This post is perhaps in hindsight when we talk about themes we could've discussed in class. Even so, I think that there is one connection that is important in linking two of the most interesting books we've read thus far. On the whole, I think that Culture, in its broad terms, acts as a major element of identity for Tarfia Faizullah and Sandra Cisneros and their work in Seam and Loose Woman.
This also can further lead to considering the equally broad idea of belonging, whether it is to a place, an idea, or an aspect of a specific culture. Such a tradition or custom can have a definite locus or origin, from where the poet can derive biases and reflect as a kind of "omnipotent" onlooker to that element or history.
I think this is applicable to trying to understand both Faizullah's and Cisneros' work, because both their subject matters entail some sort of origin from where they area able to comment and assert themselves. Cisneros does this by employing stark or aggressive (I use that word very loosely) images or aspects of her Latin culture, to where she is able to comment on the desirable behavior of the strong and effectual woman as a lover and as a force to be reckoned with. And I think that Cisneros was very pointed and intentional about making that connection, otherwise, I think that her work would've been much more "hollow" in giving great meaning to otherwise normal situations. Cisneros injects purpose to the subject matter.
On the other hand, Tarfia Faizullah's sense of belonging and identity entail some relatively complex twists. The origin, of course, is the War of Independence that Bangladesh waged with West Pakistan in the early 70s. Faizullah, though, doesn't try to answer her own concerns about the political ramifications of the actual war, but accentuates her personal connection as a woman of Bangladeshi decent with the Birangonas. While not truly employing a sense of broad culture like Cisneros does, Faizullah still makes a cultural connection with the actual nation from where her blood derives, where she takes on that persona of that all-understanding onlooker.
It would be interesting to see if the idea of actual belonging took precedence in the work which we will read later on in the semester. It would also be cool to see if culture, in all of its broadness, also plays a part, as I am sure that it will based on its already heavy bearing in the work read thus far. Obviously, we can in much more detail than just what I've put here, and would be interested in knowing if there was that same sense when reading both books.
"Aggression" wasn't exactly a word that came to mind when I read and discussed these works in class, but it's rather fascinating that you use this word. Could you elaborate a little more on that? And why would you loosely use that word?
ReplyDelete"Aggression" wasn't exactly a word that came to mind when I read and discussed these works in class, but it's rather fascinating that you use this word. Could you elaborate a little more on that? And why would you loosely use that word?
ReplyDeleteI could use this word to describe both Cisneros' and Faizullah's imagery and such, but I ascribe it to Cisneros specially in looking at the culture she is pulling from. She is inspired by a culture that (stereotypically, for a lack of a better word) is associated with lust and very "warm" romance. As I said, Cisneros takes these elements and applies them to her image of the "loose" woman who holds power and the freedom to express herself.
ReplyDeleteAs well, I said that I would use that word loosly because I believe that we all can recognize the kind of power Cisneros is trying to touch upon, but without solely referring to the "stereotypes" and the negative image on their own. We can find the same kind of power in different ways, as we have seen. But this caution should not detract from Cisneros' purpose of utilizing those images.