At first sight it’s not that noticeable, but Padre Jose –introduced for first time in chapter two- is an influential character. Reflecting Mexico’s religious problems, he’s a perfect example of the fear caused within the country’s population.
I’m able to compare him to the whisky priest; even though they’re both priests, one has chosen what is seems to be the “right track” and the other if I can say, stubborn. It’s difficult because you can take different points of view towards these two characters; did Padre Jose take the right decision or is he a sinner? Should the whisky priest follow Padre Jose’s steps and calm down?
Padre Jose’s decision is confusing; for some it can be absurd that a priest, whose life is devoted to God suddenly because of fear, marries and lives his life like the rest of the civilians. Why would he do this? It’s like betraying God, the almighty. But, on the other hand, I can also understand how fear may take you to do things you don’t necessarily want to. Worse, when your life is at risk of being over.
Here is why the whisky priest differs so much: he’s always running away from the law, while keeping his real identity alive. Even if he has to do it undercover, he celebrates mass with the townspeople taking a very high risk. I don’t know what would I do, but if you’re sure of your beliefs, it’s ok if to save your life you change your way of living…
jueves, 27 de septiembre de 2007
The Power and the Glory: am I confused?
When beginning to read this novel I quite didn’t get the point of it (what was it about?). It obviously starts narrating about a guy called Mr. Tench, and English-speaking dentist in a Latin country: Mexico. We are settled in a small town, Tench is sort of the only doctor nearby, and with his own narrations I discover the town’s circumstances: all you can see is poverty.
So, as the book goes on, a very strange character appears –a character which in the future will be the main one- but really makes no different at that time. It caughts my attention because of the mystery he brings along and there’s no clue about his real identity: a priest. Still, and because of the lack of information –or simple confusion- I let him pass (while thinking he’s an insignificant doctor).
After discussing in class I discovered that the stranger, is, in fact, the main character. My confusion went from 0 to 10! From then on, the next few chapters were simply strange, but with time I’m on track now…
So, as the book goes on, a very strange character appears –a character which in the future will be the main one- but really makes no different at that time. It caughts my attention because of the mystery he brings along and there’s no clue about his real identity: a priest. Still, and because of the lack of information –or simple confusion- I let him pass (while thinking he’s an insignificant doctor).
After discussing in class I discovered that the stranger, is, in fact, the main character. My confusion went from 0 to 10! From then on, the next few chapters were simply strange, but with time I’m on track now…
martes, 25 de septiembre de 2007
Full Name (required)
E-mail address (required)
City State Zip (required)
Telephone Number (required)
Message
Mr. Rice,
I read your article and the first thing I thought was that I simply agree with your ideas about reporter-writer Ryszard Kapuscinski. I admire Kapuscinski's way of writing and most of all, being able to make himself his own main character. I read that in his book "The emperor", "...is Kapuscinski's least characteristic work, in that for the most part, he leaves the narration to others, the courtiers he calls by anonymous initials" (Rice, n.pag).
I love that everything he wrote is absolutely realistic; I learn about the world's history but at the same time I feel I'm reading a novel -which I prefer than reading documents.
I also like when Kapuscinski says, "A person who lived through a great war is different from someone who never lived through any war", refering to his own life. I totally agree with his idea; a person who hasn't experienced in it's own flesh what war's like, will never get the essence of it...
E-mail address (required)
City State Zip (required)
Telephone Number (required)
Message
Mr. Rice,
I read your article and the first thing I thought was that I simply agree with your ideas about reporter-writer Ryszard Kapuscinski. I admire Kapuscinski's way of writing and most of all, being able to make himself his own main character. I read that in his book "The emperor", "...is Kapuscinski's least characteristic work, in that for the most part, he leaves the narration to others, the courtiers he calls by anonymous initials" (Rice, n.pag).
I love that everything he wrote is absolutely realistic; I learn about the world's history but at the same time I feel I'm reading a novel -which I prefer than reading documents.
I also like when Kapuscinski says, "A person who lived through a great war is different from someone who never lived through any war", refering to his own life. I totally agree with his idea; a person who hasn't experienced in it's own flesh what war's like, will never get the essence of it...
lunes, 24 de septiembre de 2007
Ryszard Kapuscinski, Polish Writer of Shimmering Allegories and News, Dies at 74
I tried to find an op-ed article on The New York Times and found an interesting article about Ryszard Kapuscinski's life and death, written by Michael T. Kaufman. Here, the writer shows its admire towards this amazing author, and I can also say I feel the same way.
Kapuscinki traveled the world for almost four decades, collecting his own experiences, especially conflicts in the third world. He was part of 27 coups and revolutions and his writing's are characterized by the explicit descriptions of the atmosphere, people and climate, ect., of where these conflicts were. I think he is one of a great author, not many authors -if I can say any- get to write about this topics and above all, lived this in their own flesh.
I learned that Kapuscinski's fame grew when he started to write in The New York Times magazine, where I found this article. Four books were published based on his life and research; "“The Soccer War,” which dealt with Latin American conflicts; “Another Day of Life,” about Angola’s civil war; “Shah of Shahs,” about the rise and fall of Iran’s last monarch; and “Imperium,” an account of his travels through Russia and its neighbors after the collapse of the Soviet Union" (Kaufman, n.pag).
