Beyond Silence

In the film Beyond Silence, the protagonist Lara must learn how to adjust between the world of her parents which is soundless and her own world of music which is full of sound. It is difficult for her because her parents cannot understand her passion for music, especially her father who sees her passion for the clarinet as a sign of her allying herself with his sister Clarissa.

It does not seem fair that her father should treat her the way he does. He clearly loves her but is unable to understand the necessity of her lifestyle. As his wife reminds him Lara is his child but he does not “own” her. Lara's mother always seems to be smiling, despite her handicap. She loves her family and does not hold it against Lara for wanting to do what makes her happy.

Lara has to learn to communicate in ways other than speaking mainly because her parents are deaf but also because she is unable to express herself properly through words. She is very vocal in expressing her opinion to her elders once she gets older, but usually it is drawn out through a heated argument and she says things which are true yet hurtful. She learns sign language to communicate with her parents on a literal level, but the music she plays is also her way of communicating. She mentions how she prefers to play the “melancholy” pieces as opposed to the more upbeat and contemporary ones her aunt prefers. She puts all of her heart and soul into her music and by listening to it one can better understand her feelings. Unfortunately her parents are unable to hear her music which makes it more difficult for them to understand. Her father eventually learns at the end that though he may not understand her music, she is his daughter and he must accept her wishes.

Simple Passion

The narrator's relationship with time is very telling of the way she deals with her emotions. She does not live in the present because "A" is not in her present. She can only live in the past and future, constantly looking forward to the next time she'll see him and in her free time reminiscing about past experiences with him. She is distracted from her own life, to the point where she isn't really living anymore but in a constant state of waiting. To live in the present would mean she would have to accept that "A" wasn't really a part of her day to day life. He was there occasionally but only for sex, which she recognized but labeled as "making love" or "passion". She never once says that she loved him. It is important to distinguish between passion and love because they are not necessarily the same thing. In her case, the passion of their relationship was her way of reconnecting with her life. She didn't feel passionately about anything other than A, but by the end she comes to realize that she can live her life without him. That it was just a matter of living through the passion, which was only temporary.

Though the narrator says that she isn't writing about A or about herself, I think her writing was a method of better understanding herself and her situation. This is the point of the personal essay, not simply to tell a story but to gain some insight into yourself. She reflects on her writing at the beginning and is surprised to find that she does not feel the same way anymore. It is through her writing that she is able to get over A and move on with her life.

Like Water for Chocolate II

110 From the first, they had established a communication that went far beyond words.

This quote explains the relationship between Tita and the Indian cook at Dr. Brown’s house. Though they come from different cultures they are joined in their love and appreciation of food and cooking. In a way this understanding that they have is an example of how the reader is meant to receive the book. The recipes and cooking instructions are another means of drawing the reader into the story. The idea that we can communicate through food is very important to Tita/Esquivel.

111 That is but one small example of the huge difference in ideas and opinions that existed between the representatives of these two very different cultures, a gulf that made it impossible for the Browns to feel any desire to learn about the customs and traditions of Morning Light.

This is another example of two cultures mixing and finding it difficult to understand one another. What joins Dr. Brown’s grandmother “the Kikapu” to the white family that does not originally accept her is her talent at healing. She does not use recipes to connect with them but it is her nurturing nature and ability to care for human beings in a way that is similar to a cook that finally breaks down the barrier.

115 …each of us is born with a box of matches inside us but we can’t strike them all by ourselves; just as in the experiment, we need oxygen and a candle to help. In this case, the oxygen, for example, would come from the breath of the person you love; the candle could be any kind of food, music, cares, word, or sound that engenders the explosion that lights one of the matches.

Though we have switched from food to chemicals, they both work in similar ways to connect people to one another. Tita expresses herself through her food and this is the one way she can communicate with Pedro, by cooking from him and seeing his reaction. Because Tita won’t talk to Dr. Brown his only means of communicating with her and connecting with her is through his scientific experiments.

