Becky’s review of La casa de los espíritus > Likes and Comments
228 likes · Like
I completely agree with you about this book. It seemed like a total Garcia Marquez rip-off and not even a good one. I've heard that her later books are better, but I haven't been able to make myself give them a chance.
Having read other books from her, and only now this one, I agree with you about how weak her style was. It lacks depth and structure. Try to read Daughter of Fortune, it's far better.
Definitely overuse of direct characterization. Good review!
Excellent review! I share the same sentiments.
Thank you so much for this review. I am currently writing a book that has a similar theme and was channeling my inner "Allende", so it is important for me to understand the criticisms as I tended to read it differently (e.g. I thought Clara's silence/resistance showed that she did not identify with worldly possessions, including her body, and that love and spiritual connection is the greatest gift on can offer/withhold. Leaving him would allow Estaban to forget her, as he'd forgotten Pancha Garcia and many others.)
Things to remember about this particular time frame in Latin America is that women generally didn't have a voice. And that's not only a characterization of Latin America but worldwide. So Clara not speaking to him for years, taking her own voice, does say something about women's resilience and reactions when they are backed against a wall that is patriarchy. Besides that, the narration was split between Clara, Senator Trueba, and Alba - who turned out to be the strongest female character in the novel. She rose about vengeance insofar as to not blame her captor and rapist of his crimes because "what goes around, comes around." At the end of the novel, you'll notice Alba talks about the unravelling of time, and, in that, you might see that while Clara had to be silent, Blanca got to flee, and Alba stayed right where her roots are out of strength. It unravels the history of women, and what we have been able to accomplish over time.
I haven't read the book, but respond to Debbie. If someone beats a person up, they should do whatever they have to to survive. As Marissa Alexander may show, our sexist judicial system may not honor self-defense before physical contact, but even being imprisoned is better than being dead, which is the condition of many abused people, almost all of them women. Power concedes nothing without a threat, and abusers are a perfect example, so not leaving and/or fighting back often means a victim is killed in a future incident. And if one doesn't identify with their body, they are profoundly alienated and sick, just the way the patriarchy wants them to be. That's no way to be happy. I don't know what options a woman had in mid-century Chile, but here and now, if someone attacks her, she can fight back and leave, and if she kills the attacker if the process I think she's done the rest of us a favor.
In reference to your issue with Clara's silence, remember that Esteban desired intimacy. Being denied that was torture for him, possibly more than if she had merely left. Had she simply left, he could have hated her and been done with it. Instead, she kept him hanging in, not leaving him but not speaking to him. Beyond that, because she was a woman, she would not have "rights" to Blanca if she left him. Did we not see Esteban's stubbornness and pride? His arrogance? In the way he ran his farm, his assumption that he owned all of the women who worked for him, his refusal to apologize, we did. I agree, it didn't need to be said outright in the beginning, but as it was a first novel I found it forgivable. Plus, it helped move the story along a bit, as she may have needed more pages to give show-don't-tell descriptions if every character, and the dynamic changes several went through, and it's already a decent sized novel. Also, looking at it from a symbolic lens, the "poorly developed" characters are much richer when you take into account their real-life counterparts.
On the subject of it being a Garcia Marquez ripoff, it sounded like you were saying that magical realism was only used by him, which is far from true. It's not an uncommon feature if Latin American literature.
I read it and I think this book is a weak intent of magical realism. She obviously copied García Márquez style, it always reminded me to One hundred years of Solitude, you know, the story about a family trough generations, political agenda and so on. I think she's not original, she's pretentious and overestimated.
Thanks for that review, Becky. My book club is currently reading House of Spirits, and almost everyone is ecstatic about it - not me, I'm afraid! I've only just started it, so perhaps I need to give it a chance, but so far I agree with your review wholeheartedly, especially that "it's got just enough faux-Garcia-Marquez, magical-realism-lite charm to fool people into thinking it's moderately intellectual." Having read 100 Years of Solitude, I can't help feeling Allende is a Marquez wannabe, and this is interfering with my enjoyment of whatever skills she does possess! Nice to know I am not alone in my lack of enthusiasm for this book. P.S. I've read her second book Of Love & Shadows, and was equally unimpressed!
She is overrated, I don't think she's talented at all, I agree with you, Mary.
I agree there's a lot of unnecessary forshadowing and direct characterisation, which makes it read at times like short-stories connected to each other rather than a novel which is probably to do with the fact that it is her first novel (But I can't be sure as I haven't read any of her others!).
