Cristina García’s Dreaming in Cuban reflects different points of view of the history of Cuba. For instance, Lourdes has an adverse opinion of Cuba after the Revolution. At the beginning of the novel, she is an enigmatic character, but the reader understands her perspective when s/he finds out what happened to her in the past. Justin D. Edwards, in his chapter on memory in Postcolonial Literature, states that the “postcolonial writing often deals with the recollection of traumatic events” (132). Indeed, Cristina García illustrates this situation in Dreaming in Cuban through Lourdes’ callback of her unborn baby’s death and her rape. Hence, the author shows the repercussions of a traumatic event by calling back Lourdes’ memory, thus reflecting one of the perceptions on the introduction of a revolutionary government in Cuba and its consequences.

The articulation of Lourdes’ memories in the narration suggests a logical connection between the events of the past, which helps to understand the character’s motives and reactions. The plot is a disrupted narrative structured like memory. Each event is a piece of memory articulated with another one in a non-linear way. However, it seems like events of Lourdes’ memory are linked together in a logical way. In chapter 5, the reader finds out about a traumatic event that Lourdes lived through: soldiers of the revolutionary government catalyzed her miscarriage and she has been raped by one of them (García, 70-71). The reminiscence of this episode of violence appears just after the mention of the day Lourdes left Cuba (García, 69). This succession in the narration connects the two memories; as Lourdes’ aggression happened before her exile, it suggests that this traumatic event has been a motive of her exile. Moreover, just after the mention of Lourdes’ trauma, the narrator asserts that immigration is a good point in her life because it “has redefined her” (García, 73). S/he further reveals that “[s]he wants no part of Cuba, no part of its wretched carnival floats creaking with lies, no part of Cuba at all” (García, 73). The repetition of “no part” highlights Lourdes’ rejection of Cuba. This association of memories in the narration reveals that Lourdes’ rejection of her homeland is one possible consequence of her trauma.

A further consequence of Lourdes’ trauma is her impossibility to talk about this violent incident. Judith Lewis Herman argues that “a trauma is outside of language and, as a result, is unspeakable and unrepresentable” (Herman 1992 cited in: Edwards 2008: 136). Lourdes’ reaction when Jorge asks her to go to Cuba illustrates this point. She refuses her father’s proposition but she does not say why; her body reminds her of her trauma and speaks for her: “I can’t go back. It’s impossible. […] You don’t understand, Lourdes cries and searches the breeze above her. She smells the brilliantined hair, feels the scraping blade, the web of scars it left on her stomach” (García, 196). Indeed, her trauma is expressed through feelings; she “cries” which shows her pain. She also has difficulty to breathe because she “searches the breeze above her”, which means that she feels oppressed only by thinking to go back to the place of her trauma. Furthermore, Lourdes’ aggression left her with physical sequelae. She “feels” sensations related to suffering (“scraping blade”, “web of scars”), which demonstrates that, unconsciously, she associates the place of her aggression with pain. It is besides what Judith Lewis Herman claims: “a trauma is often that which is suppressed within individual’s consciousness, so traumatic material is often difficult, if not impossible to depict” (Herman 1992 cited in Edwards 2008: 136). Thus, García devised a master stroke by letting Lourdes’ body express itself against the idea of going back to Cuba.

The repercussion of Lourdes’ impossibility to talk of her trauma is that she fears that her suffering becomes forgotten. However, instead of staying passive, she reacts on a political level. When she is finally in Cuba, she goes back to the place of her aggression: “She lost her second child in this place. […] What she fears most is this: that her rape, her baby’s death were absorbed quietly by the earth” (227). Through the metaphor “absorbed quietly by the earth”, the reader finds out that Lourdes is afraid that her suffering is forgotten and meaningless. It leads the reader to believe that Lourdes has engaged in politics to give a sense to her aggression. Indeed, she has become an anti-communist: “[s]he is convinced that she can fight Communism from behind her bakery counter” (García, 136). After all, it is because of the introduction of a communist government that Lourdes’ aggression occurred. It confirms that, as Kali Tal suggests, “the memories of traumatic events often involve cultural-political movements” (Tal 1996 cited in Edwards 2008: 133). Tal further argues that the “traumatic experience becomes a weapon in another battle, the struggle for political power” (Tal 1996 cited in Edwards 2008: 133). It is interesting to note the word field of war in both Tal’s second statement (“weapon”, “battle”, “power”) and Lourdes’ conviction towards Communism (“fight”). It means that Lourdes’ political fight can be interpreted as a revenge on her past: she lost a battle but not the war.

