Saturday, April 2, 2011
Assignment 7
LIT 4303 Dr. Lillios ________________________________________________________________________ Laura Esquivel’s Like Water for Chocolate Reading Assignment: Read the book by Tuesday, March 29 Schedule: Tuesday, March 29: Biography of Esquivel, martriarchy vs. patriarchy, woman’s space, food and the novel, female kundslerroman, Magical Realism in the novel. Thursday, March 31: Begin discussion of Durrell’s Justine Monday, April 4: Submit Esquivel journal entry to http://www.postww2lit.blogspot.com (see below) by midnight. Be sure to sign your entry. Journal 7 Assignment: Read the excerpt below from Toril Moi’s Sexual/Textual Politics (London: Routledge, 1985: 167). . . . if patriarchy sees women as occupying a marginal position within the symbolic order, then it can construe them as the limit or borderline of that order. From a phallocentric point of view, women will then come to represent the necessary frontier between man and chaos; but because of their very marginality they will also always seem to recede into and merge with the chaos of the outside. Women seen as the limit of the symbolic order will in other words share in the disconcerting properties of all frontiers: they will be neither inside nor outside, neither known nor unknown. It is this position that has enabled male culture sometimes to vilify women as representing darkness and chaos, to view them as Lilith or the Whore of Babylon, and sometimes to elevate them as the representatives of a higher and purer nature, to venerate them as Virgins and mothers of God. In the first instance the borderline is seen as part of the chaotic wilderness outside, and in the second it is seen as an inherent part of the inside: the part that protects and shields the symbolic order from imaginary chaos. Needless to say, neither position corresponds to an essential truth of woman, much as the patriarchal powers would like us to believe that they did. Write about a page or 200-250 words about gender relations in the novel. What statement is Esquivel making about woman’s chances of creating her own destiny in face of overwhelming patriarchal authority? How can woman create her own space and direct her own destiny in the novel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The most powerful example of patriarchal authority in the novel surprisingly comes from Mama Elena, a woman. Lacking in compassion and desire for human connection, Mama Elena rules the household with an iron fist and forces Tita into a life of servitude in the kitchen. At the beginning of the novel I was surprised at the idea that Tita’s better alternative would be marriage. Could a woman not be fulfilled without either serving in her mother’s or husband’s kitchen? Esquivel answers this question by giving Tita power over the men around her without being officially bound to them. She escapes the socially imposed morality for women and embarks on a passionate romance with a married man, while also retaining her independence and not giving into Pedro’s every whim. She is the leader in this affair, not the man. Similarly, with John, she is also able to choose her own destiny without the man imposing guilt upon her. Much of the power Tita holds over men is in the food she cooks. This could be seen as anti-feminism (woman’s most important and beloved duty is cooking), but in the context of the story, cooking is the outlet for Tita’s self-expression, creativity and freedom. In the kitchen she becomes independent, able to affect others, and shape her own fate. She doesn’t marry neither of the men who pursue her, but maintains her affair with Pedro in a way that keeps her candle burning. When his fire dies out, by her own free choice she chooses to follow him. Throughout the novel she cannot be seen as an agent of chaos(whore) nor goodness(angel). She is herself, with all the complexities, strengths and flaws that come with a human being.
ReplyDeleteEsquivel’s statement about women’s chances of creating their own destiny in the face of overwhelming patriarchal authority is done by creating the absence of a father in which transforming the authority to matriarchal and at that placing a rebel within it too. Having Tita be that one “victim” of conformity and tradition. Women can create her own space and direct her own destiny in the novel by fighting fate, fighting tradition, fighting the social norms. She can be her own future without a director--other than herself. Truth of life without compromise is how to go. There are moments throughout the novel that hold that truth, mainly in Tita fighting her fate, which in the long run, she doesn’t 100% of what she wants or even needs. But I do think that Tita and many of the female characters have a driving force through food. They have an ownership in food, a meaning to push forward. It almost sounds cliché to say that food in this novel place such a part in how women are perceived. Tita’s food leads her, creates a path of rebellion to all the forces against her life, like her mother. Overall, Tita’s food and magical realism come together to battle her destiny. Having thing fall where they need to more than simply want to.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I’ve read this novel before and watch the film and each time I come to two conclusions, I don’t really like the story and it’s not because of anything that I can pin down, but it maybe partial the campiness of the magical realism. And there’s a romantic-comedy called _Simply Irresistible_ that seems to share some similarities with the story in major arcs.
