary conflict. or perhaps even in the vein of Black Shack Alley where the narrator is “trapped” in the promise of white academia. 

That being said, one idea that I would like to expand upon, is that of Bolano writing “from the margins” as was brought up in the video lecture. Particularly, with this novel being set in Mexico and considering some politics and violence in the state along with it’s literary themes, this reminds of how Mexico and Drug War have been portrayed in a few of my favourite recent movies. Sicario and Cartel Land both approach Mexico and it’s violence in this light, focussing on immigrants, and the American side of the border, while violence ensues around these haven-like situations, yet the hem in the narratives, providing a broader violent context for their stories. This is much like Amulet, and LaCoutures bathroom, and it makes me wonder why this violence is portrayed this way. Obviously, it is a strong way to capture the conflict, without getting grisly or extraordinarily shocking. Secondly, it gives a focused, character-driven way to tell the story, rather than from a bird’s eye, war-movie-esque viewpoint. 

What do you think? Why is the choice to set stories amidst, or adjacent, but not directly in, conflict, such a powerful choice? What other places have you seen this done?

read full post >>

 As mentioned in Lecture, the Mexico, or Latin America in Amuleto is a metropolitan one, where LaCouture holds court with various poets, and friends, and whiles away her monologue. In terms of “representation” it is very different from the Latin America, or rest of the Americas that we experienced in Black Shack Alley or the Old Gringo. The way that the setting weaves in and out of the narrative so beautifully and carefree reminds me of how Kerouac would display city scenes, as he passed through Denver, New Orleans and San Francisco. 

That being said, the situation which progresses then takes one back further towards the Old Gringo, with the Federales and revolutionary conflict. or perhaps even in the vein of Black Shack Alley where the narrator is “trapped” in the promise of white academia. 

That being said, one idea that I would like to expand upon, is that of Bolano writing “from the margins” as was brought up in the video lecture. Particularly, with this novel being set in Mexico and considering some politics and violence in the state along with it’s literary themes, this reminds of how Mexico and Drug War have been portrayed in a few of my favourite recent movies. Sicario and Cartel Land both approach Mexico and it’s violence in this light, focussing on immigrants, and the American side of the border, while violence ensues around these haven-like situations, yet the hem in the narratives, providing a broader violent context for their stories. This is much like Amulet, and LaCoutures bathroom, and it makes me wonder why this violence is portrayed this way. Obviously, it is a strong way to capture the conflict, without getting grisly or extraordinarily shocking. Secondly, it gives a focused, character-driven way to tell the story, rather than from a bird’s eye, war-movie-esque viewpoint. 

What do you think? Why is the choice to set stories amidst, or adjacent, but not directly in, conflict, such a powerful choice? What other places have you seen this done?

read full post >>