Reflection : Death with Interruptions by Jose Saramago

Death with Interruptions by Jose Saramago, was a fun one. The style of writing was very different, sentences were long and separated by commas which made it hard to follow at some points as you had to figure out who was talking mostly based on context. Also, the author would address the reader midway through to try to explain potential plot holes or inconsistencies with logic in the book, like the first family that decided to bring their relatives across the border owns (I think it was a horse and a cart ?)  but they were said to be poor so it is unlikely that they could own these things??? It felt like the author was pre-firing and silencing the people who would point out inconsistencies before they could even finish the book, showing that he was one step ahead of the people who believed they could outsmart the novel. I also realized while reading like what was said in the lecture video, that the way that Death writes her letters is similar to the way that the author uses punctuation and that the whole thing with the grammarian critiquing Death’s writing and Death's snarky reply to him was probably Saramago getting back at his critics once again.

For a book that focuses a lot on death, I found it to be quite funny. Like the fact that one of the major problems that the government has to face is dealing with the people who are in charge of funerals because they are mad that they lost their only source of revenue with the government's solution being to make it obligatory to hold burials and create coffins for all the animals that died. While that sounds pretty absurd it also kinda reminds me of ancient Egypt which I thought was cool.  Also, death as an entity was not what I would have expected it to be like. Instead of the grim reaper that you imagine, which is cold, and calculated and only takes people to the land of the dead, the one presented in the novel is much more human-like and is capable of being frustrated or tired, and that even death is not free from the nightmare of bureaucracy.

I also found the idea of how Death would affect the government and society as a whole to be interesting. In theory, the prevention of death would mean that old values should never really die since those that hold them don't die either, but the novel offers a different perspective on this. The Church and Christianity, upon which society at the time based its sense of morality would cease to exist since death is fundamental to religion, and as the Cardinal says “without resurrection, there is no church” (10).

My question for everyone,

Did the novel change your perspective on eternal life?

Reflection : Money to Burn by Ricardo Piglia

 When I was reading the book, the events seemed very farfetched, so I was surprised that at the end of the novel, in the epilogue to find out that these events had actually happened and this wasn’t a work of fiction. I thought that the way of communicating the deaths of characters who were killed as if it were from a news report was more of a stylistic choice rather than the fact that it was probably the way that the author himself was able to adapt the story from the actual events. However, learning that the novel was not fiction has not really taken away from the experience I had when reading it, I felt like the changes in giving the characters more depth (by potentially having invented things) benefited the story since we already know the characters are not good people but now they can also be interesting (and still bad of course).

I also sometimes question whether the “true crime” genre should even be a thing, on one hand, they usually succeed in showing us how depraved and messed up the individuals who commit these kinds of acts are but they also show dramatic reenactments of real people being killed whose families may still be coping from the loss. Even though I know the genre can offer more than just entertainment, something feels wrong about being invested in a story like this and consuming this kind of media for enjoyment. The novel sort of explores this, where spectators are gathered around the house that is under siege by the police or watching the events unfold through one of the news broadcasts. Are some of them watching because they are directly affected by the events of the robbery, or do they treat it as some sort of drama (Maybe some do both)?    

I also found it quite bizarre that the bystanders and news reporters viewed the burning of the stolen money to be a more deplorable and disgusting act than all of the murders the robbers had committed. I guess you could argue that by burning the money it shows that the members of the gang had killed all those people for essentially nothing, but I mean they were already trapped and facing certain death so it makes sense that they did not want anyone from the police to get any of the money. It also seems like the citizens are unaware of how corrupt the police and the government are, “If they agreed with the police to hand it over to a charitable foundation, everything would have gone differently for them” (170) they believe that the police somehow lack the same greed and motivations that the robbers have when the Argentine police officers were directly involved in the robbery and had also cooperated with the perpetrators.

My question for everyone:
What are your thoughts on the “true crime” genre? Do you view it (favourably/indifferently/ unfavourably)?

Reflection: The Trenchcoat by Manea

 I found myself a bit confused when reading this one, as it was often hard to tell who was speaking at times when reading the novel. The author would also often use nicknames referring to some characters, alternating from calling a character “the kid”, “the guileless one” and the wasp”, or in other cases I was unsure that “Bazil” and “Vasile” where the same character or not.

The novel follows two couples in Romania under a totalitarian regime, who are going to get together at the home of Bazil and Dina Beldeanu,  who seem to have connections within the regime. 

The couples feel uneasy enjoying the luxurious meals that were prepared while the rest of the country is without food or electricity.  Even though the atmosphere is light, we feel the inauthenticity as if the host is performing for the guests, where each question, mannerism, and even the way he says goodbye is rehearsed. By the end of the night, the guests felt like they had a good time and that the get-together succeeded in allowing them to remember how to have fun and acted as a break from the monotonousness cycle of everyday life, even if it was just for a short while (or maybe it was just the alcohol talking).  

However, after it is over, the couples seem to be reluctant to even give a phone call to their hosts to thank them, and it is as if they don’t want to maintain a friendship with the Beldeanus. I believe that both couples distrust the Beldeanus, echoing the common sentiment at the time where the feeling that anyone could be an informant watching for your every move. It also does not help that Bazil is a party member and even though he attempts to try and separate himself from them by saying that “there are lots of people who get us mixed up with them. Especially these last few years, people figure everyone’s a snitch, on the payroll of the secret police”, the distrust still remains. One of the couples eventually calls them to thank them, seemingly marking the conclusion of their relationship. But then, Dina mentions that someone has left a raincoat at their home. Something that would otherwise be considered an insignificant event, causes Dina to become suspicious and she starts trying to meet with both couples.

At first, I thought the raincoat was something that Dina made up so she could have an excuse to talk with them once again because maybe she secretly wanted to keep these people in her life as she seemed to be somewhat lonely and discontent with the boredom in her life. After that, I thought that maybe she used the raincoat as a way for her to have a way to start a conversation with “the kid” who is an old childhood friend of hers, as she admits that she has wanted the possibility to have a conversation with him for a long time.

At the end of the novel, Ionna sees Dina and her childhood friend “the kid” together both wearing a raincoat where Ionna learns from her husband Ali, that Dina and “the kid” go on walks together every week. Ionna refuses to believe that “the kid” who is supposed to have an apparent hatred for Dina would suddenly start going on walks with her without having an ulterior motive causing Ionna to go into a fit of rage and start questioning everything.

To me, it seems like maybe Ionna is unable to accept that “the kid” and Dina are just rekindling their old friendship as a way to help with the boredom that is present in both of their lives. Her attempts to analyze and further try to come up with theories for the reason why both of them were wearing raincoats show how distrustful she is and a tendency to assume the worst in people (which I guess is sort of justified considering the period in which she lives).

Personally, I was not sure what the trenchcoat was supposed to represent, the fact that it is described as something that is constantly changing and that the characters would often mix up by either calling it a trenchcoat or a raincoat, I just wasn't really sure what to make out of it. I guess the fact that it causes Dina anxiety could represent the feeling that someone could always be watching and the mental struggle that is associated with that feeling. Or maybe we are all like Ionna trying to find meaning in something that could just be a coincidence and ultimately doesn't mean anything.

My question for everyone:

What do you think the trenchcoat represents?