“There is, I admit, a certain egoism, in what I write,” he once said, “always complaining about the heat or the hunger or the pain I feel. But it is terribly important to have what I write authenticated by its being lived. You could call it, I suppose, personal reportage, because the author is always present. I sometimes call it literature by foot.”
I admire Ryszard Kapuscinski after all he's done. His life started in a small town, in a humble family, but his interest for the world took him much further than he expected. Winning prizes and master's degrees show me the wisdom and perseverance in this man's head, and if I can say having the courage to enter a world not many people would...
Kapuscinki traveled the world for almost four decades, collecting his own experiences, especially conflicts in the third world. He was part of 27 coups and revolutions and his writing's are characterized by the explicit descriptions of the atmosphere, people and climate, ect., of where these conflicts were. I think he is one of a great author, not many authors -if I can say any- get to write about this topics and above all, lived this in their own flesh.
I learned that Kapuscinski's fame grew when he started to write in The New York Times magazine, where I found this article. Four books were published based on his life and research; "“The Soccer War,” which dealt with Latin American conflicts; “Another Day of Life,” about Angola’s civil war; “Shah of Shahs,” about the rise and fall of Iran’s last monarch; and “Imperium,” an account of his travels through Russia and its neighbors after the collapse of the Soviet Union" (Kaufman, n.pag).
“There is, I admit, a certain egoism, in what I write,” he once said, “always complaining about the heat or the hunger or the pain I feel. But it is terribly important to have what I write authenticated by its being lived. You could call it, I suppose, personal reportage, because the author is always present. I sometimes call it literature by foot.”
I admire Ryszard Kapuscinski after all he's done. His life started in a small town, in a humble family, but his interest for the world took him much further than he expected. Winning prizes and master's degrees show me the wisdom and perseverance in this man's head, and if I can say having the courage to enter a world not many people would...
Kapuscinski's Reports Hit Communism at Home
I was trying to listen to this report, but a Verizon Wireless propaganda pops up and then there's nothing else. I hope this doesn't affect my blogs or that I'm missing one...what can I do? I'll still complete The Soccer War's blogs.
miércoles, 19 de septiembre de 2007
Sand War: Algeria vs. Morocco
I followed the advice Mr. Tangen gave me about researching a little more on the Algerian-Morocco War; best known as the Sand War, if I'm not wrong. It says, "The Sand War occurred along the Algerian-Moroccan border in October 1963, and was a Moroccan attempt to claim the Tindouf and the Bechar areas that France annexed to French Algeria a few decades earlier", (Google, n.pag).
I learned that before the French colonized Africa, parts of Algeria belonged to Morocco. War began after their independence, when both the Algerian army -conformed by the country's guerrilla called FNL- and Moroccan army confronted in the areas of Tindouf and Figuig. Algeria was in great disadvantage because of its primitive equipment, while Morocco disposed of advanced armery. The funny part comes here, when with this advantage, the Moroccan army couldn't get into Algeria, and three weeks after a series of failed attempts, the Organization of African Unity with the help of the Arab League took over and gave an end to it. On February 20, 1964 the two countries signed a peace treaty.
Still, this war left uncurable wounds; Algeria and Morocco had a lot of differences (eg. Algeria's Arab and revolutionary government and the Moroccan conservative monarchy). There was no agreement over the territories of Tindouf until the years of 1972, and it made a harsh impact over these to governments; some of its leaders were sentenced to death as a result.
After reading the history behind this two countries I find it kind of boring because of the failure of it, neither one of the countries got what they wanted. It's funny it lasted three weeks and that Algeria with such a lame army survived over this. I realized it's one of those wars where no side wins (we always wait for a winner, suspense...) and how can Morocco, a much more advanced country couldn't penetrate Algeria. We, as we learn history, always develop admiring thoughts towards countries who've fought for justice and won it...how can this war be an example of this?
I learned that before the French colonized Africa, parts of Algeria belonged to Morocco. War began after their independence, when both the Algerian army -conformed by the country's guerrilla called FNL- and Moroccan army confronted in the areas of Tindouf and Figuig. Algeria was in great disadvantage because of its primitive equipment, while Morocco disposed of advanced armery. The funny part comes here, when with this advantage, the Moroccan army couldn't get into Algeria, and three weeks after a series of failed attempts, the Organization of African Unity with the help of the Arab League took over and gave an end to it. On February 20, 1964 the two countries signed a peace treaty.
Still, this war left uncurable wounds; Algeria and Morocco had a lot of differences (eg. Algeria's Arab and revolutionary government and the Moroccan conservative monarchy). There was no agreement over the territories of Tindouf until the years of 1972, and it made a harsh impact over these to governments; some of its leaders were sentenced to death as a result.