However, I can't see why this would be "chick-lit" pretending to be "intellectual". In no way do I get the intellectual vibe here, it's more like popular/folklore story-telling for me; and if this intended to be chick-lit you would have a super attractive male hero (where is he??) and a one and only heroine that we feel identified with (where is she??) and a happy ending. Seriously?
About the García Márquez rip-off, I guess it's a family saga so you can compare it to "One hundred years of solitude", but having read other books by García Márquez instead of that one (and some of Allende's short stories previously to this novel), I didn't think of him not even once. Magic Realism is not unique of García Márquez, neither is the "family saga" subgenre, so I think that's a bit unfair, really.
I've read another books by her and I still think she is highly overrated. There are other female Latin American writers who are more talented than her, Cristina Rivera Garza and Elena Poniatowska are pretty good examples.
Hi Sandra,
I haven't read much by Allende so she could well be overrated, but I was only contesting some of the complaints levelled against "The House of the Spirts", which I think is a fair novel.
Thanks for the recommendations. I haven't heard about Rivera Garza before but Elena Poniatowska is definitely a big name I've come across. Will definitely try them some time!
Hi Patricia,
Rivera Garza's work is very interesting, I really like her style. She is not that well-known like Angeles Mastretta or Poniatowska, but she is getting more attention since Almudena Grandes recognized her talent in an interview.
Patricia wrote: "Magic Realism is not unique of García Márquez, neither is the "family saga" subgenre, so I think that's a bit unfair, really"
I read several magical realism works by a few Latin American authors (all in their original languages), and Allende was the one who stroke me as desperately trying to sound like García Márquez, which is a failure in itself.
Melvin wrote: "Allende copied or at least rewrote parts of One hundred years of solitude (Rosa the beautiful/Remedios the beautiful, Férula/Amaranta, to name a few)"
Yes!
It's not about the fact that they're both Latin American and both use magical realism. I didn't get that vibe from other authors, like Vargas Llosa, Cortázar, Jorge Amado, etc. This is not to say she's a bad writer, but I think that this is a valid criticism of her work, at least the part that I read. I admit I only read two of her books, but after having been so unimpressed, I didn't feel like giving her another shot. Maybe she developed her own style in later books, I don't know.
I think this review shows a gross misunderstanding of what this book is meant to be. Also, Clara knew the worst punishment she could inflict on her husband for his abuse was to deny him any love, attention, or even literal acknowledgement of his existence, which I think we can both agree was pretty damn effective. Even objectively I think the concept of, 'he hit her, and Clara never spoke to him again ' is pretty badass.
I have a similar assessment, but I was captivated nonetheless. I decided that the show/tell thing was just part of her style and not necessarily enough of a weakness to undermine the overall enchantment of the whole. Even the thin characterizations I got used to - and thought maybe the family as a whole was a more complete character in itself.
Your review is spot on. My sentiments exactly!
I disagree with you especially regarding-- (depicted as brave by the narrator) is to not talk to him for a couple years. Silence is the author's idea of female empowerment and resistance - huh"?" I felt their relationship was complex and as in most cultures despite not speaking against him her actions were more powerful!!
Totally agree with the lack of "show don't tell" and the foreshadowing was annoying and contrived. I am an avid reader and also write short stories so I found the "telling" weighed me down as I'm not used to that style. Most of the writing and symbolism/metaphor was well done and that's what made me persevere but it was slow going. It just proves the theory of what appeals to one won't appeal to someone else.
Thanks for your review. I think there is too much overt foreshadowing as well.
Becky i want to ask you a question ,, is there the element of women suppression in this novel the house of the spirit ,plzz tell me..
My biggest issue with House of Spirits is that for a take that supposedly follows three generations of strong, interesting women, but Blanca and Alba were somewhat lackluster for me. Blanca is a nice, levelheaded young woman who loves a socialist and can sculpt because all the women in the family are creative. Not much more to her than that, her brothers were more interesting than she was.
Alba is set up as a precocious, dynamic character. She kind of becomes a socialist, but it seems more like she's infatuated with her socialist boyfriend than the ideology itself. The women typically seem more interested in supporting their lovers/husbands than formulating ideology and opinions on their own. There is a strong message about surviving sexual assault, but as a whole the women seem very defined by their relationship to men, which is strange for a "feminist" novel.
I also think that you have to review Clara's response in context of the era and the location. I have lived in Latin America for 20 years and feel her response was actually pretty strong. She was not living in Sweden in 2020.
I feel exactly the same about this book!
