So we've read two book so far and we are working on our third and I have to say I'm a little frustrated with our readings. Maybe it's because I haven't connected with the novels or maybe it's because I was thinking we would read more popular works. But, on the contrary I can see the benefit in having a plethora of authors under my belt.

Last week I posted on Joaquin Murieta although I hadn't finished it. Being done, it didn't live up to what I wanted it to be. He wasn't a Robin Hood figure at all much less a hero. He was a self serving bandit who did things to benefit himself. There was no order to how he operated and worse he didn't really have a greater calling and if he did it was that he didn't like white people.

As I was listening to the groups talk about their questions I felt there was a common theme that ran through all the groups and that's the idea that as much as we want to try and sensationalize Murieta as a hero we can't simply because he isn't. In my group we brought up the point that Ridge liked the idea of a Robin Hood like figure but failed to deliver on that idea. Maybe I missed this in class or the readings but how accurate is this story? It seems that we have run into a bit of a problem with the separation of historical recollection and telling a good story. Thus, as much as Ridge would like to make Murieta the modern Robin Hood he can't in the name of historical accuracy.

What I'm really identifying is a bigger question/problem in literature and thats where is the line, or is there a line, between fact and fiction? In most of my English classes we tackle this problem at one point or another and Joaqin Murieta is a good example of this. How would we classify this text? It is my belief that this is a work of fiction and doesn't really educate the audience on who this man was. Wouldn't it be more effective to chose between a biography of Murieta or a story based on "true events"? We still can't escape the overarching problem of removing the authors bias, but it would set the stage in a more clean and precise manner. Ultimately I took away that this book, like many others, falls in the grey area of literature that doesn't allow for real in depth analysis simply because everything we analyze is the authors point of view rather than the things Murieta did. I often ask this question when I am reading something and I can't seem to work through that problem. To me, this is a fundamental flaw in our field. Literature is a subjective medium that doesn't allow itself to be truly analyzed in the sense of historical accuracy because all we really analyze is that which the author feels worth documenting. I may be completely wrong but there does seem to be a disconnect between fact and the authors motivation to put pen to paper.

Joaquin Murieta

I think I'm going to take a little different approach to this post and talk about the author....I had never heard of Joaquin Murieta and what his story is, nor did I know who John Rollin Ridge was. I have a horrible habit of Google(ing) things as soon as I don't know something or feel uncertain. This was no different, I googled Ridge and found out that he was American Cherokee and how his family signed their tribes removal from Georgia, this immediately raised some questions for me. Why would he want to write about Joaquin Murieta? It seems that he ended up in California for the gold rush and heard stories about Joaquin Murieta, the details after the basic facts seem to get sketchy and it starts to get hard to separate the myth of Murieta and real life. Maybe this is why Ridge decided to write about an out law, to clear the air and set the record straight or maybe the renegade lifestyle appealed to Ridge and gave him some sort of creative muse.

Either way this story seems to be really interesting. I read somewhere that Joaquin Murieta was the Mexican or Chilean version of Robin Hood. I guess you could say that, maybe after I read on I will feel differently about the book and the character.

The Blithedale Romance

I’m not the biggest fan of romance novels and I’m not very well versed in the likes of Hawthorne. With that said I was rather disappointed by this novel and found it very hard to get engaged in the text. But, as I read on and made progress through the long winded descriptions I noticed and undeniable tension that persists through all of the characters. Tensions between Coverdale, Hollingsworth, Zenobia and Priscilla that at first glance are seemingly healthy and a natural progression through development of each character but as we move on the tensions grow into something more, something more complex than emotional strain between all of the moving parts of this book. Coverdale is the problem with the entire book, we only see things the way he wants us to see them. We are only allowed to see what Coverdale thinks is of importance and because of this our view of each character is affected. I have a problem with this because it limits our ability to look at the texts objectively. By only seeing the characters through the eyes of Coverdale and his very unique look not only on the world but his place in it, the book starts to become this twisted tale of one’s personal life view. By essentially taking everyone’s problems and making them of his concern he starts to see people as objects that fit into his life. Hawthorne uses a very interesting ploy to allow Coverdale to act this way by claiming that he is an artist. But an artist only has so much room to say the things they want to say and play them off as art or say some cliché like art imitates life. Coverdale is a sad soul whom Hawthorne wants us to pity, which we do to some extent.