Like Water for Chocolate

The recipes at the beginning of each chapter are interesting because they apply directly to what is happening in the story. Sometimes the food or the way it is prepared is symbolic. When Tita is castrating the turkeys to make them fat she thinks that it would be more appropriate for her to be the one being neutered since she is forbidden to marry and have children . The roses obviously represent her love/lust for Pedro which inhabits Gertrudes. On a more simple level the recipes also give insight into their lifestyle. The traditional recipe calls for pheasants but they don't have pheasants so Tita uses quail etc.

Although Rosaura is an unappealing character, I feel some sympathy toward her. She must live with the knowledge that her husband loves her sister and will never care for her. She will never have a romantic relationship with him. Also everyone is aware of this situation and it makes her look like a fool. She is reminiscent of one of the ugly stepsisters in Cinderella.

The scene with Gertrudes running of with one of Pancho Villa's men is interesting not only for the fact that they are riding off having sex on a horse, but because it gives the story more historical background. It tells the reader how the revolution is happening around them in Mexico and how Tita is blissfully ignorant of it. Or rather too wrapped up in her own life to worry about the state of the country.

Volver

I found it odd that at the beginning when Paula shows Raimunda what she's done, she asks her mother "what are you going to do?". She was just raped by a man who she thought was her father but the main issue is what they are going to do with the body. While Raimunda comforts her for a moment, they never really discuss it and Paula soon seems to have 'moved on'. I felt that such a traumatic event would have effected her more than the movie shows. I suspect that this is because the movie is really more about Raimunda and her relationship with her mother than her relationship with her daughter. Paula is somewhat insignificant in that she is still treated like a child and does not really grow at all as the movie progresses.

Duras Day II

"If I were you I'd let it go on growing, let its shadow grow a little every year on the walls of the room that is called--wrongly, I believe--yours." (pg87)

Chauvin says this to Anne when they are discussing the tree outside of her bedroom. With this sentence he shows that he understands Anne's feelings of displacement and restlessness. He knows what she is feeling, whether she has admitted it to herself yet or not. He knows that she does not feel at home in the house with her husband and that she doesn't truly want to be there. That's why he says the tree doesn't matter because it's not really where she's meant to be.

"I don't know any more than you do. Talk to me." (pg 87)

Chauvin repeats this phrase or something along the lines of it several times during their conversation. It is usually right after Anne has asked him a question about the couple involved in the murder. He says he doesn't know anymore than she does yet he creates answers which are completely made up, merely conjecture. Anne is interested in the circumstances of the murder and the emotions the couple experienced to bring them to that point. But Chauvin is more interested in hearing Anne talk about herself and her house, which he is very familiar with. At times it seems like the conversation about the murder is just an excuse for them to meet and talk.

"The night, fatigue, and childhood made him cling to her, his mother, and they walked on together." (pg 91)

This quote shows the boy as a child, reliant on his mother. However throughout the story, Anne does not assume a very maternal position. She undoubtedly loves her son, but she treats him more as a companion than a son. She also says that she wishes he were grown up already, and I think that is because of how she already treats him like an adult at times. In fact, there are several instances where the boy seems to assume the role of parent more than Anne does. When she is in the bar, the boy returns several times to check that she is still there and she doesn't pay any attention to him. The boy is more protective of her than she seems to be of him.

Duras Day I

The dynamic between Anne and her son is odd because it seems to change drastically from the first chapter at the piano lesson to the second chapter at the bar.
During the piano lesson, the boy is treated more like an object that needs to be molded into the form his mother wants him to be. She wants him to learn piano because she thinks the music is beautiful, not because he enjoys it. And instead of defending him when the piano teacher is cruel to him, she agrees and says how difficult he is, when really he isn't being difficult so much as unresponsive. He doesn't throw fits or argue, he just refrains from giving the adults what they want, which is ultimately to treat him like something other than a child.
Later the next day at the bar, Anne suddenly seems like a loving, protective mother. She talks about how she always brings her son for a walk. However her real motivation for coming is her curiosity about the murder and she lets him wander away from her.
Her fascination with the murder is somewhat strange to me and it seems that there is something more to the story that we as readers don't know yet. When she is talking to the man it says that she "lies" about knowing about the murder. This may be a further attempt to conceal her curiosity which she may think is indecent, or there may be something more to it.

