I noticed the feuding that goes on in the De LaGarza household mirrors the Mexican Revolution. It’s like a revolution within a revolution. As you may know, the mexican revolution was about different beliefs of different political parties on how the country should be governed. They all disagreed with each others views and fought each other for power and struggled to rule the country. The same goes for Tita’s family. Tita disagreed with Mama Elena’s traditions and hates her for enforcing them so harshly. Tita eventually comes to despise Rosaura for planning to have Esperanza care for her until death. Tita does many things to avoid these traditions and in a sense her actions can be characterized as a revolution. The death of Tita and other characters brought about change in her family. The tradition of handing down recipes from mother to daughter stopped, the youngest daughter did not have to care for her mother any more, and other changes can be noted too. Similarly, the overthrowing of the previous dictator of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz Mori, caused a revolution in the country that brought about political and social changes and put an end to previous rules and traditions of the country.
I think the use of the mexican revolution was intended by the author to make this kind of a connection to the actual story. Any thoughts or opinions?
January 24, 2007 at 1:34 am
I agree completely. Like war, the De Le Garza family has fought and achieved both wins and losses. Deaths of leaders (Mama Elena) don’t stop the war and even escalates it with close combat of Tita, the revolutionary who wants change in the house, and Rosaura, who represents the government forces who oppose change. Pedro slightly reminds you of those rebels who raped Chencha when he hides and waits for Tita in the dark room and then quickly pounce on her.
However, I think the Revolution is the setting to make the mood seem tenser. With a worse mood, the characters get tenser with it. With it, the more conflicts erupt—if the setting was more peaceful, the characters would probably act more lax and calmer.
January 24, 2007 at 2:18 am
Even though I agree with what you are saying, I am truly tired of all the repetitive threads that are talking about the exact same things. Please, check if there are any duplicate threads before starting another one?
Regarding the revolution within the revolution–yes, it’s like there a mini-war inside the De la Garza home, is it not? Mama Elena is just like the harsh dictator, and Tita the brave revolutionary. I actually don’t see why the story is set in this period of social distraught, as there are controlling mothers bent on following silly traditions even in today’s world. The story of Like Water for Chocolate doesn’t really have much to do with the outside world, except maybe the (rather few and far in between) casual mentions in conversations. Sure, Chencha would violently disagree with me, but even her rape was a relatively minor event compared to, say, Tita making quails. But that is not to say that the setting was a useless one, because the backdrop of war really emphasized the danger the characters are in, and that makes this situation so real and imaginable, and I think that was a very important component in making the magic realism in this story work.
January 24, 2007 at 2:19 am
I agree that the “revolutions” that are occurring inside Tita’s family are like smaller versions of the Mexican Revolution. While the men are out there fighting with guns and weaponry, the women are striving for change inside the household themselves, only on a smaller scale and in more discreet, nonviolent methods (talking, yelling, cooking). The need for change and the desire to struggle against an undesirable situation is something that is common in men and women; it’s just expressed in different ways. I believe that the author, by highlighting these parallels in the story, communicates the differences as well as similarities in the outside world of men and the inside world of women.
January 24, 2007 at 2:54 am
Well, men have the emotional outlet of going to war or having a physical fight. Woman must have an emotional outlet as well. For Elena, it’s shouting at Tita, for Tita, it’s cooking and knitting her bed cover. Even Gertrudis went to a prostitution to get rid of all the lust that welled up within her. Look what happened to Rosaura when she cooped everything up within herself (well the gas could represent all the anger she has for Tita which when it grew to be too much for her, killed her).
January 24, 2007 at 2:58 am
Also, I agree with Mandy. Please try to read all the posts within recent days before posting so that there aren’t two posts on the same idea.
January 24, 2007 at 3:17 am
sorry…i didn’t realize there was another post on it.
January 24, 2007 at 3:32 am
Yes, there is parallelism between the Mexican and Tita’s familial revolution. This has been thoroughly discussed in other threads. However, i have noticed that many people go further with their inferences to call Mama Elena the ruthless dictator, and Tita the high and mighty revolutionary. To some extent, i agree. However, we have a revisionist view of revolution. We are brain washed with the writings of the victor, which in this, is case Tita. The novel paints her as a freedom fighter. Here is my perspective of Pofirio Diaz.
Like many dictators, Porfirio Diaz began his life in politics as a visionary; he helped industrialize and modernize Mexico. Industrialization is the first step to becoming a developed country – a extremely important change. He served his first term as president and then abiding by his ‘no re-election policy’ he did not run again. After Mexico suffered with corrupt government for one term, Porfirio Diaz disregarded his law and ran again. He was welcomed with open arms. After having sat through Manuel Gonzalez’s atrocious term, Diaz came to believe that Mexico had not reached an adequate level maturity that would allow it to govern itself. He believed that he was the sole person that knew what was best for Mexico. To make guarantee he stayed in power, Diaz manipulated the polls and threatened people. He became the corrupt dictator that everyone despised. However, through all of the harsh times, Diaz still firmly believed that he was doing what was best for Mexico. He believed his justification for oppressing the population was legitimate. If Mexico was to progress, he would have to stay in power. And the rest is history.
Mama Elena can be compared with a corrupt dictator from the point of view of the novel. However, like many other dictators, including Profinio Diaz, the one most associated with Mama Elena, Mama Elena’s actions were justified, albeit self-righteous. She firmly believed that she was doing what was right for the family. Do you have the right call such a person self-centered when they are really just misguided?
January 24, 2007 at 11:49 am
I agree with davidbiancolin in that considering Mama Elena as “the bad guy” is unfiair. This tradition that she was so stuborn on maintaining was a strong point in her belief system. She was taught that continuing this tradition was the right and proper thing to do. We only see Mama Elena as being cruel because the entire idea of staying unmarried to take care of one’s mther seems completely absurd for a woman of today. With every generation comes change. Even Mama Elena attempted at change when she fell in love with José. Of course her attempt didn’t work as she had probably hoped. Tita, however, was more persistent at her goal in influencing change. By helping Esperenza get married as well her, herself, getting married lead to the ellimination of this tradition. This sort of ties us back to the point about revolutions. Revolutions and wars are, though it is unfortunate to say, one of the most powerful forces of change. Fighting for human rights and a better society through wars and such have molded our society into what it is today. Similarly, people like Tita are the ones who’ve changed the way women should be seen and treated. Change is a long process, but tiny household wars, like Tita’s, can influence much change in the end.