Blogs

 I found Fuentes’ fictional tale of Bierce’s demise interesting, but after looking into the background of the novel, I understand why he chose to write about Bierce. The idea of entering Mexico to fight in the revolution in hopes of death seems to me, despite the fact that no writing exists from this time, to be a very “gonzo”-esque idea (getting shot by a Mexican firing squad actually wouldn’t be that out of place in the weird world of Hunter S. Thompson). I guess in a way, the fact that what was probably a very colourful story in reality undertaken by Bierce was a catalyst for Fuentes to record his own imagination of the events which took place, guided by what little information he found. 

What’s interesting in this format, however, is that it is not from Bierce’s point of view. While the title “The Old Gringo” may not seem patronizing, the first portion of the novel’s opening chapter will soon set that straight. And in this sense, the tragedy unfolds—the gringo goes where shouldn’t have been and ends up paying the price for it. In a way, there are some interesting politics at play here that echo throughout modern journalism and geopolitical lines now. Is it a journalists right to be there? Is there a sense of falsehood, or intrusion? 

Ultimately, it’s interesting that it is a Mexican author who gets to famously fictionalize Bierce’s demise and rebellious end of days—in a sense, once he passed the border and joined the civil war, he lost ownership of his life and fate (as he may or may not have intended to) and perhaps in doing so, lost control of his ultimate story. 

One last thing I found interesting was the difference in contrasting the American and his Mexican counterparts, especially Arroyo. There is a level of visceral will to the “Mexican” side of the story, especially in the actions Arroyo takes, but in the end, we see that it is Arroyo who is also shot, out of fear of America. So on one hand, there is the derogatory nature towards the gringo and what he represents, but ultimately, the Mexicans greatly fear (or respect) the Americans, and they use this fear to kill Arroyo. 

Questions:

What did you think of the contrast between the two nations?

Why do you think Fuentes chose to fictionalize this story, and how true do you think it is?

read full post >>

 I found Fuentes’ fictional tale of Bierce’s demise interesting, but after looking into the background of the novel, I understand why he chose to write about Bierce. The idea of entering Mexico to fight in the revolution in hopes of death seems to me, despite the fact that no writing exists from this time, to be a very “gonzo”-esque idea (getting shot by a Mexican firing squad actually wouldn’t be that out of place in the weird world of Hunter S. Thompson). I guess in a way, the fact that what was probably a very colourful story in reality undertaken by Bierce was a catalyst for Fuentes to record his own imagination of the events which took place, guided by what little information he found. 

What’s interesting in this format, however, is that it is not from Bierce’s point of view. While the title “The Old Gringo” may not seem patronizing, the first portion of the novel’s opening chapter will soon set that straight. And in this sense, the tragedy unfolds—the gringo goes where shouldn’t have been and ends up paying the price for it. In a way, there are some interesting politics at play here that echo throughout modern journalism and geopolitical lines now. Is it a journalists right to be there? Is there a sense of falsehood, or intrusion? 

Ultimately, it’s interesting that it is a Mexican author who gets to famously fictionalize Bierce’s demise and rebellious end of days—in a sense, once he passed the border and joined the civil war, he lost ownership of his life and fate (as he may or may not have intended to) and perhaps in doing so, lost control of his ultimate story. 

One last thing I found interesting was the difference in contrasting the American and his Mexican counterparts, especially Arroyo. There is a level of visceral will to the “Mexican” side of the story, especially in the actions Arroyo takes, but in the end, we see that it is Arroyo who is also shot, out of fear of America. So on one hand, there is the derogatory nature towards the gringo and what he represents, but ultimately, the Mexicans greatly fear (or respect) the Americans, and they use this fear to kill Arroyo. 

Questions:

What did you think of the contrast between the two nations?

Why do you think Fuentes chose to fictionalize this story, and how true do you think it is?

read full post >>

Norman Manea's "The Trenchcoat" was a very interesting read. I did feel a bit lost while reading it, until I realized it was not about the details of the story that mattered. Once I adjusted the way I was reading it, the story became much more enjoyable. It felt very distant and impersonal for quite a bit of the text. It focused quite a bit on interpersonal relationships, with the use of symbolism to describe life at that time in Communist Romania. A lot of the story involves reading between the lines of the text to be able to understand the underlying messages. 

While not explicitly mentioned within the book, the novel describes life under Communist Romanian President Nicolae Ceaușescu. Ceaușescu was famously executed along with his wife on Christmas Day, ending communism in Romania. Manea is able to paint the scenes of the story through symbolism. Much of what he writes throughout the story has double meanings and plays into a larger picture. He was unable to explicitly mention specific people or parties to ensure his safety and that of his family. I did not realize that so much of the story would depend on understanding some of Romania's history. Luckily, going into the novel I had the past knowledge necessary to understand the timing of the story. 

I think that a lot of the importance of this story is how it can impact people. Sadly, there are many countries with improper rulers and unfair laws. There is a universality to the text that can still be utilized and compared to the world today. Bad governance has been prevalent all throughout history and modern times. 

Throughout the dinner party, I kept asking myself: what am I missing? It felt very mundane and uncomfortable and I was unable to see the significance of it. I am open to hearing anyone's interpretations of that scene as I would like to know how other people understood it. 

I really enjoyed Manea's writing style. I've began wondering if his other novels are similar to this one. Do they all convey political undertones? How have they impacted the lives of those who have read it? Furthermore, how does it represent Romanian beliefs and social circumstances during that time? 

My question to the class is: What do you think the purpose of the dinner was? Were there secret messages or was it to set the scene of the mysterious trench coat?

read full post >>

Norman Manea's "The Trenchcoat" was a very interesting read. I did feel a bit lost while reading it, until I realized it was not about the details of the story that mattered. Once I adjusted the way I was reading it, the story became much more enjoyable. It felt very distant and impersonal for quite a bit of the text. It focused quite a bit on interpersonal relationships, with the use of symbolism to describe life at that time in Communist Romania. A lot of the story involves reading between the lines of the text to be able to understand the underlying messages. 

