Kylabl

Prieto, René. Miguel Angel Asturias's archaeology of return. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press , 1993. Print. This book looks at the rapid evolution in Asturias’ writing from his dissertation where Auturias argues the need for foreign immigration to improve the Indian breed, the “mal indio” to Leyendas de Guatemala in which “the myth he creates involves a portrayal of himself as spokesman for and emblem of Indian culture” (26). Prieto analyzes Asturias’ childhood and upbringing to understand his identification with his Indian heritage and the rejection of his criollo side. Prieto also looks at events, movements and inspirational people that influenced Asturias writing and changed his viewpoint of Indian culture while he was in Paris; especially the classes he took and the French based Latin Press Agency which concentrated on the revitalization of Latin power as economic relief after WWI. Prieto studies the role of surrealism in Leyendas de Guatemala, and highlights his use of unnatural juxtapositions; Prieto stresses that Asturias uses surrealism to “mirror the somewhat magical and primitive mentality of the Indians” (34). Prieto describes Asturias writing as “neo-Indigenismo,” where he defends the Indians by increasing awareness of their fundamental beliefs and making sure to portray their culture as entirely separate. Asturias concentrates his writing on describing Indian culture and tradition in order to validate the Indian heritage. Prieto also explains and compares Asturias writing with other attitudes and defensive strategies and techniques. An important point for Prieto, is that Asturias in combining “Western techniques and thematic and stylistic elements borrowed from the native American literatures” (40). Prieto then analyzes each part of the book to reveal Asturias overall messages and the themes of the book. In her analysis of each part, Prieto also points out influences from Mayan literature and surrealism. Leyendas de Guatemala begins with two introductory stories, the first is a “tale of loss, the second heralds the restitution of the past and the rehabilitation of waylaid traditions” (51). Prieto goes on to say that the reader then learns that destruction is always followed by rebirth in “Leyenda del Volcán.” “Leyenda del Cadejo” teaches that one can overpower the forces that oppress them and through “Leyendas de la Tatuana and del Sombrerón” the reader learns the means to overcome these forces are always feasible. And the last legend shows that “the past - the buried treasure of our ancestors - lies intact under the watchful and protective guardianship of nature itself” (64). Therefore Prieto concludes that the meaning of the book is that “the country’s cultural patrimony is not lost but neglected” (64-54). Finally Prieto looks at the additions Asturias later added to Leyendas de Guatemala, “Los brujos de la tormenta primaveral “ and “Cucuclán” and how they add to the meaning of the book. Prieto stresses the influence of the Popul Vuh on these last pieces.

Henighan, Stephan. Assuming the Light, the Parisian Literary Apprenticeship of Miguel Angel Asturias. Oxford: European Humanities Research Centre of the University of Oxford, 1999. 124-148. Print. Henighan’s main argument is the Leyendas de Guatamala is the product of the “divided self” of Asturias. Henigham states the book is written for a European audience, therefore claims Asturias conforms to the European expectations and uses Guatemalan exoticisms. Henighan then dissects Leyendas de Guatemala in order to show how Asturias tailors the book to a French audience. Henighan claims that Asturias in “Guatemala” writes to alienate himself from Guatemala and that Asturias has a conceited outlook of Guatemala. Then in “Ahora que me acuero” Asturuas” outlines his “unresolved crisis of an absence of connection with that homeland’s cultural source” (133). Henighan argues that the five legends that follow serve as a “warring of the narrators halves” (134). Henighan critics Prieto in her analysis of Leyendas de Guatemala, saying that the book cannot solely be read as a transcription of Mayan mythology and an on incorporation of the surrealist movement, because his use of Mayan images and juxtapositions are techniques used to perpetuate the evolution of Asturias double identity. Henighan goes on to show how in each leyenda, “syncretism, doubleness, heterogeneity, are portrayed as inevitable human conditions.” And that together the stories show the “impossibility of maintaining a purity of identity” (145) and thus confirming the need for mestizaje. Ultimately, Henighan concludes that in “Leyenda del tesoro del lugar florido” Asturias cultural divided is no longer equal, and “the Maya have come to an end” and hence Asturias has accepted his Parisian identification and therefore accepts his estrangement from his Indian culture

Hill, Eladia L.. Miguel Angel Asturias, lo ancestral en su obra literaria. New York: Eliseo Torres & Sons, 1972. 35-70. Print. The first part on Leyendas de Guatemala in Chapter 1, “Lo ancestral en función estética” is useful for our paper. In this part of the book, Hill describes Asturias goals in writing Leyendas de Guatemala. Hill also analyzes Asturias writing style, examining Asturias use of reality, imagination, myths, the ancestral, and the exotic. The rest of the chapter summarizes the content in Leyendas de Guatemala and compares the content to other sources. The chapter especially focuses on studying the language Asturias uses, the symbols he employs in his writing. Asturias use of onomatopoeia, metaphors and repetition. Hill begins by giving an overarching review how Leyendas de Guatemala is divided: two introductory stories, five legends, and finally the drama-play, “”Cuculcán Serpiente-envuelta-en-plumas.” Hill then breaks down each section of the book, highlighting references and influences from Mayan literature, especially the Popol-Vuh, and culture. --Kylabl (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Greetings...

