I want a thread (ignore it)

[rache]

Overheard in a confessional...

"Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. It's been a long time since my
first confession."

"The first?"

"The only one, Father."

"I see."

"Are you okay? You sound…old."

"I'm well enough."

"I didn't expect that."

"Expect?"

"You to be so old. It's funny."

"Do you want to confess?"

"More than anything, Father."

"Alright."

"I lied once, but it was a long time ago. I barely remember it."

"Was it a terrible lie?"

"Terrible, Father? That's a strange word. At the time…"

"Yes?"

"…I thought so."

"Do you regret it?"

"Do you remember the story of the Greek who went to Jerusalem?"

"The merchant from Cyprus?"

"Yeah, that one."

"He made a pilgrimage to hear the teachings of Jesus."

"And when he got there, Jesus was already dead. He found only empty
crosses on the hill and he asked people, 'Is this the cross where
Jesus died?' and they told him no. So he went to the next cross and
again he asked, 'Is the cross where Jesus died?' and they said no. He
went to the last cross and this time he didn't ask, he got on his
knees and kissed it."

"Yes."

"And he got a splinter in his tongue, right? And after that, the Greek
could only speak the truth and if he lied, his mouth would bleed."

"That's the story."

"When I lied, I thought I could taste blood."

"You were very young."

"Tell me, Father, since you're old now…What do you taste?"

"Are you smoking?"

"Do you want one?"

"No."

"They don't have smoke detectors in these things do they?"

"No, they don't."

"No hidden cameras? No microphones? You guys don't sit around on
Friday nights, watching catholic porn?"

"There's only us."

"And God."

"Yes."

"Don't forget God, Father."

"He's here."

"I'm killing myself with these things. Will I go to hell for smoking?"

"Do you want them to kill you?"

"Yeah."

"Then you should quit and ask forgiveness."

"I just said I want to die."

"You might change your mind later."

"When it happens, huh? I've heard that one before."

"Then you should be listening."

"You're full of good advice. I can't believe I missed out on it all
these years."

"You're angry."

"Aren't you? No. Of course you're not. Priests aren't allowed to get
mad, are they?"

"Everyone gets mad sometimes."

"So get mad at me, Father."

"Have you been to mass?"

"Coward."

"I'm only asking."

"You're changing the subject."

"There's only one subject here."

"What?"

"You."

"I had an abortion. Two of them, actually."

"Okay."

"Not for any good reason, Father. Just…birth control."

"I see."

"That's a sin right?"

"Yes."

"What's a bigger sin, Father? I always wondered, abortion or eating
meat on Fridays?"

"It doesn't work like that."

"What? How does it work?"

"All sins are bad. None are better or worse than any others."

"I don't believe that."

"Do you believe getting an abortion was wrong?"

"Sometimes."

"And the rest of the time?"

"If God made everything so black and white, why are sunsets so fucking
pretty?"

[UnknownDestination]

What ?!? You want your own thread? Is "Test Thread" and "Don't
Post..." not good enough for you? Is that it? Huh? So it all has to
be about you? Isn't that right?

It's just like that evening in Bangkok when my wife and I stood out in
the rain after we gave you money to purchase dinner for all of us and
you came back out forty-five minutes to 45 minutes later (whichever is
more irregular) and told us "Sorry. All the chicken products are sold
out in addition to the cans of spare ribs.". I never told you this
but it took all night to get the pigeon out of our teeth.

[just-this-guy]

You know...I really should make sure I'm logged in correctly before I
post.



On Jun 1, 5:20 am, UnknownDestination <UnknownDestinatio...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[rache]

"Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. It's been a day since my last
confession."

"The Lord is listening. Confess your sins faithfully."

"Faithfully. Is that a pun?"

"Honestly."

"Oh."

"Go ahead."

"I'm thinking. Don't rush me. Um...I went out last night. I got a
little drunk."

"Alright."

"Drinking's not a sin though, right? I mean, you guys drink all the
time, so…"

"Drinking can be good or bad, but getting drunk is a sin."

"It is?"

"Anything to excess."