I could have written this review myself. I’m half way through and still don’t feel a connection to the characters. I prefer Eva Luna.
For the people calling this a Marquez rip-off, I'm sorry that 100 Years of Solitude already ticked your token L.A. magical realism bucket and now there is no more space for other authors. Also, calling this "faux-Garcia-Marquez chick-lit" is so offensively hand-wavy, especially in the context of Latin American literature, where machismo is rampant. It also completely misses the mark on what this novel was trying to do.
literally!!! i especially agree with you on the foreshadowing and the blatant descriptions of her character’s thoughts and feelings, it annoyed me so much while reading the book. her use of language and the beautiful stylistic construction of her sentences is what saves this book a bit, otherwise it really doesn’t differentiate itself much from any other overly violent, sensational, historic fantasy chick lit. glad to see i’m not the only one who thinks this.
I don’t get a chick lit vibe from this at all
> Anyway, on top of that, the only sections of first-person narration in the novel are from the point of view of the patriarch.
This is crucially not true
Hi Becky have you lived in Latin America? You realize the story didn’t take place in 2024? I sense you know nothing about women’s experiences in Latin America. Phewww eye roll
I’m
Reading it right know and feel the saaaame.
Can’t shake that it’s a copy paste for 100 years of solitude.
And I agree it’s entertaining but very meee especially the second part of the book
Wow, I’m not imagining things. Your remark concerning the “show don’t tell” problem is something most every writers workshop I’ve attended has addressed. And something I’ve noticed with no small measure of annoyance while struggling through two of her novels. The more a writer tells and doesn’t reveal character diminishes any reader’s investment in the outcome of the characters story. I can’t always get over the fact that just because an author is popular doesn’t mean the quality of writing parallels their book sales.
Answering Ricko's comment I don't get how it is show don't tell when there are enough sections that show Estaban Trueba's patriarchal behavior for the reader to analyze instead of blindly following the authors depiction of the character.. Can someone explain or let me know if you agree with me
Hey Becky, I like your toughness and honesty in reviewing Allende which is why I'd love you to tear my manuscript into pieces, please! I am looking for beta readers for a novel I've just written, though the hero here is the swashbuckling Simon Bolivar! If you are interested, please DM and I can send you an NDA. Thanks for considering.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Lynn
(new)
Jan 01, 2010 10:00AM
I completely agree with you about this book. It seemed like a total Garcia Marquez rip-off and not even a good one. I've heard that her later books are better, but I haven't been able to make myself give them a chance.
reply
|
flag
Having read other books from her, and only now this one, I agree with you about how weak her style was. It lacks depth and structure. Try to read Daughter of Fortune, it's far better.
Definitely overuse of direct characterization. Good review!
Excellent review! I share the same sentiments.
Thank you so much for this review. I am currently writing a book that has a similar theme and was channeling my inner "Allende", so it is important for me to understand the criticisms as I tended to read it differently (e.g. I thought Clara's silence/resistance showed that she did not identify with worldly possessions, including her body, and that love and spiritual connection is the greatest gift on can offer/withhold. Leaving him would allow Estaban to forget her, as he'd forgotten Pancha Garcia and many others.)
Things to remember about this particular time frame in Latin America is that women generally didn't have a voice. And that's not only a characterization of Latin America but worldwide. So Clara not speaking to him for years, taking her own voice, does say something about women's resilience and reactions when they are backed against a wall that is patriarchy. Besides that, the narration was split between Clara, Senator Trueba, and Alba - who turned out to be the strongest female character in the novel. She rose about vengeance insofar as to not blame her captor and rapist of his crimes because "what goes around, comes around." At the end of the novel, you'll notice Alba talks about the unravelling of time, and, in that, you might see that while Clara had to be silent, Blanca got to flee, and Alba stayed right where her roots are out of strength. It unravels the history of women, and what we have been able to accomplish over time.
I haven't read the book, but respond to Debbie. If someone beats a person up, they should do whatever they have to to survive. As Marissa Alexander may show, our sexist judicial system may not honor self-defense before physical contact, but even being imprisoned is better than being dead, which is the condition of many abused people, almost all of them women. Power concedes nothing without a threat, and abusers are a perfect example, so not leaving and/or fighting back often means a victim is killed in a future incident. And if one doesn't identify with their body, they are profoundly alienated and sick, just the way the patriarchy wants them to be. That's no way to be happy. I don't know what options a woman had in mid-century Chile, but here and now, if someone attacks her, she can fight back and leave, and if she kills the attacker if the process I think she's done the rest of us a favor.
