innocent eréndira and other stories. gabriel garcía márquez.

as i have mentioned before in this blog,  gabriel garcía márquez's one hundred years of solitude is one of my all-time favorite books.  when he passed away on may 17, i was sadden, and then next day on a visit to strand bookstore (i was in nyc) i purchased innocent eréndira and other stories in honor of him. it was in a book tote that i purchased and so kind of forgot about it, but i came across it and decided to finally read it.

i have mixed feelings about this collection of short stories.  the first three stories, i absolutely adored, but the rest of the stories bored me a bit.  his writing was not poor in the later, i did not find the topics interesting or compelling.

so lets start with the good.  the first three stories, "innocent eréndira and her heartless grandmother", "the sea of lost time" and "death constant beyond love" were written in 1972, 1961, and 1970 respectively.  they were written around one hundred years and contained that mythical, magical realism that caused me to fall in love with garcía márquez's work.  growing up, i went through a period in which i loved greek mythology, and this is soft spot for myths is why i  love garcía márquez's work.  one hundred years  and these stories remind me of myths, they are filled magical seas and lands, individuals with special talents and gifts, and the crossing between the dreamworld and reality.  i quickly become lost in these stories, caught up in their magic. 

the title story,  innocent eréndira and her heartless grandmother is the story of eréndira, a young girl who was a slave to her grandmother and as the title states, she was heartless.  poor eréndira, worked all day and night taking care of fat grandmother, and one evening, her wind of misfortune, caused their mansion to burn down.  since eréndira caused the fire, she had to pay her grandmother back.  i hate to be such a prude but i was shocked by how eréndira earned her money.  her grandmother turned her into  a whore, she sold her body! i know i was so shocked to read that!  eréndira did fall in love with a magical young man, and he saved her on his second attempt.  but they do not end up together, which i found disappointing but i think in order to escape her misfortune she had to escape everything.

"the sea of lost time", i enjoyed as well, specifically the actual sea, which held a village and the dead, including the most beautiful woman in the world, old jacob's dead wife.  the sex in this story shocked me too, there was a prostitute that slept with 100 at $5 a piece.  but i did enjoy tobias and his wife sex life being described as doing it as earthworms and rabbits.  lol.   i liked "death constant beyond love" for it's ending, though again my inner prude was shocked that a father gave up his daughter like that.  enjoyable tales though my inner prude blushed as i read.

after those three stories, i began to lose interest in the collection.  his stories from the 40's and 50's were not for me.  i didn't enjoy the topic of death.  i understand, as a child, i was always frightened of death because i imagined that i would be conscious of the world around me.  this fear would keep me up at night.  it was though garcía márquez's stories from this time was his confrontation of this fear.  each story is told from a spirit/ghost/energy's perspective that has died.  they were well-written, but the subject matter didn't interest me.  "eva is inside her cat" was just bizarre, why didn't she just return to the cat, reincarnation is better than nothing.  though i must admit that they were not all bad, i did enjoy "eyes of a blue dog", the story of lovers that meet in their dreams but can not remember the next day so they can meet in real life.  i also liked "someone has been disarranging these roses", this spirit was fine with his death and simply wanted to put roses on his grave.  all the other stories were good because they were written by garcía márquez but they did not remind me why i love his work.

check out this collection of stories, and i won't judge you if you only read the first three.

a christmas carol. charles dickens. (83)

i have to start off by saying that i hate blogger. i had just finished my entry for this and went to add a second picture and it somehow deleted my entry. what you are reading is a second draft and sadly prolly not as good as the first one.

charles dickens has been on my to read list every since i started my classics mission. with christmas coming up, i decided to read "a christmas carol". i started reading it on the 21st and planned on reading a stave a day so that i would be finished on christmas. (i learned on wikipedia that a stave is a stanza so it goes with theme of it being a carol!)

i, like majority of people, am familiar with the story due to childhood cartoons but have never read the story. i mean, this christmas alone, i saw bits and pieces of a smurf's version, mr. magoo's version, a looney tunes that referenced it and the disney version with jim carrey (i plan on watching this in its entirety simply because colin firth voiced fred). however as i was reading, i kept on thinking to myself, "how is this kid-friendly"?!?! i mean the ghost of christmas yet to come and the discussions on poverty at death are quite serious for a kid. then again the tales of brother grimm are quite dark yet they are staples for kids everywhere.

"a christmas carol" is a beloved christmas classic but i didn't enjoy it. i will start by saying that it wasn't due to the writing. dickens is dickens and though at times he left me scratching my head because i had no idea what he was rambling on about, it was well written. i will say that i did enjoy some ramblings like the opening discussion on the phrase "as dead as a doornail". and even though the story is now apart of popular culture and is retold every year and there are countless adaptions, (i mean there is a matthew mcconaughey/jennifer rom com based on it) the story premise is still interesting. a man is visited by three ghosts and sees the error of his way and changes for the better. still solid stuff.

so why didn't i enjoy it?

first it's because christmas has turned into this crazy capitalistic machine. i might sound crazy and maybe it's because i am miserly and heartless but scrooge made perfect sense in the beginning. i might be jaded by the problems of the current welfare system in america and the abuse of it i see in delano, but i agreed with his argument for not giving to charity. it is true that those who receive charity are idle because they receive charity. i can speak from first hand experience, my unemployment check did not motivate me to get a job because i was getting a consistent check each month without any work. in addition to this, i do not believe in the concept of wealth = greater christmas. one does not need money to be able to celebrate christmas, all one needs is love. and in the immortal words of j.lo, "love don't cost a thing." furthermore, jesus was born in a manager, christmas is definitely a holiday grounded in humility not extravagance.