Therefore, through the narrative structure that helps making links between the events of the past, the expression of Lourdes’ unconscious feelings through her body, and her reaction after the traumatic event, the reader finds out Lourdes’ version of history. Her recollection of traumatic events enables the reader to understand the different positions that follow episodes of history such as the introduction of a revolutionary government in Cuba. Justin D. Edwards claims that “the postcolonial writer who captures memories often does so as a way of bearing witness to the traumatic histories of the past” (138). Indeed, García, by recalling not only individual memories –for instance through Lourdes’ story– but also a collective memory –through the history of black people– gives a voice to the people who suffered and thus the historical truth is revealed.

Bibliography

Primary Text:

García, Cristina. Dreaming in Cuban. New York: Ballantine Books, 1992.

Secondary Text:

Edwards, Justin D. “Chapter Twelve: Memory.” Postcolonial Literature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Works Cited:

Herman, Judith. Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books, 1992.

Tal, Kali. Worlds of Hurt: Reading the Literatures of Trauma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

In Cristina García’s “Dreaming in Cuban”, the reader is challenged by a multiplicity of characters. Each protagonist has a different story and thus is sharing distinctive opinions and feelings. The relations are one of the key features of the novel; they shape the narration trough unions and separations and allow the story to take form. The mother-daughter associations are one of the main issues of the story and therefore offer different analyses, exposed in majority by female characters. The relationship between Lourdes Puente, the mother and Pilar Puente, the daughter, is dissident and continually opposing them throughout the novel. This essay will focus on Lourdes’s rejection for ambiguity and her search for authenticity depicted trough her own history and trough her daughter’s point of view. Her storyline highlights the fact that she maintains her opinion and do not deviate from her saying; this makes her a major character representing a major theme, the one about her loyalty to reality, critically opposed to ambiguity.

Unlike Derek Walcott, a poet from Saint Lucia, Lourdes’s character does not question her identity or where she belongs when “Walcott cannot for instance, lay claim to a singular, unambiguous and unmixed identity” (Edwards 139). Lourdes “wants no part of Cuba, no part of its wretched carnival floats creaking with lies, no part of Cuba at all, which [she] claims never possessed her” (García 73). It shows that she put Cuba aside without having an ambivalent identity; she knows where she belongs now, Brooklyn is her finality and made her who she is, unlike Cuba who shattered her. Her daughter Pilar does not share the same pattern; she can be defined as a hybrid character linked to Walcott’s definition. “Hybridity, he suggests, can lead to a sense of dislocation and a lack of belonging” (Edwards 140) which is representative of Pilar, she does not know where she really belongs, does she have to stay in Brooklyn with her mother who does not share her views or does she has to see for herself and discover her past, that is the point. Pilar’s hybridity is opposed to Lourdes’s reject of ambiguity.

Pilar’s depiction of her mother trough the novel is essential in order to circle Lourdes’s thinking and personality. The statements made during the story by Pilar guide the reader’s understanding of Lourdes; she does not let any room for ambiguity to exist. As Pilar states, her mother’s “views are strictly black-and-white. It’s how she survives” (García 26). Others events, related by Pilar are representative of Lourde’s marked frankness; the time when she presents her boyfriend Max to her parents is once again the occasion for the reader to witness the firmness of Lourdes. Indeed, when she wanted Max to get out, Lourdes told her daughter in Spanish to get him out, but, regardless of knowing that Max was able to speak Spanish, “she simply repeated what she said in English: Take him away” (García 134). Lourdes’s frankness is determinant; it shows that she will not let anything or anyone intimidate her. “Even Pilar couldn’t denounce her for being a hypocrite” (García 128). That quotation underline even more the fact that Lourdes’s repulsion for ambiguity is well known like the time when Pilar states: “If I don’t like someone, I show it. It’s the one thing I have in common with my mother” (García 135). Here again, trough Pilar’s statement, the reader can see that Lourdes’s behaviour stays unchanged.