In reference to your issue with Clara's silence, remember that Esteban desired intimacy. Being denied that was torture for him, possibly more than if she had merely left. Had she simply left, he could have hated her and been done with it. Instead, she kept him hanging in, not leaving him but not speaking to him. Beyond that, because she was a woman, she would not have "rights" to Blanca if she left him. Did we not see Esteban's stubbornness and pride? His arrogance? In the way he ran his farm, his assumption that he owned all of the women who worked for him, his refusal to apologize, we did. I agree, it didn't need to be said outright in the beginning, but as it was a first novel I found it forgivable. Plus, it helped move the story along a bit, as she may have needed more pages to give show-don't-tell descriptions if every character, and the dynamic changes several went through, and it's already a decent sized novel. Also, looking at it from a symbolic lens, the "poorly developed" characters are much richer when you take into account their real-life counterparts.
On the subject of it being a Garcia Marquez ripoff, it sounded like you were saying that magical realism was only used by him, which is far from true. It's not an uncommon feature if Latin American literature.
I read it and I think this book is a weak intent of magical realism. She obviously copied García Márquez style, it always reminded me to One hundred years of Solitude, you know, the story about a family trough generations, political agenda and so on. I think she's not original, she's pretentious and overestimated.
Thanks for that review, Becky. My book club is currently reading House of Spirits, and almost everyone is ecstatic about it - not me, I'm afraid! I've only just started it, so perhaps I need to give it a chance, but so far I agree with your review wholeheartedly, especially that "it's got just enough faux-Garcia-Marquez, magical-realism-lite charm to fool people into thinking it's moderately intellectual." Having read 100 Years of Solitude, I can't help feeling Allende is a Marquez wannabe, and this is interfering with my enjoyment of whatever skills she does possess! Nice to know I am not alone in my lack of enthusiasm for this book. P.S. I've read her second book Of Love & Shadows, and was equally unimpressed!
She is overrated, I don't think she's talented at all, I agree with you, Mary.
I agree there's a lot of unnecessary forshadowing and direct characterisation, which makes it read at times like short-stories connected to each other rather than a novel which is probably to do with the fact that it is her first novel (But I can't be sure as I haven't read any of her others!).However, I can't see why this would be "chick-lit" pretending to be "intellectual". In no way do I get the intellectual vibe here, it's more like popular/folklore story-telling for me; and if this intended to be chick-lit you would have a super attractive male hero (where is he??) and a one and only heroine that we feel identified with (where is she??) and a happy ending. Seriously?
About the García Márquez rip-off, I guess it's a family saga so you can compare it to "One hundred years of solitude", but having read other books by García Márquez instead of that one (and some of Allende's short stories previously to this novel), I didn't think of him not even once. Magic Realism is not unique of García Márquez, neither is the "family saga" subgenre, so I think that's a bit unfair, really.
I've read another books by her and I still think she is highly overrated. There are other female Latin American writers who are more talented than her, Cristina Rivera Garza and Elena Poniatowska are pretty good examples.
Hi Sandra,I haven't read much by Allende so she could well be overrated, but I was only contesting some of the complaints levelled against "The House of the Spirts", which I think is a fair novel.
Thanks for the recommendations. I haven't heard about Rivera Garza before but Elena Poniatowska is definitely a big name I've come across. Will definitely try them some time!
Hi Patricia,Rivera Garza's work is very interesting, I really like her style. She is not that well-known like Angeles Mastretta or Poniatowska, but she is getting more attention since Almudena Grandes recognized her talent in an interview.
Patricia wrote: "Magic Realism is not unique of García Márquez, neither is the "family saga" subgenre, so I think that's a bit unfair, really"I read several magical realism works by a few Latin American authors (all in their original languages), and Allende was the one who stroke me as desperately trying to sound like García Márquez, which is a failure in itself.
Melvin wrote: "Allende copied or at least rewrote parts of One hundred years of solitude (Rosa the beautiful/Remedios the beautiful, Férula/Amaranta, to name a few)"
Yes!
It's not about the fact that they're both Latin American and both use magical realism. I didn't get that vibe from other authors, like Vargas Llosa, Cortázar, Jorge Amado, etc. This is not to say she's a bad writer, but I think that this is a valid criticism of her work, at least the part that I read. I admit I only read two of her books, but after having been so unimpressed, I didn't feel like giving her another shot. Maybe she developed her own style in later books, I don't know.