Ian
Esquivel, in __Like Water for Chocolate__, uses the kitchen as a means for woman to overcome, or at least challenge, patriarchal authority. Through Tita, Esquivel portrays an outlet of sorts for the female figure to trump the male in society. In specific, Tita’s cooking abilities exceed every other character’s in the novel, especially the males. Her agility with and pride for food inhibits any male dominance in the territory of the kitchen. Esquivel uses particularly phallic imagery to reveal Tita’s use of food as a means to exert power over the male body: her food “entered Pedro’s body, hot, voluptuous, perfumed, totally sensuous . . . penetrate[ing the farthest corners of his being” (52). Outside of the kitchen however, Tita is most definitely dominated by her male counterparts, as well as her mother; a somewhat manly female figure in her controlling ways and brutish acts of violence. In Tori Moi’s terms, when Tita steps out the kitchen, her female power “merges with the chaos of the outside,” consequently loosening her grip on the rung of the social ladder. Pedro marries Tita’s sister, but continues to have a love affair with the former, thus metaphorically trapping the female with an unjust affectionate bind. Although John is portrayed as a moral and considerate character, he too, like Pedro, entraps Tita into marrying him through guilt. Ultimately, Tita and John do not get married however, she and Pedro do not entirely experience the happy ending they were looking for either. In this sense, Tita loses to the male figure in not getting what she truly wants. Her power to control her own destiny, which plays a part solely when she is in the kitchen, is not enough to overcome the manly exertion of authority in the novel.
ReplyDeleteIn Esquivel’s novel, the women are the center of the universe. Strong willed, decisive and passionate, the female characters in the novel drive the action of the story by controlling the men around them. While each of the women is unique, they all represent an element of the margin between order and chaos that patriarchic thought places them in. In her novel, Esquivel allows the women to fluctuate between the chaos outside and the order within. Mama Elena both represents chaos by playing with gender roles in acting as the patriarch of the family as well as order by implementing strict rules for the family to abide by. Gertrudis plunges into the chaotic wilderness when overcome by passion and proceeds to run away from the sterile order of her home. Rosaura falls victim to societal norms and lives her life upholding the order within the margins. Finally, Tita fluctuates between order and chaos by attempting to mediate her passion for Pedro with reason and control over her emotions. While Rosaura and Gertrudis can be seen as absolute opposites—one inside the ordered universe and the other existing in the chaos outside—Tita exists on the margin, struggling with the battle between passion and order. Although she wishes to run away and live with Pedro, as the youngest daughter, she feels a certain responsibility to uphold her obligations to Mama Elena. The kitchen is the only space where Tita is free to exist outside the struggle, in her own world. The story follows Tita’s struggle to live freely and passionately while also upholding respectable order in her family life. While the other women in the novel end up either in the either the world of chaos or order, Tita truly rides the margin until the very end.
ReplyDelete-Sam Krop
I see Tita as “killing the Angel of the House” and making “a room of her own” in the embrace of feminine power manifested in her concoctions in the kitchen. Through the variety – everything from fancy and expensive quail & rose dishes (February) to more humble dishes of beans & pork (November) – Esquivel shows Tita as embodying a kind of feminine emancipation through creative personal genius. That is to say, is it part of Tita’s character to “make lemonade” when life gives her lemons; she is able to work within the restrains of any situation in the story, and any list of ingredients, to produce the most delicious and inspiring outcome to all who are touched by (all whom imbibe) it. In this way, Esquivel liberates Tita when she embraces the feminine power within; Esquivel’s statement is overwhelmingly positive that Tita will create her own destiny in the face of authority. She is no one’s perfect daughter, no one’s perfect wife. In essence, throughout the entire novel, Tita belongs “to no man” (*with the masculine portrayal of Mama Elena being dominant and her feminine side being secret, she is included as a man in this example); and therefore, decides to belong only to herself and rebels against any given destiny. The ultimate result with Pedro may not be the one she wants (the one she would have dreamed for herself), but it is the one that is “right”; the one that is “hers.” As discussed in class Thursday, Esquivel said that she “had to” end the novel the way that it ended – it was the “only” ending in her mind. I believe that this is because Esquivel is saying that, as women, if we embrace our feminine powers through our own natural talents and learn to infuse these powers (and therefore, ourselves) into the masculinity-dominated world, we may not end up with what we’d pictured, but we will have created a destiny that is uniquely our own.
