As I kept reading the story, I kept trying to contextualize this story among the broad group of Chicano literature. On the cover, the author is deemed to be “one of the nation’s foremost Chicano literary artists”. I am trying to understand why this statement was made. This story is very little like those we have read so far and yet it is placed at the heart of Chicano literature.
It is really hard to perceive these things as symbols, since through the child’s perspective is made so real. For example, Tony’s dreams, are they truly dreams or visions, or prophecies? Is time linear in the book, how are supposed to take it as readers? Would the conception of ‘magic’ found in this novel be involved in the writing of book itself? I cannot help thinking that that might be one of the reasons why this novel is so well known. This adds on to the power of the story of having a child as it’s protagonist. To further discuss the reasons of why I think this novel is labelled as a canonic piece, I believe it has to do with the journey made by the protagonist through learning and exposure to different belief systems. Anthony becoming his own man, someone outside of what other’s want of him can be translated to the integrity of the Chicano culture. That in a world of dualisms: marez/Luna, sinner/priest, nomad/settler, vaquero en el llano/farmer, llano/town, peace/war, religion/atheist, faith/superstition, this cultural expression finds its way of including both and more, of mixing, of conceiving something new. And that is what Anthony discovers for himself, that is the ‘enlightenment’ lived by the character, I think one of the pillars of the novel.
Ultima seems to guide him through this process of acquiring knowledge slowly. When Antonio’s parent’s ask ‘La Grande’ what their son will be she replies “He will be a man of learning” not what either of them wanted him to be: neither a priest nor a llanero. In this moment Antonio sees his mother for her dreams, his father for his rebellion, and Ultima for her wisdom. Almost from the start, through his inquisitive nature, Antonio charts is way as a man of learning and Ultima is the only one that knows. One other aspect that puzzled me was why Ultima called him by his second name Juan. There I see the biblical reference, as John being the only disciple that followed Jesus when he sacrificed himself for humanity. In this case, Antonio is the only one that follows Ultima. If this is a valid interpretation, we can see this as what sets this literature apart as Chicana literature. Its very roots are embedded in both religion and indigeneity. On one aspect Antonio plays the role of John the apostle following God, but in the act of a pagan ritual of curing one of his uncles. There are many other examples of this, on how he connects with the llano, the golden carp belief. However, this is all done in harmony with a devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe and the Catholic rituals and conceptions of sin.
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you talk about in your first paragraph - I too kept asking myself why this is considered the greatest Chicano novel ever? Perhaps the reason he is "one of the nation's foremost Chicano literary artists" is due to the very fact that this book is extremely different from the others we have read. I wonder if the heavy focus on religion/spirituality was what appealed to readers and made it more relatable, and therefore likeable? Who knows, but it's super interesting.
I am also (like Cynthia, too) interested in what makes this a "Chicano novel." I think that's the question I've been asking in my own blogposts. After all, at no point does Antonio seem to be particularly conscious of himself as "Chicano" or Mexican-American. Moreover, in some ways the story that the book tells is about how Antonio turns away from both aspects of his Hispanic heritage: both the "conquistador" restlessness of his father, and the Catholic devotion of his mother. But perhaps the book also simply challenges us to rethink our definition of what Chicano literature should look like.
ReplyDelete