"Anything? That sucks."

"It's one of the definitions of sin."

"I do everything to excess."

"Hmmm…"

"I live to excess, I think. Is that a sin?"

"Living to excess?"

"Yeah. Didn't you ever feel too alive?"

"I'm not sure if I know what you mean."

"Me neither. Never mind. Who cares anyway?"

"I care."

"Sure."

"God cares as well."

"I feel like a soap opera."

"Why?"

"Tune in tomorrow. People don't really care."

"What happened?"

"I let this guy pick me up. It just…I don't know."

"You sound unhappy about it."

"Of course I'm unhappy. God! You think I'd be here if I was happy?"

"Some people are."

"Are what?"

"Some people are happy and they still come to confession."

"Oh."

"They still go to mass. They pay their bills and take care of their
responsibilities."

"You don't even know me, Father."

"I've been doing this a long time."

"So you think you know me?"

"I think you've been hurt."

"You're pretty talkative today, huh?"

"I like to talk."

"Downright chatty, Father."

"I worry about you."

"Me? Save it. You know what the first miracle Jesus performed was?"

"Changing water into wine."

"The last one?"

"Raising Lazarus from the dead."

"How many apostles were there?"

"Are you testing me now?"

"Answer the question, Father."

"Eleven."

"You're good. Okay, here's a hard one. Why did Jesus curse the date
tree?"

"The date tree?"

"Yeah. You know. He was walking in the desert and it was hot and he
was hungry and he found a date tree, right?"

"Yes, I remember."

"But it was out of season and had no fruit. Remember that part? So
Jesus cursed the tree and it withered and died."

"Yes."

"Why?"

"I'm not sure."

"You're a priest. Come on! It has to mean something."

"Perhaps it teaches us that serving no greater purpose, being useless
to the Lord…"

"He had to know it was the wrong time of year though."

"…is the equivalent of death. The soul is cursed and withers when it
bears no fruit."

"It wasn't the tree's fault."

"It's an allegory."

"Not a miracle?"

"That's for you to decide."

"Sounds pretty hokey to me, Father."

"You asked."

"You're a funny guy. That wasn't you in the bar last night, was it?"

"No."

"That would be embarrassing. Let a priest take me home, fuck me, then
I confess to him later without even knowing it."

"He wasn't me."

"I'll be worried about it all day now."

"Me too."

"Haha…That's what he would have said."

"Is it?"

"Now I know it was you."

[bondi beach]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:13 AM, rache <rach...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Overheard in a confessional...

"What's a bigger sin, Father? I always wondered, abortion or eating
meat on Fridays?"

"It doesn't work like that."

"What? How does it work?"

"All sins are bad. None are better or worse than any others." 

"I don't believe that."

"Do you believe getting an abortion was wrong?"

"Sometimes."

"And the rest of the time?"

"If God made everything so black and white, why are sunsets so fucking
pretty?"

hmm---interesting, but kind of a low-rent shot here. no difference between sins? that's not what they taught at the catholic school i attended for a year. and, of course, there's no longer any restriction on eating meat on fridays. so that kind of takes the wind out of the last line.

on the other hand, any story that makes fun of organized religion can't be all bad.

fucked the priest? well, maybe, but that one is kind of low-rent, too, except that it's funnier.

bb

[Tim Merrigan]

rache wrote:
> "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. It's been a day since my last
> confession."
>

I'm enjoying this, but a nit, as I recall, the date tree story was from
the Gospel of James (and presumably the Q document), but is nowhere in
the canonical texts. And if you're including non-canonical texts, there
were13 apostles, including Judas and Mary Magdalen.

--

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Tim Merrigan

[bondi beach]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

rache wrote:

"Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. It's been a day since my last
confession."
 

I'm enjoying this, but a nit, as I recall, the date tree story was from the Gospel of James (and presumably the Q document), but is nowhere in the canonical texts.  And if you're including non-canonical texts, there were13 apostles, including Judas and Mary Magdalen.

can't remember for sure, but isn't there a difference between disciple and apostle. the former were 12 (or 13, depending); the latter were 11 (or 12, i guess) following the death of judas.

bb

[bondi beach]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:28 AM, bondi beach <bondi.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

rache wrote:

"Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. It's been a day since my last
confession."
 

