Confronting a Reality – Lourdes’s position towards ambiguity in Cristina García’s “Dreaming in Cuban”

Leave a reply

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.

 

  1. Secondary material :

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

 

Celia’s treasurable sugarcane – The sugarcane harvest place in Cuba’s revolution in Cristina Garcia’s “Dreaming in Cuban”

Leave a reply

The plot of the story takes place during. Cuba’s Revolution, at the time where Fidel Castro tried to change the isle’s economic situation. The plot goes back to Batista’s reign through Celia’s letters which gives her point of view during the two political situations. This historical parallel raises several social issues through Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban, published in 1992, in America. These questions entertain links with the characters’ identities, the economic situation of Cuba and the opposite political views illustrated by the protagonists of the story. The subject of this essay concerns with the economic growth thematic raised from page 44, “In the back of the plaza, flatbed trucks are accepting volunteers for the fields” to page 45, “She examines her hands daily with pride.”. This passage draws a parallel with the historical harvest of sugarcane in Cuba during the first part of the 20th century, in order to raise its primary sector. However, the plot pictured in pages 44 and 45 of Dreaming in Cuban contrasts the harvest on the workers’ attitudes with Celia’s subdue to it. Thus, the personification of the sugarcane field and Celia’s perception of the workers’ bodies demonstrates her devotion and desire to contribute to Cuba’s economic growth.

Through Celia’s character focalization, the sugarcanes assimilate to a symbol of abundance favorable to Cuba’s prosperity. The lexical field describing the sugarcanes as abundant embodies Celia’s confidence in the project of growing economically independent:

“Celia imagines the cane she cuts being ground in the centrales, and its thick sap collected in vats. The furnaces will transform it to moist, amber crystals. She pictures three-hundred-pound sacks of refined white sugar deep in the hulls of ships.” (p.45)

This extract depicts the cane juice as thick and collected in huge containers that are the vats which extends this qualification to the idea of profit due to its expected abundance. The “amber crystal” term designating sugar shows its preciousness in Celia’s mind. Her high hope also shows up when the narrator mentions her comparison of the “false prosperity” (p.45) with the new prosperity that even the workers would benefit of as she thinks: “a prosperity that those with her on these hot, still mornings can share”. (p.45). She believes in a new justice which will benefit every class The futuristic projection marked by the future tense and her optimistic economic anticipation also draws the hope for a better future.

Celia’s perception of the field workers’ identities confuses it with the sugar cane harvest. First, the limited narrator only designates the working citizens as “workers”, “volunteers” and “machetero”, which only assimilates them to their role in the field. Through the internal narrative focus on Celia’s thoughts appears her devotion towards the Revolution which she serves by working as a volunteer. The synecdoche replacing the worker by his hand illustrates this: “Celia pulls on a hand stretched before her, its nails blunt and hard as hooves” (p.44). Indeed, the narration points Celia’s indifference towards her environment and illustrates the nature of her current obsession which is of working in the fields in order to serve the Revolution. The simile “its nails blunt and hard as hooves” draws intention towards the unnatural thickness of the nail which appears no longer as refined, rather as a horse’s hardest part of its feet. However, the description of the workers’ environment reflects a less optimistic atmosphere: “There are rats everywhere, hollowing the sweetest stalks, and insects too numerous to swat” (p.44). This hyperbolic description composed with the terms “everywhere” and “too numerous” highlights the fact that they are surrounded by nature and animals which causes them to cohabite with those “numerous insects”. The confusion of the environment with the bodies also appears to underline the fact that the workers and the fields become one entity entailed together. Thus, the term “rats hollowing the sweetest stalks”, though rats really eat the cane’s stalks, it could also symbolize that some people also reap the sweetest benefits without respecting the sugarcane workers. However, the setting of the passage confuses the workers with the colors of the field.

Indeed, the sugarcane field’s personification throughout the first paragraph of this passage assimilates it to a living entity. Therefore, other objects related to the harvest interact with the volunteers, as for example the “flatbed trucks [accepting] volunteers for the fields” (p.44). The image of a flatbed truck accepting volunteers suggests, from Celia’s focus, that the vehicle stands as a symbol of equality by rejecting no one. This impression reinforces when the narrators claims that “the acres of crane are green and inviting” (p.44). However, the focus changes gradually to reveal a narrower place through Celia’s eyes slowly approaching the fields with truck as the narrator signals it: “But deep in the fields the brownish stalks rise from the earth to more than twice her height, occluding her vision” (p.44). Celia and the fields confuse into one another until they form an entity: “The sun browns her skin.” Parallels with the “brownish stalks”. Plus, she only sees the stalks which “occlude her vision”, this term also emphasizing the brownish color of the stalks that blind Celia. This analogy reinforces Celia’s devotion to the harvest, as the narrator states when remarking “For two weeks, Celia consigns her body to the sugarcane”. The world “consign” contains in itself Celia’s intention of committing herself to this activity. This feeling infiltrates her very body when the narrator states that “[…] the stink of the sugarcane coats Celia’s nostrils and throat […]” (p.45), this metaphor underlines the strength of her promise.

In conclusion, this passage encapsulates Celia’s spirit towards the revolution and illustrates it through the way she focuses only on the new symbol of prosperity the sugarcane evokes. Therefore, this passage describes Celia’s point of view on the revolution. However, this extract also discusses the question of personal perception by isolating Celia’s thoughts which reveals the purpose of her actions that only the reader knows about. This literary procedure contrasts Celia’s intentions and the other field workers. Indeed, Celia represents the balance of her moral and her actions which confirms her sincerity.