ReplyDeleteThe most prominent patriarchal figure in "Like Water For Chocolate" is surprisingly enough, a woman. Mama Elena acts a domineering, tyrannical parent who forbids Tita from marrying and leading her own life. Instead, Tita is confined to the kitchen and as the youngest daughter, she must care for her mother while the other daughters live their lives. Despite Mama Elena's power-crazed reign, Tita is still able to display strength and dominance, especially over the men in the novel. Pedro is madly in love with her, and she ends up being the one that takes care of her nephew. Tita also engages an affair between herself and Pedro, despite the latter being married to Tita's older sister.
ReplyDeleteTita is still able to create her own life and follow her destiny despite all of Mama Elena's efforts. In the end she is united with Pedro, and they both die together due to the strength and power of their love - something that Mama Elena strove to keep at a minimum. Even though Tita passes away, her legacy and will continue to live on through her cookbook. Tita's cooking served as a powerful symbol of her femininity and strength, as she was able to make men fall in love with her by way of her cooking alone. Tita proves that a woman is able to fulfill her destiny even when confronted with patriarchal order/chaos.
-Wilson De Gouveia
In her literary work, Like Water for Chocolate, Laura Esquivel not only confronts the issues of gender and its societal limitations and implications, but she also advocates for and empowers women to surpass these very restrictions. Undoubtedly, Esquivel reveals society’s tendency to categorize women into oppositional binaries. Toril Moi in Sexual/Textual Politics argues that a society dominated by the patriarchal, male “center” assigns roles to women to perpetuate the patriarchal system. According to Moi, this “male culture sometimes [vilifies] women as representing darkness and chaos, [views] them as Lilith or the Whore of Babylon, and sometimes [elevates] them as the representatives of a higher and purer nature, [venerates] them as Virgins and mothers of God” (Moi 167). This assigning of female roles cherishes the moral woman on a pedestal, who “protects and shields the symbolic order from imaginary chaos,” while the fallen woman is banished to the outer reaches of the “chaotic wilderness” (Moi 167). Esquivel challenges and undercuts patriarchal society’s inclination to label all women under these two binary umbrellas: the whore and the pure. The author of Like Water for Chocolate accomplishes this undercutting of gender conventions through her memorable female characters. While Gertrudis first ventures to the outside world through her first sexual encounter (with Juan) and her stay at the brothel, she experiences the taste of freedom, independence, and a redefining of morality. Tita, like Gertrudis, falls between these two distinct categories of the fallen woman and the morally pure woman. She is loyal to her family and many obligations, but at the same time, is tempted by passion, lust, and pleasure. Mama Elena also portrays the woman “in between” these two binaries, for she both indulges herself in a love affair with a mulatto man and conveys the values of sacrifice, morality, and familial obligation. Thus, through the main female characters, Esquivel demonstrates that women cannot be bound to one label of womanhood, for they are complex characters who continue to transform their very essence.
ReplyDeleteIn Like Water for Chocolate, Esquivel weaves a thread of confidence for woman’s ability to transcend oppression and ultimately create her own “space” and purpose. The kitchen, itself, becomes an area of escape, comfort, and creativity, which undercuts the convention that the kitchen “traps” woman in her domestic duties. This space offers Tita and Nacha the opportunity to explore, create, and take risks. It allows a safe, nurturing place that serves as a stage for Tita’s journey of independence and personal destiny. Tita, along with other female characters, personify Esquivel’s drive to “light the matches” of the female spirit.