Sous le Sable

Web Therapy is hilarious.

I saw the traumatic event in the movie as being somewhat displaced. One would think that it would be at the beginning when Jean goes missing and it is implied that he is dead. While Marie is clearly stricken by this we do not see her grieve or really react in any way. She goes home and goes back to her life. She is in denial and won't accept that he is dead because that makes it easier for her to deal with the pain. As long as there was no solid evidence that he was dead, she was able to pretend that everything was fine and he was still around.

The truly traumatic event, for Marie, comes when she asks to see the distorted body they find in the fisherman's net. The visual effect traumatizes Marie, partially because of it's horrific nature but also because it is evidence that Jean is truly dead. Although she cannot recognize his face, it is more than likely that by looking at the body she had to realize that it was him. The body destroys her defense mechanism because she can't deny it anymore. And yet she does. When she sees the swimming trunks and watch, she claims that the watch is not his so this cannot possibly be her husbands body. In all likelihood it is his watch and now she is blatantly lying to herself about the situation. Whether or not she admits it, she knows now that he is really dead and this is when she finally breaks down.

Sor Juana Day III

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Sor Juana's poetry. In a way I find it much more clear than her letters. It is ironic because generally poetry is viewed as being a more difficult style of writing to interpret, but I found hers to be very articulate and almost blunt.

In Poem 145 she explains the satirical tone in her letters to the bishop. Sor Juana is brilliant and her writing reflects this. She is very much aware of her intelligence but also of her cleverness and points this out to the reader in her poem. Yet it does not come across as self praise. It also does not read as a simple statement of facts. It is almost as if she is critiquing another writers work and praising it justly. She refers to the letters as “a painted snare exhibiting the subtleties of art with clever arguments of tone and hue-” which is completely accurate. She could not word it better, explaining that she uses flattery as a way to “overlook the horrors of the years”. When reading her letters, one is not depressed at the thought of how women have been and are oppressed though this is part of what she addresses. She writes of these things with such sharp wit that though they are in fact depressing, the reader is enthused by her intellect into feeling hopeful for the fate of women.

I was especially moved by Poem 174 in which she addresses the subject of jealousy. I have never read anything which so succinctly describes the effect of such intangible forces as Fate and Love. The idea that love is not eternal is key. That what pleasure we gain from these experiences are not to be expected to last forever. That to attempt to hold onto such gifts is “abuse”. The idea is that we must enjoy them as they come, and allow them to go when it is time. Often the best experiences are short lived and it is the memory of them which drives us forward to further attempts. The difference between ownership and use is very important. The concept of ownership is what leads to jealousy, a useless emotion. Jealousy is base and petty and shows insecurity rather than love. In the last verse I misread the first line “Your ignorance or your error I accuse” as “Your ignorance OF your error I accuse” which I think also works in the context of the poem. Alcino must recognize the error of his jealousy as making the mistake of attempting to gain “ownership” of love.

Sor Juana Day II

"But in truth, my Lady, what can we women know, save philosophies of the kitchen? It was well put by Lupercio Leonardo that one can philosophize quite well while preparing supper... Had Aristotle cooked, he would have written a great deal more."75

Above are a combination of quotations concerning whether women should study or not. I found this to be a very interesting way of showing that women should have the same opportunity to study as men. Sor Juana says that she had a mother superior who forbade them from studying, but she points out that reading books is not the only way to study. Whenever she observes anything around her and draws conclusions from her observations she is studying. She gives us some insight into the way her mind works when she notes all of these things like the way the human eye sees things curved or how a spinning top does not go in circles but spirals as it looses momentum. She is clearly always thinking and learning from her surroundings even when she is forbidden to read. THis shows ignorance on the part of those who would teach women not to read because they cannot study.

