We all know by now that a major theme of Like Water For Chocolate is food. We also agree that food is a symbol of family. Sitting down at the table to eat is a time when all family members are present, when the family spends time together, and when the sense of family is felt most strongly. Recipes for dishes are passed from generation to generation –from mother to daughter, mother to daughter. Food is the bond that joins the family together and strengthens the love between its members. Agreed?
Then why on earth is the entire novel about the conflict, the breaking, the destruction of a family?!
Tita hates Mama Elena for keeping the horrible tradition of not allowing the youngest daughter to marry. Tita hates Mama Elena for suggesting the marriage between Pedro and her sister Rosaura. Mama Elena hates Tita for being a disobedient daughter. Tita hates Mama Elena for killing Roberto and then goes insane. When she returns home, Mama Elena insists that Tita is poisoning her with bitter food.
Tita hates Rosaura for marrying her love, Pedro. Rosaura hates Tita for having an affair with her husband. Tita hates Rosaura for continuing the horrible tradition regarding the youngest daughter.
Gertrudis hates Mama Elena for being such a control monster in the house. When she runs away, Mama Elena is so disappointed in her daughter, she disowns Gertrudis and refuses to acknowledge that she ever existed.
Now, let’s take into account all the unfortunate events that befall this family. There are the awful love triangles (Tita-Pedro-Rosaura and Pedro-Tita-John) that cause so much trouble. Chencha is raped. Nacha dies in grief. Roberto dies due to unknown reasons. Rosaura dies from stomach problems. Mama Elena dies from taking the syrup of ipecac. Tita and Pedro die from an overdose of passion.
In conclusion, by the end of the book, the family has been completely destroyed.
Don’t you find it ironic that the main theme is family?!
January 24, 2007 at 12:08 am
That is an interesting point Florence! The main theme is family, but the entire story is based on a troubled family. However, I think you have to agree that the De la Garza is not a typical family. For example, their family tradition for not allowing the youngest daughter to marry is absurd.
It is also important to note that not all families get along. Look at the world around you! Even today we have the problem of child abuse in homes. Parents and their children do not always get along. In regard to the novel being about family tradition, I think that the author was trying to show the reader that not all families are perfect. I applaud Tita for standing up to Mama Elena. I think that if she didn’t her mental health would be even more affected.
Families can either bring people together or drive them apart. It just so happens that we have read a story that portrays the opposite of the ideal scenario.
January 24, 2007 at 12:20 am
I agree with both Florence and Ayda. Families are supposed to stay strong think and thin through out any big obstacles.
However, in some strange way, I believe that the De La Garza family did end up working out their problems in the end of the story. Esperanza does get married to Dr. John Brown’s son, Alex at the end of the story. Even though the tradition died as Rosaura died, Esperanza still got married and lived to tell the story of Tita. Also, there was a loving relationship between Gertrudis and Tita. They told each other practically everything and even shared secrets. That is an example of a successful family trait within the so-called “disfunctional” family.
I think that drama is created within families for a reason. Without it, family life is boring. It is interesting to keep everyone on their toes for awhile. =.=
January 24, 2007 at 12:22 am
This is very interesting, Florence! I never thought about it this way. I agree with ayadaaskari about the fact that the De la Garza family is definitely not a normal family and about how there are families that don’t get along very well.
However, I think the main reason that the author choose to portray a family as dysfunctional is because there can be a lot of situations that arise from such a family, and as a result, a lot of drama is created. That keeps the readers’ attention far longer than a story about a peaceful, ordinary family. Also, because the majority of families do get along, reading about families that act very different than what we are used to is much more fun.
I also think that food is not all about family; it is something that everyone needs to live. Food could also be symbolizing that no matter how different two people are or how much they don’t get along (Tita and Mama Elena, most obviously), they are still of the same on a basic level–they still need the same things to survive.
If we look at the food=family in a different light, it could also mean that even those family members who are constantly fighting with each other are still related and they can still sit down around a table and have a nice dinner.
January 24, 2007 at 12:55 am
Good observation!
I do agree that one of the main themes is family, but whoever said that family themed stories have to be happpy? Nowadays, a lot of soap operas and movies are about family disasters,but all because it is a great part of family life.
I do think it’s interesting how ‘Like Water for Chocolate’ has a lot of food, which brings people together. I think this can also emphasize how it is the nurturers(in this family Tita) who end up keeping the family together, and not people like Mama Elena and Rosaura, who think about their own selfish needs and ultimately fail at uniting a family.
January 24, 2007 at 1:26 am
I don’t find it all that ironic. I think that it is not the food that drives the family apart, but rather, it is the only thing that survives. In the end, only the family recipes are preserved, and the family is remembered by it. The family was destroyed, yes, but that was because it was doomed to failure. The fact that food was a very important aspect of the book had nothing to do with this failure. It brought Tita close to Esperenza, preserving the family in a way. If Tita did not have her wonderful kitchen and recipes, she would have snapped. I don’t find that the food has anything to do with the destruction of the De La Garza family – on the contrary, I see it as the only thing that kept them together for so long.
