got my copy. what is the timeline for this book?

FYI as most of you know this book is a fictionalized account of a true story, the life of the Mirabal sisters in opposition to the Dominican dictator, Trujillo. Here is the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirabal_sisters

Also didn't realize that there was a movie made of this book in 2001, starring Salma Hayek and Mark Anthony...nobody better pull a Costanza!

I'm about 50 pages in so far and I really like the format of differing first person

One of the things that I really like about this book is the historical backdrop. I recognize this so well, having looked at the effect of military dictatorships in other parts of Latin America. For that reason this book was really personal. The brutality of the Trujillo regime, the little victories that are described in the everyday lives of the sisters, the anger at the complacency of the population as a whole and the outside world, are all quite resonant and powerful. My favourite line in the book is at the end, when Dede is dreading visiting a government sponsored event to commemorate her sisters:

"People will be asking things, well meaning but nevertheless poking their fingers where it still hurts. People who kept their mouths shut when a little peep from everyone would have been a chorus the world couldn't have ignored. People who once were friends of the devil. Everyone got amnesty by telling on everyone else until we were all one big rotten family of cowards"

To me, this captures all of the frustration and despair which is so common in Latin America in that period. That this was a fiction did not take away from the message, because this could have been the story of so many people. The personal style of the author really brings the story to life.

I dedicate this photograph to the CJM bookclub...

jon...you are a book behind brotha...please tell me you are almost finished Hemingway. Put down the laser

Okay, so I just got back. Is everyone too far along or should I order it? When is the deadline? Let me know!!

I'm thinking we should have until the end of August or halfway through September to finish. I finished it a while ago, really enjoyed it. Anyway, Alex, did you order it?

I was away again at the cottage. I looked on Amazon today and it takes about 10 days to get it. So, unless other people have barely started, I may have to leave a dark, dark stain on my book club record and skip this one. Maur? Rocio? Juraj? Scribbles? How far are you? Should I order it?

Alex,

Rocio and I have the book, but I haven't started yet and Rocio is a couple chapters in. I vote the deadline be mid-September, as Leo said. We just got back from China the other day.

As for ordering, maybe try one of the amazon re-sellers? We got ours in a timely manner that way. Just make sure it ships from Canada and not California

I got mine the old-fashioned way at the Toronto Public Library today. Looking forward to reading it!

How far is everyone (minus Len)? I'm at p. 215 so far. It's starting to heat up...

I too am done. Will post my comments shortly.

I really liked this book. Alvarez did a good job bringing me into the story. There were times while reading the book in public places where I felt like I was doing something wrong, like if people knew what I was reading I'd be dragged in front of Trujillo's ghost and condemned for it. In other words, the book took me underground.

Like Leo and Dew, I liked the narrative style. Alvarez made it look easy. Mate's journal entries where she apologizes to the journal itself and throws in little drawings to explain things was a nice touch, making her more immature than her sisters.

I really liked the women's perspective--a good change up from Hemingway. The men in this book took a backseat to the women, which we haven't seen in any of the other book choices so far. What a difference the author's gender makes. In butterflies, all the men were scum: from the evil Trujillo to the men who cheated on their wives and either toiled the soil or tried to start a revolution.

As for relating to the sisters, sure: regardless of gender, we've all met the various types: hasty and emotional (Minerva); conservative and religious (Patria); young and naive (Maria Teresa); and then there's Dede, the middle child who flies under the radar and ends up living.

Alright... so I finished the book last week as well, but have been too busy to make comments throughout or since I finished. I also liked that narrative style in the sense that once the main characters (i.e. the sisters) were introduced in terms of what their personalities were like, the story was told from their different perspectives. This really had an impact on me because it enabled me to relate that much more. It really did seem to me like the way it was written, each sister's prose or narrative was quite different as a result of their political or personal polarization caused by their specific dispositions. Even though I know the characters are mostly inventions of the author (i.e. she tried to "capture the spirit of the sisters" rather than to write a historically-accurate account), I really did feel like I got to know them to the point where I could randomly flip to any chapter and to be able to tell you which one was doing the writing/talking just by the "feel" of their narrative and thought pattern. I liked that quite a bit...

Growing up in communism in Slovakia was not nearly as bad as what it seems to have been like for these characters under Trujillo, yet, even as a little kid, I was constantly told to not repeat certain things my parents or their friends said in public. I also met various people during this time that also disagreed with "the regime" for various different reasons. The book made me remember a realization I had during my childhood that ultimately, it doesn't matter what your reasons are for disagreeing with someone, but to a certain extent we all have our gut feeling of what is right and what is wrong. The question is, what will you decide if you are ever faced with this decision. Will you fall in line in the hopes of not losing your job, your friends, your posessions, your family, your sanity, and your life?.... or are you able to sacrifice those things fro what you believe in?

