Requiem

Ah, sunday. I feel as if my week has disapperaed as fast as light. The writing and thought for this paper coming due on this monday has taken its toll on me and also taken the time away from a thorough read and analysis of 'Requiem por un Campesino'. I had skimmed and read portions of the story and enjoyed it much. I like it in and of itself. I've heard people make a connection that Sender models this after Pilate (the facists), Pharisee (Millan), and Jesus (Paco). Maybe so, maybe not. Every writer needs inspiration.
But that and other blogs got me thinking about such things and what God in the Bible says. At one point Jesus is called "good". He asks why he should be called as such as only God is good. Again Paul an apostle writes to the Romans 'there is none righteous, no not one" So, that being said, what is the purpose of the Law. Obviously, humans cannot fulfill the law for at one point Jesus said that one must be more righteous than the Pharisees (being the most exacting to the Law) and we all know how Jesus scolded them harshly. The purpose of Moses' law then was to show humans that they cannot please God, and to foreshadow the coming of the messiah, the one who could/can/did please God. (Interesting that so many 'religions' including most of christianity give one instructions and formulas on how to please god - unfortunately it is the god of this world [momentarily] and not God.) Therefore, since no one can please Him (Hashem - to Jews) one must rely on the Annointed One to reconcile us to Him.
So inretrospect it isnt supprising that Millan has blood on his hands as it is in his nature not to be good. What Sender does nicely is call to account (though ultimately in vain) some of society during this time period, though my guess is that he selectively forgets to include the faults of the campesinos including Paco for his own purposes.
Just thoughts to fulfill the blog req. Hopefully it is not too disjointed.

Irritated

Second post for the week, but does the similarity between "Millás" and "Millán" bother anyone else, especially because we're reading these texts back to back?

I agree with Alisa about Millán doing everything automatically. When people just automatically do something they aren't putting their true heart into the activities they're doing and I do not believe it is morally right. When an act of worshiping God becomes automatic is not what is intended to happen and when it is automatic people are probably not paying attention to what they're doing. When someone is praying they should be speaking with God and not just say something because that's what they're supposed to do. It seems like sometimes people worship God so they can have a good afterlife, but they may feel obligated to do it. They look down on other people who do not live their lives the way they do. They believe that they are living their lives the way God wants them to live, but may not be completely "in tune" to what they're doing. Some people live their lives like a good person and have good morals but are told they are going to Hell. Sometimes people who do not give their lives to God live their lives helping people in need more than the people who live their lives just worshiping God. I'm not trying to say those people are living bad lives, I'm just saying sometimes they are too quick to judge.

Requiem por un Campesino

After this week's discussion on "Requiem por un Campesino", I really got a sense for how important the writing style of Sender is. The double meanings that he put into his texts are really interesting. I did not see these double meanings until we went over them in class, but they are evident in even the first few pages of the book. Although I do like the double meanings that he put into his writing, I agree with Monali when she said that Sender has a very narrow view of the rightists. It is so clear that he is on the leftist side and that is fine, but what did the rightists really go through? I don’t think their behalf was fully demonstrated in this novel. I wish he had included the corruption of both sides, so people reading the novel today could make their own interpretation on who is “right” in this political battle.

Réquiem por un campesino español

En la historia de réquiem por un campesino español podemos apreciar la historia de un típico muchacho de la época, quien llego a ser grande y fue sacrificado como un mártir por su creencia de lo que es justicia. El muchacho, Paco el del molino, creció cercano a la iglesia y era muy amigo del padre, Mosén Millán, persona al que el apreciaba mucho. Al crecer Paco se fue dando cuenta de la injusticia que le rodeaba; había muy poca gente rica dueña de todas las tierras y la mayoría de la gente era pobre y trabajaba en las tierras de los ricos. El se hizo líder de una organización quien estaba peleando por un cambio para la gente del pueblo, ellos exigían una división de tierras más justa para la gente pobre. Su pelea termino cuando fue entregado por un hombre quien lo vio crecer, un hombre quien fue confiado por la familia de el acerca de donde se encontraba; este hombre, Mosén Millán, dio la información del paradero de Paco y eso le causo la muerte a Paco.

I have started El mundo and I think I just may like it. It's a lot easier to understand than requirem. I don't have to try and figure out if this guy is having a flash back, and there don't seem to be any stories inside of stories. Also there are chapters so I can physc myself into feeling like I accomplished someting by finishing a chapter. I think chapters alos help in keeping me motivated to read it. I also think I like it becasue it is based off a real mans life and it's more like a memoir, which is pretty interesting!

Requiem and the role of memory

I thoroughly enjoyed reading “Réquiem por un campesino español” for a variety of reasons. When I first flipped through the pages, I was a little worried that there were no chapters because I thought it would be difficult to keep up with. However, the book truly read like a stream of consciousness, jumping from memory to memory similar to how we think.

In terms of how we think, I was very intrigued with how Sender explored the role of memory in the telling of this story. Sender tells much of the story through the memories of Mosén Millan, which gives us a biased and altered perception of the actually story. We cannot even be sure just how true these memories were because Mosén Millan would mentally block certain emotions or memories that brought a negative light towards himself. The fact is, this occurs everyday and with everyone. No one is above the limitations of our memories. While we may truly think and believe we have the true account of a past event, it is truly amazing how much that perception is skewed by our own feelings, expectations, and how we have been raised. We all see and feel different things when we look at a painting, which causes us to interpret it differently. In the same way, we view reality and events like a painting. Interpretations differ and I find that to be the root cause of so many conflicts among people. At the end of the story, Mosén Millan is confused as to why no one has attended the mass. To the reader, it is obvious why, but Millan is blind to his wrongful deeds. To him, he has done nothing wrong. Reading this book has made me introspectively look at myself and consider the factors that go into how I perceive reality. What shapes my memory? What shapes yours?