Bibliography:

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

The sugarcane’s influence – The symbolic of the sugarcane from Celia’s point of view in Cristina Garcia’s “Dreaming in Cuban”

Leave a reply

The Cuban revolution thematic in Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban engages with different perspectives which result in each characters’ points of view. In the same way, this extract of the story, from page 44 “For the next two weeks, […]” to page 45 “[…] the fields will be burned and replanted”, engages with Celia’s attitude towards the revolution initiated by “El Líder”, the symbol referring to Fidel Castro. The voice of the limited narrator illustrates Celia’s engagement towards the revolution. Therefore, the characterization of Celia’s achievements in harvesting the sugarcane depicts her enthusiasm. She believes the sugarcane is the essential resource to enhance Cuba’s economic independence.

Celia’s characterization demonstrates her determination to work as efficiently in the fields as a cutting device: “Celia learns to cut the cane straight across at the base, strip its leaves with her machete, then chop it in even pieces for the gatherers.” (p.44). This juxtaposition presents the process of cutting the sugarcane and Celia’s efficiency doing it. The word “learn” induces that this action requires some technique. The juxtaposition extends the impression of mechanic process of Celia’s gesture. She “[…] cut the cane straight across at the base […]” (p.44), the expression “straight across” suggests that Celia cuts the cane with strength. The term “even pieces” makes the reader notice the precise and effective work of Celia. This precision emphasizes Celia’s enthusiasm.

This mechanical behavior illustrates Celia’s devotion characterized through her perception of the sugarcane. The repetition of the word “sugarcane” reinforces Celia’s obsession for it. “Celia consigns her body to the sugarcane” (p.44), the word “consign” meaning that she devotes her body exclusively to the sugarcane which appears through the repetition of the words “fields”, “stalks”, “cane”, “sugarcane” referring to the body of the sugarcane. The contrast of the setting in the field and Celia’s behavior illustrates that she dedicates her body as a tool for the harvest. The juxtaposition depicting that “there are rats everywhere, hollowing the sweetest stalks, and insects too numerous to swat” (p.44) displays a negative atmosphere contrasting with Celia’s enthusiasm. This juxtaposition emphasizes the hyperbolic description of the environment. The words “everywhere”, “sweetest” and the expression “too numerous to swat” amplify the harshness of the labor. However, the following characterization of Celia’s conduct presents an opposite dynamic to this negative juxtaposition: “Despite her age or because of it, Celia advances steadily through the fields, hardening her muscles with every step, every swing” (p.44). In contrast with the extract above, this juxtaposition reflects Celia’s steadfast attitude with the words “steadily” and “hardening” which both refer to the firmness of her body. The parallelism in “every step, every swing” reinforces this firmness by shifting on her steps and her moves when she cuts through the canes.

Celia’s devotion also appears through her attitude in contrast to the workers’; she “stares as the blood mingles with the sweat of its victim’s chest” (p.44) while “several men grab the worker from behind and take him from the fields.” (p.44): She does not react to the tumult; she stays static by “staring” while the others move and “take him from the fields”. This antithesis in their attitude seems to oppose Celia to the workers. She half observes this situation as she also “does not know to whom” (p.44) the “creole woman spits out a curse” (p.44). She remarks the physical features but does not seek to understand what happens. The description of the worker’s injury illustrates that she fixes the victim and that she notices the blood mixing with the sweat on the chest but that she does not participate in the tumult.

This claim about Celia’s social distance from her environment links to Celia’s obsession with the sugarcane. The third paragraph connects with Celia’s confidence in the sugarcane power over Cuba’s economic independence. Indeed, the limited narrator reports through free indirect speech Celia’s expectation: “And Cuba will grow prosperous. Not the false prosperity of previous years, but a prosperity that those with her on these hot, still mornings can share.” (p.45). The litotes “not the false prosperity” minimizes the importance of this event as if Celia keeps it in the past. As a result, she focuses on the future as the repetition of the word “prosperity” holds a positive meaning for her. This optimism shows up through the word “share” which emphasizes Celia’s wish for economic equality. Her expectation for Cuba growing economically independent extends to the workers referred as “those with her on these hot, still mornings”. The juxtaposition “hot, still mornings” associates with a peaceful atmosphere which opposes to the incident with the injured volunteer.

Celia imagines the sugarcanes as a symbol of richness. She places great hopes in the harvest to enable the sugar’s exportation. Therefore, she imagines the sugarcane as “being ground in the centrales, and its thick sap collected in vats”. The word “thick” suggests that Celia views the sugarcane’s juice as a rich nutrient. In Celia’s mind sugar serves her country as well as others emphasized through this polysyndeton: “People in Mexico and Russia and Poland will spoon her sugar for coffee, or to bake” (p.45). The accumulation of the conjunction “and” reinforces Celia’s expectation for the future and her belief of sugarcane becoming Cuba’s major resource. The enumeration of these crucial countries in regard of Cuba’s economic situation supports Celia’s optimism. Although she expects a lot from the sugarcanes, she recognizes Cuba’s economic position which links with her enthusiasm for the revolution.