In the two previous paragraphs, the depiction of Lourdes showed the reader her temper and her authenticity. Her relation with Pilar is perturbed by the fact that the two characters do not share the same points of view. The hybridity of Pilar enters in conflict with her mother rejection of ambiguity; Pilar “is, in other words, ambivalent, for [she] questions the assumptions of authenticity” (Edwards 140-141). Authenticity here represented and endorsed by her mother. The fact that “Lourdes abhors ambiguity” (García 65) demonstrates that it is why she cannot keep her employees at the bakery more than a couple of days or that she cannot have a sane relation with her family and more precisely with Pilar. Lourdes is fixed on her thoughts and has no place for doubt or hesitation: “Telling her own truth is the truth to her” (García 177), she believes only what she decides to believe, what she judges to be sane and trustworthy. Lourdes “decides she has no patience for dreamers, for people who live between black and white” (García 129), no place for ambiguity nor ambivalence. She tends to search for authenticity so that there is not a single doubt allowed, she “prefers to confront reality” (García 128).

Ambiguity is a trait that is shown by characters in the novel, it can either be represented by Celia’s love for Gustavo depicted through the letters she never sent, or Rufino’s fidelity towards his wife. But the most important factor linked to this ambiguity, is the one regarding Pilar’s hybridity and her constant questioning of belonging. Lourdes’s rejection of ambiguity is a major issue depicted by her behaviour all along the story; she criticizes and condemns everything she considers fabricated, oriented. She believes what she sees and what she has actually lived; experience is crucial in the case of Lourdes. The past she left with Cuba is a strong one, burdened of history and marked by her childhood; she has suffered from the lack of Celia’s affection, and is therefore representative of the relationship related and presented to the reader. The mother-daughter relation between Lourdes and Pilar is therefore crucial because it opposes Pilar’s hybridity and thus ambiguity, not positioning herself, to her mother who is condemning and judging ambiguous positions by stating clearly her thoughts. Lourdes character leaves no space for ambiguity, and therefore, makes the choice to confront the reality, only to embrace one face of its truth, the one she knows.

Bibliography:

1. Primary material :

García, Cristina. Dreaming in Cuban. New York : Ballantine Books, 1993.

2. Secondary material :

Edwards, Justin D. Postcolonial Literature. England : Palgrave, 2008.

Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban problematizes the issue of memory which relates to postcolonial theories. The disruptive narration embodied by different female characters invites to view the Cuban’s social situation. This enables to consider through unreliable narrators what makes a story true. In the same way, this narration calls upon the actions of remembering and telling a story from personal experiences. Therefore, the theme of memory allows to acknowledge the character’s experiences that link with their present life. Thus, Celia and Lourdes’s mirroring of their opposite attitude ambiguously reveal that they share a similar ambition. The comparison of what links them to their past participates to the construction of their respective identity.

