First Impression: Gringo

I don't know why I am so attracted to these kinds of memoirs. I think that being Latin American I am always curious to see how someone from another country views us. We clash so much with other countries since we are "under developed" and they apparently have it all figured out, that their opinions have come to be known to be stuck up and imperialistic. I always want to find that foreigner who is not completely brainwashed into believing that I have anything to do with cocain or have never eaten hamburger ( true story). Gringo by Chesa Boudin, is a memoir about a foreigner that embraces Latin America for what it is and tries to make sense of it through first hand experiences.

After starting to read the memoir, Boudin has made a good first impression. He uses a reflective tone as he narrates what it is like to live in Guatemala. By having a reflective tone, he is able to give information as well as narrate his experience. As you read along about his stay with Doña Eugenia, he gives facts about the history of Guatemala and how the United States has been heavily involved. It is thanks to this tone that the reader can get a big picture on the situation and understand the narrators surrounding better.

There hasn't been much use of quotation in what I have read. Boudin sticks to narrating most of the information but when a quotation does appear it is in italics. I imagine this is this way because the dialogues he engages in are in another language. Boudin also states at the beginning of the memoir that "conversations and descriptions are approximately re-created on the page from memory" and since this is the case, he will probably keep them to a minimum.

There register in the memoir is informal. Boudin uses "I" a lot in the memoir but also uses spanish words, colloquialisms and contractions. This all demonstrates that he is in an informal register but the right one. If he wrote in a familiar register, it would be more a diary and not able to give the serious facts he gives from time to time. This register offers the perfect balance between familiar and formal for the reader to take what is being read, more seriously.

Punctuation Galore

Nicholas Bakers two essays, Survival of the Fittest and Q As In Quotation, are all about punctuation. Q As In Quotation only addresses the use of quotations and Survival of the Fittest is geared towards how punctuation has evolved to what it is today. Baker compares his two topics throughout both essays and has a informative tone as well as a sarcastic one at times.

In Survival of the Fittest, Baker uses a lot of historical facts to explain how we went from using three commas for a pause or how the semi colon came to be. He writes about how writing went form one person to the next and as it went this way, it evolved. It would take elements from the past to come up with new ways of spacing until it reached what we have today. The essay demonstrates how what was going on at the times had an effect on the way people punctuated. For example when Baker mentions Dr. Parkes book, he mentions how he uses the two halves of a semi-linked by an em-dash. Then Baker explains that this might have been so as a way for Parkes to "protest American trends in copy-editing".

Each punctuation mark has a story of its own that can be traced bath to historical figures like the greeks and monks in monasteries, that led it to reach the punctuation we know today. It was because of the continuous changes done to the punctuation marks that they have come to be what they are. This helps explain the title of the essay since it truly is the "Fittest" that survived. It also shows how it was smart of Baker to make allusion to Darwin throughout the essay explaining the "evolution" of punctuation and which "traits" were passed down.

The evolution of punctuation focuses more on punctuation used for pauses but in Q as in Quotation, it is all about quotation marks. Baker talks about the ideas people have of quotation marks and how they are viewed as useful and how they are not. Throughout the essay Baker explains how quotes have to be used the right way so that it doesn't feel like a pause in the flow of what is being written. He personifies quotations as witnesses that gives information and the quotation becomes described as  "nestling into it by way of a difference from the rest of the text". Baker believes that a quotation is not something negative when see with care.. he writes that the author must keep in control and makes sure the quotations has value in what is written. By allowing a quotation to be a part of someones writing it demonstrates : the measure of an individual's willingness to open his internal universe of meaning to dialogue".

All this relates to what we have been looking at in class in the sense that we have been discussing the proper use of quotations and comma splicing. We have also been discussing essays and these two essays along with their content are the mix of everything we have learned being put into practice.

Until the End

For the past two weeks, I had been reading My Colombian War. After finishing it, it became clearer that the author applies many of the things that we have learned in class to make the memoir clearer and an easier read. Throughout the reading, Paternostro writes about her own personal life as well as giving information explaining the problems in Colombia. The reader can tell that this memoir is her journey to understand the country she is from and through the memoir, she also manages to explain Colombia to anyone who is not from there in a clear and calm way.