I'm enjoying this, but a nit, as I recall, the date tree story was from the Gospel of James (and presumably the Q document), but is nowhere in the canonical texts.

forgot to add: it's at mark 11:13.

bb

[Tim Merrigan]

Thank you, I appear to have been mistaken in that.

[rache]

Never mind. I don't want the thread anymore. You can have it. Maybe an
editor will use it to explain why the confessions were 100% accurate
down to the smallest detail. I'm running late.

rache

[bondi beach]

an editor can do that? wow.

bb

[rache]

The Weeping Statue

In the town of San Pita, near the plaza and below the bells of the old
monastery, stood the weeping statue. It had been cut from a large
stone pulled from the mountains and was very old. Sometimes the statue
would weep and tears had worn the rock smooth. When the statue would
weep, the bells would be rung and all the people who lived in the town
would come to see it and they would pray.

The weeping statue had been both famous and forgotten many times,
until most recently when a young priest arrived to see the statue for
himself. The town welcomed him and a made a room for the priest above
a small canteen that served sweet breads and lechon, and smelled of
the strong coffee brewed in the afternoons. Next door lived a maker of
guitars and most often he would whistle all day long and play a new
guitar every night.

After his morning prayers each day, the priest would go to the weeping
statue and then he would return to the canteen. In his journal the
priest would make a note of what he had seen.

"The statue does not weep today," he'd write and after a moment he
would put his pencil down.

The guitar maker had a daughter who was very beautiful. Her hair was
thick and black and she wore a yellow dress with a blue apron as she
swept her father's shop. She had an affection for jewelry, for
bracelets and bangles and the girl had a great many of them so that
she would jingle softly when she moved. The sound of her made the
priest look up and the sight of her made him smile.

The priest and the girl had grown fond of each other over the passing
days and weeks. She would linger with her broom until the priest
returned from the statue and then sweep for his pleasure. She tried to
hide her eyes beneath her hair and the priest stroked his jaw to
disguise his smile, and they would sit together every afternoon and
drink coffee and talk.

Very often the girl would listen to the priest as he spoke of his many
travels. At other times, she would tell him of the town and the people
living there, leaning close to whisper gossip and blush at her
mischief. Only rarely did they speak of the weeping statue, but one
day the priest asked her about it.

"The statue will only weep when someone is born," the girl told him,
"or when someone dies."

After many months had passed, the priest received a letter. He would
have to leave soon. The statue did not weep and he had other duties in
other places. He hid the letter and refused to speak of it with
anyone. He spent his last few hours with the girl, smiling as she gave
him her eyes and drank her coffee. Her hands would flutter and wave
and the bangles and bracelets would jingle and mix with her laughter
until the priest couldn't tell them apart. He told her of distant and
wonderful places until the girl's imagination ran wild and she'd make
up romantic adventures, sharing them eagerly while he listened and
told her, "Just so, my dear...Just so."

The next morning the girl waited for the priest until her heart was
broken and that night the statue wept for her.


rache

[massivereader]

Just lovely. Nice use of magical realism. I think you truly captured
the feel of a good storyteller relating a local legend or bit of
traditional oral history or with this peice. It has a particularly
latin flavor I think that reminds me of the narration in "Like Water
for Chocolate".

John

[bondi beach]

yes, but why did he have to leave her high and dry and with her heart broken (i.e., dead, not to put too fine a point on it) after he'd shown her the world? why not just strangle a puppy, instead?

bb

[massivereader]

That's exactly why I said it had a latin flavor. It has the classic
elements of latin romance: the dutiful daughter/beautiful young woman
who falls prey to the dark enticing stranger, the twin lures of
sensuality and the exotic, and the inescapable presence of the
church.

These tales are almost always tragedies that combine infatuation or
the loss of innocence with death and betrayal. Most of them are
cautionary tales about those who love unwisely, hold on too strongly,
trust too much and give too freely of themselves etc... (all due to
their fiery and passionate latin temperment, naturally). They most
often end badly for the women, and frequently for the men as well.