Hello, Kylabl, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Magical Realism Reconsidered

I'm looking forward to working with your class during the semester - if you have any questions about the project or Wikipedia in general, please feel free to leave me a note at User talk:Awadewit. Wikipedians are here to help you! Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography assignment

Hi, here are the details of the MRR annotated bibliography assignment...

Good Wikipedia articles are built on a foundation of good sources. In this respect, Wikipedia articles are not much different from academic essays. In fact, if anything a good Wikipedia article is more reliant on good sources than are other academic or scholarly texts. The whole notion of verifiability, which is the first of the encyclopedia's five pillars, depends upon reliable sources.

The aim of this bibliography assignment, then, is to identify, read, and comment on the most important and reliable sources that relate to the topic of your chosen article.

In coordination with your group, you need to do the following:

• Identify the most important sources for your topic. These will be both books and articles. They will vary depending upon the kind of topic you have chosen, but to give a couple of examples this book is a key one for the general topic of magic realism, while this biography would be essential for the article on Gabriel García Márquez.
• Use databases and the Koerner library catalogue to identify these sources. Look for as many as possible in the first instance; you will later choose between them. On the whole, they will not be online sources (though of course many articles are now available online thanks to JSTOR and other services).
• Aim to come up with a long list of, say, 5-20 books and perhaps 15-40 articles. Obviously, for some topics there will be more material than for others. So for some topics you will need to do more searching; for other topics, you will need to be more careful and discerning as you choose between sources. Look far and wide and be inventive in thinking about good sources.
• In some cases, the article may already have a number of references, either in the article itself, or perhaps somewhere in its talkpage archives. You should take account of these, but you should still undertake your own search, not least to find new material that has not been considered before.
• To figure out what you need, you will also have to look at your article and consider what it is missing, what needs to be improved, where it could do with better sources, etc. In other words, you will have to start planning how you are going to work on and rewrite the article.
• Come up with a final short list of c. 2-4 books and perhaps 6-24 articles.
• Put the long list (of all the sources you have found) as well as the short list (of the sources you have decided are the most important) on your article's talk page by Wednesday, January 20.
• Distribute the sources among the members of your group. Each person should be reading the equivalent of one full book or six articles. Exceptionally long books may be divided up between group members.
• Read the sources, bearing in mind the information that is going to be useful as you work on the article. Think about what it covers and take a note of particular page numbers.
• Produce an annotated bibliography of the sources you have read. This will consist of a summary or précis of the most important aspects of the texts, which should be at least 150 words long for each article read; 600 words for each book. You should put this on your user page by Monday, February 8.

To coordinate with the other members of your group (whose names you can find here), use their talk pages. Each time that you log in to Wikipedia, you will notice that if you have a message waiting for you, there will be a yellow banner at the top of the page.

Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

group bibliography

Hi there! I've begun looking for good sources for our group wikipedia project. I've posted what I've found so far on the talk page for Leyendas De Guatemala. I'll head to the library tomorrow to check out the books in person and see which ones we should include in our final bibliography. Just popping in to fill you in on my progress, how is your search going? --Sezekiel (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

So i started somewhat of a conversation thread on our article's talk page. Let me know what you think. Cheers. --Rekarrr (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Indentations

I saw your note about indentations at the Talk:Leyendas de Guatemala page -- it's pretty straightforward. If you want to indent, start a new line with a colon, like this.

This line is indented; if you edit this section you'll see that there's a colon at the start of the line.

This line has two colons at the start.

Indenting your answer to people is useful on talk pages because it helps others follow the conversations. I hope this is helpful; if you have any other questions, please ask me on my talk page or here. Mike Christie (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Refs

I just fixed the refs error I saw at Leyendas de Guatemala‎; I hope that was helpful. If you're not clear what the problem was let me know and I can explain -- basically you have to finish a ref with "</ref>", not "<ref>". The slash is important. Mike Christie (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Submissionnnnnn time (i think? yes yes)

Hey Dude and Dudettes! I proofred the ENTIRE freakin article, edited, added more info where we needed to fill in holes, added little sections (like see also and related reading or whatever) that the good article criteria requires, added an info box and some photos. I'm thinking lets send her off to good article consideration land? I dont know how to do that but im sure i can wiki it (ha-ha-ha). So edit or add whatever you guys still want, or let me know if youre ok to send it, but in either case if no one replies to me by saturday night im sending it. Sounds like a plan? Let me know what you all think. It looks pretty sweet tho. go team...bot... (btw im gna copy paste to your talk pages for extra awareness purposes) --Rekarrr (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)