Numero dos

My blog is a little late, but better late than never and yesterdays discussion helped me formulate my thoughts a bit more and make them less muddled. First of all, I would like to compliment the class on their very insightful readings of this book. I must admit, when I started reading it, I was a bit confused and frustrated because I think though I appreciated the book for its cultural and historical insights, I failed to see it in the satirical and ironic way that Ruiz de Burton integrates into her tone of writing. I think I was trying to take it more for face value without making connections to the layers of insight and critique that she integrates into her writing.

The notion of double meanings; what you see is not necessarily what you get, is an interesting concept. The Democrat Mr. Norval seems to be one of the few who actually tolerates diversity, though in some ways I question how deep his values actually are. The self proclaimed "pious", God fearing, and charitable Mrs. Norval openly discusses her intolerance and hatred of all things foreign. Lola who appears on the scene as Black and potentially Indian, thus on the surface lowering her ranks to the lowest status of society at the time is actually of "pure" Spanish decent, almost symbolically mirroring the black stones that are actually diamonds on the inside. The "good" characters of this novel, have in my opinion, substantially less depth than the characters who you are meant to hate. Nothing is quite what it seems and under the surface, assumptions are constantly challenged.

Relating all of this back to our discussion in class, I am still undecided about whether or not this is a "feminist novel". I see both sides of the discussion. On one hand, if it were a feminist novel perhaps Ruiz de Burton would make more of an effort to portray women in a more positive light. She would try to not just keep women in the same subservient roles of being incapable of intelligent thought and helpless, but rather capable of challenging these assumptions and binding gendered categories. However, on the other hand, in keeping this book in a historical context and thinking of her underlying satirical tone, she almost presents these characters as an avenue of exemplifying the inequalities that existed in society of the time. Like the other aspects of the book, I have come to understand that you can not take this for face value. She is almost presenting these characters to the readers and leaving it up to them to draw their own conclusions of womens position in society during this time.
As a writer she seems to consistently present issues without drawing conclusions, letting the reader do that for themselves. An interesting question that I do not have the answer for would be does a feminist book need to present women as bold, brave, and heroic, or is it simply enough to expose them in the reality of how they were seen at the time?