It probably goes to reinforcing or explaining the machismo/madonna
culture. Of course, if it had been a spanish influenced tale rather
than a latin influenced one there would have been more fire between
the two of them and the statue would have wept blood, or the priest
would have become a penitente. I seems there's always blood as well as
tears somewhere in the strictly spanish stories.

In any case, the tragic ending's essential to the story - it answers
the original question while maintaining that essential bit of
ambiguity and showing the futility of trying to understand or
anticipate fate and the influence of the divine. That's where the
magical realism part comes in. The other story option was a birth and
that would mean a life of public disgrace for the girl. Making a
priest the spurning lover and avoiding actual sex while maintaining so
strong a connection between the two were the twists that made it
original and attactive for me. I thought it showed more insight into
the nature of attraction than your plain old "girl gets fucked and
dumped" story. And the not so subtle subversive message of "don't
trust the priests too much, they're only human" just sort of sneaks
right in there under cover.

Hey! It's a rache story. There's always a couple of different levels
of things going on.

I'm just wondering now if this story is the result of an exchange she
and I had about priests having children and mistresses?

John

On Jun 4, 11:04 am, bondi beach <bondi.beach....@gmail.com> wrote:

[bondi beach]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:21 PM, massivereader <John...@msn.com> wrote:

That's exactly why I said it had a latin flavor. It has the classic
elements of latin romance: the dutiful daughter/beautiful young woman
who falls prey to the dark enticing stranger, the twin lures of
sensuality and the exotic, and the inescapable presence of the
church.

except perhaps for the church part, there's nothing really particularly latin about that. it's a staple of stories all over the world, including northern european fairy tales, in one form or another. oh, and harlequin romances, too.

In any case, the tragic ending's essential to the story - it answers
the original question while maintaining that essential bit of
ambiguity and showing the futility of trying to understand or
anticipate fate and the influence of the divine. That's where the

i understand where you're going, but i don't buy it. there's a difference between tragedy and cruelty. for my money, this one's about cruelty. the priest is just plain cruel to her. it's cruelty for cruelty's sake.

Hey! It's a rache story. There's always a couple of different levels
of things going on.

indeed.
 
bb

[rache]

I wrote a version where the girl and the priest make love and the
statue weeps, presumable as witness to the rebirth of the priest.

I didn't like it as much as the other way and this way I can interpret
the girl's death in that same, figurative sense...or I can strangle a
puppy. Depending on my mood.

I expond on this theme in general, somewhat, in Tang, but only
briefly.

rache

[massivereader]

Hmmm... have you ever seen "Like Water for Chocolate"? It's a nice
film visually, but the level of cruelty shown towards the heroine by
her family is beyond abusive and their self-centeredness is simply
astonishing. Not only that, the moral cowardice, selfishness and
inexcusable conduct of her "True Love" is reprehensible - yet the
tragic ending is supposed to somehow atone for all that.

The psychology of that culture is pretty bizarre.

Treating women as disposable seems to be an integral part of the
normal expected attitude from males. Yet there is a kind of nervous
cowardice in the men about confronting women when they have
disappointed them. It's probably due to mother issues. The only
exception seems to be untouched virgins and "proper" wives within the
bounds of sacremental marriage, where some kind of weird ideal to be
kept on a pedestal / pride of ownership dynamic takes over.

The prohibition against hitting women seems very much less a factor
across the latin culture too. There this whole madonna/whore thing
going on they use for some kind of moral justification.

You see these themes repeatedly in spanish and south american films,
even those set in the modren era.

John

On Jun 4, 3:31 pm, bondi beach <bondi.beach....@gmail.com> wrote:

[massivereader]

One last post and I'll have exhusted all my insight into this little
fable.

