Last Monday, I found that Dr. Ruiz-Perez’s interesting insight into Rulfo’s style sparked a series of connections to the literature we have been reading. It started with his highlighting those authors who influenced Rulfo: Azuela, Yanez, dos Passos, Faulkner, and Masters. Then as he analyzed his style, bells started going off as I heard “stream of consciousness,” the use of “myth,” “fragmentation of structure” leading to “active reading,” and how the author used analepsis and prolepsis. This very much reminded me of La Modification by Michel Butor, which we just read in 20th century French Literature. As soon as I thought that, Don pointed it out to the class and a discussion ensued about the possible connections. Here is mine.
Pedro Paramo was written in 1955, La Modification in 1956. Like Pedro Paramo, it uses stream of consciousness, myth and fragmented structure. Since they were contemporaries, it was not surprising to find that Butor was also influenced by Faulkner (which can be evidenced by some of his sentences that are two pages long!)
Butor’s connection to our class doesn’t stop there. His entire novel takes place on a train ride from Paris to Rome and includes a large amount of minutia: each time a passenger moves a window up or down, the debris under his shoe, clothing of each passenger, etc. Now what name pops into your mind? None but Flaubert!
So often in grad school, you get overwhelmed with reading, writing, teaching and other assignments, but when you make these connections that lead you to a glimpse into “the big picture”, it really makes your day! Maybe that’s what this higher education is all about.
Great way of connecting the readings! I love it when things click, too. There are so many times when literary theories get muddled up in your mind. And then, just as you think you are getting a grasp on things, you are told, “There are no firm lines drawn in the sand when it comes to any one literary movement; many works include stylistic elements of more than one movement.” While it is comforting, in some ways, to know that, it also creates even more confusion. I think what we are supposed to learn is that they only way to really understand it is to experience the sort of epiphanies that you speak of.