Paternostro uses an informal register throughout the whole memoir. Paternostro explains personal things but never gets as close as in the familiar register. She offers specific information throughout the memoir but does this and then precedes it with a personal story that takes the reader back to the informal register. Away to describe the informal register of this memoir is that while it is intimate it is also informative and if Paternostro hadn't used the informal register, the memoir wouldn't be what it is.

The reader can tell the register is informal throughout the memoir because it is written in first person, the use of contracitons and the word choice. Paternostro translates a lot of the words originally said in Spanish but words like "marimbero" "guajiro" or "aja" are kept in the memoir for the story to keep some of the spanish words which cant be directly translated.

Paternostro wrote this memoir as a self full-filling story that combines her love for journalism as well as her home. It is a journey of self discovery and the register allows her to tell her story in a way that anyone who picks up the book can relate. The register has also helped make the book a success because it pulls the reader in not just as an informative text but with the intimate side, anyone can find themselves in its pages.

T.S In the C.C (Colombian Coast)

What is important to know about T.S Elliot? Well after an extensive and exhausting google search here are the basics: Thomas Stearns Eliot was a poet who acording to nobleprize.org "Eliot has been one of the most daring innovators of twentieth-century poetry. Never compromising either with the public or indeed with language itself, he has followed his belief that poetry should aim at a representation of the complexities of modern civilization in language and that such representation necessarily leads to difficult poetry." The question now becomes why am I adding a little background to Eliot? And just to avoid any confusion, no I dont think he was ever in the Colomban coast (physically at least).

As my reading of My Colombian War continues, Eliot made a surprise apearance in chapter fifteen when Paternstro and her old friend Allegra are driving around in Allegras car listening to his poetry. While Allegra closes her eyes as she drives (drving hazard!), Paternostro explains that to her Eliots poetry speaks about Barranquilla. Paternostro on the other hand, has a more realstic view that she says is "a muddy Magdalena" and a Carrbean Ocean that fills her with judgement.

How can these two have such dfferent views on one writers poetry? Paternstro has a more negative view towards everything around her involving Colomba while Allegra has taken up a seaming ignorant attitude towards all the troubles of the country. This is when the persective of each makes the interpretaton of the same text different. Yet here with Googles help, the descrption of Elots poetry seems to resemble Paternostros views over her friends. From reading the text, it is obvious that Colombia classifies as a modern cvlization with lots of complexities and yet it is curious that the authr doesnt find these complexities reflected in the excerts in the book. The text below is in the memoir and is from Elots The Four Quartets:

 In order to arrive there,
To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstacy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not.

This excert descrbes Paternstros situation perfectly. The way I see it, this cold either be descrbing Paternostro or Colombia. Paternostro is going through a stiuaton that does not resemble the person she has become. She has been led this way because of her own ignorance and has reached a point she is what she is not. Now just go back and re read what  jst wrote and thnk about Colomba and the same things apply. Paternostro is connected to Colombia in that they both suffer from the complexities of a modern socety.

Yet, how many times throughot the memor has she not pointed ot that she does not feel Colombian? Even when she fnishes her article she will go back to where she feels she is from and even though her life right now in the memoir is a T.S Eliot poem, it will go back to what it was before. It just makes me wonder if as soon as she finished wrting this memoir, her connection to her country dissapeared.

Time and the Truth in a Memoir

The way "My Colombian War" is written, the reader gets different understandings about the central topic at different times. In a memoir, it is more challenging to remember how you felt at the time or what you thought. Paternostro gives facts to the reader with no emotional attachment because she was either not in the country or narrates the news with no basis in herself.

A memoir like this one seems to play with time in the sense that as Paternostro describes certain situations, she goes back and forward with her own expieriences, facts, and her families expieriences. As it combines these three elements, the reader gets a clearer picture of the topic Paternostro bases her memoir on. By combining the personal expieriences with the explanations of certain facts, Paternostro ties herself with her topic in a way that this can truly be considered a memoir.

For example, when explaining a marimbero is, Paternostro ties it to herself by telling the story of how her friend Allegra dated and married one. Through this relationship a marimbero can be closely detailed when Paternostro describes them as men that drove fancy cars "wore designer everything: Versace sunglasses, Versace jeans, even Versace perfume." (Page 130-131). Paternostro is writing about these marimberos from the present and by offering this clear example in her past, the reader can fully grasp what a marimbero is. In a sense, the way Paternostro uses time in the memoir helps explain what is unknown to the reader clearly, without ever losing that sense that this is a memoir.

Reading My  Colombian war, you become very trusting of the author. One assumes that, this being a memoir, everything is considered true but if its hard to remember event the most important moments in our life, who is to say Paternostro isn't making some of this up. In the case of this memoir the trust you place on the authos is because of these details. When she goes into depth describing small detaills like the unform of the girls at the Marymount school or the way she felt in certain situations, the reader becomes more trustiing of the story. In the back of the readers mind some of these details could be fake but they add more meaning to the memoir.

The question then rises to be, how much of a memoir is memory and how much is what our memory thinks it remembers. Its possible some of these details might have been distorted because of time but then that wouldn't exactly make them fake. In a sense it could be thought of as the character from Fight Club. While he isn't fully aware of what happens his subconcious is and just distorts the details. So you have a part of you that does remember and a part of you that, like in Fight Club, needs to be tapped in order to be unleashed.

Circle of Stereotypes

"The pair of americans persuading every local farmer that they could find along the entire  Caribbean coast of Colombia - from the tip of the Guajira all the way south to Santa Marta- to grow marijuana for them." (Page 113)

In one of my lasts posts I said that I believed that Paternostros tone was reflective but within this reflectionn can't she be accusing? These are after all her own reflections and if that is the case, all humans accuse others of things in reflections. In this part of the memoir, Paternostro is explaining how marijuana came to become a cash crop in Colombia and when she explains that it was actually two guys from Queens who convinced others to grow, one can feel a bit of accusation in what she writes.

In Chapter 13 is where all the explanations  about marijuana are being given. There is special emphasis in the fact that it was not Colombians who imposed it and those that in the end benefited from it, are made to sound as traders or even another kind of person not thought of as Colombian. A stereotype given to those that participated in this:

"Guajiros are known to be Colombias pirates, the pioneering smugglers...the men who entered the trade began to settle in Barranquilla and soon the word "guajiro" became synonymous with "drug trafficker"..." (Page 114-115)

These stereotypes and the way Paternostro writes about these Guajiros, make the reader assume a position based on what she has written. Obviously not all people from la Guajira can be described this way, probably less than half aren't this description. Stereotypes are usually used to accuse someone of something and in this chapter, the reader gets a sense that these Guajiros are to blame.

There's a sense that around this topic of drugs any Colombian would react. But as a Colombian, it is annoying when other countries blame the growth of the popularity of pot solely on us. Here is the proof that if it wasn't for the americans that came with their big bahs of money, and in a sense turned the Guajiros into a scapegoat. When people look back, they don't blame those two Americans from Queens, they blame Colombians in general. The Colombians in turn blame the decided scapegoat.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Servant and Master

In chapter 10, Paternostro talks about a little servant girl they gave to her. It isn't until now that Paternostro actually starts realizing how odd the situation was. As a reader, I can't help feeling a little bit uncomfortable with the situation. Paternostro seems to want pitty because she has servants and it ends up seeming like she is very spoiled.

Imelda seems to symbolize more to Paternostro but the way she explains the story makes her sound very naïve. She seems to be playing on the pathos of the situation and sounding a bit fake. Imelda was Paternostros childood servant who ran away but now, that they are both old, have reconnected. When she talks about them as kids and how she views the world now, it makes me a little uncomfortable. She just makes herself sound so spoiled and naïve.

Paternostro explains her childhood but then Imelda and her meet again as grown women. When this happens the social roles in Colombia can be explained further because even though years have passed there is still that relationship of master and server. Imelda came to visit Paternostro but still acts as if she were her servant. That just makes the question whether servants and their masters ever think of each other as something different. Paternostro doesn't even really use the word friends to describe their relationship.

The disconfort is aparent when Paternostro thinks to herself:

"My inability to feel comfortable being a journalist when I'm living as one of the masters begins to weigh on me, making me feel like a fraud. Why do I blame it on everyone but myself that I cannot live here?" (Page 102)

Paternostro thinks that it is because of exterior motives that she can't stay in Colombia but I think it is also within herself. I think that because she has been away from Colombia and has lived most of her life "servantless" the idea seems old and undeveloped. She is uncomfortable with the idea that here in Colombia someone can be so overpowering of another and that even to this day, no one does anything about it.

