Thomas Rivera

This week we had two very fascinating reads. Tomas Rivera's "And the Earth Did Not Devour Him," and Richard Rodriguez's "Aria."

Although these works were composed nearly a decade apart from each other, they have similar ideas and fight the same battle: The turmoil and conflicts of being a part of the Chicano culture.

In Rivera's work, the main focus is on a young boy who goes through a sort of identity crisis and loses track of himself. Only through the coming of age and the passage of time does he finally reach a state of understanding himself and his culture. This theme is also very prevalent in Rodriguez's writing. The subject is the young Rodriguez, who faces a realization about his life after he grows and gains the maturity that one garners from age. The process of aging, and the level of understanding that brings is a theme in both stories.

Speaking broadly, both texts offer a window into the Mexican American world. Rivera tells tales in the form of multiple vignettes, each with its own unique story. The recurring theme throughout however is focused on the life of migrant workers at the time.

Rodriguez reports the same minority challenges, but on a smaller, social scale. He recalls his childhood and the difficulties of a Mexican family living in the United States. He fights to keep his heritage and the comfort it brings, but ultimately is forced to conform to public society.

Looking closer, both texts are primarily seen through the eyes of a young boy; but more specifically, a boy who represents the Chicano cultural strife. The subject loses his innocence as time goes on, and it shapes his demeanor. These stories both tell of Chicano hardship in the form of a personified character. Years of abuse, degradation, and harassment come to define the culture, and the beauty of its people lies within the black and blue that remains. This is seen in the characters of both stories: a boy and his culture are beaten down and stripped of individuality as their heritage is condemned.

Another clear similarity between the texts is a sense of isolation. In both stories, the main character is on the outskirts trying to fit in with the rest of society. The isolation is an important element in character development as it affects the mental and social dynamic of the characters. The battle for social equilibrium is omnipresent in the stories, just as it is in the culture, making a very important point.

Rodriguez relays how the Spanish language is lost in the "proper" society of America, while Rivera tells of the oppression a working Chicano citizen may face.

Although they write of different sides of the conflict, the immediate message is the same.

Both these works are influential and controversial pieces and continue to be very important in defining the Chicano culture.

For my discussion question, I would like to bring up the usage of children in both texts.
The recurring  focus on juveniles in these works is extremely apparent. What were the authors' purposes for using these select characters? To convey a sense of innocence and the ability to grow as a person, or is it relatable on other levels? And if children are also used to represent the Chicano culture, what is being said about the culture?

Woman Hollering Creek

Woman Hollering Creek is a short story by Sandra Cisneros about a woman whose delusions of marriage are wiped away as harsh reality sets in.

The passage I chose for scrutiny is on page 49 of the story:

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

This passage takes place close to what I believe is the climax in the plot. After Cleofilas marries her lover, her new husband abuses her and life quickly becomes hellish. The woman begins to realize that marriage is nothing like what she saw on television. This paragraph paces her stark revelation and presents a plot complication as Cleofilas finally sees the gold fade from what she thought would be heaven. The rising fear and conflict eventually incites the woman's desire to run away and become free. 

Indirect character presentation is used in this passage to show the reader the kind of tension and abuse that occurs regularly in the household of Cleofilas and her partner Juan. Her husband is portrayed as a stereotypical abusive husband as he cusses and twists the blame onto Cleofilas. The man's "Prince 

Charming" illusion wears off as his wife lives in constant fear and oppression. The run-on-sentence seems to symbolize her husband's growing agitation. It starts with one example of conflict, which then snowballs into a rant of frustration that the angry man expresses.
Cleofilas is a very dynamic character. She starts as a very simple and young woman with great naiveté towards marriage, but as the story progresses, she becomes worldly; the fantasies on telenovelas are just that, and there is never "happily ever after." She is worn and quite literally beaten down. She gains a knowledge that only hardship can create.

The Point of View in this story is mainly that of Cleofilas and the reader experiences each passage through her weary and inevitably biased viewpoint. However, this passage makes a sudden shift to be focused on the husband's viewpoint and his emotion towards the situation halfway through; a window into his abusive mindset.
The mood of the story is very heavy. The images that the author's diction creates easily create a very depressing scene. The usage of words such as "the baby's howling," "this shitty house" and "doorways without doors," set an atmosphere of a dark, dank, and low-wealth house that is constantly teetering on the edge.

All of these elements make up for a heart-wrenching story of a pain so deep that the reader can feel it. I found it to be a very interesting read, and the select diction allows it be interpreted in many different ways. I would often reread the same passage periodically throughout my close reading to find a completely new meaning in the words. This is the magic of literature.
The question I bring to the table is about this diction and the author's reasons for using it.

Throughout the story there are pockets of dialog, however the conversations are presented without quotations and in the same format as other non-conversational passages, making them harder to comprehend. What is the purpose of this? What was the author's motive behind this unique approach?