Celia’s identity appears through her letters in which her younger self delivers her feelings. Though she writes to Gustavo, her Spanish lover who left her, it seems that this fictive epistolary relation functions as a diary. However, these letters have a broader role than storing feelings, it acts as a memorial, as Justin D. Edwards suggests on a broader view (Edward 138). Celia’s letters of the 1942-1949 period embody this function, she tells about the Cuban miserable condition in 1945 as if she wanted a trace of it: “Memory is a skilled seducer. I write to you because I must. I don’t even know if you’re alive and whom you love now.” (Edward 97) she uses the imperative “must” and personifies memory as to illustrate the appeal to writing. Therefore, Gustavo appears as an excuse that these letters could address anyone when she says that she knows no more information about him (97). Thus, the hypothesis that she might address the world appears when she asks: “Have you read about the tidal wave that hit Cuba?” She draws intention to the suffering of Cuba’s situation as if it went in the newspapers by naming “Cuba” which installs the geographic distance. She goes the same way in another letter: “Don’t you see how they’re carving the world, Gustavo? How they’re stealing our geography? Our fates? The arbitrary is no longer in our hands. To survive is an act of hope.” (99). The vocabulary Celia uses in her questions conveys her despair for the citizen’s situation. The vocabulary of injustice with “carving”, “stealing”, “arbitrary” and “survive” shows the violence of the situation.

The orality in Celia’s letters contributes to the construction of her identity as an ambitious revolutionary woman. Indeed, she expresses herself in the first person which supports her subjectivity: “Yesterday, I took the bus to Havana to join the protesters in front of the palace. We marched for the release of the rebels who survived the attack on Moncada.” (163). She speaks in her name and then includes herself to the unity of community. The “We” regroups the protesters into one entity expressing its disaccord. Celia’s revolutionary spirit for the revolution links with her present devotion towards “El Líder” (Fidel Castro). This claim links with Justin D. Edwards’s words on memory: “[…] memory becomes an important way of uniting the past with the present and engendering a sense of national unity.” (130). Indeed, memory acts as a tool linking the past to the present in order to achieve actions benefiting the nation as in the revolution for example. Celia acts in the same way as the narrators says: “Celia makes a decision. […] she will devote to El Líder, give herself to his revolution.” (44). Indeed, “El Líder” symbolizes the revolution which emphasizes the submission of Celia as “devote” and “give herself” denote.

On the other hand, the mirroring of Lourdes and Celia, though it underlines their different political positions, emphasizes their similar feverish engagement towards their rights. Indeed, Lourdes stands for what belongs to her as illustrates the flashback of the incident back in Cuba, when she confronted the soldiers: “She jumped from her horse and stood like a shield before her husband. ‘Get the hell out of here’ she shouted with such ferocity that the soldiers lowered their guns and backed toward their jeep.” (70). Lourdes’s words are reported through direct speech which allows her voice to fully express her mood. Her vocabulary is powerful and rude which expresses her disappointment through the expression “Get the hell out of here” which appears as an English idiomatic expression. Her opposition to the Cuban soldiers appears both physically and linguistically. Indeed, she displays a strong energy which connects her resistance to iron’s through the simile “like a shield” (Edward 70).

Though she seems strong and stubborn, Lourdes’s relationship with her memories is internalized and complex. Indeed, it seems that she accesses to her painful memories only when her father’s ghost manifested to her. As Edwards says: “the trope of haunting continues to return in postcolonial writing. It is presented in the articulation of traumatic events that cannot be forgotten or ignored.” (Edward 128). Though Jorge’s presence (Lourdes’s father) appears at several moments of the story, the last time he speaks to her links to this recurrent trope. Jorge’s direct allusions to her painful memories impact on Lourdes who difficultly tolerate it: “Lourdes cries and searches the breeze above her. She smells the brilliantined hair, feels the scraping blade, the web of scars it left on her stomach. […] Lourdes collapses on the walkway, her lungs swelling with air.” (Edward 196). Her reaction shows that the trauma remains vividly in her body as she struggles to breathe normally as if she were living the event a second time.

Finally, Celia and Lourdes have opposite political views but their attitudes display a similar fervor to defend their beliefs. However, their attitudes towards their memories oppose completely. Celia confronted her painful experiences by reporting it in her letters which enables her to learn from the past. She seems to accept her past and she tries to make the changes she always longed for. On the other hand, Lourdes avoids her memories in her daily life until she is forced to remember by Jorge’s revelations. Therefore, Lourdes challenging and stubborn personality seem to reflect her internal conflict between the past and the present.

Bibliography:

Garcia, Cristina, Dreaming in Cuban, A Novel. New York: Ballantine Books, 1992.