The priest is cruel - but almost unintentionally so, as young men
often are in his culture. For him the flirtation with the girl is a
pleasant interlude, a way of passing time in a boring little village
while having his ego stroked a bit. Her interest in his tales of far-
off wonders feed his sense of his own cleverness and worldliness and
importance. Their conversations do not make the kind of impact on him
that they do on her. He takes her adoration as rightfully his. He
avoids a messy parting more out of selfishnes and self-interest, and a
kind of benign neglect. It wouldn't do to have word of a scene with an
attractive young woman reaching other clergy in the area.

But more to the point he is arrogant. He is the priest and his
rightful place is to be the conduit of god to the people. His unspoken
expectation is for the divine to arrange itself to his schedule or at
his convienience and he idly waits for the rumored sign of the statue
with curiousity- more out of intellectual interest rather than true
faith - maybe even self-interest, as a way to forward his career.

And so he is forever denied the sign and the approval of whatever god
or spirit inhabits the statue.

The girls accepts the reality of magic and the common wisdom of the
people and tradition - she is the one who holds the secret of the
divine. In giving her heart completely she proves that, and the statue
honors her and weeps for her humanity when it is no more.

Is that any clearer? I think a more sacharine ending would have
destroyed all that meaning.

John

[just-this-guy]

It's okay if some readers don't care for the story. You don't have to
be her apologist or public relations rep.
rache, probably more than anybody, knows that most of her stuff
doesn't appeal to the "masses". (no catholic pun intended).

On Jun 5, 4:54 am, massivereader <JohnPa...@msn.com> wrote:
> One last post and I'll have exhusted all my insight into this little
> fable.

> John

[bondi beach]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:46 PM, rache <rach...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I wrote a version where the girl and the priest make love and the
statue weeps, presumable as witness to the rebirth of the priest.

I didn't like it as much as the other way and this way I can interpret
the girl's death in that same, figurative sense...or I can strangle a
puppy. Depending on my mood.

indeed!

i guess i'm wondering still why the priest couldn't just tell her he's leaving, which still leaves her sad because she's lost the person who's opened the world to her and now she's on her own?

bb

[bondi beach]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:24 AM, massivereader <John...@msn.com> wrote:

Hmmm... have you ever seen "Like Water for Chocolate"? It's a nice
film visually, but the level of cruelty shown towards the heroine by
her family is beyond abusive and their self-centeredness is simply
astonishing. Not only that, the moral cowardice, selfishness and
inexcusable conduct of her "True Love" is reprehensible - yet the
tragic ending is supposed to somehow atone for all that. 

The psychology of that culture is pretty bizarre.

john --- i think you're overdramatizing here. i've read the book (in english translation) and seen the movie. remember that it was a soap opera---that is, written originally as a soap opera (or by a soap opera writer, can't remember). so everything is very exagerado, as a spanish-speaker would say.

cruelty toward someone different is hardly unique to latin culture.

there is one particular part of the movie that is pretty latin: the heroine finally gets her man, they have a delightful night of love (remember the candles and the butterflies), and then he dies shortly after, leaving her pregnant (i think). it's the perfect romantic dream: you get the love of your life, your romantic hero, you have a night of passion, you end up pregnant so you can have his baby, and then he dies, so you don't have to put up with him for the rest of your life. what's not to like?

well, a lot of things, in my view, but it's a romantic fantasy. whether it's more or less unique to latin culture i don't think so, but it's common.

bb
 

Treating women as disposable seems to be an integral part of the
normal expected attitude from males. Yet there is a kind of nervous
cowardice in the men about confronting women when they have
disappointed them. It's probably due to mother issues. The only
exception seems to be untouched virgins and "proper" wives within the
bounds of sacremental marriage, where some kind of weird  ideal to be
kept on a pedestal / pride of ownership dynamic takes over.

The prohibition against hitting women seems very much less a factor
across the latin culture too.

my cop friends in sydney told me that friday night is a pretty bad night for alchohol-fueled violence, including against women, something many women in australia would attest to. i think you're a little overboard in suggesting that any prohibition against hitting women is somehow less in latin cultures than elsewhere.

not that australians are necessarily more violent than others, and pretty much any cop will tell you that friday night is the worst night of the week. it's only that for some reason i knew more cops in sydney than i do here.

also, you need to distinguish among social classes, as you would in any culture.