-Kerri Libra
I believe that the statement Esquivel is trying to make is that even when marginalized, women have an opportunity to undermine the patriarchal authority. For example, Tita is the only one of her sisters to have the ability to turn the so-called confines of the kitchen into her own space of creation and expression. That place to call her own can only be achieved, though, through perseverance of the overwhelming patriarchal oppression. As a Post World War II novel, Like Water for Chocolate explores how unrest and battle takes place not only outside of the house, but within it as well. Within the kitchen is where Tita is able to release her emotions and also have an impact on Mama Elena and the men in the novel. As I mentioned before, Esquivel is, through Tita, making the point that it is possible for a woman to have a hand in her destiny in the face of opposition. Tita’s fight to be with Pedro is by no means easy but she is able to achieve it. This may be because of her unique identity. She is neither chaos nor angel. What makes her special and successful is her ability to persevere. While Mama Elena is very much in control throughout the majority of the novel, Tita does not allow herself to be subverted. By finding an outlet through cooking, Tita slowly is able to move away from the marginalization and into the choice she makes for her own destiny: to be with Pedro even if it means death.
ReplyDeleteSarah Joseph
In Like Water for Chocolate, Laura Esquivel makes a powerful statement about women creating their own destiny in an overwhelmingly patriarchal authority. While on the surface of the novel, it appears to be progressive, exploring the repressive impact of tradition on women and a celebration of their willingness to break from tradition, a close reading of narrative reveals this may not be the case. Although the women achieve in the novel freedom, it is only short lived.
ReplyDeleteThis is exemplified best through Tita. As the youngest daughter, she is prohibited by family tradition from marrying so that she will be free to take care of her mother later in life. The novel follows her struggle and eventual triumph in pursuit of love and individuality. Throughout the course of the novel, Tita becomes more defiant and resists the traditions that are placed on her. Tita’s strong emotions become infused into her cooking and she unintentionally begins to affect the people around her through the food she prepares. However, Tita’s outlet is in the kitchen, a traditional place for women. She does not completely break from tradition, but rather only pushes its boundaries. Furthermore, once she finally reaches her true freedom, Tita and Pedro's passions ignite too quickly, and Pedro dies. Tita then swallows matches and lights the entire ranch on fire in the process.
Therefore, Like Water for Chocolate and Toril Moi’s Sexual/Textual Politics seem to coincide with each other. It seems as is if Esquivel’s novel could be agreeing that there isn’t enough room for both men and women to exist together at “the center.” Interestingly however, Esquivel does not make her character come full circle. Although the character dies, she leaves the ending option to interpretation for how future generations will behave.
Esquivel certainly seems to make a statement about the agency of women in a patriarchal society. From Mama Elena’s play with gender norms to Tita’s powerful sexual expressions in the kitchen, women seem to both push the boundaries of Toril Moi’s suggested phallocentric world, and yet remain within the constraints placed upon them.
ReplyDeleteMama Elena seems to reject traditional ideas about motherhood, something that the Hispanic culture in particular holds to extremely high esteem. In neglecting her mother role, Mama Elena pushes the boundaries of womanhood, as being a mother will always be unique to females. Perhaps in failing to nurture her daughter Tita, Mama Elena rejects the most fundamental part of womanhood, and thus rejects her gender altogether. Tita instead turns to food and cooking for both physical and spiritual nourishment. When she creates an elaborate meal for Pedro and her family, the sexual imagery is almost overwhelming, and Tita seizes control of sexuality at this point. This is significant in considering gender roles, as traditionally women have been sexually oppressed in almost every culture. Esquivel presents women who push the expected norms of femininity, allowing the novel to maintain subtle undertones of the power of female agency.
Lucy Baugh
When Tita is dealing with the early stages of her pregnancy and the secrecy she must keep about it, she laments the lack of available choice afforded to her in the world: “there are few prepared to fulfill their desires whatever the cost, and the right to determine the course of one’s own life would take more effort than she had imagined” (Esquivel 168). She is talking about the limits women face in a patriarchal world where they are either, as Toril Moi put it, “Lilith[s] or . . . Whore[s] of Babylon”—virgins or whores. Esquivel seems to make the argument in the novel that the choices of women are extremely limited in a patriarchal society. At first Tita is constrained by her mother who takes the position of a strong male patriarch after she herself was constrained by a patriarchal world, then she is subjugated by Pedro who tells her not to marry John even though he cannot marry her, and finally she is unable to pursue Pedro even when her sister dies because she “fear[s] . . . those who would judge” her based on the norms of a patriarchal society (198). Throughout Tita’s life she is being restricted by a male world.
