Writers hate parents

Ever noticed that in so many books, the protagonist is an orphan? It’s either that or the character had parents, but the writer got rid of them either by killing them or by whisking the characters to a far away place, away from their parents. These two ways are more obvious. Sometimes, another way is used to replace these two. This is less obvious and I call it the “Orphan substitute.” Basically, this refers to a bad relationship between the child and the parents.
It’s funny because I’ve been coming up with the names of famous books and most of them use this theme

-Harry Potter
-Series of Unfortunate Events
-Lord of the Rings (No mentions of Frodo’s parents, in fact not a lot is mentioned about any of the characters in the fellowship)
-The Outsiders
-Eragon

Many classics use this theme as well

-Oliver Twist
-Great Expectations
-Anne of Green Gables
-Jane Eyre
-Wüthering Heights
-Secret Garden
-David Copperfield

Finally, let’s look at the texts we’ve studied. In Tristan and Iseult, Tristan was an orphan. Iseult was not an orphan, but she was given to King Mark as a bride and moved far away from her parents. In Romeo and Juliet, there was a case of Orphan Substitute. The parents were absent even though none of them were dead. It just didn’t seem like the parents had a very close or loving relationship with their children. An obvious example of this would be Juliet’s parents. In the case of Like Water For Chocolate, it was a combination of the Orphan and the Orphan Substitute. Tita lost her father before she could remember and did not maintain a good relationship with her overbearing mother. Finally, for Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, it is another case of Orphan Substitute. Gawain was not close (distance-wise) to his parents. Whether he was an orphan or not, I couldn’t remember. Anyone else know

Well, look through some of the books you’ve read. This theme is very popular among writers and it’s just kind of interesting. I feel that this is another part of a writer’s scheme plan to sell more books. A distant relationship or no relationship with parents gives the characters more opportunities to experience and do different things. It gives them more freedom to be themselves and allow more development throughout the novel.

Again dear classmates, I ask you for your input. What do you think?

 

How does this relate to us?

Many times, you may look at a book and think: what does this have to do with my life? From a glance, the answer would be nothing. On a superficial level, the people in these books lived a long time ago, and have no relevance to our lives today. Then you take a closer look, and you have one of those ‘oh…’ moments.

When you really think about it, what are these books about? The answer is love. As I have stated in previous posts (http://10tops.wordpress.com/2007/01/16/how-this-all-fits-in/#comments), these books all revolve around the same central theme, and it’s a theme that relates directly to us in some way or another. While each story has a different way of representing this theme, they all put accross the same ideas.

The idea of love, and not being able to be with the one you love, is a universal idea that is understood accross all cultures. Even if you want to be difficult and say that you’ve never been in love, it’s still something that relates to you: wanting something and not being able to have it. Nobody can say that they have never wanted something that they couldn’t have.

So we’ve established that all the books we’ve read revolve around the theme of wanting thing’s you can’t have… now what? Well, I started thinking, is this the doing of Ms. White, or is there something more here? Pick a story at random, any story. I bet you can find the same theme in that story. One last time, let me reference those old Warner Bros. cartoons: the one where Bugs Bunny, and another rabbit are fighting over a girl. Sound familiar? Now, this is a cartoon that is aimed at children who are 6,7, maybe 8 years old; it’s very unlikely that they’ve been in love, or understand it, however they understand the story because of that central theme.

So, how far back do you think we can go with this? Well, all the way back to when we were infants. Have you ever seen a baby, beside them is one of their toys that they are not playing with. Try taking it; see what happens. The baby wants the toy because now he can’t have it. Apparently, we’re born understanding this theme.

Basically, this is a roundabout way of answering what Ms. White asked; I think that looking at these texts in depth has definately changed the way that I think about literature in general. But what I want to know is, why do writers use this theme so much? Is it because they know that if they use it, people will be able to relate to the story? I’m not entirely sure, but I’d like to hear what you have to say on the topic.

Have at it.

 

Why the Use of Magic?

Throughout the book, we see the use of supernatural entities and events that seem clearly unbelievable. So I have been wondering why the author chose to use magic as a theme in the story.

One reason that I came up with was to make the stories seem more authentic, to make the stories seem like it was being told by word of mouth. We know that these sorts of stories are told orally, and the author even decided to introduce to us a narrator to tell us this story (p. 1, 246). We all know how word of mouth is unreliable, and like the game Broken Telephone, the first person to hear the story usually adds a little extra or removes a little from the story due to memory or because they want to ’spice up’ the message or story. Thus, the magical occurrences could probably be some phony events that were added along the way while it was being passed down to each generation, to make the story more interesting or because they forgot part of the story.

Also, another reason why the author could have chosen to have unnatural events occur in the book could be for emphasis. At the wedding of Rosaura and Pedro, we saw everyone start crying and nauseating in sorrow for their unfulfilled love after they ate the cake that had contained Tita’s tears (p.39-41). We clearly know that it is impossible for something like this to occur, however, it makes us truly empathize with Tita’s despair for not being able to love Pedro.

I can think of a few more, but I think it would be more interesting to hear what you guys think, instead of me rambling like this. So why do you think the author creates such abnormal, supernatural events in what should be just a typical story about Mexican people and their life?

 

Opening Phrase

In the very begining of the book, before January, there’s a page that writes: ‘To the table or to bed, You must come when you are bid.’

I noticed this before reading the book for the first time, and thought it was queer that the author or translator put such as statement before the story. It’s as if saying that our lifes are totally not in our control. It reminded me of Tristan’s promise to Iseult with the green ring. Like how Iseult promised to obey Tristan when she saw the green ring, the author or narrator is saying that one(most likely about Tita) must do as they are told.

Not taking this generally, we have that this person must obey when called to the table or to bed. Table would mean for a meal. To bed could mean one of two things: death, or to sleep. I think that it’s more likely to be death as you have no control over when you die. But then, a child must also go to sleep when the mother bids it to.

What’s the significance of this sentence, or is there none at all?  If it’s not significant, why put it at the very begining of the book? I don’t think the author put it there simply to arouse curiosity… Do you guys have any idea?

 

Extinguishing life by lighting the matches

Throughout Like Water for Chocolate, I think that everyone of us was able to observe the emotional status for each character. I believe that emotions are the only thing the author truly cares to depict.

Notice that every single time a character tastes something (for food is the theme of the book), it brings a memory or an emotion to the character and the author takes her time in describing the moment, allowing the reader to get lost in the character’s thoughts. Emotion is, after all, key to giving taste to a story and giving insight upon a character. Without emotion, a reader would never understand a character beyond his or her actions, which may seem inconsistent to their assumed characteristics, (as judged by the reader) should they not have expressed emotion.

However, what separates this author from the rest (or at least, this book) is the extent of which the emotions are expressed. Each taste or touch is so rich in the book, that the person who is sensing something or someone is taken beyond the mental aspect of senses and into a physical change. The wedding cake that Tita made that had a few of her tears were able to trigger an immense emotional impact upon all those who ate it. They cried, and even vomitted. the highlight would be Nacha’s death. It is known that emotional stress can cause death, but it is usually over a period of time in which the body starts to reject nutrients. This is not the case. The author makes it clear that this was a purely emotional death.

A box of matches, as John Brown later mentions in the book, is the life inside every person. Strong emotions ignites the matches. IF all of them are ignited, the person’s soul may leave its body, essentially killing the person. John Brown said to be careful…but why would someone want to be careful? Exiting their life before it is their time… It seemed as though he was warning Tita not to be impulsive and take the opportunity should it ever arise. Tita, however did and as did Pedro, who was most unaware of the box of matches being engulfed in flames inside him. With her, she took almost all the memories of the De la Garza family with her, as she had wanted to. She had already expressed her feelings about the mother-daughter tradition being a horrible way to continue the family chain, she probably wished to burn it all down with her spirit. Pedro and her body started to emit sparks as they died. The sparks set the bedspread and everything on the ranch on fire, leaving almost everything in ash form, including their bodies.

On the other hand, we find that the roosters who get incredibly angry create a tornado, which also creates destruction. The roosters themselves disappear, swallowed by the Earth, which is, in a way, returning to birth. After all, everything was created from the planet and returning to it would be going back into the planet. Pedro and Tita turn into ashes, while will also eventually return to the Earth.

These emotions return to us over and over in the books and sometimes they trigger destruction, other times they simply trigger strong memories and return to the character in a physical reaction. Every memory in the book creates a strong reaction.

I’d like all of your thoughts on the matches concept. Why do you think the author would have thought of something like that? What do you think the matches may represent? Can we truly die from an overdose of emotion? I’d also like to ask if anyone thinks that the destruction in the wake of the emotions are related to Mama Elena and her knack for destruction? Could they be related?

(And can I edit this blog once I’ve posted it…?)

 

Intentional Irony?

I don’t know if anyone has posted or commented about what I am about to post; I haven’t been able to read all the posts yet…

From the beginning of the novel, we are informed that Tita was to care for Mama Elena until she died, according to De La Garza tradition. By having to do so, Tita would be withheld from marrying or having children. On the other hand, the story has several examples of Tita’s cunning ability to react to various fimilial situations. She took care of Roberto and Esperanza so well. She seemed to be a great housekeeper, cook, and perhaps even a perfect mother. Her ability to handle children bested those of the other female characters, Rosaura for example. Since Tita was characterized to be such a great mom, I found it ironic that she was forbidden from marrrying and having kids.

I don’t know if this irony was intended by the author. Did anyone else notice this? It took me quite a while to figure out, probably while reading the December installment.

 

‘Treviño’

I couldn’t help but notice the surname ‘Treviño’ is used by two different characters.

First, it was the name of the mulatto who Mama Elena had fallen in love with before she was forced to marry Juan De la Garza. Tita discovers this when she accidentally found the box in Mama Elena’s wardrobe (page 137). Later, she also uncovers that Jose Treviño is the real father of Gertrudis.

The name appears a second time when Gertrudis returns with the position of a General. Sergeant Treviño is one of the most trusted soldiers in Gertrudis’s troop. Gertrudis was also the love of his life (page 195) and he had tried for months to conquer her.

I’m somewhat suspicious of the connection between these two Treviños. It’s uncertain if the latter’s name is his first name or last name. If it is his first name, then I have nothing to prove. However, if Treviño is the sergeant’s last name, then it could suggest that he is related to Jose Treviño, Gertrudis’s father.

If the sergeant’s surname is Treviño, Treviño is not a very common surname and the sergeant is a close relative of Jose Treviño, sergeant Treviño’s affections for Gertrudis could be seen as – incest. If not, then the two names are just a coincidence and I’m a dawdling dope and I’m sorry for wasting your time.