An eleven chapter long, must read novel.It brings some social perspective regarding the First World war. Paul Bäumer, a young student, loses all his fAn eleven chapter long, must read novel.It brings some social perspective regarding the First World war. Paul Bäumer, a young student, loses all his future and hope as he's convinced to fight the good fight, and the lies of patriotism and honor crumble before his own eyes with the irreparable loss of the ones he has loved, as well as his first killing, which is perhaps one of the most moving moments of the book. Knowing how impacting this must have been in a moment between two World Wars, and how despised the author was by the Nazi Regime, it's peculiar that I hadn't read this before or even heard of it. But here we are. And I guess that despite all its crude content it preserves some youthful outlook, perhaps to remind us that the young are the ones called to awake, to leave hate behind, even when it's drawn by apparently more powerful forces with experience and "authority".
"I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear, and fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow. I see how peoples are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another. I see that the keenest brains of the world invent weapons and words to make it yet more refined and enduring. And all men of my age, here and over there, throughout the whole world see these things; all my generation is experiencing these things with me. What would our fathers do if we suddenly stood up and came before them and proffered our account? What do they expect of us if a time ever comes when the war is over? Through the years our business has been killing;--it was our first calling in life. Our knowledge of life is limited to death. What will happen afterwards? And what shall come out of us?"
It definitely leaves a lot of thinking to do....more
I've wanted to read Mulieris Dignitatem for too long and maybe it works as an answer after having read a feminist, well known outlook on the situationI've wanted to read Mulieris Dignitatem for too long and maybe it works as an answer after having read a feminist, well known outlook on the situation of women. Maybe, it also works as an answer in a society where women are ridiculed by following a religion, claiming independence of men by becoming objects and succumbing to bad worldly things in the name of liberation, things that make them renounce their own nature.
Pope John Paul II starts this letter with a brief introduction on how dignity of women has been biblically rooted, and its progress discussed in preceeding encyclicals to his own, and the declaration of St. Thérèse Lisieux and St. Catherine Siena as Doctors of the Church. Then, he moves on forward to the explanation of human dignity, being what allows us to unite with God. The vocation of the Virgin Mary, expressing a particular union with God that's exclusive of women as it is the relationship between Mother and Son. This express a peak on the recognition of the vocation of women that's fulfilled in Mary.
In the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), the essential meaning of the motherhood of Mary was formulated in a solemn way. She's not only the mother of Jesus as a human but also of the divine person, since motherhood involves all the person, and this is what the title Θεοτόκος (Mater Dei) expresses. It's a gift from the Holy Spirit but also a decision that Mary has assumed with her free will. With her confirmation, Mary turned into the authentic subject of that union with God, realized in the mystery of Incarnation of the Word. Every action of God in the history of man always respects the will of men. The same occurs with the Announciation in Nazareth.
The Announciation is a dialogue and is defined as such by the words that the Angel says to her: "gratia plena" . All of the dialog reveals the supernatural dimension of the event. Grace does not annulate or do without Nature, it makes Nature more perfect and noble. This peak of Grace means a peak of perfection of what's feminine. This is the archetype of female dignity.
Both Mary and Christ are always conscious of the fact that they are there to serve God. To serve means to reign. Every woman and men created to image and likeness of God cannot realize themselves outside this image.
There's no contradiction between the two texts in Genesis that describe the creation of male and female. When the woman is created from the rib she's put as an interlocutor with man. Woman, called to existence is immediatly known by man as "flesh from his flesh and bone from his bones", and this is why she's called a "woman". The biblical text provides enough evidence to recognize the essential equality between women and men given their humanity. Institution of marriage is called by God in the moment He commands them: " Crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram". Man is a rational animal, this is what makes men and women able to dominate the animal world. Institution of marriage in the moment of creation.
Unity of men and women. Humanity is a call to interpersonal communion. The masculine and feminine are God-given, wanted qualities.
Because man is made in God's image, God must be somewhat similar to man and this is why He can be known.
