On a somewhat more literal level, one of my favorite things about this book is how Laura Esquivel portrayed the idea of food being a window to the soul and one's emotions flowing out through their cooking. Food is a passion of mine. I love to discover new recipes, even though I never actually follow the recipe and eventually just ditch them and make my own thing. It's a crazy and wild adventure cooking on a whim. When I am in a bad mood and cook, it never tastes as good as when I enjoy the whole process. It could just be all in my head, but I still think that food is an expression of the soul.
I found the "romance" in this novel to be a bit refreshing. Sounds weird, I know. I'm not much of a chick-flick kind of girl. They all have the exact same plot or theme. Two people meet and they either like each other or hate each other. Then from there they have some kind of fight or there is some situation that prevents them from being together. However, they all end the same, with the couple falling in love and living happily ever after. *gag* So, I'm not much of a romantic, never have been. I'm not a touchy feely, huggy, sappy, mushy person (the irony is that both my brothers are, one is very huggy and the other is complete mush.). It seems that society had done an excellent job in creating and building up this completely fictional character called Prince Charming. The perfect guy will come swooping in and sweep you off our feet. Really? Come on. It's not going to happen. There is no perfect guy. You can dream up and create this "prince charming" in your head, but he will never actually exist. It will just be a letdown. Now, I'm not trying to be completely cynical. I do think that there is a person who completes you, someone who is perfect for you, who is a good balance for you and you for them. However, I do not believe in nor do I like the idea of "prince charming." In Like Water for Chocolate, the prince charming character, or who most Americans would think of as the “prince charming” character loses.
Tita’s character is one I think many people can relate to. She was passionate about life and had her own ideas of what was right and knew what she wanted. However, she never acted on those things, until the very end of the story. She conformed to the pressure of the society she lived in and to the wishes of her mother. Tita simply squashed her own desires down deep inside of herself, pretending they weren’t real. Tita could not live out her dreams, because of fear. Fear of her mother and fear of what people would say and possibly fear of the unknown.
The paralyzing affect of fear keeps most people from taking the time to dig deep inside and discover what their dreams and passions are. Out of those few, even fewer act upon them. It is easier to conform to what everyone else says or thinks, or even to what is seen as socially acceptable. This is also, an easier life to live, but only if you can effectively squelch your dreams and passion. However, according to Laura Esquivel, no matter how much you try to ignore your dream or passion, it will eat away at you, making you utterly miserable and sick.
This is not living, but simply existing.
I think you are correct that Esquivel is recommending living, not simply existing. That was Rosaura's problem, and she rotted from the inside. Tita burned, in contrast. Esquivel doesn't really let anybody off the hook, except for maybe the grandchildren who finally broke away from their parents' turmoil. The connections you make a good although you could go into more depth explaining to the reader your chain of reasoning, such as in the last sentence of each paragraph where you make your connection explicit, but you do not discuss the implications of your connection.
ReplyDelete