i also agreed with his words on holiday pay. it is unfair that he was expected to pay for a day of work when he did not receive any labor in exchange. i mean i am all for paid vacation time but let's be honest it is greedy of us to expect it. we want sick pay, vacation pay and holiday pay, and in essence it is pay for absolutely nothing. there is no labor so there should be no wages.

furthermore, i saw nothing wrong with scrooge not celebrating christmas or recognizing the holiday. where does it say that one has to celebrate christmas? and don't say the bible. i had never read it in its entirety but do not recall god ever saying "thou shalt celebrate the birth of my beloved son jesus by exchanging gifts, decorating a tree and drinking eggnog every 25th of december". also wasn't jesus' birth in april? if scrooge wanted to spend his day by himself than so be it. i am a very festive person but i don't judge or ostracize individuals that don't celebrate it. it's jesus' birthday and you should do as you please (well except breaking one of the ten commandments), plus his lessons were all about tolerance so he would be okay with it. jesus just wanted everyone to be included so would be okay with however someone wanted to honor them, even if it is a lack of honor, he is that humble. christmas day of all days should be the one day in which we respect others' beliefs and allow them to celebrate as they please.

so the story became kinda pointless because i didn't think scrooge needed to change. he's an old man and like they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks. he was set in his way about christmas so they should have just let him be. but then again he wasn't really harming anyone. he was greedy but he made his own money and if he wanted to keep it all for himself than that's his prerogative! and sure he cracked the whip on cratchit but i mean that is how business goes. a nice boss in england during that time would have been the exception not the rule.

in addition to being okay with how scrooge was, i wasn't completely sold on their tactics for changing scrooge. i did believe that the ghost of christmas past did a good job but not the other two. i think the memory of his sister was important for scrooge to experience because he forgotten the importance of family. it was sad that he loved his sister so much but neglected his nephew. it is an important lesson for all to set aside any differences one may have with his/her family for at least one day. family will always be drama but regardless they are your family and will always be a source of love. it is important to celebrate them on christmas.

i didn't agree with the ideas the ghost of christmas present presented. yes the cratchits were poor in terms of money but they were rich in love and happiness. the ghost was the ghost of christmas spirit so he should have understood that one does not need wealth to be happy on christmas. so it was insulting that he sprinkled their meal, they has enough love in this household do make the meal wonderful. they didn't need his pity, it seemed superfluous to give them more joy when they had so much. again, it's this idea where those who live in poverty can not understand happiness. yet all major religions promote this ideal of giving up worldly wants and desires. yet her is the ghost of christmas present helping those who don't necessarily need it just because they are poor in terms of material things.

random digression but was the ghost of christmas present supposed to be jesus or the holy ghost. when discussing business closing on the sabbath, scrooge referred to it being done in his name or the name of his family? also they traveled whenever scrooge touched his robe. this reminded me of jesus and how lepers and the blind were healed when they touched his robe.

last but not least i did not like what the ghost of christmas yet to come represented. i do agree that it was important for the ghost to show how scrooge could prevent tiny tim's death. if at any time charity can help the life of a child than it should be given. i agreed with this aspect of the vision.

i did not agree with death being the motivation for scrooge. we should not be motivated to do good works during our time here on earth because we are scared of dying, the source of our good works should be love. to do something because you are afraid of death is to do something in vain, your reason for being positive is selfish because you are actually only thinking of your own well being. this is going to sound horrible but a lot of times when christians want to help others they are doing it with their position in heaven in mind, when in fact they should simply do it out of love for what god has created. love should be the source of life and not the desire to outlast death.

furthermore, i did not understand the evasdropping on people to see if they were talking about scrooge's death. everyone dies, there is no need for an audience. yes everyone wants to leave a good legacy but still it seems silly to be upset if people aren't talking about you after you die. i would love for their to be a memorial for me but if there isn't, it's okay because guess what, i'm dead! in addition to that i would not be sad if someone stole from my deathbed cos i'm dead. as like my grandma bea says you can't take it with you. i understand that one's death spot should be sacred but i mean if you are than sad of person who wants the bed curtains of a dead person than help yourself. it is more of a demonstration of how creepy you are fore stealing than saying anything about the dead.

i also could not sympathize with the couple that were happy that scrooge died because they were in debt to him. pay your creditors people, don't wish for your creditors' death. that made him worse than him.

so that is it. i didn't think scrooge needed to charge nor did i agree with what the ghosts presented. it was all based on this idea that in order to truely have the christmas spirit, you need money. and as we all hopefully know that is not the case.

the edition that i read was illustrated by quentin blake of rolad dahl fame. i love his drawings and so was excited to find this edition. i loved the drawings in this book except the cratchits women's bows, that hair was awful.

and i hate to be such a perv but seriously this drawing for a man described as "with a pendulous excrescence on the end of his nose that shook like the gills of a turkey cock."

i know my mind is in the gutter, but so was dickens' narrator. the narrator describes the grandchildren of scrooge's ex pouncing on their mother.
the kids are touching her lips, eyelashes, and hair. to which he adds "in short, i should have liked, i do confess to have had the lightest license of a child and yet been man enough to know its value". how inappropriate!!!!