Anthropomorphic nature of God: neither masculine of feminine but root of all love, specially parental love since He's Our Creator. Men and women are procreators.
Nature of original sin and how it wounds us while failing to destroy the image of God there is in us. Woman will be dominated by man when the unity is lost because of it. Marriage demands respect and to make the true personal subjectivity of both more perfect. Woman can't be an object of man. By carrying sin, both men and women carry the tendency to break that armony that's God-given. The oppostiion to male domination cannot result into the masculinization of women, because it'd deform her feminity.
Personal resources of feminity aren't inferior to those of masculinity, but different. Men and women must understand self realization as a person, their dignity and vocation over those resources. Woman and the author of sin will be enemies. Prefiguration of Mary in the Announce of the Redeemer. Contrast between Eve and Mary. Mary receives and embraces the mystery of womanhood that Eve has already experienced. Eve was the mother of humanity, but Mary is the new Eve, the new beginning of the dignity and vocation of women.
Christ was, before his contemporaries, a person who promoted women's true dignity and their vocation. Unnatural condition of divorce. Women in Jesus' life and sayings. Forgiving of prostitutes who repent. Women who are left alone with their kids, the evil of abortion, all those are signs of sin.
Women must evangelize, the woman who's forgiven by Christ turns into a disciple that announces her Savior. She announces the Faith's deeper truths. Christ shows affection, admiration by the feminine answer of faith, and this lovingly way of doing so is put as an example. To the feet of the Cross women were in the first place. They also were the first witnessess of the Resurrection. There's a special sensibility that belongs to women. Unity in Christ does not make diversity become null.
Motherhood and virginity are two dimensions of the woman's vocation in its realization. They both coexist in Mary without excluding or limiting each other. Motherhood is possible through the union of two persons. Knowledge in the biblical sense. Parents must be open to a new life after this. Women are naturally designed to become mothers. Mention of scientific study and discovery, as well as analysis of pregnancy. Though women must not be preys of this scientific reductionism. Men must assume the responsibility of parenthood too. Motherhood is not only linked to flesh and blood but to something more profound. Pain of women during the process of giving birth and its relationship to the Easter mystery. The suffering linked to mtoherhood and the well being of her children.
Celibate freely chosen in order to reach Heaven. Virginity is also a vocation and a way to God for women. Spiritual motherhood in nuns and missionaries. Without Mary is impossible to understand the mystery of the Church and its reality. The mystery of the woman that's mother- virgin and spouse. The Church is Christ's bride. Importance of apostolic letters. ...more
I understand the impact of this book and I agree with some of the critiques it makes, though I would not use the same arguments, I'm also against historical materialism. But I cannot wrap it around my head, this is so close to libertarianism that it's truly scary. At least she admits that socialism won't work. It still feels as if she didn't know what she wanted. Some of the arguments such as: "It's easier to blame one sex than to excuse the other", a quote by Montaigne, are very much applicable to modern feminism (which still does both to a great extent). I don't understand how women are simultaneously about half of the world's population when some of the statistics don't seem to match. What she has in hand demonstrates that somehow, more women die. Because of biology, and biology has been alered because of oppression. She never claimed women and men's biology to be exactly the same, but this is saying women have become weaker than they ought to be because of oppression and that there's no way to escape it. Hermaphrodites are neither, and women with more masculine traits because of hormones are still women, still oppressed.
So as long as we don't surrender to socialism, we'll keep hanging onto a comfortable oppression, because we side with men, and not with women from other races / classes. The fact that pregnancy is merely stated as passive suffering right after it's implied that physically it represents no benefit but that psychologically it might or might not be, that is a litle difficult to understand for me.
She also claims that women had no religion or history of their own and that restraint from sexual activities cannot be imposed by the state or anyone at all.