While not explicitly mentioned within the book, the novel describes life under Communist Romanian President Nicolae Ceaușescu. Ceaușescu was famously executed along with his wife on Christmas Day, ending communism in Romania. Manea is able to paint the scenes of the story through symbolism. Much of what he writes throughout the story has double meanings and plays into a larger picture. He was unable to explicitly mention specific people or parties to ensure his safety and that of his family. I did not realize that so much of the story would depend on understanding some of Romania's history. Luckily, going into the novel I had the past knowledge necessary to understand the timing of the story. 

I think that a lot of the importance of this story is how it can impact people. Sadly, there are many countries with improper rulers and unfair laws. There is a universality to the text that can still be utilized and compared to the world today. Bad governance has been prevalent all throughout history and modern times. 

Throughout the dinner party, I kept asking myself: what am I missing? It felt very mundane and uncomfortable and I was unable to see the significance of it. I am open to hearing anyone's interpretations of that scene as I would like to know how other people understood it. 

I really enjoyed Manea's writing style. I've began wondering if his other novels are similar to this one. Do they all convey political undertones? How have they impacted the lives of those who have read it? Furthermore, how does it represent Romanian beliefs and social circumstances during that time? 

My question to the class is: What do you think the purpose of the dinner was? Were there secret messages or was it to set the scene of the mysterious trench coat?

read full post >>

I initially started reading this text before watching the lecture – a mistake on my part. Prior to watching the lecture, the text didn’t make much sense to me, it was vague and ambiguous and I felt as though I was missing context. After watching the lecture and learning that Manea had written this text […] read full post >>

Norman Manea’s ‘The Trenchcoat’ is definitely a confusing read. I felt there was a lot of  what one of my high school literature teachers referred to as ‘invisible reading’ to be done. By this they meant that there is a story being told in between the lines and I have to agree that this was […] read full post >>

“If it is necessary, our atomized consciousness invents love, imagines it or feigns it, but does not live without it,... read full post >>

The Trenchcoat was a short but very enjoyable read. I often prefer to watch the lectures after I have read the book, however, this time I was not able to do that. Without the lecture and learning some basic information about the history of Romania, this book would have been even more confusing. The plot of the novella centers around a dinner party that was tedious and no one seemed to enjoy. The guests felt forced to be there, they did not like their hosts, especially Lady Di whom they perceived as pretentious and almost intolerable in her attempts to get along with people who weren’t like her. After leaving the party, the guests know that they wouldn’t be doing this again. However, Lady Di finds a trenchcoat left behind and calls the guests to find out whose it was. She gets frantic about finding out who the coat belongs to. But why?

I do not know what the trenchcoat signifies, and why it was also referred to as an overcoat and a raincoat. The conversations among the characters were missing things, and we often read only what one of the characters was saying at a time. I’m sure this has relevance, but I can’t figure out what it is. Another interesting aspect of this text is how some of the characters are not referred to by their names. It was hard to keep track of who was who, especially early on. I wonder if knowing more about the history of Romania would have allowed me to interpret more of this novel. I feel like if I did more research and went back to it, I would come out with more.

The ambiguity of the text did not take away from the feelings of unease imposed by the setting in which the characters were. The discomfort was looming over the whole time, even when normal day to day discussions were taking place which I found very interesting. It was not intended for the reader to understand every exchange, or ‘correctly’ interpret everything that was happening. The point was to show the discretion and secrecy that was imposed on people because of the danger looming about, ‘the walls have ears’.

While reading the book I was wondering how difficult it was to write something without writing it, that is, how did the need to avoid censorship affect the writing process for Manea?

read full post >>

The Trenchcoat was a short but very enjoyable read. I often prefer to watch the lectures after I have read the book, however, this time I was not able to do that. Without the lecture and learning some basic information about the history of Romania, this book would have been even more confusing. The plot of the novella centers around a dinner party that was tedious and no one seemed to enjoy. The guests felt forced to be there, they did not like their hosts, especially Lady Di whom they perceived as pretentious and almost intolerable in her attempts to get along with people who weren’t like her. After leaving the party, the guests know that they wouldn’t be doing this again. However, Lady Di finds a trenchcoat left behind and calls the guests to find out whose it was. She gets frantic about finding out who the coat belongs to. But why?

I do not know what the trenchcoat signifies, and why it was also referred to as an overcoat and a raincoat. The conversations among the characters were missing things, and we often read only what one of the characters was saying at a time. I’m sure this has relevance, but I can’t figure out what it is. Another interesting aspect of this text is how some of the characters are not referred to by their names. It was hard to keep track of who was who, especially early on. I wonder if knowing more about the history of Romania would have allowed me to interpret more of this novel. I feel like if I did more research and went back to it, I would come out with more.

The ambiguity of the text did not take away from the feelings of unease imposed by the setting in which the characters were. The discomfort was looming over the whole time, even when normal day to day discussions were taking place which I found very interesting. It was not intended for the reader to understand every exchange, or ‘correctly’ interpret everything that was happening. The point was to show the discretion and secrecy that was imposed on people because of the danger looming about, ‘the walls have ears’.

While reading the book I was wondering how difficult it was to write something without writing it, that is, how did the need to avoid censorship affect the writing process for Manea?

read full post >>

The old gringo is another look at memory and trauma, recounting the story of an old man who leaves his life behind and has nothing to lose, and Harriet and Arroyo, all of whom are situated at the hacienda. What struck out to me was how some parts of the novel sounded poetic, especially with […] read full post >>