The limited-narrator’s characterization of Celia enables the reader to observe her from an objective perspective and through her own vocabulary. However, in this case the narrator is unreliable because its speech bears the mark of Celia’s subjectivity. The literary devices displayed as repetition, polysyndeton and juxtaposition present the incidents with a focus on Celia’s character rather than describing this setting. Therefore, this literary process contrasts the reality of the events with Celia’s perception of her environment. The internalization of the sugarcane symbol as a resource to grow economically independent dominates the narration. Therefore, this internalization illustrates how obsession and devotion enable Celia to surpass herself.

Bibliography:

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

The relation to memory – The link between memories and personality in Cristina Garcia’s “Dreaming in Cuban”

Leave a reply

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.

Memory as Choice of Perspective – A Generation of Narrative Voices in Cristina García’s Dreaming in Cuban

Leave a reply

Everyone in Cristina García’s postcolonial novel Dreaming in Cuban has been displaced: some by exile, some by madness, some by family crises. The novel reveals the similarities and differences of the scattered characters’ varying experiences through the historical, cultural and personal memories which connect them to each other. García employs the narrative structure as a rhetorical tool by making it dependant on changing narrative perspective. By moving between early and mid-twentieth century Cuba and the United States, the characters of the novel are defined through their collective memories. The three generations of the del Pino family – Celia, Lourdes and Pilar – inhabit the space between past actualities and deceptive memories as playing a pivotal role in their respective lives. The different narrative voices of these women show memory as dependent on perspective, creating in turn, individualized historical truth.

Pilar, as a limited first person narrator, notices the fine line between the actual recollection of the past and its distortion into fiction, and is frustrated that she has to rely on what other people value as important in order to create her cultural and political history. In Postcolonial Literature, in the chapter on Memory, Justin D. Edwards cites the Caribbean poet and play writer Derek Walcott who highlights this fine line by defining history as “a complex negotiation between memory, forgetting and fiction.“ (Walcott: in Edwards 2008: 132). The term “negotiation” accurately describes the complex compromise that has to be made in order to represent history. The choice of integrating some facts, will leave others out and it is impossible to authentically represent the past. Pilar argues that “we only know about Charlemagne and Napoleon because they fought their way into prosperity” (García 1992: 28). The synecdoche of famous characters such as “Charlemagne” and “Napoleon” represents the winners of history who have whole history books dedicated to them. For Pilar and her precursors the physical fight that brought them to the present, is merely a narrated memory of unmentioned battles. The use of the nature-based metaphor “prosperity” is a further tool, to create a circular notion of thriving, prospering and decaying. Characters such as Napoleon or Charlemagne are being eternalized in history books and prevented from historical decay. Pilar defies this sole historic truth and states that “If it were up to me, I’d record other things.” (García 1992: 28). The linguistic use of the conditional tense “were” and “I’d” highlights the unlikeliness of an ordinary female middle class character to make decisions on what to document and what not. Pilar further develops what “other things” she would record, such as “the time there was a freak hailstorm in the Congo and the women took it as a sign that they should rule. Or the life stories of prostitutes in Bombay.” (García, 28). Nothing is known about these events and about these women, due to historians’ decisions. The two rhetorical questions asked by Pilar “Why don’t I know anything about them? Who chooses what we should know or what’s important?” show to what extent she is questioning our common knowledge (García 1992: 28). History is not a proof of what really happened, but rather a choice of perspective by people in power.

Lourdes, as well as Historians, creates her own truth by choosing a perspective on events and people. Although she does not speak in first person narration[1], Lourdes’ character is revealed through an external narrator and  through other characters’ supplements. Pilar observes that “Mom [Lourdes] filters other people’s lives through her distorting lens.” (García 1992:176). Through the lexical field of photography (“filters”, “lens”), the reader is confronted with a paradox. On the metaphorical level the concept of a photograph is as an excerpt of an immutable truth. Lourdes is portrayed as choosing a certain perspective and therefore distorting reality. Opposing “what is really there” with “what she wants to see”, Pilar stresses the difference between the two and that Lourdes makes a choice of the way she portrays her own memory (García 1992: 176). Lourdes judges events she was not present at and although these events are static, the interpretation and focus change with time. What happened in the past is not as pivotal as how we choose to reassemble it. What we remember and what we choose to forget is who we are, it constructs our identity. Edwards paraphrases Jamaica Kincaid’s statement about selective memory, who states that: „This process of erasure is a way of controlling and manipulating stories about the past“ (Kincaid: in Edwards 2008: 132). The importance of this “process of erasure”, is that it has the power to create a new truth by choosing what we see and also what we do not see.

Celia’s narrative switches between a limited first person narration in her expressive letters, as well as a third person narration that is generally limited to her own observations and thoughts. For her, the beauty of recollection lies in the ability to interpret and rearrange the original experience at will and “Capturing images suddenly seems to her [Celia’s] an act of cruelty” (García 1992: 48). Images suspend the possibility of rearranging the past, but rather present a given frame of an excerpt of truth. The hyperbolical portray of images as an “act of cruelty”, stresses Celia’s resentment to fixing memories that can never be changed nor forgotten.  Reflecting that “memories cannot be confined” Celia reasons with the metaphor “to imprison emotions of glossy paper” to show that memories should not be rigid and eternized (García, 47-49). Contrasting Celia’s attitude towards “imprisoned emotions” on images, is Celia’s action of writing letters for 25 years on the eleventh of each month to her Spanish lover Gustavo, without ever sending them off (García 1992: 36). By writing her personal truth on paper from 1935 to 1959, Celia restricts her memories to momentary choices that will remain unchangeable on paper. After having intermitted the structure of the novel various times through Celia’s letters, the novel ends with Celia’s last line “She [Pilar] will remember everything.” (García 1992: 245). The use of the hyperbole “everything”, shows Celia’s hope of finally letting her memories keep living in another form than through unsent letters. Celia sees them safe in her granddaughter’s hands, giving Pilar the choice of perspective to create a new historical truth.