Edwards, Justin D., Postcolonial Literature, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

The Dualism in Luz Villaverde’s View of Her Family in Cristina García’s Dreaming in Cuban

Orality is a central term in postcolonial literature. Many critics have studied it and one of them is Justin D. Edwards. He wrote a book called Postcolonial Literature in which, among other subjects, he deals with orality. One of the main definition he gives in his book is that “an oral tradition is […] defined by the transmission of cultural material by word of mouth rather than through written documents” (Edwards, 40). In Cristina García’s Dreaming in Cuban, orality is a recurrent theme. Throughout the whole novel, there are different elements that bear witness to the presence of orality. Among them, Spanish words in an English text, the themes of history and personal history, and the structure of the novel, attest the presence of orality in the novel.

García’s novel is written in English yet, sometimes, Spanish words appear in the text. In his study, Justin D. Edwards explains that this is a characteristic of orality: “the first-person narrator, Hera, uses non-English words such as ′Kamakama′, ′Pakeha′ and ′hoha′” (Edwards, 49). Edwards talks about this characteristic explaining that the main character also uses words that are linked to his background. In García’s novel the characters expressing themselves use Spanish words. They mix them with English, however there are two different ways to use Spanish words in this novel. Some of those words are written in the same font as the English words. When Pilar talks about her grandmother, she hardly ever uses the words “grandmother” or “grandma”. She almost always uses the Spanish word “Abuela”: “I imagine Abuela Celia’s surprise as I sneak up behind her” (García, 26). This word, as the other Spanish words that are not graphically separated from the English text, is part of someone’s name. Here, it completes Celia’s name. Other Spanish words are however written in italic. One of them is the term “santería” which is a religion practiced in Cuba. Felicia believed in “santería”: “At night, Felicia attended our ceremonies” (García, 186). The use of Spanish words, whether they are written in italic or not, emphasis the Cuban culture of the characters.

The culture of the characters is also expressed through history. As Edwards point out in his study, “the history and culture of the place and the people are kept alive” (Edwards, 48) through orality. That is precisely what Pilar’s father is trying to do when he “told [her] stories about Cuba after Columbus came. He said that the Spaniards wiped out more Indians with smallpox than muskets” (García, 28). Pilar asks: “Why don’t we read about this in history books?” (García, 28). Pilar’s question shows that she did not learn about the Spaniards in history books, by reading. But she listened to her father who told her this story. In this extract, orality keeps history alive because oral words transmit knowledge, which was not written down, to someone. Pilar wants people to also remember the history that is not written in books: “If it were up to me, I’d record other things” (García, 28). “Record” has a double meaning that is essential in this context. The first meaning is linked to the idea of preserving information (Oxford English Dictionary). The second meaning is linked to the recording function of electronic devices (Oxford English Dictionary). In this meaning, there is the idea of recording information that was spread by oral transmissions. Oral transmission is more efficient in keeping history alive because it keeps many histories alive, not only the one that can be read in books.

The history that must be recorded is also the personal one. Celia used to talk to Pilar and this reminded her of her Cuban origins. But now that Pilar does not talk as much as before with her Abuela Celia, “Every day Cuba fades a little more inside [her], [and her] grandmother fades a little more inside [her]. And there’s only [her] imagination where [their] history should be” (García, 138). The absence of oral communication between Celia and Pilar makes their personal history disappear. The fact that Pilar refers to Celia as her “grandmother” is significant in this context. It emphasises even more that her Cuban culture is disappearing. As orality’s presence keeps history and culture alive, its absence makes them fade away.