ReplyDeleteBut, Esquivel does hold out the hope that women, even in a male world, can have powers over their own destinies. That power over destiny lies in Tita’s power of choice. In an observation Tita makes about seeds, the reader can see that Tita admires the ability of the seeds to take in water and split apart their old selves making new life in their roots—showing “the world their new leaves” (198). This is the choice she makes at the end of the novel. She decides to be with Pedro even though the norms of a patriarchal society want to look down on their union. She never escapes the confines of a male dominated world, but she decides to grow up past those standards like the seed that breaks its shell.
Kyle Kretzer
Toril Moi's article shows how much a patriarchal society confines women to a space on the fringe of order and not given the same opportunity to embody truth. Esquivel's novel "Like Water for Chocolate" makes strong commentary upon many of these issues. The mother in the story, Mama Elena, often acts as a patriarch of the female in the way that she confines Tita's life to simply serving her until she dies. Tita is not allowed to marry and is not given the opportunity to cultivate traditional relationships in the way that her sisters are. Her freedom is greatly restricted, but yet Esquivel presents her as such a strong character. Tita's kitchen is her domain where she is allowed to be free and express her creativity. Her meals become her means of expression and even a way of seduction. Pedro loses his masculine power with her meals and it is as if he is put under a spell by Tita's cooking. I feel that Esquivel is showing, through Tita, how a strong woman, even when confined in life, can be capable of having control over her imagination, creativity, and freedom to love, as expressed in the two main love interests of Tita. While her life is regulated by the relentless Mama Elena, Tita manages to create a world over her own in the kitchen, where she can express her passions and be free of the patriarchal oppression. Esquivel puts this most powerfully in Tita's freedom to love.
ReplyDeleteMatt Knight
Like Water for Chocolate extends beyond the dichotomy between a patriarchal or matriarchal society and concludes rather in the importance of preserving traditions despite the sex of the person. Mama Elena acts like a (male) leader but her role is not defined by Esquivel as that of a male. Instead, her strong character, which women can portray as equal to men, is not ever questioned by any characters of the novel: Most conspicuous scene is when the soldiers don’t enter the family’s house because of Mama Elena’s conviction to kill the general. Yes, it’s known that Spanish cultures are patriarchal, but based on the novel it’s hard to indicate where a patriarchal authority begins because there is no actual reference to them living in an environment ruled by men. The second issue is then how to create one’s own destiny in face of a rigid cultural tradition, in which the youngest daughter can’t marry and the kitchen is the center of life. By death, running away or marrying someone, like John, that’s how women can choose their destiny in the novel it seems. Gertrudis runs away because of the treatment endured which causes her to feel dependent on a “dictator” like her mother, thus she finds freedom by finding herself even if it means prostituting herself. Tita runs away also and then commits suicide – the latter not having to do as much with her freedom, but either way she finds destiny by dying and running from her house.
ReplyDelete~ Salo Steinvortz
Amazingly enough, the patriarchal authority comes, at least initially, from Mama Elena. However, through the energy of a uniquely feminine space, the kitchen, Tita learns to eventually develop her own sense of independence. Tita’s independence is slowly learned through the recipes she creates for her family. She transmits her emotions through her cooking which eventually leads to her questioning her place in the family that Mama Elena has forced her into. After Tita’s emotional and mental breakdown, she eventually learns to be more forward with her opinions and emotions. Her new found independence allows her to become the authority in the family after Mama Elena’s death. Esquirel is able to show, through Tita, that women who are marginalized by society (or in this case, family) may learn to push the boundaries that have been forced on them by traditional patriarchal authority.
ReplyDeleteSaraBeth Vanemon
Laura Esquivel's Like Water for Chocolate breaks conventional roles for women, as most of the family members are able to express authority in some area of their lives. Mama Elena possesses a strong grip on the family throughout her entire life, balancing the tasks of both genders and stifling the passions of her daughters. While Rosaura is content on continuing family traditions and abiding by the rules of her mother, Tita and Gertrudis long to abandon the ranch (as Gertrudis eventually does) and live their lives freely without judgment. There is no father in the household, and the only man who is even semi-present throughout the novel is Pedro, who is submissive to the glares and fits of Mama Elena and Rosaura. Esquivel therefore depicts a very different sort of family dynamic, as Mama Elena is expected to be the ruler of the house and go beyond traditional roles of that time period.