Matriarchy in the past is a myth according to her. Because the woman has never been an equal to man. She makes this very contradictory statement often heard from the mouths of feminists that says "Things are much better than they used to be, but women still have it much worse", while, at the same time, telling the reader to beware of feminists because it's all meaningless talk, they're essentialists still. "Society has always been masculine and political power has always been in the hands of men". Biological privilege is stated as the reason why patriarchy took over. The start of private property made women be much worse than they had been until up to that point because they became men's property. Still, destroying the family is nearly impossible: humans are social beings.
Romans made the situation a bit better by making her able to divorce. But at the same time, she's made independent from the family and denied many other rights such as professions. Prostitution and adultery are ways to cope, even when the latter is condemned by law and thus satirists start attacking women.
Christianity is oppressive and it has made the situation of the women go even more backwards. St. Paul reaffirms, in Beavouir's eyes, the Jewish tradition, strongly anti feminist (please, let me scream anti-semitism, at least). Ironically, Judith is a pop icon to modern day feminists. It's weird that she cherrypicks some Fathers of the Church to quote from, those who exactly make her point by claiming that marriage is not compatible with sainthood. I would have to check that, but in reality, I think that would enter in contradiction with the Holy Family. Perhaps one ought to remember that a lot of the thought of the Renaissance wasn't so distant from the Middle Ages, not to mention the start of the Marian cult... establishing the prayer through Rosary... all of that don't seem very oppressive practices to me. Hildegard von Bingen was a very important figure too.
Germans are also oppressive, subjugate women and the Middle Ages was a mixture of the two. Feudalism praised and also denigrated women. And in a span of four centuries, according to Beauvoir (from the 15th century to the 19th) things have remained pretty stable, except in the wealthy classes. Renaissance is highly praised.
The 17th century marks some entering into education, though not as organized and deep as men's. Women start getting involved in politics. Actresses came somewhere at the end of the 1500s. In the 18th century, liberty grows though the choices for women still are severe and few: marriage or convent. During the Ancient Regime, the shelter of women is literature.
Mention of Woolf's A Room of One's Own and her conception of the "sister of Shakespeare". There's a bit of french history in between. French Revolution did not change women's luck. Because it was male dominated.
Socialism is women's liberation. That, in her mind, is the key. At moments it's very reminiscent of Freire's Pedagogy of the oppressed in its tone, if it werent by the topic being somewhat different, the Marxist rhetoric is utterly predictable.
Women and work from Marx's point of view and the creation of unions allow Beauvoir to deduce that the progress has been slow and that women have been exploited for longer than men as their rights took more time to be recognized.
One of the problems is the conciliation between the reproductive role and the working possibilities of women.
The very interesting part is when she tells how the Christian doctrine philosophically defended the anti-abortion stance even since St. Augustine, though of course she considers this as ancient moral which restricts the freedom of women. Obviously her politics advocate for birth control as she predicts that maybe in the future, women will be able to reduce the quantity of pregnancies they experience and dominate her body.
There's a section dedicated to laws of divorce and how they evolved in the US, Sweden and France. Praises John Stuart Mill and the Socialist Congress of 1879. Tells the history of women's suffrage and admits both the Catholics and extreme left see it as good (for different reasons, of course). Italy's fascism was antifeminist, while the USSR is the country where the feminist movement acquired major freedom to act.
All of it to conclude that the problem of women has not been solved by women but by men, and therefore this solution cannot be accepted. The only way women would get power is by abolishing their feminity. The new emancipation has resulted in double burden: work and family.It's curious that many feminists claim women to be liberated when being able to do the same as Beauvoir claims the exact opposite.
Her historical commentary and review gets reduced, often ambivalent but very critical of every religion, citing religious texts and social practices. Showing how all of these cults have marginalized women, and considers Christianity the most dangerous one, because she sees in the image of the Virgin and the consequences of marriage as well as the different, negative outlooks on menstruation and virginity.