Carnival Queen Phenomenon

When we don't want to deal with things, we push them away and try to focus on the good. Maybe you have been dating someone who takes you for granted or isn't the nicest to you, but you convince yourself that there is more good than bad. in a sense you are blinding yourself to the truth because admitting it feels like it wouldn't change anything. What am I getting at with this? I am trying to explain the carnival queen phenomenon.

Paternostro finds herself trying to research the information about modern Colombia and its violence.  However in this chapter, it is very interesting how every time she sees the newspaper, they are talking about the carnival queen.  Paternostro says the picture of

the queen takes up half a page, and below her is a small box saying seven other people were kidnapped. this highlights how people in Colombia push their troubles away and put them in small boxes to only be noticed by a few.

What gets my attention about this is that Paternostro highlights something no one would outright admit here in Colombia. Her, being a character away from the setting, sees everything with a fresh pair of eyes. When a topic has been around for so many years, a person can forget what it means or that it is still a topic at hand. I think this is the toughest critique Paternostro has done in this memoir.

Being Colombian, I admit it is not that you don't think of the war but you do put it away a lot. I would rather Colombia had a better reputation than being known for kidnappings or drugs. I think that is why we push it away so much. Why should we let the war define who we are as a country? Isn't it enough that they have already ruined so much? Still I will admit that it is dumb to live as if there is no war going on. The carnival queen phenomenon is just that. It is not wanting to look something in the face and admit there is more to it than meets the eye. Paternostro uses this specific example to show how it is shoved away into a little box. In the quote below she explains it a little more: 

"Everyone who passes in front of the paper has something to add about la reinas dress; no one and I mean no one comments on the news of the kidnappings. But the reality is the I am looking for a the war and they are, rightly or wrongly, putting it out of their minds." (page 82)

Its as if everyone is putting a wall up and only letting the things they want to deal with in. It might not always be a carnival queen that is blocking everything but it shouldn't over cloud everything. Sure it is good to focus on the good over the bad but the bad shouldn't be completely pushed out.

Two Authors

It might not be obvious from the beginning but there are two different authors to this memoir. No, I am not accusing Paternostro of fraud. It is true that there is one person writing this memoir but the way she approaches it, splits her in two. One is the serious journalist with an edge, from America who is viewing everything with an unbiased attitude but not writing completely formal. Journalist Paternostro comes out whenever historic or any information is presented not directly having to do with her. The other "author" is foreign/Colombian Paternostro who talks about her family and mixes her life as an American and a Colombian. Having two sides to the story, the reader gets both ideas for every topic.

War is a topic some understand more than others. Paternostro doesn't pretend from the beginning of the memoir that she knows everything. All the information she gives sounds like her journalism self and not her Colombian self. She explains the different conflicts in Colombia in a clear way that anyone can understand but when she talks about her own personal experiences, she becomes foreigner in a Colombians body. She states facts about the M19, the paramilitary, and any sort of informative aspect, in a straight and informative way but not completely formally. This is really helpful to those that have no idea what the situation in Colombia is like and how it got this way. To give an example here is how the author explained how more people joined M19:

"In the early seventies, Manuel Marulanda ordered Lucho Otero, one of his commanders to form and urban cell. Otero called on his university pals, mainly middle class public school kids, although the call reached the boys of the elite, especially those around in Bogotå, who were already hooked up to what was going on around the world." (page 67)

The information is there but it is not fully formal. Word choices like "kids", "pals", and "hooked up", give the information an informal way that a newspaper would not use but adds to Paternostros style.

When Paternostro writes about her family and her own views, she still has a formal edge to her but adds her own personal views on subjects and feelings. She is there as her Colombian self, participating in gatherings and meeting up with old acquaintances but manages to sneak an explanation of something through her American views.For example when she is visiting people, you can see the difference in her writing:

"I like to sit around these women talking together uncensored and unrestrained. It allows me to take the temperature of cultural politics, important to my idea…" (page 72)

The writer uses the word "I" a lot which is used mostly in informal writing. She does not talk about facts or figures but rather what she likes and doesn't like which is something completely personal.

By having these "two Paternostros" explaining Colombia, the reader gets information and an inside scoop. Its as if the normal news and the scandalous news mix together to make one story around one topic. It gives this memoir a very unique style.