I think this review shows a gross misunderstanding of what this book is meant to be. Also, Clara knew the worst punishment she could inflict on her husband for his abuse was to deny him any love, attention, or even literal acknowledgement of his existence, which I think we can both agree was pretty damn effective. Even objectively I think the concept of, 'he hit her, and Clara never spoke to him again ' is pretty badass.
I have a similar assessment, but I was captivated nonetheless. I decided that the show/tell thing was just part of her style and not necessarily enough of a weakness to undermine the overall enchantment of the whole. Even the thin characterizations I got used to - and thought maybe the family as a whole was a more complete character in itself.
Your review is spot on. My sentiments exactly!
I disagree with you especially regarding-- (depicted as brave by the narrator) is to not talk to him for a couple years. Silence is the author's idea of female empowerment and resistance - huh"?" I felt their relationship was complex and as in most cultures despite not speaking against him her actions were more powerful!!
Totally agree with the lack of "show don't tell" and the foreshadowing was annoying and contrived. I am an avid reader and also write short stories so I found the "telling" weighed me down as I'm not used to that style. Most of the writing and symbolism/metaphor was well done and that's what made me persevere but it was slow going. It just proves the theory of what appeals to one won't appeal to someone else.
Thanks for your review. I think there is too much overt foreshadowing as well.
Becky i want to ask you a question ,, is there the element of women suppression in this novel the house of the spirit ,plzz tell me..
My biggest issue with House of Spirits is that for a take that supposedly follows three generations of strong, interesting women, but Blanca and Alba were somewhat lackluster for me. Blanca is a nice, levelheaded young woman who loves a socialist and can sculpt because all the women in the family are creative. Not much more to her than that, her brothers were more interesting than she was. Alba is set up as a precocious, dynamic character. She kind of becomes a socialist, but it seems more like she's infatuated with her socialist boyfriend than the ideology itself. The women typically seem more interested in supporting their lovers/husbands than formulating ideology and opinions on their own. There is a strong message about surviving sexual assault, but as a whole the women seem very defined by their relationship to men, which is strange for a "feminist" novel.
I also think that you have to review Clara's response in context of the era and the location. I have lived in Latin America for 20 years and feel her response was actually pretty strong. She was not living in Sweden in 2020.
I feel exactly the same about this book!
I could have written this review myself. I’m half way through and still don’t feel a connection to the characters. I prefer Eva Luna.
For the people calling this a Marquez rip-off, I'm sorry that 100 Years of Solitude already ticked your token L.A. magical realism bucket and now there is no more space for other authors. Also, calling this "faux-Garcia-Marquez chick-lit" is so offensively hand-wavy, especially in the context of Latin American literature, where machismo is rampant. It also completely misses the mark on what this novel was trying to do.
literally!!! i especially agree with you on the foreshadowing and the blatant descriptions of her character’s thoughts and feelings, it annoyed me so much while reading the book. her use of language and the beautiful stylistic construction of her sentences is what saves this book a bit, otherwise it really doesn’t differentiate itself much from any other overly violent, sensational, historic fantasy chick lit. glad to see i’m not the only one who thinks this.
I don’t get a chick lit vibe from this at all
> Anyway, on top of that, the only sections of first-person narration in the novel are from the point of view of the patriarch. This is crucially not true
Hi Becky have you lived in Latin America? You realize the story didn’t take place in 2024? I sense you know nothing about women’s experiences in Latin America. Phewww eye roll
I’mReading it right know and feel the saaaame.
Can’t shake that it’s a copy paste for 100 years of solitude.
And I agree it’s entertaining but very meee especially the second part of the book
Wow, I’m not imagining things. Your remark concerning the “show don’t tell” problem is something most every writers workshop I’ve attended has addressed. And something I’ve noticed with no small measure of annoyance while struggling through two of her novels. The more a writer tells and doesn’t reveal character diminishes any reader’s investment in the outcome of the characters story. I can’t always get over the fact that just because an author is popular doesn’t mean the quality of writing parallels their book sales.
Answering Ricko's comment I don't get how it is show don't tell when there are enough sections that show Estaban Trueba's patriarchal behavior for the reader to analyze instead of blindly following the authors depiction of the character.. Can someone explain or let me know if you agree with me
Hey Becky, I like your toughness and honesty in reviewing Allende which is why I'd love you to tear my manuscript into pieces, please! I am looking for beta readers for a novel I've just written, though the hero here is the swashbuckling Simon Bolivar! If you are interested, please DM and I can send you an NDA. Thanks for considering.