Symbolism of women through male written an dominated philosophy, art and religion have contributed to her domination and categorization into what's known as the virgin / prostitute dichotomy. Women are trusted as mothers, educators, but also seen as deprived of their youth. Old women are not seen as something worthy of attention in a male dominated world which conceives women as objects. Passivenes through french literature and romances involving knights, as women are often kidnapped and rescued by men. She also shoes the contemproary validity of this conception with US crime novels and movies. It's an ideal that's man-made, where man projects his own trascendent plane. Once the woman is dominated through her inclusion in society as wife and mother (servant), she's deprived of her magic (sexual attractive).
Women's education is what's discussed in the fourth part. Women as they are, there's not such a thing. One is not a woman, rather becomes one. Freudian analysis of the baby or little kid psychological / instinct approach to the figure of the mother. Everything is a world of sensations. It also talks about how kids resent the separation from their mothers that's done progressively as they grow. But female kids still have the privilege of maternal attention. Men have an earlier separation from the mother, and what's demanded from them is more important, the role of the penis remakrs the difference that women point out. The destiny of women is another thing, they do not suffer this lack of sexual distinction. Debunks the myth of the female envy of the penis as presented by Freud because women tend to be ignorant of male anatomy until much later.
Influence of clothing in the self-perception of women and the consequences related to urinating. Dolls are passive objects given to girls as they do not have a body part to project themselves in, like boys do with their penises. The doll represents a body in its entirety. Sel-identification with the doll and self-objectification. Narcisssism. Boys are obliged to deprive from their anatomical discovery as they are expected to socialize, but in women, the tendency of kids to think of themselves as objects is reinforced. Women thinking of themselves as feminine is, then, a social construct, not a biological fact. To be something that is desirable, women must renounce to their autonomy, and this is what they're told. Clothing as severly excluding, male manners are something rejected.
Boys escape from their mother's understanding at an early age, girls must be included in the feminine world. Mothers have an ambivalent relationship with their daughters as they're their double but also someone they can take revenge on by imposing them their destiny. Girls resign to an education related to manners and aesthetics that sacrifices their freedom, unlike the boys. Girls and boys have different conceptions of motherhood during their early childhood. Girls are turned into housewives and tend to envy boys' manhood as they grow up.
When boys become older, the masculine superiority is affirmed and the hierarchy of sexes is discovered in the family structure. In all the dominant mythology, women have been created for men and not because of their own dignity. Fairies and such are more attractive than biblical myths as they escape male domination. Popular culture feeds her hope of having to rely on a man who will come to rescue her, the myth of the charming prince and this somehow shapes an early desire for men in little girls as old as 10. Games and dreams drive women towards passiveness. Because of this, they later perceive that they do not have the smae freedom as boys and do not desire to be girls. There's very few exceptions to the rule. De Beauvoir then proceeds to, once more, as she has done in the preface, compare this with the slavery of the blacks in the US.
Motherhood provokes horror in the girl who perceives the baby as a parasite which will alter her body, according to the author. it's important to note how these visions, while they preserve some truth attached, aren't as strong in the 21st century, as it is imposed to women to renounce to their feminity as much as possible, or to only use it when it can get her what she wants. Feminism has turned into an ambivalent protest where women are the puppets of companies' designs. There's many testimonies that back up her case, but I don't think that with everything that has happened since the publishing of this book, the fears remain exactly the same.
A perception of strangeness associated to the woman's body development that she cannot control (such as growth of their breasts and menstruation) during puberty is also a key factor in this part of the book. Of course, boys do not perceive their own body changes with such negativity and shame.
