21st Century Literature discussion

Over the period of a few years, María has spent part of every morning watching a married man and woman in a neighborhood café. She is drawn to them because of their seeming happiness, "as if they provided me with a vision of an orderly or. . . harmonious world" (4). Is this a strange thing to do? What does it reveal about María?

It's strange on the face of it, but the author makes it seem natural, believable. I think we all tell ourselves stories about people we never speak to, and if it so happens that we see the same people regularly, why would they not become people we need to ascribe things to, that have an effect on us... if they don't speak, in their roles in our life, why not give them voices?

I suppose not everyone would place as much importance on such people, though... they are not merely entertainment or idle curiosity to her... they are something that gives her something she doesn't have, a sense of steadiness and balance that she does not have in her life. Perhaps she is slightly romantic, because she never once thinks that this is only a public face, and perhaps she lacks what it takes to go beyond vicariousness and make something like this a part of her life in which she is an actor, not a member of the audience, to find someone who will love her like the husband seems to love the wife, someone with whom she can build a life like the one they have, in some small ways.

I love the first 50 or so pages-I think I'm in love with this book. The digressions seem to point back to the text. I totally believe in these people as a touchstone for the narrator. What happens to them seems to be symbolic of something-whether for the narrator or for all of us remains to be seen.
In response to Terry, I think the narrator doesn't want to go beyond the couple's outward appearance-they serve a function for her that is about her needs not their reality.

Hi Ellie. I had considered that at the point you're at... later developments make me move a little away from that, although maybe the difference between can't and at some level don't want to is actually quite small...

And yes, I am also in love with the book.

I can't wait to find out!

Maria. Marias. She seems to be filling the same type of first person narrative role as in his other books, eg, Heart So White. She is the watcher, the commenter, she is the one putting words in their mouths and thoughts in their heads. Just like Marias is doing. Maria seems to be the vehicle for Marias.

The author's first name is Javier. A main character in the book is also name Javier. Do you think he is a "vehicle" also?

Casceil wrote: "The author's first name is Javier. A main character in the book is also name Javier. Do you think he is a "vehicle" also?"
It was interesting when he appeared for the first time -- who is this, and why was he given this name by the author? I guess I could speculate in Part 2 discussions...
Marias likes to recycle his character types and their names; they are not necessarily the same characters, but they are the same kinds. Luisa, the wife here, often appears in his fictions as a wife or girlfriend. And he has said he often uses his own names. (Paris Review interview)

Terry wrote: "I suppose not everyone would place as much importance on such people, though... they are not merely entertainment or idle curiosity to her... they are something that gives her something she doesn't have, a sense of steadiness and balance that she does not have in her life. "

My impression was that she's infatuated!

Cheryl wrote: "She is the watcher, the commenter, she is the one putting words in their mouths and thoughts in their heads. Just like Marias is doing. Maria seems to be the vehicle for Marias. "

My thoughts, exactly.

Casceil wrote: "The author's first name is Javier. A main character in the book is also name Javier. Do you think he is a "vehicle" also?"

I think there's a sense that all characters are vehicles for an author's ideas. But in this case it's very marked (!) Besides María needs someone to bounce her ideas off...

When María learns that Miguel was killed on the same day she last saw him, she realizes that "his wife and I had said goodbye to him at the same time, she with her lips and I with my eyes only"

What do you think of María's reaction to the murder? Is María in love with Miguel? Or just infatuated?

I think Maria was infatuated with the idea of the perfect couple. I don't think she was "in love" with Miguel, or jealous of Louisa.

Yes, I think infatuation is more like it. But does this affect how we feel about María ?

I ask this because the entire story is transmitted through the perspective of María. Does this call into question her authority or her reliability?

Sophia, I don't see why it would.

I'm not sure I altogether trust infatuated people, particularly when they are infatuated with comparative strangers!

I agree that infatuated people are usually unreliable as narrators. I don't think Maria was infatuated with Miguel though. I think she loved the idea that there was this perfect couple she could observe.

Was she envious of the perfect couple?

Luisa says she would feel better if someone had plotted against her husband. She has looked up the word envidia—envy—and reads a part of the dictionary entry to María: "Unfortunately, this poison is often engendered in the breasts of those who are and who we believe to be our closest friends, in whom we trust; they are far more dangerous than our declared enemies" Luisa later introduces Javier to María as "one of Miguel's best friends"

What's your first impression of Javier?

My first impression of Javier is pretty much colored by María's. He's the bachelor who in María's imagined conversation between him and Miguel doesn't want to entertain the questions of death. He unwillingly accepts to be Miguel's "back up" if Miguel should die, but is hurt when Miguel suggests Louisa wouldn't be interested in him romantically. So, it seems Javier has a sort of pride, even in the hypothetical. He seems dependable too, as Maria observes him picking up the children and arriving later on with the Professor. But what is fascinating, and already mentioned in this thread, most impressions of Javier are filtered or conjured in Maria's mind. Is she a reliable narrator? Only so far as what she is fantasizing is true to her observations. A good bulk of this novel so far are extensions and mental fantasies of what Maria is experiencing. My question is does she have a motive yet? I would guess her motive is to immerse herself or attach herself to her infatuation, which she has seemed to successfully done so far.

Mark wrote: "My question is does she have a motive yet? I would guess her motive is to immerse herself or attach herself to her infatuation, which she has seemed to successfully done so far. "

Oh, absolutely. This novel is all about infatuations - on so many levels!

Luisa tells María that Miguel's death has changed her way of thinking: "It's as though I've become a different person since then . . . with an unfamiliar, alien mentality, someone given to making strange connections and being frightened by them" She now hears a siren and is overcome with dread, not knowing who might be ill or wounded or dying. Has her husband's death made Luisa think more like a novelist?

Sophia wrote: "Luisa tells María that Miguel's death has changed her way of thinking: "It's as though I've become a different person since then . . . with an unfamiliar, alien mentality, someone given to making s..." That's an interesting question. I think there definitely could be a case made for that. Luisa is now tightly connected to sudden loss, death, and suffering, all that novelists exploit on the page. "Art imitates life" or " life imitates art" would be appropriate here. According to Luisa, the world is now affecting her in a new way. She seems more aware of universal suffering, and yet she can be selfish in her new suffering: sometimes she doesn't want to bother with life, which is part of mourning. But, yeah, this book, from Luisa's dialogue to Maria's speculations is highly literary--I would say a novelist's novel.

This also reads like a detective novel! When were your suspicions first aroused that all was not as it seemed? Where and when was the first seed planted?

Because of the description of the book, I guess I went into it suspecting that all was not as it seemed. For me, I think the first solid clue was learning that the chauffeur had previously been attacked by the same man who later killed Miguel.

I don't think I had an eureka moment when I suspected reading a detective type novel. My suspicion that there's mystery involved just crept up on me. Somewhere along the line, it did occur to me in bits and pieces.

I think I must be very dense. It took me an age. I tend to read most books with little or no expectations. Accordingly I never read the blurb on the back cover. I want to be surprised by the way things turn out and not to be told in advance.

Did you consider that María might kill Luisa? I ask because I thought we were heading for another murder somewhere along the line.

I considered the possibility, but not seriously. Maria fantasizing about Luisa dying was one of the points in the book that just felt wrong to me. I was expecting a more complicated scheme behind Miguel's death. I considered the possibility that he might have been involved in something criminal and died as a result.

Yes that occurred to me, too.

What did you make of Garay Fontina?