Through the narratives, constructed of the three generations del Pino women, it becomes evident, that history is not a proof of reality but rather a choice of perspective. Memories do not portray the complete truth of history and just because something is history does not mean that it represents individual memories. Pilar, as a central first person narrator, stays close to narrating her own perspective of people and situations. Lourdes, through Pilar’s narration, embodies the choice between remembering certain aspects and forgetting others, to create new historical truths that give the characters the power to control and manipulate their past. Celia’s narratives switch between a limited first person narration in her expressive letters, as well as a third person narrator generally limited to her own observations and thoughts. Thus, narrative perspective is used as a powerful tool to intertwine different characters’ realities in Dreaming in Cuban. What we hear is an opinion not a fact and history, created of memories, is one perspective not the sole truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wordcount: 1214 words

Bibliography:

  • Edwards, Justin D. “Chapter Twelve: Memory.” Postcolonial Literature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
  • García, Cristina. Dreaming in Cuban. New York: Ballantine Books, 1992

 

 

[1] Except when she has visions of her dead father.

Dreaming of Cuba in Cristina García’s Dreaming in Cuban – The Interlacing of Pilar’s Hybridity through meaning and stylistic figures

Leave a reply

 

Dreaming of Cuba in Cristina García’s Dreaming in Cuban

The Interlacing of Pilar’s Hybridity through meaning and stylistic figures

 

The political post-Cuban revolution context left many people exiled and evoked the issue of hybridity. Pilar’s inner turmoil concerning her immigrant experience is explored by contrasting the character’s longing for her home country with the slow detachment from her origins. In the chosen passage from page 137 to 138[1] in Dreaming in Cuban, the Cuban-born American novelist Cristina García plays with figures of speech to engage the reader in a reflection about the sense of belonging. By intertwining the meaning of the passage with the employment of stylistic figures such as metaphors, hyperboles and comparisons, a better understanding of Pilar’s hyphenated existence is enabled.

The different ways in which Pilar’s parents react to the separation of their homeland as well as Pilar’s own disruption between instances of longing for Cuba and letting go are explored through the use of stylistic figures. Pilar’s mother Lourdes tries to detach herself from Cuba by refusing to talk about her personal past “It doesn’t help that Mom refuses to talk about Abuela Celia. She get’s annoyed every time I ask her and she shuts me up quickly.” (138). The use of familiar language such as “she shuts me up” as well as the draconic way of showing the resistance of Lourdes dealing with her past “Mom refuses to talk” and “[Mom] gets annoyed every time” highlight the different demands from mother and daughter concerning their past. Pilar is longing for more information about her past while Lourdes is trying not to be involved in conversations concerning her personal history. Opposing Lourdes who tries to break bonds with Cuba, Pilar’s dad, Rufino Puente, is presented as being strongly attached to Cuba “Dad feels kind of lost here in Brooklyn. I think he stays in his workshop most of the day because he’d get too depressed or crazy otherwise.” (138). By using hyperbole “he’d get too depressed or crazy” attention is drawn to the inability of Rufino to find his place in Brooklyn. The trope “feeling kind of lost” is a paradox because it is impossible to be only half lost. The symbolic term “orbit” „he’s [Rufino] just in his own orbit.” (138) indicates his solitary lifestyle in the United States. As Cuba is “mostly dead” for Pilar (138) a parallel can be drawn by showing that Rufino only “looks alive” when remembering Cuba and his past (138). To demonstrate the importance of the instances where Pilar longs for Cuba, a dead metaphor is used: “But every once in a while a wave of longing will hit me and it’s all I can do not to hijack a plane to Havana or something.” (137). By using waves as a metaphor, the fragile and unpredictable state of Pilar’s feelings become evident. Feelings of longing can break out at any moment and when they do, they have a fluctuating impact. Letting Pilar be “hit” by waves exposes the force, the suddenness and also the coming and going of the above mentioned stylistic figure. This discrepancy shown by the dead metaphor “a wave of longing will hit me”, is a strong indication about Pilar’s uncertainness of where she belongs and about her inner conflict of slowly letting go of Cuba but simultaneously longing for it.