The body is an objective expression of the self during teenage years, to discover weakness destroys women and condemns them to passiveness. Because of all of these things, there's an inferiority complex that women develop. Women do not have initiative and do not plan activities alone, since they fear being raped, and because women are obliged to retain self control at all times, as it is socially imposed because of their sex. Their spontaneous behavior is tamed through this education in fear. Self-affirmation is essentially anti feminine as the patriarchy defines. Being male and a human being do not contradict each other, since ambition is a manly value. Dehumanization is the key to feminity. During teenage years, women have to renounce to their autonomy. There's not only a big difference between the past and the future, all her erotic impulses and relationships seem subordinated to social expectation and passiveness. This is when some women conceive themselves as frustrated projects of what was intended to be a boy and then they have a tendency to homosexuality. [?] (Oh,this is somewhat traditional for someone who believes that identities of feminity and masculinity are constructed, for she seems to imply that lesbians are just frustrated women that aimed to be men, then again I don't know enough about the nature of homosexuality and its causes to approve this, but in any case I'd believe it's the parents, or the environment where a person is raised in, that fails to show the person a way to relate to the other individual, and only teaches through fear and prohibition, though I'm not an advocate of sexual liberation at all)
Analysis of female friendships as a projection of homosexuality or extension of their narcissism. Men are to women like a divinity that provokes horror in them, and at the same time, a divinity they worship. She makes then a choice to be able to love a man despite certain obstacles that she has previewed in purpouse, to make of love an abstract, purely subjective experience that does not present any risky to her integrity (this is a bit hard to understand, and perhaps denotes some immaturity). If the person is near her, then it doesn't matter how unattractive and old he can be, if it's more further and inaccessible, then she'll consent to lay his eyes upon a more attractive man.It's the kind of love that reaffirms her narcissism with no real presence of the other. With this, the teenager can elaborate an intense emotional life, to cope with her fear and avoid it all costs. To elude the problems of sexuality, women become pretentious in partner choices. Maybe they do suffer of the same problem as men, aiming to be in a relationship with an ideal and by this logic, men would be responsible for their lack of realism
The topic of the female that's finally dominated, such as in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, is another topic that Simone de Beauvoir renders all too common and seductive for both men and women, for men because it reaffirms their dominant role in society. For women, because they have been educated as to accept the man's desires. Another common trope is the woman feeling fascinated by men and losing interest only once they are, in fact, capable of entering into a relationship, and are also drawn to men who pursue many women. Again, I've observed this is also common in men, a lack of proper education regarding the relationship of men and women has induced them to see women as objects that are either an ideal or all too common, but they're also seduced by "experienced" women while they'd also reject the fact that they're not as pure as their ideal conceived them.
Male desire provokes irritation and is flattering at the same time for women during teenage years. Women do fear as soon as they realize that such behavior may initiate them into passiveness. Laughter also is a form of rejection of sexuality that's common among teenagers. This is somehow similar and could be connected to Henri Bergson's theory of laughter as we are able to laugh about things we fear such as death or others. The use of language that's not proper, is also a way to challenge adults.Her theory is that some women become masochists as to prove men that they're not afraid of the sexual act [?].
When teenage boys challenge authority, they self-affirm their existence, according to Beauvoir this is not allowed to women. This is why some resort to destroying physical objects as a way to fight against her future as a servant. There's women that remain infantile for most of their lives and there's some who are able to be more mature as they grow up. These women who are able to bury childhood as a past phase, think of marriage more than love, and a social stable position as a result. Female friendships break as they're seen as rivals by each other, and the search for a man to settle down becomes more desperate as years go by. If women are distracted by personal projects, this phase will be less painful to her in a sentimental and sexual sense, but society [?] will put obstacles that will make her goal harder. Weomen will dedicate lesss time to thier study than thinking of finding a man because of how they have been brought up. A woman must sacrifice education if she wants to marry. Some women are destined to a long period of virginity because of personal circumstances that feed their fear of men.
Erotism of women is more complex than men's. Women are penetrated and impregnated by men through their vagina, which is only converted in an erotic center by intervertion of men, this will always imply some sort of violation, a kind of violence that turns her into a woman [?] (I have serious objections to this particular part, I'm pretty sure that men could see it this way, if they're not properly educated to conceive women as objects, and that women who fear men might see it this way, but it's not an objective fact). A diatribe about the nature of female orgasm follows before Simone de Beauvoir makes the assertion that: "Many men just aim to satisfy their desire and do not care for women during the act, women are objects during this event. Sex is only gotten through male consent and it only aims to satisfaction of the male sex" [?] Again, I have serious objections to that and I wholeheartedly point at oversexualization, pornography, promiscuity and similar kind of evils as a cause for this, but it's also possible that making this kind of assumption that a lot of men are like this and there's nothing we can do but turn into a socialist world which confuses equality with sameness is part of the problem.