January 24, 2007 at 1:40 am
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t find that point incredibly remarkable. A story needs a plot. Although the story uses cooking as a theme, alot of the story has to do with cooking and the effects of the eating, rather than the eating itself. (A story with no problem is usually very boring.)
Would it not provide an interesting outcome if you created destruction where one would normally find peace? It’s a perfect set-up for the author to create very bizarre themes and I think that the author must be, in some way, affected by pressuring circumstances to be able think and create such distortion.
Food is something that is essential to everyone. It can trigger emotions and has many stages to it. Gathering the ingredients, cooking, eating and tasting. All of that is rich story material. I don’t find the story to revolve around the eating, although it is an important part. Rather, the story is about the changes in the house and outside (the revolution).
An author would not want their book to be the same as everyone else’s. Naturally, Laura Esquivel shares that want. All authors will want their book to avoid the path of an “average” person. Without magic realism or any magic or tragedy, the book would be lacking of a plot. So Laura Esquivel decides that a mixing a dysfunctional family with rampant emotions, food and revolution together into one hairy plate of plot. She uses the food as the staple for the entire plot. What does food do? Bring family together. What would be intriguing? Breaking the family apart as a result of the food. This is exactly what happens.
In conclusion, although food is important to this story, the common dinner scene is often used as a set up for peace followed by trouble. Laura tries to make it so that the food is the cause of the issue (and it is, many times) This is common in many movies. A couple are eating a restaurant or maybe at a picnic or a family is eating at the table, then something happens. I think we have all realized that this author strives to be different, which I think is the main reason.
——————————————————-
{Next thought}
With regards to all the characters, I think that all this is simply happening because the family is dysfunctional in the first place. With the revolution happening outside and inside (Tita) the house, things won’t go smoothly. Add a little love powder and you have a huge mess. This is easily said, but Laura uses magic realism to reflect the extent of the issues to the readers.
Revolutions will cause any family to be in great danger, but becuase of Mama Elena’s traditions and Tita’s, who’s the subject, rebellious nature, we have 2 pushing forces which creates a problem. In the midst of a disaster, family (of all classified groups of people) should band together the easiest. This is what the author decides to overlook. The family does NOT bond. That is why this family is befallen with so many issues.
January 24, 2007 at 2:21 am
Well, no matter how dysfunctional, the family is, unfortunately, still a family. I think that food doesn’t really symbolize the family. Nacha, the cook, is never really seen as a member of the family as Mama Elena treats her like any servant.
Food destroys the family more than it bonds. The wedding cake makes Mama Elena and Rosaura suspect Tita of sabotaging the cake. The wonderful meals that Tita makes part her from Pedro because of his constant compliments. Gertrudis runs off after eating the quail in rose pedal sauce, further separating the family. Tita’s meals kill Mama Elena when they forced her to drink the ipecac. Finally, the peppers with the nut sauce indirectly kill her and Pedro.
The food goes hand in hand with the destruction of the family. It has hindered more than helped. Has food really helped any of the family members’ cause? No.
January 24, 2007 at 2:30 am
This is a very interesting point. Building on Sherry’s post, the deaths of almost all the family members paid off as the tradition was broken and ended once and for all. This is similar to Romeo and Juliet: only once the children of the feuding Montague and Capulet die, does the fight end. Similar to another strand mentioning that in order to feel happiness we must also feel sadness, perhaps in order to have peace we must have conflict, even if it is within a family.
January 24, 2007 at 2:49 am
Good observation there. However, I think it’s not really supposed to be irony. Having the main theme as family and having food as a major element in the same story is not necessarily an irony. Although food symbolically brings the family together at the table, food is not supposed to be able to save an arguing family’s broken relationships. By taking into account all the unfortunate events that befall this family, even if they aren’t related to food (such as Chencha raped or the love triangles), it’s like saying the story shouldn’t have unfortunate events just because of food. In this particular story, food isn’t intended to bring together the family from their issues, but instead a medium of communication from Tita to the rest.
January 24, 2007 at 4:15 am
This is a very interesting way of looking at the story. However, I completely disagree with your idea about this being based on the “destruction of a family.” There is no doubt that the feuds between the characters (particularly between Tita and Mama Elena) make the family dysfunctional. A simple way to explain my point is to look at the opinions of those who compare the events within the family to the Mexican Revolution. The rebels who went up against the head of their country were not thought to be destroying the country. Even though they killed people and destroyed structures, the were changing the country for the better, not ruining it. Similarly, I think the ways in which Tita was opposing her mother was to make the family better, not worse. Therefore, I think that the feuds between family members would be better described as reform rather than destruction.