ReplyDeleteEven so, Esquivel's characters show that although circumstances can seem limiting for women in a patriarchal society; that marraige or housework is the only way to escape, women are able to cling onto outlets and enable themselves to find freedom through their own means. Tita found refuge in the kitchen and in her two romantic relationships, Gertrudis escaped and joined the military, Chencha married and had children outside of the ranch, and etc.
I interpreted Laura Esquivel’s Like Water For Chocolate to be an incredibly revolutionary novel. Esquivel transforms traditionally gender specified themes into groundbreaking female empowering ideals. The function of the kitchen and the act of cooking in the novel is an appropriate example of this as Esquivel utilizes the concept of the kitchen and cooking as furthering a woman powers, rather than diminishing it (as it is so often thought of in that way). In fact, one particular example is the manner in which Tita’s food “penetrates” Pedro. Esquivel transforms the process of cooking and eating into a sensual experience, which Tita clearly has control over. Through this instance, Esquivel states the power that the woman can acquire through an otherwise gender stereotypical activity such as cooking. The realm of the kitchen in the novel becomes a powerful arena for Tita to evolve as a woman and break through patriarchal expectations. Furthermore, an ironic representation of gender in the novel is Esquivel’s treatment of Mama Elena. Mama Elena’s character is hardly depicted in the manner a feminine character would be, instead she is described with masculine traits which grant her the power and authority she displays throughout the novel. This both defies gender expectations as Mama Elena inadvertently becomes the patriarchy, but it also perpetuates that cycle as Mama Elena is the one who constantly oppresses Tita’s desires and goals. I find that Esquivel approach the various themes of gender with a novel concept of transforming orthodox ideas into fresh, revolutionary ideals.
ReplyDeleteTaissa Rebroff
As an aspiring writer, specifically a male aspiring writer, I have to comment on the excerpt itself and its implications regarding, let’s call it what it is, the complete inability of men to write real women.
ReplyDeleteTo start with, the moment a person complains that a certain group is always portrayed as being one thing or its exact opposite, stop listening to that person. Drawing a single line past which something can be considered offensive is entirely fair, and while the precise location of this line can be problematic it leaves you a decent amount of room to work within. Leaving somebody a narrow window between two such swaths of dangerous territory is truly the way madness lies.
Assume for a second that these lines don’t intersect, that the borders aren’t drawn so widely that nothing falls between them, that there is a safe gap in the middle. There is first the possibility that if not navigated carefully this seeming safe haven becomes yet a third trap, that a writer attempting to shed not only one set of stereotypes but their converse will end up losing any characteristics considered sufficiently feminine and be accused of playing it too safe and writing women who are essentially men couched in female trappings. Beyond that, though, is the effect of this within the mind of the writer himself. Said “playing it safe” is typically the result of a male writer panicking in the face of that narrow path that he is allowed to travel in depicting women. He can’t portray them positively or negatively, and can’t simply refuse to try to define femininity at all and write his women as just being people like anybody else. Masculine is not an option, nor is androgynous, as they rob women of their power to be women, but feminine is a minefield almost impossible to navigate.
And naturally, the text we’re asked to use as an example of the correct path is written by a woman. Perhaps if the goal is more positive portrayals of women in the largely male-controlled media, it should be made possible for men to actually write female characters without being harassed for not conforming to unerringly strict if not contradictory specifications. All I know is that whether I’m writing a woman, a black man, a gay man, a Martian, a dragon or Gloriana, queen of the fey, I’m flying blind. I have no experience of these things firsthand and there is always guesswork. On top of that, what delights one member of said group might enrage another. Teachers of creative writing say to write what you know. It’s easy to see why, but novel after novel full of white protestant men isn’t going to win me any awards for diverse, egalitarian writing, either.
- Robbi Ramirez
Women in this topic/in the novel--women in general--are caught in a Catch22 where the woman is seen as either some creature exhibiting all the darkness/chaos in the universe or some impossibly pristine, virginal being. In Like Water for Chocolate, Mama Elena was the ultimate female; the Alpha Female.