There's a brief paragraph on the antiquity of dildos before she jumps into the all very known theory that society confined women into pure chastity and men into total sexual liberation (at least she doesn't attribute this to the church but to the ~patriarchy~, at the same time the church is seen as a patriarchal institution, so...it's more or less the same). To the man, the sexual act is conquest and victory. So men are seen as this aggressive animal which some women may reject for too long, and they become homosexuals or pedophiles (this is her theory, not mine). Then there's a few stereotypes of how women of different nationalities are and react to sex [?] (this, in a book by a feminist icon? Surprising but not any less disgusting). Comparation of male and female sexual desires. Frigidity might be a consequence of many insecurities concerning body image that women present and are reinforced by their husbands (this I cannot discuss, for I know absolutely nothing on the topic). Phallic penetration is always comparable to rape in its violence because it's not the caress or known pleasure women expect [?] (Again, I have serious objections to this because I think that while painful, rape is not just this and she's assuming all sexual acts will imply domination under the "patriarchy" even when men can openly reject a domination model). Also, the vocabulary which is used to refer to sexual excitement is to Beauvoir something that makes women feel ashamed for theit asosciate it with urinating.
For some reason I kept leaving this one for later as a big part of his essays. Never doing that again. His reflections are something I'd have misssed,For some reason I kept leaving this one for later as a big part of his essays. Never doing that again. His reflections are something I'd have misssed, had I postponed this one day more. It's a bit more in depth about his life and his vision in Christianity, or should I say specifically the figure of Christ and His real purpouse. But no matter how many words I write, none of them will make it justice. I had gone through some hard times recently, and a lot of what Wilde seems to say about suffering -that even if it's endless it should have meaning- is more profound than it appears, it's not just the scream of a rationalist begging for the world to make sense, but the search for a more profund meaning of our whole experiences. Oh, may I have the time to re-read this more and more, for it is one of the best things I have read, and this with as little bias as possible, even if Oscar Wilde is my favorite author. This is so different to everything else I've read by him. No intentional cynicism, just an aspiration to understand something beyond him. ...more
When you like the method, a distinct poem book where the avant garde techniques can be used to tell a story, but not the final result: a very urban, pWhen you like the method, a distinct poem book where the avant garde techniques can be used to tell a story, but not the final result: a very urban, post modern setting oversimplifying certain sectors of society and ideologies, this is the only review that can come out.
There's a difference between rebellion as a pose and authentic rebelion. Authentic rebellion has goals, you could question them and its methods, but I am not sure how this would apply here. ...more
I do not know how to speak about Chesterton without sounding entirely biased, so you might as well forgive me. More than an historical account of theI do not know how to speak about Chesterton without sounding entirely biased, so you might as well forgive me. More than an historical account of the facts, it's a free essay on the artistic vision of Geoffrey Chaucer in general, beyond The Canterbury Tales, but also a picture of the medieval man, debunking the modernist myth.
I wish I had not been so tired at the moment of reading it, but the quantity of interest quotes you can extract from it is incredible, and most of it, shows that Chaucer can remain very actual and understood, above all. As well as it is a perfect example of Chesterton's brilliant mind. ...more
Because sainthood can flourish even in the most hostile places, and because revenge is not what will bring true freedom to aborigin people, Ceferino wBecause sainthood can flourish even in the most hostile places, and because revenge is not what will bring true freedom to aborigin people, Ceferino was an example of humility, purity, innocence and vocation to seek God. Despite the political manipulation of his story, his testimony of love for the Church is alive in numerous documents and memories....more
Sé que va a ser diferente en cuanto mire los textos con los que se nos propone meditar acerca de los tipos de oración, pero de todas formas me gustó pSé que va a ser diferente en cuanto mire los textos con los que se nos propone meditar acerca de los tipos de oración, pero de todas formas me gustó porque me aportó información acerca de cosas que desconocía, como el rosario musulmán....more
I wish I had liked it more, but some kind of avant garde things aren't my style. Not really. Not with things as
"Se celebra el adulterio de María conI wish I had liked it more, but some kind of avant garde things aren't my style. Not really. Not with things as
"Se celebra el adulterio de María con la Paloma Sacra"
I might be being a little too harsh, or a little too merciful. I still don't get what's so great about his generally misogynistic and sexually charged vision of the world but I manage to like one metaphor or two.
