Here is the first question I would like to ask the group about our novel. Hopefully you are into the book a little bit. We learn that Pablo is a bit of a slacker these days. He cares more about the horses than the war it seems. However, through Pilar, we learn that this was not always so. He was once a leader in the movement. In fact, the things he did were pretty crazy. He seems to be "the" leader - at least in their town.
So what has happened in the last few years? How and why do you think he has changed now that they have been fighting for a while? It seems to be a big difference. Now all they can talk about is the train they blew up. Discuss . . . .
Also - keep in mind that, as Kris Tina pointed out last night, Maria represents Spain.
Happy reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Pablo apparently is only in love with his horses and has stopped caring about Spain. All kidding aside, when Pilar was recanting the horrible story the Pablo she described seems much different than the Pablo we know now. One could argue that it is death that has changed him. He has seen people die that he has killed and he has seen people die that he loved. Because of this perhaps he now sees the war as an exercise in futility rather than in fighting for what he believes. It is also possible that the power he has, has gone to his head. His high-mindedness makes him believe that his moves and actions are the right ones because he is "the leader."
Anselmo keeps emphasizing that it is Pablo's acquisition of wealth that has changed him. Before the train and before the horses, he had nothing to lose so he could be wholly committed to a cause. Now, however, he's distracted by what he owns and the comforts and prestige he'd acquired. He has a lot more to lose now. That might be a little two-dimensional, but it reminds me of an argument that Thomas Friedman makes in "The World is Flat." Using Pakistan and India as an example, he says that one way to fight terrorism is to increase the international market participation of the smaller, more isolated countries that seem prone to declare war or engage in terrorist activities. The more involved those countries become in the international market, the less likely they'll be to wage war or to commit terrorist acts that might draw them into war because the costs will be too high. (I may not be doing total credit to his argument, but I think that gets the gist of it.)
Anyway. I think that's kind of an interesting idea -- wealth or ownership (even capitalism) as a means of promoting peace because it increases the cost of war to the individual.
I just don't think I am far enough in to answer this question, but wanted to leave my comment and compliments to the poster of it anyway.
Post a Comment