The difficulty occurs when one has to write down stories that are drawn from oral cultures. “The circular communication of the oral process that occurs between teller and listener(s) is, when written down, transformed into a linear narrative structure” (Edwards, 43). Edwards explains that oral communication is not organised in the same way as written communication. Therefore, it is difficult to bring out orality in written pieces. However, García’s novel has a particular structure that demonstrate the presence of orality. The plot is not written in a linear way. Back and forth in time are part of this non-linear writing that recall an oral transmission. The chapters are not chronologically ordered and the addition of Celia’s letters in the middle shows a particular organisation of time. In this perspective, it is a “literature that mixes oral and written forms of communication” (Edwards, 47).  Edwards also points out another characteristic of orality: “Oral cultures […] do not order thoughts in this [linear] ways because their natives and cultural belief systems rely on […] the ′stitching together′ stories” (Edwards, 46). This idea of “′stitching together′ stories” is interesting in the context of Dreaming in Cuban. In this novel, there are different narrative voices. In every chapter, there are various characters expressing themselves to make the plot move forward. They tell stories which differ from the ones that the previous character told. The novel is constructed as stories stitched together and this points out the orality in García’s style of writing.

         Dreaming in Cuban is a postcolonial novel in many ways. Therefore, in the whole novel, there are different manifestations of orality, which is a central theme in postcolonial literature. The presence of Spanish words in an English text is one of the manifestation of orality in the novel. Those words point out the Cuban culture in the novel. The preservation of history is another central theme linked to orality. The novel points out how history is preserved differently when recorded in an oral or in a written way. It also points out how the absence of orality makes history disappear. Finally, the structure of Dreaming in Cuban is in itself a manifestation of the oral culture.

References:

• García, Cristina. Dreaming in Cuban. New York: Random House Publishing Group, 1992.
• Edwards, Justin D. “Orality.” Postcolonial Literature. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, pp.40-50.
• Oxford English Dictionary:
  • Record: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/159867?rskey=EULXNS&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid
  • Record: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/271868?rskey=EULXNS&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid

Hybridity is a key concept in post-colonial literature. As Edwards explains in his paper, hybridity can be considered “a challenge to essentialism and problematic ideas about purity and authenticity” (EDWARDS, 140). Thus, hybridity is the antithesis of purity. Hybridity is a central theme in Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban; the novel explores the consequences of the Cuban Revolution through the lens of different women. One character that stands out concerning hybridity is Lourdes, as she is what one can call a ‘non-hybrid’ character. Lourdes’ non-hybridity is explored through her binary and mimetic behaviour and confronts the reader to a different way of coping with post-revolution lifestyle.

Lourdes is a binary character. In fact, she “abhors ambiguity” (GARCIA, 65) to such a point that she either lives in one extreme or another. It is either all or nothing. This can be seen for example with her eating habits. She does not balance her diet; her need for food is either enormous or non-existent. At the beginning of the novel, Lourdes is described by Pilar as being “as fat as Macy’s Thanksgiving Day float from all the pecan sticky buns she eats” (27). But later in the plot, Lourdes is no longer craving for food; she wants absolute purity inside her stomach (167). In fact, “the smell of food repels her” (169). When Lourdes looks at food she is disgusted as the insectile lexical field suggests: “wormy curves of the buttery croissants, the gluey honey buns with fat pecans trapped like roaches in the cinnamon curves” (169). Here, the food is compared metaphorically to insects and connotes the repugnance that Lourdes is experiencing when looking at food. When at the beginning of the plot she could eat many “sticky buns” (27) as Lourdes describes, here she sees “roaches in the cinnamon curves” (169). The metaphorical terms used to describe the food indicates her strong distaste towards the food she sees. Because of this diet “Lourdes [lost] 118 pounds” and is now completely “[metamorphosed]” (172). Now that this diet is complete she can begin to eat ‘normally’ again, but as her behaviour is binary, she cannot help herself but to eat frantically and a complete opposite behaviour can be seen on page 173: “her mouth is moving feverishly, like a terrible furnace.” She stokes it with more hunks of turkey and whole candied yams. Lourdes helps herself to a mound of creamed spinach, dabbing it with a quickly diminishing loaf of sourdough. […] Lourdes devours every last morsel”. She is craving food, when three pages earlier in the novel she could not even look at it. The variety of the lexical field to describe the food she eats highlights the fact that, in a short period of time, she frantically grabs and eats whatever comes close to her hand, may that be “turkey”, “creamed spinach” or “leek-and-mustard pie” (173).