ReplyDeleteIn order to succeed and prosper, Mama Elena possessed the characteristsics needed to be not only taken seriously, but respected, however, this was all at the cost of her femininity and favor with people. She was motherly and disciplining; a mentor and enemy; a woman but very coarse and almost male. As a "proper woman", one is presupposed to be aggreeable and kind and accomodating and all the rest, but to be succesful and respected it is vital to not only be female, but male as well. In saying that, I mean that Mama Elena, did men's work with a brusque masculinity that brought her resentment and hate from not only the characters in the novel, but also from many a reader of the piece. There is no room for a woman to be on the same level (power, strength, vindication) as a man, without sacrificing her warmth and feminity.
Is there a solution to this? Perhaps and I would like to think so, but the answer comes from the shift in mindset; the altering of thoughts of women as weaker or "Other" even if not in some chauvinistic way but in all manners. There needs to be a change from thinking "a woman would weaken an establishment" to "a woman can hold the answers not yet thought of that can lead to ultimate success". I believe it is in the true coming together of the sexes and not just the reluctant integration of the feminine into the masculine realm that will lead to a prosperous vitalization of The Woman in all realms. Femininity must be redefined and the mindset adjusted.
Sydni Gonzalez
I was going to write more about the book, but Robbi makes a pretty interesting point. I am a creative writing myself, and while I try not to write always about guys and their problems, that always seems to be the subject of most of my writing. I have no problems writing male characters, because, well, I'm a guy. But writing female characters has often been a challenge, and I feel like it's because this pressure to portray women a certain way that creates this challenge for me. My solution to this is to simply write a girl like she's just a regular person. I find it easier to forget about all the gender stuff and just write a woman like I'd write for a guy or any other character.
ReplyDeleteNot to sound cliche, but I think Esquivel is saying that women, anyone even, can make their way in the world if they're strong enough. Tita makes it, she finally is able to find peace with her love for Pedro, and then they both die. While this isn't a desirable outcome for most people, it showed that Tita had made it past her mother, and past whatever else was preventing her from living the life she wanted.
-elliot northlake
The responsibility that Tita feels towards Mama Elena, a socio-cultural construct of parent-child suppression, leads Tita to abandon a destiny of her own choices. Tita’s life is compromised by the will of her mother – bound to Mama Elena until death and only then, at whatever age Tita reaches, is she free to pursue her own life. This patriarchal authority is not patriarchal, but matriarchal. How then, are these relationships developed without the presence of the father figure? Mama Elena controls Tita and is bitter when Tita would rather marry Pedro. Of course, Tita is forbidden to marry Pedro because of family tradition. Because of custom, Tita relinquishes her love and submits to the authority of her tyrannical mother. No space is allowed for Tita to develop her own individuality and she must remain on the borderline of darkness and light, chaos and order; the dual role that woman of no particular purpose or status inhabit because of their dubious sexual position between men and women. Tita inhabits that mythical marginalization of evil creature like Lilith or virtuous goddess like the Mother Mary as mentioned in Toril Moi’s article.
ReplyDeleteDefining a space without the intrusion of family and obligation would allow Tita the development of her individuality against her sisters and her mother. It would present an option for her own destiny without the input of Mama Elena and sisters. Tita finds the only thing she can control in the house is food which becomes symbolic of purging the resentment against her family into the physical creation of food or sustenance. What she lets out, everyone wants. Every recipe she cooks and every plate that is prepared allows Tita a space separate from everyone else that she controls. When Tita cooks the rose Pedro gives to her, the passion of their affair is manifested into Tita’s food. After Getrudis devours the passion filled food, she is turned into her own passionate state and pursues a trail of love.
Joseph Ragoonanan
Like Water For Chocolate was probably my favorite novel so far this half of the semester for the sole reason that the gender relations within the novel are so interesting to analyze because the women within the novel are given very patriarchal male traits, making them unlike many portrayals of women we have seen so far in class. The main characters though who really push the gender relations are Mama Elena and Gertrudis.
ReplyDeleteMama Elena is a harsh woman, someone who sticks to her morals and her ways, stuck in tradition and unable to accept that her youngest daughter wants to marry. Gertrudis is a woman so overcome with passion that she runs away from the family and needs to get the passion out of her system before she can marry and have a happy life. These two women have a real grip on reality, no matter how much one may not like them, you have to admit that they really push the ideas of gender relations and giving women the role of men.