"And so just is this distinction that not only women, who are held to be so incompetent, but also men, who simply because they are men think themselves wise, are to be prohibited from the interpretation of the Sacred World, save when they are most learned, virtous, of amenable intellect and inclined to the good."

This quote essentially argues Sor Juana's entire point, that she should not be persecuted for studying and interpreting the Bible because she is a woman. She does not argue that all women should be allowed to because some do not have the proper skill etc. But this holds true for men as well. She makes an excellent point by saying that men assume they are wise simply because they are men. This is obviously not the case because there are stupid people everywhere, men and women alike.

Sor Juana Day I

Sor Juana uses flattery to appeal to “the most illustrious lady”. She sings her praises and thanks her endlessly for having her work published. But perhaps the greatest compliment she gives her is to compare her to God Himself. She uses examples of characters in the Bible such as Moses speaking to God because God favored him which made him worthy. The fact that the lady favors Sor Juana validates her in writing this letter and approaching her. “O venerable Lady, whence comes such a favor to me? By chance, am I something more than a poor nun, the slightest creature on earth and the least worthy of drawing your attention?” She also uses this fact to indicate to the readers that she is a credible source as she is favored by the Lady. She is intensely modest while at the same time showing her talent as a writer and scholar.

I found her discourse on education very interesting. She claims, “I do not study in order to write, nor far less in order to teach (which would be boundless arrogance in me), but simply to see whether by studying I may become less ignorant.” In theory, this is the real reason to study anything, to enlighten oneself. As Sor Juana points out however, usually people study things so that they can enlighten others about what they study either through writing or teaching (or both). She humbles herself by saying she is not so “arrogant” to do either of these.

Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Break Down

I enjoyed Women on the Verge of a Nervous Break Down and found it very funny. I thought that the comedic effect was necessary because all the characters have issues which women deal with on a more or less constant basis. Granted, most women don't get involved with Shiite terrorists unknowingly but the basic idea that you don't really know the person you think you are in love with is relatable. All of these women show extreme versions of what average women are like. Pepa is sort of like what most women would like to be like if they could stop restraining themselves. She has reached a tipping point and refuses to be stopped by anyone. The comedic effect makes the movie bearable because otherwise it would be terribly depressing.

The telephone in the movie represents the lack of communication between the characters. It is largely due to the lack of communication or misunderstood communication that most disagreements arise. If Pepa had been able to tell Ivan that she was pregnant at the beginning maybe things would have turned out differently, but probably not considering Ivan's character.

Many of the female characters make the same mistake of allowing men to manipulate them and have such a crippling effect on their lives. It's one thing to be in love with someone but if you can't live with out them then you are hopeless. Pepa finally realizes this on some level at the end. She does not need Ivan in her life to be happy or to raise a baby. She is a strong and independent woman who can run her own life. Candela is quite the opposite. She complains of always being tricked by men but in fact she allows herself to be tricked. She is dependent on the men she gets involved with and unable to live by her own agency.

The Disenchantments of Love III

While dona Blanca's method of securing the Prince's love before marriage is well intentioned and reasonable, having him court her in the typical fashion of serenading her and praising her beauty and other virtues is a false love. Dona Blanca claims that "she wanted a love based on relationship and on her knowledge of her husband's intelligence, nature, and charms. But by instructing him to court her the way she believes is "proper" she prevents herself from truly knowing him. His gestures are purely ornamental as we have seen been the case in other disenchantments, except he is not putting on a show of courting her with the intention of later harming her, but rather because this is what he is expected to do and he also had the desire to go see Spain. This tradition of courting is really detrimental to most of these relationships because it sets a false precedent. The whole point is to flatter the woman and make her believe that the man is in love with her and consequently she with him. In this case it is a particularly false front as we learn later that the prince is homosexual.