By choosing the teenage girl as a limited first person narrator as well as through the use of comparative figures of speech, Pilar’s detachment from Cuba and her ancestors can be examined.  By using antithesis “Most days Cuba is kind of dead to me.” (138), the reader’s attention is attracted to the paradox of this central statement. Firstly, although a country cannot be dead in the literary sense, the dead metaphor “being dead to someone” highlights the finality of the relationship between Cuba and Pilar. Secondly, it is impossible to be “dead on most days” which would have for consequence to be alive on the other days. During Pilar’s reflection she manifests her resentment against politicians and people in power positions, who write history by choosing a certain point of view. “I resent the hell out of the politicians and the generals who force events on us, that structure our lives, that dictate the memories we’ll have when we’re old.” (138). By using hyperbole “the hell” as well as military terminology such as “forcing”, “structuring” and “dictating” the restrictions which the politicians impose on Cubans and which will always remain in their memory no matter the context, are stressed. Through the use of the first person plural pronoun “on us”, “our lives”, “memories we’ll have”, it becomes clear, that Pilar still identifies with Cubans and feels as one of them. Pilar’s detachment from both Cuba and her grandmother occur day by day and is reinforced through the use of repetition demonstrating the slow and reoccurring progress. “Max knows about Abuela Celia in Cuba, about how she used to talk to me late at night and how we’ve lost touch over the years.” (137). The use of the past tense “how we used to” indicates the termination of this mental and emotional connection. Although the trope “losing touch” is a conventional expression, it underlines not only the loss of a mental connection, but also a physical loss. The slow detachment from Cuba, described as “fading”, gives Pilar’s self-reflection a temporality “Every day Cuba fades a little more inside me, my grandmother fades a little more inside me.” (138). Through the use of repetition “a little more inside me” we are brought back to the essential part of the phrase – the slow detachment from Pilar of her origins.

It can be concluded, that Pilar’s hybridity is demonstrated through intertwining meaning with stylistic figures. Through the effective use of drawing parallels and highlighting important elements through metaphors and hyperboles, Pilar’s inner conflict of both longing for Cuba and simultaneously letting go of it is shown. The opposing ways of dealing with the past of Pilar’s parents, reflect on Pilar who is torn between the two extremes: Lourdes who is trying to refuse her past and only lives in the moment and Rufino who is only happy when talking about Cuba. Thus Pilar has to find her own balance of these two extremes. She is torn between the two, struggling with her hyphenated existence and longing to find a way to reconcile the two sides of her life to know where she belongs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wordcount: 1055 words

Bibliography:

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

[1] From page 137 “Max knows [ … ]” until page 138 “[ … ] about Cuba.”.

“Wrestling ghosts in her dreams” Positive and Negative Hauntings Experienced by Lourdes Puente in Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban

Leave a reply

In Justin D. Edwards’s book on postcolonial literature, he explains that postcolonial writers “invoke spectres and ghosts to represent the devastating effects of colonization and slavery” (Edwards 119). Thus, haunting as a post-colonial literary device is often used to speak about a collective trauma experienced by a nation. In Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban, the members of the del Pino family have been affected by the political climate of Cuba; this country thus serves as a setting for a “collective haunting” (Edwards 121), not only for this family, but for all the population of the country as well. Some members of the del Pino family still live in Cuba while others have left the country. Among the latter, Lourdes Puente, who now lives in New York City, appears as the one who is the most haunted by what she has lived in Cuba and only the presence of her father as a ghost seems to have a calming and uplifting effect on her. Indeed, through the setting of Cuba, her memories and her body, Lourdes is haunted by the ghosts from her past, while her father’s ghost serves as a positive presence in her life; thus showing that Lourdes’s haunting is experienced in a personal level.

Lourdes is haunted by the memories of her past linked to the physical setting of Cuba. This country represents all the bad memories she has left behind when leaving for the United States of America. When she learns that her father, Jorge del Pino, has just passed away, “Lourdes imagines [him] … heading south, returning home to their beach, which is mined with sad memories” (24). In this dead metaphor, the use of the adjective “mined” creates the idea that the negative souvenirs from Lourdes’s past are buried in the ground, that they belong to the setting of the house near the beach in Santa Teresa del Mar. This adjective is also related to mines which explode if we walk upon them. Here, the fact that memories are associated to mines reinforces the idea that it is difficult for Lourdes to remember them; that they will explode if she gets too close to them. Thus, we can see that the woman has to hide away to protect herself from the painful memories of her past. In an article focusing on Lourdes’s trauma, Inger Petersson explains that “Lourdes is a woman with repressed experiences and memories” (Petersson 49). Indeed, she has lived things in Cuba that are too painful for her to remember or face directly: the lack of maternal love from her mother, the premature death of her second child and her rape by a soldier. Two of these traumatic experiences happened in the villa where Rufino Puente and Lourdes used to live when they were still in Cuba. When she finally returns to Cuba with her daughter Pilar, she goes back, alone, to this villa which is haunted with memories from her past: “she lost her second child in this place. A baby boy. A boy she would have named Jorge, after her father. A boy, Lourdes recalls, a boy in a soft clot of blood at her feet” (227). The fact that she has lost her child is associated to the “clot of blood” at her feet, which is the embryo. Furthermore, the villa in itself seems haunted by Lourdes’s traumatic experience of a loss of a child. Now that she has been able to face the ghosts of her past, she is afraid that her baby’s death is going to be “absorded quietly by the earth” (227), as if the setting of this Cuban villa had the power to retain or erase these painful events in Lourdes’s life. Therefore, Cuba serves as a setting which contains all the ghosts and painful experiences of Lourdes’s past.

