Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Frequent Contributor
Jessica
Posts: 968
Registered: ‎09-24-2006
0 Kudos

What if the roles were reversed?

[ Edited ]
Something that occurred to me while reading last night really made me wonder -- what if the roles were reversed? What if Fermina were insane with passion and promiscuous and pining her life away for Florentino ... and Florentino was the one who married well and tried to get on with life?

How would this change the feel of the book? Would we as readers be more quick to dismiss Fermina as 'hysterical'? How would we view Florentino's decisions?

Message Edited by Jessica on 10-11-2007 10:28 AM
Frequent Contributor
APenForYourThoughts
Posts: 394
Registered: ‎06-22-2007
0 Kudos

Re: What if the roles were reversed?

This is very interesting; the novel would definitely be drastically different and probably not nearly as effective. I think that, stereotypically (especially in older literature), women are depicted as the weak ones for whom love is an even greater weakness because it supports the idea that a woman needs a man to survive happily, whereas men are depicted as stronger than their emotions and therefore stronger than females. I love what Marquez has done to dispel this notion (whether or not that was his intention, I don't know) by making Fermina the headstrong, grounded one and assigning Florentino the role of the deeply emotional, sensitive, poetic soul, unable to overcome his love for Fermina. I definitely think that, were Fermina to be the lovesick character rather than Florentino, we would dismiss her as a silly girl who gets too carried away by her emotions, simply because a lot of literature has displayed females in this way and because females are supposed to be the more emotional of the two sexes. By making Florentino the character who gets completely swept off his feet and who is unable to suppress his emotions, Marquez allows the depth and nature of love to be conveyed without letting cultural bias in terms of gender get in the way. I think that a lot of people wouldn't get it if Fermina acted like Florentino in the novel, and the ability of love to really affect a person would be lost to a lot of readers. Man is traditionally supposed to be the rational thinker, and woman is supposed to be irrational (with which I think most of us would disagree). So by calling that into question, the reader sees how love can affect someone so much that a person will abandon all logic. I'm not sure if I've explained this well enough, or the way I meant to explain it, but something would definitely be lost if the roles were to be reversed, I think.
"A book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us." --Kafka
Users Online
Currently online: 48 members 770 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: