Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Journal #3 Rodriguez and Rivera

Both texts, Tomas Rivera’s ­And The Earth Did Not Devour Him and Richard Rodriguez’ “Aria”, share many similaries and many different takes on the same idea. Both texts have to do with trying to keep hold of their Mexican Heritage while still trying to fit in without assimilating. Both pieces have similar ideas of religion, which in Rodriguez’ piece can be explored through the nuns; perceptions on white or gringo society, and the trials of being Mexican. (holding on to your culture without assimilating)
                Both Rivera and Rodriguez have a really daunting perception of white society that can be shared across both of the narratives. In Rivera’s novella, he showed the intolerance of differences through how it impacted his Mexican characters, while Rodriguez showed this through more or less straight up criticism of the way they acted around him. Every time Rivera mentioned a white or Anglo person in his story there was always a negative connotation. In “It’s That It Hurts” the Mexican boy was just bullied and attacked by a white boy, and throughout the whole story he thinks on how he was the one being punished and possibly expelled because the Mexican boys who were blamed for it. In the vignette on p. 129, a white woman had been drinking and driving and killed sixteen people when she crashed into a truck. Rivera has also very strong imagery of the choppy English of the migrant workers be a very real obstacle in obtaining any respect. In Rodriguez’ memoir he views white society by their language. For him, it seems like the language is a very real almost malicious thing out to get and assimilate him. It was foreign and bad to him, much like how the gringo community around him viewed him. For him the white society was a necessary evil that he learned to live with later on, and early on it was a mold he struggled to fit. He also saw a lot of white society in the way they treated his parents, who were not very good or confident English speakers. Still, much like Rivera’s, it held a very negative connotation.
A big theme throughout both narratives was the idea of the trials of being Mexican.  Alienation was also a big thing because not only did Rodriguez personally receive this, but as did every character in Rivera’s novella. However, both authors explore these trials in different ways.  In Rivera’s novel, he was more like receiving alienation and discrimination from the white society. They didn’t want him apart of their culture, but he wanted in as a way to make it places in the world. The characters in Rivera’s novella, much like Rodriguez, struggled to maintain their Mexican culture and views while still trying to be accepted and fit into American society.  There was almost a shame of being Mexican there because not only did they have to deal with being different but they had to deal with the stereotypes of their culture, and the discrimination.  In Rodriguez’ memoir, he, towards the middle/end of the story, was being alienated from the Mexican culture, and being assimilated into the English one, while his parents were doing the reverse. Once his parents started speaking English to him at home, he learned it much quicker, but also forgot how to speak Spanish, though he still understood it. All this was happening while he was being accepted more and more into the English culture. His family friends and relatives would start calling him ‘Poncho’ meaning ‘colorless’.  Just because he became more assimilated in American culture he became more detached from his own, which is where his struggle lay. He wanted to still have that close family unit and didn’t want to assimilate, but didn’t have a choice, and once he did he was punished for it. 

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Woman Hollering Creek

“Not that he wasn’t a good man. She has to remind herself why she loves him when she changes the baby’s Pampers, or when she mops the bathroom floor, or tries to make the curtains for the doorways without doors, or whiten the linen. Or wonder a little when he kicks the refrigerator and says he hates this shitty house and is going out where he won’t be bothered with the baby’s howling and her suspicious questions, and her requests to fix this and this and this because if she had any brains in her head she’d realize he’s been up before the rooster earning his living to pay for the food in her belly and the roof over her head and would have to wake up again early the next day so why can’t you just leave me in peace, woman.”







In this passage from Sandra Cisneros’ “Woman Hollering Creek”, Cleofilas, the main character, finds herself inspecting the life she’s been waiting for, and begins to realize that this is not at all what she expected. From the very beginning of the story, which at this point wasn’t very long ago, Cleofilas had wanted what the soap operas on TV said she would get with marriage: love, happiness, and a happy ending. Cisneros makes it blantly clear that that’s not what she got by stating that Cleofilas had to remind herself why she loved her husband. With a striking use of syntax, using only three sentences Cisneros has the sentences get longer and longer, much like her main character’s chore list, as she states all the things that she has to do, that he obviously doesn’t help with. The last sentence starts off with the story’s regular limited omniscient narrative voice that normally follows Cleofilas, but starts to look at her husband’s, Juan Pedro’s, point of view, and finally ends with his last thoughts of, “…why can’t you just leave me in peace, woman,” in first person, and did this effortlessly with a sort of stream-of-consciousness type feel to it. This odd and sudden shift of narrative in this passage helps get the reader get into the feeling of the characters relationship: it’s stressed, and incredibly tense. This knowledge helps propel the reader into the climax of the piece, only a few pages later.

               This passage is located in the Rising Action part of the story, where the author is now building anticipation for how bad things are for Cleofilas and her husband. At this point, it’s pretty crucial to provide good imagery to anchor a plight to a character and Cisneros does this by a really informal use of diction that creates a certain feeling in the reader. She creates this look of a run-down house wife trying to do her best with a ‘howling’ baby and a house that doesn’t even have doors for doorways. She makes this especially clear when she says that she “tries to make curtains”. Not only is Cleofilas an ill-appreciated house wife, have to take care of a baby all by herself, she has to make curtains to hang in the doorways. She also uses words like “howling” from the baby to make the reader visualize a baby screaming so bad the house is shaking. Also the authors non censored use of swear words makes the story that much more raw and real.  Cisneros didn’t have to use big words to create strong imagery like that.

               Cisneros’s theme throughout of the story of “Woman Hollering Creek” was one of disillusionment and empowerment. This passage plays a vital role in showing the disillusionment that Cleofilas has regarding her marriage and the move away from her family. Originally she thought he was the best thing to ever happen to her, and at this point, subconsciously she was really starting to doubt this while consciously she had to keep telling herself that it wasn’t his fault he was like that, or that he was treating her that way. No matter what happened, he was still her husband and she loved him. This passage was also the last of the disillusionment stage for her, and after this she starts to realize that she doesn’t have to put up with him anymore. What kind of effect does her run-on sentence structure of on the reader and the overall feel of the piece?