I very much enjoyed discussing Aura in class this past Thursday because the novel is, as many have pointed out on the blog, abstract. There were serious but cordial disagreements on the existence of central characters. However, I think everyone in the class took someone away from the discussion, because each member of the class read the book slightly or completely differently from everyone else. This is really my goal for each class period and I don't always get that moment of “yah, I see what you mean” or “that's a really cool way to look at that” that I experienced several times of Thursday. I found the discussion of Felipe and the General to be very intriguing. I didn't pick up on some of the details, such as the unexplained appearance of Felipe's personal items, that support the thought that Felipe had always been the General. I came in to class believing that Felipe was distinct from the General and that he developed into the General through reading and writing the General's memoirs in a highly secluded environment. The discussion unhinged my perception of the two characters. Like many books we have read this semester, its very unwise to try to pin anything down too concretely. Hearing several people successfully argue very different readings of Aura really solidified this point for me. I would certainly advocate another “teaching” of the text in the future. This sort of discussion pushes us a class to articulate what is important and we do and do not agree on.
I would also like to say a little bit about the use of second person in Aura. We spoke quite briefly on the subject during the discussion on Thursday. I agree that this unusual choice of point of view amplifies the confusion or supernatural effect of Felipe's development into or return to the General. However, I didn't find the point of view to be as unusual or effective as I thought I would. After the first twenty pages, I just got used to the second person grammar but I didn't experience a closer connection with Felipe. There was still a distance, a disconnect between reader and character. I didn't feel that I was any more a part of the novel than I usually do, reading novels in either first or third person. I just thought I should point this out and see if anyone else felt at all the same way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActually I didn't feel like the second person narrative made me relate any more to Felipe than a first or third person narrative would have either. I actually started doubting whether that was the purpose in the first place. I felt like the second person narrative instead put me at a certain level of discomfort, like I was in some sort of a dreamy reality. I didn't feel like I was in the novel but the commanding tone of the second person narrative made me feel less in control. This lack of control, I think, suits the overall plot of the novella pretty well from the point of view of Felipe and Aura, since both the characters seem to be controlled by Consuelo.
ReplyDeletePersonally for me I felt like the use of a second person narrative really placed me into the story as if I were Felipe. I could feel myself walking down the gloomy hallways, and opening the chest to read the documents. The use of "you" when 1) I, the reader, am not used to being addressed as you....and 2) we are not even supposed to use "you" in formal writing, I thought it was a new experience and an enjoyable one for the reader as I was deeply involved in the story and felt as if I were a character myself.
ReplyDelete