Furthermore, her binary behaviour can also be seen with the way she thinks about society. She does not care for people “between black and white”, “for the dreamers” (128). Her vision of the world is binary. On one side the communists, on the other side the ‘good people’. Just as she describes it on page 171; Lourdes and Jorge “denounce the Communist threat to America”. For them, “the Democrats are to blame, the Democrats and those lying, two timing Kennedys. What America need […] is another Joe McCarthy to set things right again” (171). In this passage, she clearly opposes two sides: the “leftist”, the “Democrats” and the “Communist” with their lies and propaganda to the “malleable” youth, and the people who could only “set things right again” (171). Her binary behaviour is highlighted here by, her strong beliefs and views on how American politics.

As seen before, hybridity can be seen “as a challenge to essentialism and problematic ideas about purity and authenticity” (EDWARDS, 140); Lourdes’ mimetic behaviour does exactly the opposite. She embraces American culture and adapts to Western beliefs and culture to such a point that Pilar thinks she has a “distorting lens” (GARCIA, 176). Lourdes mimics American culture to such an extent that she “[embellishes]” (176) the reality around her as Lourdes describes. The mimicry of Lourdes can be seen with the way she manages her bakery. Her father wanted her to put up a sign with her name “so they know what we Cubans are up to, that we’re not all Puerto Ricans” (170). Jorge insists on the fact that Puerto Ricans are viewed as ‘bad people’ and that Cubans should not be assimilated to them. He wants to be apart from the segregated group, but as a Cuban. However, Lourdes does not indicate in her signs that she is Cuban. In fact, her signs are in the colours of the United States: “Red, white and blue” (170). She is no longer associated with the segregated culture and people; she “[feels] a spiritual link to American moguls” (170). The term ‘moguls’ refers to an “important, influential, or dominant person; an autocrat.”[1] and thus she identifies herself with the dominant culture. Furthermore, as she identifies with Western culture, she wants an individualistic expansion and “[envisions] a chain of […] bakeries stretching across America […] in suburban shopping malls” (171). This is emphasized by the repetitions of the words ‘she’ and ‘her’ which highlights that it is only her name, her bakery and her legacy that will live throughout the ages. Her business becomes part of the Western culture and therefore, as her identity is associated with the bakery, she herself becomes part of Western culture. It is a mimetic behaviour to blend herself in society and to not compromise her hypothetic place as dominant figure.

All in all, Lourdes can be seen as a binary character that does not want any ambiguity inside her. She mimics the Western lifestyle and adopts its culture. The strong resentment that Lourdes feels towards ambiguity can be interpreted as way of coping with the post-revolutionary lifestyle. As it is a strong transformation in the way one lives his life, the behaviour can be affected in many ways. To cope with this new lifestyle, Lourdes adopts a mimetic and anti-hybrid behaviour. She does not want to think about the past, but is rather focused on the future. It is an adaptation and a way to survive in the Western world.

Bibliography

GARCIA, Cristina. Dreaming in Cuban. New York: Ballantine Books, 1993.

EDWARDS D., Justin. Postcolonial Literature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

[1] Oxford English Dictionary Online. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/120726?rskey=vP5DAS&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid

Cuban Diaspora From Two Different Female Perspectives in Dreaming in Cuban by Cristina Garcia

The novel Dreaming in Cuban by Cristina Garcia portrays the stories of a Cuban family and mainly focuses on the lives of women from three generations. Part of the family members emigrates to The United States as a result from change the country’s politics. Lourdes Puente moves with her husband and two-year-old daughter Pilar to New York City. Thus, Diaspora – “the voluntary or forcible movement of peoples from their homelands to new regions”(qtd. in Edwards 154) – and its effect on the characters’ lives plays a big role in the novel. Pilar and Lourdes by being from different generations and having varied memories from Cuba, the two female characters represent two different diasporic experiences, which results with the mother affection to America and the daughter struggling with her cultural identity.