( In the final story I was surprised by the commentary on how parents who remarry should treat the children of their spouses previous marriages.
Florentina speaks of how her stepmother loved her as her own and her father loved dona Magdalena as his own, "...which is what good spouses who wish to live in tranquility ought to do. A thousand regrets and feuds are born from husbands who don't like their wives' children and wives who reject their husbands'"
How progressive and insightful, unfortunately not practiced very often even today.)

To return to the question of Maria de Zayas being a true feminist or not, I believe that the roles of Florentina and Gaspar show her ability to set aside stereotypes against both men and women. While the stories are meant to "disenchant" women against the evils of men, Maria de Zayas is clearly not so ignorant as to say that all men are one way and all women another. Her characters make these generalizations about the sexes perhaps as a way of indicating how foolish feminism can be when it defaces all men absolutely. To say that all men are evil is the same as to say all women are inferior.
Really, de Zayas is the most perfect feminist because she shows how women have been abused due to their sex in the past and how history and society has been and continues to be extremely sexist against them, yet she does not allow herself to fall into the same categories as those who have committed these crimes. Through her characters she shows the necessity of giving all humans the opportunity to be the best they can be, free of stereotypes due to their sex.
The reader must look below the surface of these tales and the absolutes proclaimed by the characters to see that de Zayas is teaching a valuable lesson about the dangers of generalizations.
"To generalize is to be an idiot."
William Blake

The Disenchantments of Love II

Before the story of tale four begins, its narrator (Filis) has some opening remarks about men and women (pp. 139-40). How do you interpret these remarks? How do they serve as an introduction for what comes later in the story?

The fourth story is unique in comparison to the other stories because it raises the idea that both men and women are equally fallible. It shows that they can both be evil, although I think it would be foolish not to point out that the “evil” woman in this story is black, and is described negatively due to this fact before her character even comes into play. Don Jaime also mentions that he does not sleep with her though he has Elena believe that he does. This is clearly due to her race because if it were a white woman he would absolutely have done just as he said.

The story is also unique because it is told mainly from the point of view of a man. Don Jaime is evil and foolish for punishing Elena the way that he does and for believing the slave without getting solid evidence before rashly acting on rumor.

At the end however, the story is more sympathetic toward don Jaime. He is taken care of, though he has lost his mind. The slave woman however is dieing and then don Jaime stabs her to death. The narrator says that “her punishment was well deserved” however I cannot think that starting a rumor is deserving of being murdered. I'm not defending her actions but it should not be misunderstood that don Jaime is the real villain here.

What do you think is the significance of the skull in story four? Think about what a skull might mean in a variety of contexts (especially the skill as the remains of a head – what are the functions of a head?).

Elena is given her cousin's skull to drink out of because don Jaime thinks this will be further means of punishing her because he believed her to be having an affair with him. Since this was not the case, the skull must represent something more, though I am not sure what. Bone is the barest form of the human body, because everything else has been stripped away. This could be viewed as a symbol of truth, perhaps representing that Elena was true (a bit of a stretch, I know).

In both the 4^th and 5^th stories we have the theme of the “image of a woman.” We have spoken about this before, but what does this theme bring to these two stories? (An understanding of the myth of Pygmalion helps here.)

In both of these stories there are innocent women who are punished. They are both very beautiful and are both starved until they are emaciated and malnourished. Yet they stay 'beautiful' throughout the years of their torture. Dona Ines loses her eyesight but remains beautiful, as if this is the more important attribute. The description of dona Ines after she has been in the wall for 6 years is quite disgusting yet she is still considered beautiful. This shows that beauty is their most valued virtue (or at least what others value most in them, so while they are starved and lose weight they remain beautiful.