Having the background that I hhave, I like to feel as though I would choose the latter if ever faced with it, but you never know... It's easier and easier with each passing year to just keep the status quo, and to become more and more "comfortably numb".

I am not sure what versions of the book you guys had, but mine had some "discussion questions" at the end. Since I always read every book cover to cover, I read these as well. One question stuck with me in particular... What is it that politicizes a person? Obviously, my drivel above along with the way the book is written seems to suggest that there is no one thing that does this. It makes me wonder though... Are times really better now? Have dictators learned their lessons and made their mistakes less visible so that we are less agitated by the blatant abuse of human rights? Or have we simply stopped looking and taken on the "meh... it's good enough" attitude?

Not sure...

I thought this was a unique and powerful part of the book. Latin American dictatorships were often characterized by a hyper machismo, and the story of las mariposas really turned that on its head. This story is really one of bravery and tragedy. These women, Dede included, faced down a regime that they had no hope of defeating. It was in their deaths however, that the Dominican Republic came one step closer to ridding itself of Trujillo.

When I read what Juraj wrote about his experiences in Eastern Europe, it really strikes me that this was not too long ago. Not only that, but in many countries this kind of situation persists. The short answer to Juraj's question would be, no, we are not much better off. There are still these types of needless tragedies occurring everywhere, and little is done about it because we in the West are either too comfortable or because we have satisfied ourselves that it is other people's lot in life to suffer to the end. This book really reminded me of the anger some have towards the inaction of others. It was ever present in Minerva, who seemed enraged by the thought that others in her country had no desire to stand up to the regime. This really struck a nerve with me.

I really liked this book too. I share the same passion for Latin America that mostly everyone in this group has. I found all too many similarities between Trujillo and Somoza, Pinochet, Galtieri, Papa Doc, etc. It really is incredible that such tyrants could be so openly tolerated under the Cold War umbrella. I was only a child as the Cold War drew to a close, so it’s hard to imagine the circumstances.

The humour and wit of the girls was great, especially in the way that they made fun of the government (ie Trujillo and his cronies). I like the idea that no matter what the regime does to you, there are certain things they can’t take from you: your resolve, your humour (the way they kept their spirits up in prison), your pride. I loved the part when (I think it was Minerva) pointed the bow and arrow at Trujillo in the front row during their play as kids.

Since there were four girls and each with their man, some times I mixed up the spouses and character names.

Dew, I too didn’t like how their deaths were so sudden and short, and for me, how they were explained so matter-of-factly in the present day (1994). I would’ve liked to have seen it played out in real time (1960s). I found the build up to it so climactic – the arrests and detention and disappearance of everyone, – and then to have it explained in the present day, in the mast, was kind of anti-climactic. But I do like how this was a bridge to what Dede was going through. I really liked the end, how Dede was trying to move on, after so many years. It must have been so hard for her: under a dictatorship, split between those who want to overthrow the government, those who oppose it but not actively, and those who fear it and play by the rules for fear of retribution, along with her husband who opposed any of her involvement. The situation must have ruined a lot of relationships, as it clearly did at times with Dede and her sisters. And that must have weighed heavily on her mind, and it was nice to see how she was moving on with it and learning to deal with it at the end. It really shows the trauma that so many people (who were lucky enough to survive) had to endure years after the fact, and how it stays with them for the rest of their lives.

In regards to what Len and Juraj said about whether things have got better or not, I feel that outside of the Cold War umbrella, it’s harder to ignore people like Kim Jong-il and Robert Mugabe. It was so easy to justify scum like them, because of the “threat” of communism. But now, they can be isolated politically and economically (sanctions), but realpolitik still rules the day, just in a different way from how it did during the Cold War.

I'm not sure that it was the cold war that obfuscated tyrrants from view, anymore than the "war on terror" does so today. Under each banner, countries in the West have supported the most vile regimes. Nevermind that economic benefits (China being the most blatant example) are often touted as good reasons to engage with these countries. Maybe it's the 24 hour news cycle, or the internet, that makes it more difficult to hide these relationships. Then again, people seem to be as ignorant as ever in spite of these advances. It still remains that Western governments will trot out the human rights angle when it suits their purposes (Iraq), and completely ignore it otherwise (pick any Central Asian regime, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China..etc).

Agreed. What I should've said is "harder to openly justify." A lot of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. is quiet, or kind of like: "Here, take these weapons, and as long as you keep the Muslim Brotherhood and the jihadists in check, we will ignore the fact that you flog woman for showing their face in public." For example, the U.S. won't come out and say how Saudi Arabia or Egypt are beaming examples of freedom and liberty, as, say Reagan or Nixon would for friendly tyrants. And it doesn't even have to be economic incentive. Look at all the Southern African governments, and how cowardly their "quiet diplomacy" is with Mugabe (South Africa in particular).

And I think you're right: the importance of the 24-hour news cycle is crucial, and lends influence to soft power actors like NGOs and the general public.