Student Blogs

 While reading the first part of this book, I was often confused and puzzled by the relationship between Quimet and Natalia because Natalia and Quimet didn't seem happy and happy in their life together. Quimet doesn't seem to care much about the heroine's feelings, nor does he know how to respect the heroine. He would call her "Poor Maria," although he never explained to the hesitant Natalia who she was; his unfounded suspicion hurts Natalia; he wants the hostess to quit her favourite bakery job because of his doubts. When I read this part, I was puzzled about why the heroine abandoned her honest fiancé and chose to marry such a new acquaintance and was often angry with Quimet's behaviour. In my opinion, the heroine makes choices too fast.

But then I realized that this might be because of the background of the heroine's era, family background, and the people's attitude. When Natalia needed someone to marry, and everyone around her recommended Quimet, as a beautiful girl who lost her mother and her father remarried, it was difficult to resist the opinions of those around her with a firm attitude. In the process of marriage and relationship, it can be seen that Natalia will also regret and be bewildered by such a choice. She will doubt whether she chooses Quimet is correct and whether this kind of life is what she wants. But even with some hesitation, she had no choice, so she accepted this continuation of life, and as a typical image of a woman at that time, she continued her daily life as her husband's state and mood changed. After the female protagonist gave birth, pigeons entered their lives. The arrival of the pigeons seems to make the atmosphere in the house smooth and lively. Natalia and her husband will name each pigeon, build the loft together, and enjoy the pigeons flying over the roof. At this time, their relationship seems to become warm Peaceful. But it didn't last long.

Natalia's image in the first part is naive and peaceful, similar to the article's tone, without any thrilling big event or central life turning point. The article reads as if watching the heroine's life from the sidelines. Most of the time, the female protagonist's thinking is not as divergent as the protagonists in other stream-of-consciousness novels we have read before. Although the book is narrated in the first person, the overall sense of flow is not very strong, so in the bland plot of the book, It is even more challenging to detect the fluctuation of the heroine's thinking.

However, the peaceful days did not last long. The troubles of living in the second half of the book also follow; the husband's business gradually deteriorates, the problems of raising children are increasing, and Natalia is struggling with a tedious job like a maid. Natalia was getting tired of the pigeons in the house. Compared with the previous article, her mood became hesitant and dazed, and the book showed more Natalia's conscious feelings in this part. And this stream-of-consciousness style of writing became more apparent with the events that followed the start of the war. Natalia seems to let her consciousness begin to flow through her life only when she feels sad and distressed. 

My question for this article is: have you noticed a turning point in Natalia's life that started to change? Did these turning points bring about a change in Natalia's writing style?

Of all the novels thus far, this one had the most unexpected ending and plot twist. The story starts rather sweetly, and suddenly escalates until the main character, Natalia, makes a horrifying decision. Initially, Natalia gets swept off of her feet and marries a man who ends up not being a good husband or person. Quimet, the husband, is rather lazy and undependable and displays abusive and toxic behaviours consistently. He continuously brings home doves but leaves them in the care of Natalia. In a way, I think that what Natalia was doing to the doves foreshadowed the climax of the story. Her husband had left her with helpless animals when she was unable to adequately care for them. 

The way in which the story was written translates to how frantic Natalia may have been during that time. The author uses run-on sentences to replicate thought processes that Natalia may be having. She exhausts herself emotionally and physically as she develops fears about the war and surrounding world. The story is very tragic and explores how desperation can cause irrational beliefs and ideas. 

The description of the family living a "bare life" is very accurate. Due to her lack of resources, her family is forced to merely survive and they are unable to truly live. This causes Natalia to make the extreme decision to kill herself and her children after her husband is killed. I think part of the reason that Natalia's decision was so shocking was because it was the complete opposite of what one would expect from a mother. Her actions do not fall in line with how we perceive mothers or parents to behave. I feel like the audience would expect Natalia to do everything possible and sacrifice herself in order to protect her children. Perhaps, the reason she made such a radical decision was due to her surroundings at the time. She saw the impact of the war through the chaos and destruction around her, and therefore she decided that she must take extreme action. If her family would have fallen on hard times during a different time period, she may not have decided to act in that way. Her surroundings are a factor when questioning why she would make such a desperate and irrational decision.

My question to the class is, do you think that Natalia's decision to kill herself and her family was brave/strong or cowardly/inhumane? And do you agree that Natalia's decision may not have been so reckless if it were not for the war surrounding her? Or can we see through her other actions that she may have regardless made the same choice? 

Of all the novels thus far, this one had the most unexpected ending and plot twist. The story starts rather sweetly, and suddenly escalates until the main character, Natalia, makes a horrifying decision. Initially, Natalia gets swept off of her feet and marries a man who ends up not being a good husband or person. Quimet, the husband, is rather lazy and undependable and displays abusive and toxic behaviours consistently. He continuously brings home doves but leaves them in the care of Natalia. In a way, I think that what Natalia was doing to the doves foreshadowed the climax of the story. Her husband had left her with helpless animals when she was unable to adequately care for them. 

The way in which the story was written translates to how frantic Natalia may have been during that time. The author uses run-on sentences to replicate thought processes that Natalia may be having. She exhausts herself emotionally and physically as she develops fears about the war and surrounding world. The story is very tragic and explores how desperation can cause irrational beliefs and ideas. 

The description of the family living a "bare life" is very accurate. Due to her lack of resources, her family is forced to merely survive and they are unable to truly live. This causes Natalia to make the extreme decision to kill herself and her children after her husband is killed. I think part of the reason that Natalia's decision was so shocking was because it was the complete opposite of what one would expect from a mother. Her actions do not fall in line with how we perceive mothers or parents to behave. I feel like the audience would expect Natalia to do everything possible and sacrifice herself in order to protect her children. Perhaps, the reason she made such a radical decision was due to her surroundings at the time. She saw the impact of the war through the chaos and destruction around her, and therefore she decided that she must take extreme action. If her family would have fallen on hard times during a different time period, she may not have decided to act in that way. Her surroundings are a factor when questioning why she would make such a desperate and irrational decision.

