Like Water for Chocolate was the first magical realism novel I have ever read. After reading authors such as Cortazar (my favorite), Borges, and Marquez, I was very interested in comparing a new author and a new style of magical realism. The author was very different in her technique and was very clever in using food as a form of magical realism. Therefore, I do not think she can be compared to any of the previously mentioned authors. I found the novel to be a very easy to read and easy to see the magical realism. I especially enjoyed the recipes at the beginning of the chapter because they set the mood and gave direction for where the author was about to go. I did not, however, agree with the author’s idea that holding to tradition and reserve was boring and wrong. I did respect the passion and love that was portrayed between Tita and Pedro and the representation of the Mexican spirit and way of life. As a brother and husband, I could never condone the idea of cheating on a spouse nor betraying a sibling. As a father, I can condone the idea of never letting my daughter be oppressed by any person or unfair tradition. Although the book was a little strange at parts, it was a good example of magical realism and a fairly good book if the purpose of the strange occurrences were clear. Magical realism should never be read literally and is very interesting once you get the suggestions behind it.
You make a good point about how magical realism should never be read literally. Actually, very little of this book should be read literally, and that is where the readers from the Amazon reviews had trouble. You also make a good point about looking at it from a husband and brother's point of view in which you would just not let this kind of thing get started in the first place. If people can marry for love, then one is able to avoid all this silliness, but it is the silliness that allows us to have a novel, so for literary purposes, the course of true love cannot run true. From a critical Reader Response point of view, you make good observations, but you could develop them in more depth.
ReplyDelete