 

There this whole madonna/whore thing
going on they use for some kind of moral justification.

well, rache can set her story anywhere she wants, and it's one thing to talk about a little village in the middle of nowhere (which apparently san pita (where they bake a lot of bread, i guess) was), and another to see what life is like in a big city. i've lived in worked in mexico city and buenos aires, and i can tell you that you'd be hard put to apply this little village stuff to folks in those cities.

speaking of movies, did you see "y tu mama' tambie'n?" that'll give you a different view, i think.

bb

[bondi beach]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:54 AM, massivereader <John...@msn.com> wrote:

One last post and I'll have exhusted all my insight into this little
fable.

The priest is cruel - but almost unintentionally so, as young men
often are in his culture.

in his culture? young men  --- heck, young women, too --- are unintentionally cruel in most cultures.

 

For him the flirtation with the girl is a
pleasant interlude, a way of passing time in a boring little village
while having his ego stroked a bit. Her interest in his tales of far-
off wonders feed his sense of his own cleverness and worldliness and
importance. Their conversations do not make the kind of impact on him
that they do on her. He takes her adoration as rightfully his. He
avoids a messy parting more out of selfishnes and self-interest, and a
kind of benign neglect. It wouldn't do to have word of a scene with an
attractive young woman reaching other clergy in the area.

don't understand this. everyone in the village saw them talking. there was no secret.
 

But more to the point he is arrogant. He is the priest and his
rightful place is to be the conduit of god to the people. His unspoken
expectation is for the divine to arrange itself to his schedule or at
his convienience and he idly waits for the rumored sign of the statue
with curiousity- more out of intellectual interest rather than true
faith - maybe even self-interest, as a way to forward his career.

And so he is forever denied the sign and the approval of whatever god
or spirit inhabits the statue.

The girls accepts the reality of magic and the common wisdom of the
people and tradition - she is the one who holds the secret of the
divine. In giving her heart completely she proves that, and the statue
honors her and weeps for her humanity when it is no more. 

Is that any clearer? I think a more sacharine ending would have
destroyed all that meaning.

wow. i don't think the choice is between sweet and cruel. the author chose to be cruel, and it's certainly her choice, no argument there, i'm just saying (a) i didn't like the cruelty, and (b) i think there was a way to tell a good story without a sweet ending but without what i think was gratuitous cruelty either.

whatever else, we all paid attention to the story, which speaks well of its power, at the very least.

bb

[The Black Knight]

bondi beach allegedly wrote:
> young men  --- heck, young women, too --- are unintentionally cruel in most cultures.

when they're not being intentionally cruel, that is...

[massivereader]

bb,

I pretty much agree with your points, I don't think latin culture is
actually all that much worse than any other in it's treatment of
women. But it seems to be portrayed that way in many of the films I've
seem.

(I watch a lot of foreign language subtitled films. I'm partial to
french, spanish, south american and korean mostly. Athough there are
quite a few memorable dutch, scandanavian, russian, chinese and
japanese films I've enjoyed. The difference in attitude is notable)

I haven't really touched on the way way the female role is idolized to
offset the negative facets portrayed since it wasn't germane to
this particular story. The machismo / chauvanist attitude really is
glorified or villified in a lot of latin cinema and literature and I
think all the
themes I've been pointing out are just about impossible to miss.

I wasn't aware of the soap opera background of the LWFC author, but it
really didn't seem to be too far out of line with the stuff I've seen
from Trueba and Almodovar. I guess the tendancy to exagerate and
dramatize makes the attitude seem more prevelant than it really is.

I do have a disagreement of fact with one counter-arguement of yours

> there is one particular part of the movie that is pretty latin: the
> heroine finally gets her man, they have a delightful night of love
> (remember the candles and the butterflies), and then he dies
> shortly after, leaving her pregnant (i think). it's the perfect romantic
> dream: you get the love of your life, your romantic hero, you have
> a night of passion, you end up pregnant so you can have his baby,
> and then he dies, so you don't have to put up with him for the rest
> of your life. what's not to like?