Lourdes, however, does not need to be physically present in Cuba in order to be haunted by the ghosts from her past. Indeed, her body bears the physical marks and trauma that she has experienced. The loss of her child has left an emotional and psychological hole inside her body. Pilar explains that, when sleeping, “[her mother] tossed and turned all night, as if she were wrestling ghosts in her dreams. Sometimes she’d wake up crying, clutching her stomach and moaning from deep inside a place [she] couldn’t understand” (221). We can see that, while she sleeps, Lourdes is tormented by the ghosts from her past. These ghosts are present inside her body, in a place so deep and so hidden that Pilar cannot grasp its significance. This place is what Lourdes’s lost child has left: “Lourdes felt the clot disloge and liquefy beneath her breasts, float through her belly, and slide down her thighs. There was a pool of dark blood at her feet” (70). With this description of the loss of Lourdes’s child, we can see that something physical is going out of her body. She has not just lost her child, but also a part of her; a part of her that would always be present in the villa where she used to live with Rufino. Furthermore, Lourdes is also haunted by the ghost of her child when she is in New York. While sitting near a pool inside a museum with her daughter, “Lourdes is mesmerized by the greenish water, by the sad, sputtering fountain, and a wound inside her reopens” (174). The woman bears in her body the scar of the loss of her child. Because this wound is reopened, her child comes back to haunt her: “Lourdes sees the face of her unborn child, pale and blank as an egg, buoyed by the fountain waters” (174). The presence of water reminds Lourdes of the loss of her child. It is also associated with the color white, with words such as “pale”, “blank” and “egg”. Thus, here, death is paradoxically associated to the color white and to water, which are also linked to giving birth to a child. While the color white often symbolizes purity, here it is associated to death. Just after this traumatic event, Lourdes was raped by a soldier from the revolutionary government: “when he finished, the soldier lifted the knife and began to scratch at Lourdes’s belly with great concentration. A primeval scraping. Crimson hieroglyphics” (72). Lourdes’s body bears a physical trace of her rape: a scar on her belly. However, what the soldier carved is “illegible” (72), as if the reality of this act was too painful to be put into words. Both the loss of Lourdes’s child and her rape are associated with the color red. This color represents here something raw, primitive and violent. It is both associated with Lourdes’s blood and the crimson hieroglyphics on her body. Thus, the traumatic memories of her past in Cuba are present physically on her body, leaving eternal scars and haunting the woman.

While the setting of Cuba and Lourdes body are negatively haunted, the presence of Jorge’s ghost in Lourdes’s life in New York City is perceived as positive and uplifting for the woman. Indeed, “Lourdes is herself only with her father. Even after his death, they understand each other perfectly, as they always have” (31). Jorge del Pino’s presence is stronger when he is a ghost than when he was alive. The time before his death is just alluded to. On the other hand, when he is a ghost, his conversations with Lourdes and his words are transcribed in direct speech: “‘Mi hija, have you forgotten me?’ Jorge del Pino chides gently” (73). In addition to having direct transcription of what he says, we also have indications on his attitude towards his daughter and on the way he speaks to her: he scolds her in a tender manner. Inger Pettersson analyzes the relationship between Lourdes and Jorge with the concept of “borderless communication” (Pettersson 50). Indeed, their discussions transcend life and death. Developing on the idea that their relationship is positive for Lourdes, Pettersson argues that “death, or rather, the company of her dead father, will become Lourdes’s safe space” (Pettersson 50). While the death of her second child is associated to Lourdes’s sad memories from her past in Cuba, the ghost of her father embodies a positive presence in her life in New York City. Jorge helps Lourdes face the grudges she still feels for her mother and he tries to explain to her that he has also played a part in making Celia turning away from her daughter (194-197). Edwards, while referring to Toni Morrison’s treatment of haunting in her novel Beloved, explains that,

The literary use of haunting offers the possibility of representing ‘unspeakable things unspoken’. That is, the spectral can, in some cases, capture that which is beyond language, particularly experiences that are traumatic, psychologically wounding, emotionally scarring or physically harsh. (Edwards 119)

Indeed, the presence of a ghost can sometimes represent an unfinished business or something that the person, who is being haunted, has hidden away because she or he was too afraid to confront it. When Jorge explains to his daughter that she must go back to Cuba, Lourdes tells her father that he does not understand. She “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” (196). Indeed, Jorge confronts her daughter with memories of her past and, while being a positive presence in her life, he is also a constant reminder that Lourdes has not faced the traumatic experiences that she has lived in Cuba. When her father mentions Cuba, the ghost of the soldier who raped her reappears in her mind as a scent. Furthermore, she can feel again the pain that the scar she bears has left on her belly. Indeed, the presence of Jorge as a ghost in Lourdes’s life is positive but also incarnates a lucid reminder that Lourdes must face the ghosts from her past that still haunt her physically and psychologically.

Going back to this notion of “collective haunting” developed by Edwards, the characters of Dreaming in Cuban, as well as the Cuban country as a whole, are haunted by the political trauma that has marked Cuba history. Edwards explains that “in postcolonial writing […] the body politic is sometimes represented as being haunted by history” (Edwards 121). In the novel, the allusions to political figures like Batista (162), the omnipresence of Fidel Castro under the nickname “El Líder” and the allusions to events of Cuban history such as the Bay of Pigs invasion (3,25) reinforce the fact that all members of the del Pino family are affected by this Cuban history. However, Lourdes appears as the character who is the most haunted by the ghosts of her past. She has been mentally and physically marked by her traumatic experiences in Cuba. This country thus serves as a setting where ghosts and memories are still vivid and present. Lourdes’s body is also marked by the loss of her child and by her rape. However, by leaving Cuba, Lourdes did not choose to face the ghosts of her past. Thus, when Jorge died, he came back as a ghost to remind his daughter that she must face these sad memories. It is interesting to notice that the woman would have named her second child Jorge; just like her own father (227). Thus, the two ghosts are strongly associated in Lourdes’s life; however, they both play different roles in her life. While the existence of her child as a ghost is painful, her father’s presence as a ghost is calming and positive. Jorge also embodies Lourdes’s past in Cuba and the fact that she will inevitably have to go back there in order to deal with her troubled past.