After reading the history behind this two countries I find it kind of boring because of the failure of it, neither one of the countries got what they wanted. It's funny it lasted three weeks and that Algeria with such a lame army survived over this. I realized it's one of those wars where no side wins (we always wait for a winner, suspense...) and how can Morocco, a much more advanced country couldn't penetrate Algeria. We, as we learn history, always develop admiring thoughts towards countries who've fought for justice and won it...how can this war be an example of this?
domingo, 9 de septiembre de 2007
Ahmed Ben Bella: The Father of the Nation
I took the liberty of researching a little more on this special character from "Soccer War". I was suprised to see how first of all he was called "The Father of the Nation", I hadn't realized he'd been such an important person in Algeria. Known most of the time as an unstoppable anti-colonial struggler, Ben Bella had to suffer a lot to get to the point he did. Prison was one of his obstacles before even getting to be President, but that didn't stop him.
Ben Bella's biography talks about a specific anecdote in his life; eventhough Ahmed was against French rule in Algeria, his first language was French. Once, years before being President "...when Nasser (former Egyptian President) brought Ben Bella to speak for the first time to an Egyptian audience, he broke into tears because he could not speak Arabic", (Wiki, n.pag). It has been said that he refused to teach his own daughter French because he wanted her to learn Arabic first and not be in the same position he was. I can see that his position was revolutionary and that him, lots of Africans were absolutely tired with the French colonies.
I'd be desperate if I discovered that I couldn't even communicate with my own people, in his case Egypt. Still, Ben Bella created close ties with this country, which helped a lot, and it was before independence. Ahmed was chosen the President after independence, and I thought it was sad to see that he was taken to prison after being deposed by his BEST friend Boumedienne; why would he do that? I think he was a great man, that with hard work rose all the way to President and it's admirable all he achieved: made Algeria part of the United Nations, created a victorious defense against the Morrocan invasion in 1963. Maybe he wasn't a perfect man or maybe I have to read more about him, but his heart wanted the best for his people...
Ben Bella's biography talks about a specific anecdote in his life; eventhough Ahmed was against French rule in Algeria, his first language was French. Once, years before being President "...when Nasser (former Egyptian President) brought Ben Bella to speak for the first time to an Egyptian audience, he broke into tears because he could not speak Arabic", (Wiki, n.pag). It has been said that he refused to teach his own daughter French because he wanted her to learn Arabic first and not be in the same position he was. I can see that his position was revolutionary and that him, lots of Africans were absolutely tired with the French colonies.
I'd be desperate if I discovered that I couldn't even communicate with my own people, in his case Egypt. Still, Ben Bella created close ties with this country, which helped a lot, and it was before independence. Ahmed was chosen the President after independence, and I thought it was sad to see that he was taken to prison after being deposed by his BEST friend Boumedienne; why would he do that? I think he was a great man, that with hard work rose all the way to President and it's admirable all he achieved: made Algeria part of the United Nations, created a victorious defense against the Morrocan invasion in 1963. Maybe he wasn't a perfect man or maybe I have to read more about him, but his heart wanted the best for his people...
jueves, 6 de septiembre de 2007
Can we identify with Algeria's conflicts?
Referring to the book "Soccer War", by Ryszard Kapuscinski, I can see the harsh reality in Algeria. Poverty is a great deal, and it's a clear result of social and political problems. The war in Algeria, that lasted seven and a half years , left uncurable wounds and it's reflected even today.
The situation between social classes is very clear, and I can say that we, colombians, can identify with it too. Colombia's social classes are very unbalanced, by this, I mean that the low class is ridiculously big, whether the middle class isn't. It would be great if the middle class had the majority of the population, our security would increase substantially. We, as a high class in a third world country, are more than ignorant when we talk about reality. We are aware that poverty exists, but as we've always said, we live in a bubble. In Algeria, the same thing happens: "It is striking...that these people are generally strangers to Algeria", (Kapuscinski, pg. 101). It would be nice if a country could unite, no matter what race, ethnic group or class.
Comparing Colombia to Algeria in another aspect, the displacement of people due to war is absurd. I read that "three million Algerians were driven from their villages and confined to reservations or resettled in the isolated regions", (Kapuscinski, pg. 101). Here, hundreds of people are taken out of their lands and forced to go to the big cities, where it's very hard for families to survive. War causes extensive losses, and an entire country can desintegrate because of it.
The situation between social classes is very clear, and I can say that we, colombians, can identify with it too. Colombia's social classes are very unbalanced, by this, I mean that the low class is ridiculously big, whether the middle class isn't. It would be great if the middle class had the majority of the population, our security would increase substantially. We, as a high class in a third world country, are more than ignorant when we talk about reality. We are aware that poverty exists, but as we've always said, we live in a bubble. In Algeria, the same thing happens: "It is striking...that these people are generally strangers to Algeria", (Kapuscinski, pg. 101). It would be nice if a country could unite, no matter what race, ethnic group or class.
Comparing Colombia to Algeria in another aspect, the displacement of people due to war is absurd. I read that "three million Algerians were driven from their villages and confined to reservations or resettled in the isolated regions", (Kapuscinski, pg. 101). Here, hundreds of people are taken out of their lands and forced to go to the big cities, where it's very hard for families to survive. War causes extensive losses, and an entire country can desintegrate because of it.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)