To me, his writing style still resonates a bit ordinary in the sense close to the word vulgar, rather than something not outstanding. The greats can do great poetry with everyday language, I don't say they can't. Oliverio is not one of them, in my opinion.
However, the game of putting poems in a supposedly random order, and complaint of having to do a prologue -because it oges against his poetics- by doing a prologue might be remarkable....more
I have seen few things like this little book. I truly did. I hardly can think of any author that compares to Borges. It's so strange, probably he'd slI have seen few things like this little book. I truly did. I hardly can think of any author that compares to Borges. It's so strange, probably he'd slam the door in my face by liking his oh-so-avant-garde literary debut. Certain uses of space, metaphors, are unthinkable in our more than classicist and late image of Borges, but they still fit very well with the inclusion of resources and references to the three abrahamic religions as well as the oriental side of the spectrum or his love for the suburbs of Buenos Aires. It might be his "land", his nation as the prologue warns us, but he doesn't hesitate to see beyond. Perhaps I'm a bit delusional when it comes to Borges. I really can't tell the difference by now....more
The whole idea is very well presented, the episodes are brought in like parts of a movie, they can be read separately and still makse sense. But it waThe whole idea is very well presented, the episodes are brought in like parts of a movie, they can be read separately and still makse sense. But it was disgustingly perverted at times....more
Es frecuente ver libros que, tratando el tema de los años 70, olviden mencionar a la Iglesia. Si lo hacen, suelen contribuir con generalizaciones absuEs frecuente ver libros que, tratando el tema de los años 70, olviden mencionar a la Iglesia. Si lo hacen, suelen contribuir con generalizaciones absurdas, inadmisibles en lo que respecta a un estudio serio de la historia. Juan Pablo Duarte recurre a fuentes escritas, grabaciones y testimonios de ex-montoneros o personas que pertenecieron al Partido Justicialista, para entender cuál fue el rol del Padre Mugica en la sociedad. La violencia provenía tanto de la Alianza Anticomunista Argentina (de la mano de López Rega, funcionario de Perón), como de grupos ultraizquierdistas de base marxista o trotskista (Montoneros, Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo y las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias). Desde fuera o infiltrando el partido justicialista, intentaban convertirse en los sucesores del liderazgo del General. Perón ya no contaba con la fuerza para sobrellevar un clima de violencia desatado por personas que no parecen demostrar remordimiento alguno. Caricaturas de la diversidad presente en el Movimiento de Sacerdotes del Tercer Mundo distorsionan aun más los hechos históricos. Duarte no ignora la complejidad que la presencia de curas de distinto acercamiento ideológico produjo. Los conflictos internos dentro del mismo, así como también en Montoneros, añadieron caos a la situación política. En medio de este desastre inminente, la voz del Padre Mugica llamó a la pacificación, al diálogo, a la interrupción de la alienación ideológica. Mientras las tendencias mundiales dejaban la ultraderecha para volcarse al socialismo dogmático, el sacerdote se ocupaba de la práctica. Como bien es señalado en el libro, las preocupaciones de la élite (liberal o socialista) no tienen en cuenta al pueblo. Era necesario volver al realismo cristiano, pero no era algo que fuera perdonable para aquellos que se encontraban en una disputa donde sus intereses estaban en juego. Lo más impactante no es solo la forma en que lo "entregaron", la forma en que ambos extremos del espectro se verían beneficiados por su muerte, pero al mismo tiempo repudiados por los sectores populares, de los que no podían conseguir apoyo...sino la forma en que se intentó lavar de toda culpa a Montoneros, negando que alguna vez hayan tenido conflictos con él. Firmenich se expió de toda responsabilidad, adjudicando el "ultraizquierdismo" a los disidentes, que abandonaron las armas después de presenciar la famosa retirada de la Plaza de Mayo. La manipulación del relato de los hechos tan sólo ha contribuido a nuevas formas de resentimiento que aun perduran en la sociedad, producto de posturas ideológicas que no admiten el cese, el diálogo, la reconciliación. Por esto, muchas vidas se han ido y es hora de que aprendamos del ejemplo de Mugica para hacer algo al respecto....more