Maybe I'm misremembering the plot of the movie, or maybe it differed
from the book in this regard. But after the male lead (Pedro) has a
heart attack and dies after sex, doesn't Tita swallow matches and then
the whole barn burns down around her? I'm pretty sure she dies with
him in the movie. She never has a baby as far as I know. The story is
revealed as being told by the daughter of Esperanza, the child of her
sister Rosaura and Pedro that Tita raised and breast fed. (She's the
young woman that had just married the doctor's son in the wedding.) So
rather than the perfect romantic dream, it's a romantic tragedy. Poor
Tita never gets a break, except in the kitchen.

On Jun 5, 10:10 am, bondi beach <bondi.beach....@gmail.com> wrote:
> wow. i don't think the choice is between sweet and cruel. the author chose
> to be cruel, and it's certainly her choice, no argument there, i'm just
> saying (a) i didn't like the cruelty, and (b) i think there was a way to
> tell a good story without a sweet ending but without what i think was
> gratuitous cruelty either.

I understand your point (a). It's a matter of personal preference.
I'm a sucker for tragedy and unrequited love, but I can see why
it might not be to everyone's taste. For instance: I like vampire and
werewolf fantasies but freddy krueger style horror leaves me cold.

I'm not quite so sure about point (b). Without the priest's cruelty
the story is sort of gutted. I actually missed the implication that
she
died on the first read, until you pointed it out. Without the cruelty
that would not have made any sense. I guess she could pine away
even if he was nice to her but the way it ended added pathos
and additional depth of meaning to what came before - even if it
was a metaphorical or emotional death and not actually suicide.

John

[bondi beach]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:00 PM, massivereader <John...@msn.com> wrote:

bb,

I do have a disagreement of fact with one counter-arguement of yours

> there is one particular part of the movie that is pretty latin: the
> heroine finally gets her man, they have a delightful night of love
> (remember the candles and the butterflies), and then he dies
> shortly after, leaving her pregnant (i think). it's the perfect romantic
> dream: you get the love of your life, your romantic hero, you have
> a night of passion, you end up pregnant so you can have his baby,
> and then he dies, so you don't have to put up with him for the rest
> of your life. what's not to like?

Maybe I'm misremembering the plot of the movie, or maybe it differed
from the book in this regard. But after the male lead (Pedro) has a
heart attack and dies after sex, doesn't Tita swallow matches and then
the whole barn burns down around her? I'm pretty sure she dies with
him in the movie. She never has a baby as far as I know. The story is
revealed as being told by the daughter of Esperanza, the child of her
sister Rosaura and Pedro that Tita raised and breast fed. (She's the
young woman that had just married the doctor's son in the wedding.) So
rather than the perfect romantic dream, it's a romantic tragedy. Poor
Tita never gets a break, except in the kitchen.

yikes, maybe i'm totally misremembering that part. or maybe i'm running it together with some other story, but it always seemed kind of funny that there's this totally romantic idea of mad passionate love that results in a child (almost always a positive, especially for mexicans, but then if the guy disappears you don't have to put up with him. a win all the way around. sort of, anyway. just as unrealistic as many other scenarios, of course.

I understand your point (a). It's a matter of personal preference.
I'm a sucker for tragedy and unrequited love, but I can see why
it might not be to everyone's taste. For instance: I like vampire and
werewolf fantasies but freddy krueger style horror leaves me cold.

I'm not quite so sure about point (b). Without the priest's cruelty
the story is sort of gutted. I actually missed the implication that

that's what i don't get.  there's a difference between cruelty and tragedy. they aren't the same thing. romeo and juliet is a tragedy, but it's not cruelty, at least as i understand the term. cruelty is the intentional infliction of pain, emotional or physical, for the sake of inflicting pain. you can have a tragedy without that. tom hanks dies in "saving private ryan," and that's something of a small tragedy inside a far larger one, but it's not particularly cruel.

did the priest have to leave her without telling her to make the story work? i don't think so, but certainly there's room for disagreement on that. and obviously the author thought it was necessary. i just don't see it, but then it's not my story.

bb

[rache]

Wow...Almost looks like a real writing forum around here :)

Stories can go innumerable ways.