My question to the class is, do you think that Natalia's decision to kill herself and her family was brave/strong or cowardly/inhumane? And do you agree that Natalia's decision may not have been so reckless if it were not for the war surrounding her? Or can we see through her other actions that she may have regardless made the same choice? 

To be honest, I got really sleepy as soon as I started reading the first page. I was already kind of tired when I sat down to read this book and the way it was written literally lulled me to sleep. Although the process of getting through this book was slow, I did think that the voice of the author was interesting. It was a style of writing that stands out as one that I don't often come across. 

The passage that stuck with me the most is the description of the cockroach's features that the narrator gives after closing the closet door on him. She comes face to face with this thing that grosses her out so much, and she really stares into him. I'm also terrified of bugs and this close up description was not something that I ever needed or wanted to read. 

"It was a face without a contour." 

"The long and slender whiskers were moving slow and dry."

"Its black faceted eyes were looking."

"... had cilia all over. Maybe the cilia were its multiple legs. The antennae were now still, dry and dusty strands."

What an intimate moment between the narrator and her object of greatest disgust. It was not so much the descriptions themselves that weirded me out, but the morbidly fascinated way in which she drank in the reality of this half-squashed cockroach. Throughout the rest of the book, she is horribly drawn to this creature that she has almost killed. Inside of this cockroach, inside of it's oozing guts, she sees beauty, revelation, death and life. She sees an "ugly and sparkling being." It's fascinating and gross seeing it through her eyes, like a fever dream that I'm trapped in. The narrator literally solves the world's philosophical problems, sitting on the floor next to an almost-dead cockroach. This is why I think the writing was boring but also genius. Every sentence was a beautiful, nonsensical string of words. 

On another note, how must the cockroach have felt knowing his killer was eating little bits of his insides? I'll probably re-read this book when I'm not feeling tired because I think it's one of those creations that deserve more than one read. 

This is the question I am posing for this week: Has the narrator reached a state of pure mental freedom, something the rest of us can only hope to ever achieve, or is she just a little crazy?

To be honest, I got really sleepy as soon as I started reading the first page. I was already kind of tired when I sat down to read this book and the way it was written literally lulled me to sleep. Although the process of getting through this book was slow, I did think that the voice of the author was interesting. It was a style of writing that stands out as one that I don't often come across. 

The passage that stuck with me the most is the description of the cockroach's features that the narrator gives after closing the closet door on him. She comes face to face with this thing that grosses her out so much, and she really stares into him. I'm also terrified of bugs and this close up description was not something that I ever needed or wanted to read. 

"It was a face without a contour." 

"The long and slender whiskers were moving slow and dry."

"Its black faceted eyes were looking."

"... had cilia all over. Maybe the cilia were its multiple legs. The antennae were now still, dry and dusty strands."

What an intimate moment between the narrator and her object of greatest disgust. It was not so much the descriptions themselves that weirded me out, but the morbidly fascinated way in which she drank in the reality of this half-squashed cockroach. Throughout the rest of the book, she is horribly drawn to this creature that she has almost killed. Inside of this cockroach, inside of it's oozing guts, she sees beauty, revelation, death and life. She sees an "ugly and sparkling being." It's fascinating and gross seeing it through her eyes, like a fever dream that I'm trapped in. The narrator literally solves the world's philosophical problems, sitting on the floor next to an almost-dead cockroach. This is why I think the writing was boring but also genius. Every sentence was a beautiful, nonsensical string of words. 

On another note, how must the cockroach have felt knowing his killer was eating little bits of his insides? I'll probably re-read this book when I'm not feeling tired because I think it's one of those creations that deserve more than one read. 

This is the question I am posing for this week: Has the narrator reached a state of pure mental freedom, something the rest of us can only hope to ever achieve, or is she just a little crazy?

 I really enjoyed reading the text "Bonjour Tristesse" by Françoise Sagan. It was a novel that flowed very well and was something that was easy to interpret and understand. I found the storyline very interesting and easy to follow. Cécile's thoughts towards both her education and life was something that was extremely surprising to me. I figured since the novel was written a while ago, that education was an extremely important factor in life as well as the most important one. It was interesting to see the character of Cécile not hold an interest for education as I feel as though that is very comparable to today's time for a lot of people. I feel like the importance or significance of living a happy and peaceful life was of higher priority for Cécile and that is something that is really interesting to me and was calming to read. I found that Cécile's relationship with Anne was a bit confusing. It seemed as though she had hated Anne at tines, but loved and adored her at others. This confused me because I did not know if Cécile cherished her relationship with Anne or if she dreaded it. It seemed like at times Cécile had a very strong connection for Anne and that she needed Anne to be in her life. In the end it was shown that Cécile really cherished her relationship with Anne and strongly regretted her decision to build a plan for her father to get back with Elsa. My question is why is Cécile so back and forth which how he feels towards Anne?

I was extremely shocked in the ending of this novel. It was sad how it ended and I did not think that could have been the possible ending I was surprised that Cécile's father, Raymond had even gone so far as to kiss Elsa, as it had seemed like they had gone without talking for months and it also seemed like Raymond has mixed feelings about Anne as well. So to just move back to Elsa with that speed was really surprising to me when he clearly loved Anne. It was shown towards the end of the novel how big of an impact Anne had on both Cécile and Raymond, that she really was important to the both of them. She was able to give them structure and purpose which was something that was very significant to them and it was shown through their emotions.