Reading it may be an easy a way to know a bit about ancient greek culture as well as recognize that some of the main topics of literature were presentReading it may be an easy a way to know a bit about ancient greek culture as well as recognize that some of the main topics of literature were present even back the, for there's the lament of the persinas that follows having lost the Battle of Salamis against the people from Athens, attributing it to a damnation given by gods. The ghost aparition of Darius allowes a reflection about death. Such are the wonders that have always been fundamental to humankind.
One point worth nothing is that, the use of premonitory dreams that the Queen, Darius' wife, experiences give their fate a more unavoidable character, this resource has been largely used in posterior writings of all ages.
It's the second part of a trilogy, but this is the only part that has survived. Sometimes it's a bit surprising to consider the fact that something as old (it's from 472 b.C.) has persisted, not only the test of time in terms of preservation, but also in quality. I might not have much to say, but I definitely enjoyed it....more
It was a bit engaging and humorous at the beginning , but for some reason I was hoping it would maintain that same vein during the whole thing and itIt was a bit engaging and humorous at the beginning , but for some reason I was hoping it would maintain that same vein during the whole thing and it didn't. I couldn't possibly think of any more useless characters than Felipe and Raúl.
Well, this goes to show that the second you like an author, you don't have to love each work of theirs with the same passion, an unquestionable support which is near to fanatism.
I think it went on for too long. Perhaps Cortázar wasn't that much of a good novelist in the traditional sense of it. Hopscotch was much better in my eyes, but I know it's unfair not to mention that it was the product of a lot of previous work....more
I wish I had the smartness required to give it a five start punctuation. Following the strange experience of Lisandro Farías at Severo Arcángelo's BanI wish I had the smartness required to give it a five start punctuation. Following the strange experience of Lisandro Farías at Severo Arcángelo's Banquet, in which he plays an unknown role, the constant attack against traditionally understood rationality and progressivism never fails to impress and provoke laughter.
It's still a bit surprising to me that this author had such success in Cuba, given that he was adherent to the Catholic religion. Showing a caricature of marxists in the clowns Gog and Magog, much like Flaubert's Bouvard and Pécuchet, the "twin characters" that seem to think alike, and fail at everything they do (with certain malice). In them, there's also a desire to impose Aristotle's tradition as opposed as the "new pornography" in culture, and advocating for an ever pantagruelic philosophy known as "hijodeputismo" or "sonofabitchism" that exalts the generally badly regarded corporal nature of man, something that seems to match with Mikhail Bakhtin's reading of carnival and popular culture in the middle ages.
Some of the philosophical concepts exposed and humor games require a detailed reading of greek philosophy indeed, and there's some inclusion of christian concepts, all of this and the extravagant dialogs may make reading a bit harder.
An interesting analysis could be given analyzing the different currents for and against the Banquet from a Foucaultian perspective, taking into account the whole margin and center theory. ...more
I like the imagery and the choie of owrds, the structure seems free and engaging enough. But I'd have to read more of her poetry now. It's curious thaI like the imagery and the choie of owrds, the structure seems free and engaging enough. But I'd have to read more of her poetry now. It's curious that I never knew of her....more