I like the fact that the priest doesn't tell her, because most of the
time that's what we'd read. Either that or he'd never leave, or he'd
bring her with him. It's what we want, what we expect, and what we
hope for. The worst choice is the one he makes and we dislike him for
it because we've all done it. Made a wrong choice for reasons good or
ill, happens every day.

Why does he hide the letter...the truth that he has to leave? Because
that's what people do in real life. They sneak out. They avoid pain
and cause it in others. If it's ever happened to you, well...You know
how that girl feels and sometimes it's good to remember that.

I think the story is mildly annoying because there's no hero in it.
The only two characters are flawed. Faith is only rewarded after
suffering...and the one person who should witness it isn't even there
to see it because of irony. He caused the miracle by abandoning the
search for it...The girl is the statue for me and he doesn't know it.
Sweep / weep...but I didn't want that too obvious. Everything low key,
very simple and to the point.

Readers can make up their own minds and form their own opinions; it's
very gratifying to that happen. And that really is the point...Now
what I think, but what the reader takes away. Once in awhile, I just
want move more than a muscle between a reader's legs when I post, you
know?

So thanks guys. I do appreciate it.

rache

[Deadly Ernest]

One aspect of the story that's not been mentioned is:

If he'd told her about leaving and not being able to take her with him
or staying, she may have cried earlier and he would have seen the
statue cry. But by being the coward, he misses the opportunity to see
what he came for.

[bondi beach]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:42 AM, rache <rach...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The only two characters are flawed. Faith is only rewarded after
suffering...and the one person who should witness it isn't even there

"faith is only rewarded after suffering"? hmm, sounds like a rationalization to me. you have to suffer, dear, before you can be rewarded. sort of like telling the peon that god wants him to work 12 hours a day for pennies, because he'll be rewarded in heaven. or somewhere. useful argument for those imposing the suffering, i guess.

bb


 

[Tim Merrigan]

There is cruelty in Romeo and Juliet, mostly on the parts of their
parents in trying to keep them apart for the sake of their stupid feud.

> I understand your point (a). It's a matter of personal preference.
> I'm a sucker for tragedy and unrequited love, but I can see why
> it might not be to everyone's taste. For instance: I like vampire and
> werewolf fantasies but freddy krueger style horror leaves me cold.
>
> I'm not quite so sure about point (b). Without the priest's cruelty
> the story is sort of gutted. I actually missed the implication that
>
>
> that's what i don't get. there's a difference between cruelty and
> tragedy. they aren't the same thing. romeo and juliet is a tragedy,
> but it's not cruelty, at least as i understand the term. cruelty is
> the intentional infliction of pain, emotional or physical, for the
> sake of inflicting pain. you can have a tragedy without that. tom
> hanks dies in "saving private ryan," and that's something of a small
> tragedy inside a far larger one, but it's not particularly cruel.
>
> did the priest have to leave her without telling her to make the story
> work? i don't think so, but certainly there's room for disagreement on
> that. and obviously the author thought it was necessary. i just don't
> see it, but then it's not my story.
>
> bb

[Tim Merrigan]

rache wrote:
> Wow...Almost looks like a real writing forum around here :)
>

Everybody slips up sometimes.

Rather the one between their ears? Eh?

> So thanks guys. I do appreciate it.
>
> rache
>
>
>

[TheDarkKnight]

On Jun 5, 10:00 pm, massivereader <JohnPa...@msn.com> wrote:
> (I watch a lot of foreign language subtitled films. I'm partial to
> french, spanish, south american and korean mostly. Athough there are
> quite a few memorable dutch, scandanavian, russian, chinese and

> japanese films I've enjoyed.)

Wow, apparently you are a massivewatcher too.

[massivereader]

Yup, I have a real nice TV but I really only use it for watching
movies
and TV series on DVD. I like quirky and obscure English, Canadian
and American movies too. You get a variety of veiwpoints that way.

John