The Disenchantments of Love I

I felt that I had read the story of Isabel/Zelima before, but I couldn't remember where. While I was captivated by the story I found myself getting frustrated with Isabel for making the same mistakes over and over again. The Code of Honor that she values so highly seems to make things worse for her. It is because of her "honor" that she pursues don Manuel after he has left Zaragoza (or so she claims). Even after he has lied to her and betrayed her so many times, she follows him with the intention of reclaiming him as her lover. How can she truly believe that he will be reformed? But then she also claims that she is pursuing him to seek vengeance. She tells Luis that he should not kill don Manuel because "even though don Manuel is treacherous and false, my life depends on his. I must regain my lost honor...". I don't understand her logic.
However she does seem at times to be aware of her own foolishness, saying that when don Manuel pacifies her she is pleased but does not entirely believe him. Yet she still allows herself to be deceived.

She seems to control most situations but how she uses this power/talent is unfortunate because it only causes her further misery. At the end she finally decides to go to a convent and take God on as a husband. While I cannot say I would do the same thing, I don't understand why she didn't do this in the first place, if this were the only way to preserve her honor.

Her goal by telling the story is to warn women against trusting men and trusting flattery. Which I think she makes more than apparent with the numerous times she falls for don Manuel's lies. "Woe be to all ill-advised and credulous women who let themselves be overcome by lies so well adorned that their glitter lasts only as long as does the appetite!"

As far as this work being considered anti-feminist or 'poor feminism' I don't think that this is the case. I think that the story shows how women can be manipulated by men because of their lower social status due to sexist society. What might make the story seem anti-feminist is how Isabel fits into the stereotype of an overly emotional, unreasonable woman. At the beginning she has the reason and respect of a man but when she starts doing ridiculous things to pursue a man who has already proven himself to be "evil", she discredits herself and her sex.

All this being said, love makes people do stupid things, especially forgiving those who they love for any and all transgressions.

Christine de Pizan: The City of Ladies II

Christine de Pizan speaks through the voices of her characters to negate the argument of male writers who make claims about women that are entirely unfounded.
Reason, Rectitude and Justice (all female characters) give their opinions about the nature of women and explain why the prejudices against them created by men are incorrect.
As far as I am concerned, reason is the highest virtue and most valuable trait for a human (man or woman) to have. Reason disproves all else. Lady Reason tells Christine that what she has read written by men is in accurate, "...I can assure you that these attacks on all women-when in fact there are so many excellent women-- have never originated with me, Reason."
As a means of validating herself as a writer, Christine de Pizan uses examples of women who exhibit traits which men insist they do not have, women who act in ways that shows how ridiculous the claims made against women are. The examples she uses from history span over different time periods and countries, showing that women everywhere have proven themselves to be equal to if not superior to men.
Possibly her most useful tool is the Bible, and Chistine de Pizan uses it to her advantage. By giving examples from the Bible, she makes it very difficult for anyone to dispute her words because they would not want to sound like they were saying anything that might be remotely construed as negative or contradictory to the Bible.

Christine de Pizan: The City of Ladies I

I think that the interruption by her mother in the prologue is a means for Christine de Pizan to reveal a little bit about herself to the reader. Because she lives at home with her mother we can assume certain things. I originally wanted to say that it could indicate her youth but given the time period it wouldn't be uncommon for a grown woman to be living with her mother, however it would indicate that she is unmarried. This would be an important factor that would effect her writing because as a single woman she would naturally have very different views of marriage and marital relations than a married woman.

Christine de Pizan's apparent gullibility in the prologue does not reflect her true beliefs about the nature of women. She is writing satirically in response to the countless male writers who condemn women as being inferior and believe "that the behavior of women is inclined to and full of every vice". She mocks them by pretending that she shares these beliefs. She claims to have been persuaded that they are correct because it seems that all the writings she comes across are in agreement about the evil nature of women. This tactic is effective because even as she is agreeing with the anti-feminist writings she is disproving them. It is not expected that a woman would be as clever and subtle in her writing as de Pizan is.
Just in case the reader is missing the irony, de Pizan points out her own use of satire through the voice of the women who come to visit her. One asks her why she puts such faith in the words of men who "spoke on many subjects in a fictional way and that often they mean the contrary of what their words openly say", which is exactly what de Pizan herself is doing.