I
didn’t emotionally enter the work until the bottom of page 50, when young
Esmeralda finds sanctuary in the candy store of the elderly couple outside of
Junior High School 33, after she is beaten up. There is something about the
kind of vulnerability that opens up/is exposed, in the exchange between young
Esmeralda, as the wife cleans her wounds, and the old man exclaims his anger at
the injustice of the incident. Something about the way in which they notice her
wounds gestures towards a kind of care that she does not receive at home (even
under the guard of over-protective of her mother). That moment of incredible
tenderness elevates the isolation her character is experiencing, and makes
visible a deep need that her character is wrestling with, to which words have
perhaps been applied earlier in the work, but the directness of which drains
emotional impact. This tiny scene represents a gentle use of juxtaposition for
the way it is set against the entirety of her life. The softness unveils a
whole world of feeling that the character has been bottling up and hiding, even
from us as readers. There is a release, and that release makes room for a
moment of direct contact with the heart of that character’s experience. I don’t
mean to suggest that I don’t see the struggle or stakes until page 50, but it
is in that moment that my heart communes for the first time, and the most.
What
this makes me wonder about is the way in which Santiago is perhaps
unintentionally Indicating throughout
parts of this memoir. Indicating,
that approach so shunned within Method Acting, is defined, in part, as, "behaving
or emoting without being connected to a truthful impulse." (http://www.jbactors.com/actingreading/actingencyclopedia.html#IAnchor)
What
page 50 cued me so poignantly into was a sensation of emotional disconnect
particularly through earlier parts of the work, in part as a result of the
flitting between moments in time/scene, the half-constructions of characters, and
the introduction of events that seemed as though they could hold potent
emotional consequence (Franky’s illness and death for example); each that were
afforded little treatment. I had a sense that specters lurked through out the
disconnected scenes, where a whole world of human feeling was living, but I
couldn’t tap in.
Other
elements that contribute to this are the many moments in the work where
Santiago mobilizes over-explanation – intellectually – and/or repetition of
simple language that simply reiterates an idea or a feeling that has already
been stated/explored, which for me stunted revelation of meaning, felt heavy
handed, and generated an energy that made me feel as though her narrator was
withholding and/or not trusting the scenes, environment, bodies, to hold the
story she was intending us to encounter through the text.
For
example, “So in addition to having to wait ten years after graduation to make a
living in my art, I also had to find a new name, since Esmeralda Santiago was
clearly to long to fit on a marquee, hard to remember, and definitely foreign.”
(68) when the implication was already present in the paragraphs preceding.
It
felt defended.
Another
aspect of the work which created distance for me was the use of generalities.
For example, Puerto Rico is a dominant fixture in this work as a source of
identity and against which her life in NYC is continually placed against, and
yet, Puerto Rico is given so little definition, rolling hills, mud, sand,
images that feel static and one-dimensional. It’s not that I don’t believe the
attachment is there, but it is that the language and nuance she chooses to
utilize don’t transport me into the center of that feeling of longing. The loss
is that I don’t know what these places then truly mean to the character. An
example of this: “The skyline of Manhattan receded like an enormous wall between
us and the rest of the United States.” (42) I don’t know how to locate the
feeling in this because I don’t know what she is attempting really to indicate.
I
wonder if part of Santiago’s strategy was an attempt to accurately portray the
perspective of the character of for example her 14 year-old self – that perhaps
was not tuning into nuance but rather reacting to large ideas/images/feelings
without much specificity…
I
also wonder what forces Santiago was responding to, perhaps consciously and
perhaps unconsciously that guided her to build the work with so many walls to
protect it – which I understand could be a natural defense resulting from the
risk that it takes to offer stories normatively set outside of/expressly
unwelcome within the canon of dominant American narratives.
So
many more thoughts, but I’ll leave it here.
This is literally the first entry in the homage memoir for PR, and so we put a lot of weight on it. The voice of the girl is symbolizing the opposite of chaos--that's PR. It is truly clunky and she indicates and is painfully aware of her audience, but cutting new territory. in praise people call her a story-teller, not a writer, which i think carries. However, a side note to you, look at the weight her tiny vignettes carry --in relationship to one another--
ReplyDeletee
I really appreciate that contextualization of Santiago's work as storytelling more than writing - particularly as both the voice and the orality were in many ways the strength, and definitely the elements of the writing that are keeping me in. And yes, I was really trying to explore how the vignettes were working together - super interested to see what you're seeing here...
ReplyDeleteMia, I appreciate your ability to locate the fleeting moments where you felt emotionally invested in Esmeralda's story. The scene on pg 50 at the candy store was certainly memorable, but I did feel as though the speaker rushed through it out of guilt/shame. For me the moment could have been more striking if the narrative had paused there and inhabited that space for a little longer.
ReplyDelete