Lourdes did not expect to stay in The United States for a long time and did not prepare for the substantial change (Garcia 69). One could think that her life shifting from managing a wealthy estate to being in American working class will make Lourdes miserable. In Cuba she was well respected by the local community. Pilar recalls that people changed their posture and had “attentive faces”(63) as if “their lives depended on the bolt of the fabric she chose”(63). Despite her former high position in the Cuban society, Lourdes is thankful for her immigration and believes it “redefines her”(73). Assimilating to the new situation, she opens bakeries and becomes a successful business woman. Interestingly, the narrator says that she mostly adores winter as the few layers of the seasonal attire “protect her”(73). This notion might be a contrasting allusion to the fact she was ripped of her blouse and pants (only one layer of clothing) and raped by the revolutionary soldiers back in warm Cuba(71), which incident probably persuaded her among others to leave the home country. It also seems, Lourdes wishes to stay at a place that the least reminds her of Cuba considering the weather, by telling her husband to go “colder, colder”(69) when they are traveling through the states and finally calling New York “cold enough”(70) and settling down there. Living for years in New York makes Lourdes strained to the American capitalism (the contrary to the Cuban communism) and patriotism. She has a thriving bakery business, from which she is planning to create a nationwide franchise (171). This idea shows how she truly believes in the American dream and entrepreneurship. It is also mentioned how she “felt link to the American moguls”(170), which illustrates how she easily gets assimilated and fond to the American customs. Nevertheless, Lourdes feels nostalgic to some aspects of Cuba, for instance she misses the birds she used to have there (131).

Nonetheless, the exile to The United States had different course and effect on Pilar. Lourdes’ daughter had no chance to decide whether to stay in Cuba or emigrate, as she was too young. She remembers perfectly the last time she saw her grandmother while her mother announced the family moving to other country. Pilar recounts: “I was sitting in my grandmother’s lap, playing with her drop pearl earrings” (26). Having this good memory in her head when trying to run away from her home in Brooklyn back to Cuba, she pictures Pilar envisions the warm image of herself and her grandmother sitting together having a sea view and listening to her singing voice (26). Celia, the grandmother, is the main and joyful memory of Cuba, which makes Pilar idolize Cuba. At one point, the young character starts to believe man in power destroy her dream to see her grandmother and make the two separated between each other (199-200). This belief shows, that although she misses her Abuela and wishes to see her, she is not necessarily pro-Revolution, as the current regime makes more difficult for her to see the loved family member. After some years she senses to be less attached to Celia: “Every day Cuba fades a little more inside me, my grandmother fades a little more inside me” (138). Living in The United States but still feeling connected to Cuba by Celia, Pilar struggles with her cultural identity. When as a 17-year-old, she goes to a club and an artist shouts: “I’m from Brooklyn, man!” (134), she does not cheer with the rest of the crowd and states she would not if the artist asked to cheer to Cuba (134). As Sunetra Gupta explains “for one’s cultural identity does not necessarily come from ‘home’ but it is located wherever an individual is rooted” (Edwards 154), the teenager might rather identify with the American than the Cuban culture. It is at the end of the novel, when Pilar is finally in Cuba, she admits to herself the country is “much tougher”(Garcia 235) than she expected to be and realizes she actually feels better connected with New York than Cuba: “I know now it’s [New York] where I belong – not instead of here, but more than here [in Cuba]”(236).

Through analyzing both female characters in context of diaspora, it is achievable to notice the difference of their diasporic experience as a consequence of a diverse cause and  experiencing the exile from different perspectives. Pilar as being a second generation immigrant and Lourdes – first, along with having varying image of Cuba. The daughter has problems with identifying with certain culture and finally decided she in fact feels more connected to the customs of the United Stated, the place she emigrated to as a child. She learns the image she had of Cuba was romanticized. Where, her mother, Lourdes, assimilates in the new country and starts a new, different life, in which she finds her place and feels connected to.