Works cited:

Edwards, Justin D. “Haunting.” Postcolonial literature. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 118- 128.

Pettersson, Inger. “Telling it to the Dead: Bordeless Communication and Scars of Trauma in Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban.” Journal of Literary Studies. University of South Africa, 2013. 18 November 2016. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02564718.2013.777143>

“Hey, we’re here too and what we think matters!” The construction of Pilar Puente’s subversive identity in Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban

Leave a reply

The character of Pilar Puente, in Cristina Garcia’s novel Dreaming in Cuban, grows up as a teenager in a family torn apart physically, geographically and ideologically. As a member of the del Pino family living in the United States of America, Pilar is more and more influenced by the underground culture of the New York scene of the 1970s. In a passage on page 135 – from “I just love the way…” to “…with my mother” – the written transcription of Pilar’s spontaneous oral expression, the recurrence of the notion of violence, and allusions to notable figures of the punk movement reflect Pilar’s artistic, subversive and multiple identity, thus emphasizing that it is through this rebellious attitude that she is crafting her own identity.

The oral devices used by Pilar mirror the spontaneity of her flow of speech as well as her attitude as a teenager. She begins by explaining that “[she] just [loves] the way Lou Reed’s concerts feel” (135), Lou Reed being an American musician and an important figure of the underground music scene of the 1960s and 1970s in New York. The use of verbs of emotion such as “love” and “feel” reflects Pilar’s sensitive personality and how she perceives punk music. For her, music is apprehended through the medium of emotion. With the first-person narration and the internal focalization on Pilar’s thoughts, channeled by her stream of consciousness, we have direct access to the teenager’s point of view. Words such as “just” (135) and “it’s like” (135) are devices used in oral speech and they emphasize that it is indeed Pilar who talks and shares her thoughts. They also reflect Pilar’s use of language as a teenager. She uses short and direct phrases to express herself, such as “Not me” (135) and “If I don’t like someone, I show it.” (135). The lack of a complete sentence and the use of contractions reinforce this transcription of oral expression. The presence of direct discourse in sentences quoted by Pilar, such as “Hey, we’re here too and what we think matters!” (135), again strengthens this presence of orality. Thus, the way this passage is written is a direct transcription of Pilar’s thoughts and emotions.

The subversive directness of Pilar’s oral expression is emphasized by the recurrent presence of the notion of violence. Words such as “energy”, “violence”, “assault”, “confront”, “fuck you”, “rude” and the alliteration “grinding guitars” (135) reflect both the energy created by figures of the punk movement mentioned by Pilar, such as Lou Reed, Iggy Pop and the Ramones, and Pilar’s attitude as an artist. She uses a metaphor of a physical attack to describe their presence as “an artistic form of assault” (135). Here, the notions of violence and art are closely connected. Pilar’s artistic identity is clearly influenced by the subversive behavior of those singers. She explains that “[she tries] to translate what [she hears] into colors and volumes and lines that confront people” (135). By acknowledging the influence of punk music on her art, Pilar presents herself as belonging to this community of anticonformists. The fact that Pilar does not conform herself to the established values of society is reflected in the people Lou Reed sings about: “drug addicts, transvestites, the down-and-out” (135). Pilar identifies herself with Lou Reed because he sings about a kind of people who challenge the morality and values of the American society. Thus, the presence of violence and subversion in this passage mirrors the anticonformist attitude of punk singers and their influence on Pilar’s identity.

Pilar also characterizes her identity as being multiple by associating herself with Lou Reed and his “twenty-five personalities” (135). While speaking about the artist’s “alter egos” (135), Pilar explains that “[she feels] like a new [Pilar] sprouts and dies every day” (135). By using a metaphor of rebirth, the teenager acknowledges that she posseses more than one self. Furthermore, by making a parallel between her manifold identity and Lou Reed’s, she demonstrates that they belong to the same anticonformist community. In a passage preceding the one I am concerned with, Pilar explains that “Lou Reed says he has enough attitude to kill every person in New Jersey” (134). There is again a recurrence of the notion of violence with the words “hostile” and “kill”. This violent attitude is reflected through Pilar’s behavior as a teenager and through her work as an artist. By having “enough attitude” (134) to be “rude” (135), she differenciates herself from her boyfriend, whom she describes as being a “traditionalist” (135), thus someone who conforms to the established values of society. Indeed, Pilar chooses to present herself as being someone with an artistically violent, rebellious, and multiple identity.