These two women have a hold on reality, which is not something that any other women have within the novel, and its a very masculine thing to have. Only the men within the novel and Mama Elena and Gertrudis have this ability to keep reality in check, and not get lost in silly idealist ways like Tita.
The novel was strong because of this, and it is probably the one thing that has the most impact on the gender relations of the novel.
In her novel _Like Water For Chocolate_, Laura Esquivel illustrates patriarchal authority through all of her characters, but most powerfully through Mama Elena and Rosaura. Mama Elena is the dictator, while Rosaura has no will of her own. She gets all of her ideas and motivations from her dictator (Mama Elena). The ranch represents the domain of Mama Elena, because she makes all of the rules—its either her way or no way at all. She creates these rules based off of her own personality, which is controlling and dictating. It seems that Mama Elena’s rules are based off of her on beliefs; I really don’t believe they are traditional. The rules apply to everyone else, not Mama Elena and this makes me questions her motives. These rules hinder Tita and Rosaura’s lives, and Mama Elena doesn’t really care about their happiness.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Rosaura is soulless because of her mother. She has an incapability to love. I don’t believe she really loves her mother; she is just obedient to her. She has no personality at all and she seems empty. Unlike Tita, Rosaura has no skills at all. She depends solely on Tita and Mama Elena for food and guidance, because she needs the authority of others.
~Jahvonda C. Glenn
In a family devoid of a patriarchal figure, the de la Garza women must make their own way in a man’s world in Esquivel’s Like Water for Chocolate. This vacant space is filled by the closest thing the family will get to a father, the matriarch Mama Elena. Her tough take on life and lack of fear when in the face of adversaries makes her a worthy opponent to any man. This characterization of Mama Elena is one variation of how Esquivel believes a woman can make her own destiny in a patriarchal world. Mama Elena goes to the extreme, practically leaving behind all traces of her femininity and becoming a man herself. This choice allows her to be an imposing figure in her house and in her community.
ReplyDeleteAnother direction a woman can take in the novel is finding her own niche. For Tita, this is the act of cooking. Her expertise with food allows her to create a personal domain in the kitchen of the house, over which she has the ultimate rule. By taking this space, Tita is able to create her own rules and regulations for the actions within it. This allows her dictate that aspect of her life and destiny. While in the outside world Tita does not have that level of control over decisions and outcomes, she is able to manipulate recipes and final outcomes of food, which not only gives her power over that medium but also over the people in her life who she is responsible to feed. Their reliance on her for sustenance gives Tita a sense of control she doesn’t have elsewhere and a type of control nobody else has.
-Bari London
If Toril Moi’s idea that “Women seen as the limit of the symbolic order will … share in the disconcerting properties of all frontiers: they will be neither inside nor outside, neither known nor unknown” can easily be applied to Like Water for Chocolate. Tita's family lives quite literally in this gray area: a ranch on the frontier of the town, and catalyst for the breakdown of reality.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most important moments, the dinner of quail and rose petal sauce, serves a fundamental thematic purpose. Through Tita's dish, she becomes the object of Pedro's gaze, and as a side effect, Gertrudis is sexually awakened and charged. If cooking is considered an expression of sexuality, than sexual liberty is the tool through which women define their own destiny in the novel. Rosaura is spiteful and lost because she relinquished her sexual agency to marry Pedro whom she wasn't explicitly interested in.
~Ben Slaughter
There are many different roles that the females throughout the novel play. Mama Elena asserts herself as a strong, independent woman. Even when she stands against the revolutionaries and their Captain she is described as “a woman to be reckoned with” (85) and she continues to assert herself as both a commanding and intimidating woman towards others and her own children. When she discusses the idea of Pedro and Rosaura moving to San Antonio, she states that she has never needed a man and will be completely fine without one in the house once Pedro moves out. In comparison Tita struggles throughout the novel to direct her own destiny. Her love for Pedro penetrates every aspect of her life, especially her cooking, where her own emotions are translated through the tears she cries into particular meals. Esquivel shows the struggles that each female character faces in terms of defining oneself as a woman and having to overcome the roles that have been set forth for women in the novel. Rather than allowing her characters to fall prey to these roles they constantly seek to define their own roles in life, even if it means defying the usual roles of women.
ReplyDeleteShelby Thorne