The notion of belonging to a community is a recurrent theme in Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban. Whether it is by being devoted to the Cuban Revolution (Celia), by organizing a party to celebrate the Fourth of July in the United States of America (Lourdes), or by associating herself with the punk movement (Pilar), the actions of the members of the del Pino family are determined by this search of belonging. While clearly identifying herself with a part of American underground culture, and thus detaching herself from her Cuban origins, Pilar also refuses to accept the American patriotism of her mother. Her identity as a teenager and artist is thus defined as subversive. It is through her direct oral expression as well as the recurrence of words related to violence that Pilar’s identity is created. The allusions to notable figures of the punk movement of the New York scene in the 1970s serve as a reflection on the search of identity of young people during that time. As well as giving a sense of belonging to teenagers, this underground scene also enabled them to stand against the values of the older generations and create their own. Therefore, although focusing mainly on Cuba, Cristina Garcia’s novel also deals with the American perspective of the life in the 1970s and how living in an American society has an impact on Pilar’s construction of her identity.

The Different Manifestations of Orality in Cristina García’s Dreaming in Cuban

Leave a reply

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:

 

 

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

Leave a reply

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

In Cristina Gracía’s novel Dreaming in Cuban, the theme of family relationships has an important place. This theme is treated in different ways according to which character the narration is focusing on. This essay focuses on the passage that begins on page 120 from “After Mamá set him on fire |…|” and ends on page 121 till “|…|wants to hear”. It deals with Luz Villaverde’s point of view. She uses a language to describe her family that shows how her point of view is tainted with dualism. Dualism is a central term to understand Luz’s view of her family. In the Oxford English Dictionary, dualism is defined as “the doctrine that there are two independent principles, one good and the other evil”. According to this definition, there are two different sides in life: the good and the evil. This concept can be applied on Luz’s view of her family. Luz sees only the good in her father and the bad in her mother. Those views oppose themselves to each other and show the contrast from Luz’s point of view.

            Luz’s view of her family is separated in two parts: the good and the bad. Each part is linked to some family members. The language she uses when describing her family shows that her sister belongs to the good part. She uses a metaphor to describe the strong link she has with her sister: “We’re a double helix, tight and impervious” (120, García). The double helix is a scientific term that is used to describe the shape of the DNA (Oxford English Dictionary). Luz’s use of this expression has a double meaning. In fact, there is the aspect of DNA because her sister and her are twins. There is also the image of the DNA being two sides tight close together as Luz and Milagro are. They are “tight and impervious” because, like the DNA, they cannot be separated from each other. After that Luz says that their mother “can’t penetrate [them]” (120). This metaphor expresses the fact that the two sisters are so close to each other that nothing, not even their mother, can tear them apart. For Luz, Milagro is linked to the good part of her family. In the passage, there are no terms that describe Milagro being in any way a bad person. How Luz describes her sister shows the dualism in her view of her family.

            As with Milagro, Luz sees her father in a good way. The dualism can also be seen in the descriptions of her father. She considers him as the person who would save her and her sister from their mother: “I fantasized about how he’d come back to take Milagro and me away from Mamá and her coconuts” (120). She also “imagined riding on the backs of those cranes, flying to wherever he was” (120), a trope that shows how much she wants to be with him rather than with Felicia. She finds excuses for her father even if what he did was flawed: “It didn’t matter that we were too young to wear [the scarves], only that he thought we could” (120). Hugo is not close enough to them to know what they can wear or not, but, because of her positive view of her father, she does not notice this. She idealises her father because she does not know all the bad things he did to her mother. She has a biased point of view.

           The only thing that the twin sisters know is that their mother “set [their father] on fire” (120) and they resent her for this. This action is the point for Luz’s biased perception of her mother. Everything that their mother says to them are “pretty words” and “meaningless words that didn’t nourish us, that didn’t comfort us, that kept us prisoners in her alphabet world” (121). She uses the metaphor “prisoners” to express the sentiment of being stuck with her mother. This metaphor is also hyperbolic because Luz and her sister are not in a prison neither are they treated as prisoners. The sentiment of being prisoners emphasises the desire of wanting to fly “to wherever [her father] is” (120). The metaphor of the “alphabet world” emphasises the idea of “meaningless words” that her mother uses. She is stuck in a world that is made only of words that do not have a meaning for her. The word “alphabet” emphasises it because the alphabet only contains the letters and therefore the primary meaning of words. The letters alone do not have a broader meaning. When letters are put together to form a word, then this word may have multiple meanings. If one reads the word and understand it only for its primary meaning, then the broader meaning is lost. Luz does not understand her mother because Luz understands only this primary meaning of the words. Felicia is using figurative language that her daughter does not understand.

          The language Luz uses to describe her mother is so mean that she and her sister created a metaphor to name their mother: “not-Mamá” (121). This metaphor translates her resentment against her mother. Luz does not consider her mother as being a “mamá”. “Mother” is linked to the biological aspect which is giving birth whereas as “mamá” is linked to the emotional aspect. “Mamà” is the Spanish word for “mom” which is more affective. This emphasises the wickedness of the term “not-Mamá” because, by calling her mother this way, Luz shows Felicia that she is not acting like a mom should act.

         In the passage, through the oral language of Luz Villaverde, the dualism is present and opposes her family members. On the one hand, there is the good embodied by her sister and her father. On the other hand, there is the bad embodied by her mother. She has a fourteen-year-old point of view and hers shows dualism. It is also biased and does not represent the whole picture of the actual situation in her family. The reader knows that the father made mistakes as well as the mother because of the different characters’ point of views. But if the story was written in a unique point of view, the reader would not have this knowledge about the real situation. The dualism in Luz’s point of view is only noticeable because of the structure of the novel. 

References: