This is quite hard to rate, to be honest. Our country belongs to women who easily shed tears and men who are ashamed to weep. Dogeaters is my first Jessica Hagedorn book, and it certainly won't be my last. This is the fourth novel that I've read that revolved around the Martial Law period (more suggestions, anyone?). Admittedly, though, this wasn't really the kind of book I was expecting to read when I started my odyssey to scavenge for novels related to the dictatorship. What I was hoping for is something that would provide a clear picture of what it really felt like to live in that period - the horrors it entailed, the hardships people encountered, and so on. You get the gist. I wanted to back up the fragments of stories I've heard from my parents and from other grown-ups. You might be thinking, if that's the case, then why don't I simply read some history textbooks? But I want to acquaint myself more with Philippine literature. At the same time, I also want to equip myself with more knowledge about my country's past, but without the burden of having to skim through thick academic textbooks. (Though I suppose I really ought to do that one of these days.) I can't say precisely what I'm looking for - perhaps drama? maybe some activism? more of the violence that happened before?In my opinion, though, Dogeaters would be better appreciated by people who are actually born during the Martial Law, or those who are pretty much familiar with the intricacies of what happened back then, not someone like me, one who's knowledge of the entire thing is horribly limited to what I've heard from people and learned in class. Don't get me wrong - it doesn't mean that I don't like this, I in fact do. It also doesn't mean that I'm saying this book fails to provide a glimpse of the life back then. It's just, I think, a different perspective of what transpired in the past, far from what one would normally expect, and I guess that's exactly what renders this text endearing.So, despite everything, why do I like this?It's a very, very ambitious piece. You have to admit that. It's like Hagedorn was drugged when this was written because of the quality of the writing; and also because of the mere fact that it's bustling with activity. It seems so mobile, so busy. I have to admire her courage for constructing something like this, something experimental and utterly complicated. It's hard enough to think of several subplots, and then there's the other dilemma of narrating all these snippets in varying voices and tones, depending on who's the focus of the story. It might seem like it's going nowhere, this kind of novel primarily composed of vignettes, but I believe it's just as challenging as a normal, conventional story. Here, one has to think of what to include, who to talk about, and why talk about them at all. And there's also the task of weaving all these pieces cohesively, so that later on it all comes together, into that single point of convergence. Everyone here is interrelated with the other characters, if you think about it. It's really impressive that way. (This almost reminds me of Arlene J. Chai's Eating Fire and Drinking Water.)However, this of course has its own drawbacks.First, it can be confusing. It's so easy to get lost and ask yourself, "Wait, who's narrating now?" or "Who's this guy again?" because of the complex web of relationships and people. The reading experience is almost maddening and exhausting, because the reader has to try very hard to keep up with the constant rhythm and activity happening. One moment of interruption and voila! - you're left to wallow in bewilderment. Second, because it's composed of multiple stories, it's impossible for all of them to actually have some kind of conclusion in the end. Usually, Hagedorn would depart from a certain character's story just when a climactic scene emerges, leaving the readers hanging, leaving everything to our imaginations. I'm not so sure this makes me happy. (view spoiler)[ I certainly would have wanted more Joey or Daisy (hide spoiler)]
This is another book I read for my Asian-American lit class that I wouldn't have read if it hadn't been assigned, and if I had read it, I likely wouldn't have finished it because I found the writing style off-putting. It's very fast, jarring, jolting, MTV generation kind of thing. The perspective shifts from chapter to chapter. One chapter is first person, the next third. You are thrown into the lives of seemingly unrelated people from differing classes, and it's over-stimulating and fast. You don't always know what's going on, it's chaos, everyone is using everyone else, peppered with pop culture references from the time. You get multiple characters' perspectives -- you don't always know what to believe or who you can trust.That said, I did feel like the novel threw me into "post-colonial" Manila, Phillipines -- it takes place in different periods but I guess a lot of it takes place in the '70s during the dictatorship of that time. I felt like I got a real flavor for that experience, and I am very glad for that.Seems to be a lot about the culture created by the corrupt ruling elite and shows how imperialism still structured people's lives and minds through pop culture. It seems to champion people living on the society's margins -- and tries to tell their stories. It's very kaleidoscopic and depicts a lot of horror and toxic suffering going on in various people's lives.I enjoyed the last half much better than the first. The plot got very engrossing and I found various things moving. After having finished it I can say I'm very glad I read it. I feel like I learned a lot about this author's take on the "dog-eat-dog," power-lusty world in Manila evoked. I feel like I learned a lot. But it's not really my kind of book. Still, glad I read it.
What do You think about Dogeaters (1991)?
Dogeaters is a penetrating analysis of the modern history of the Philippines depicting the harsh realities of a politically corrupt system. It reflects the reality of what the current political figures in society are like and how their actions, beliefs, and decisions affect every person in the country on one level or another. The connections between the characters are complex and the political dynamic of the Philippines is inundated with deception, controversy, scandal, and intrigue. All of the characters have a three-dimensional personality that shines through each page. It is a cautionary tale illustrating the importance of being a knowledgeable and informed citizen of current political and social issues. Instead of being influenced and immersed by popular culture, ordinary people need to be aware of matters of political interest so their voices can be heard in time for positive changes to be made. For example, all that Romeo cares about is being a movie star and he is so engrossed in popular culture that he doesn’t see reality coming until it ran him over in the street.It is written in non-linear experimental prose, a style that attempts to simulate the fragmented information and incomplete understanding that the characters experience so that the readers will also have to view the work through the same narrow lens. Although it succeeds in placing the reader in the same fragmented reality as the characters, a partial re-read is necessary to grasp the whole picture, and who has time to read books more than once these days?
—Kat
Often when reading post-colonial works there is a feeling that alternate realities are being described, dream states and counter-histories which have been suppressed or erased by the official history. Hagedorn performs such an archaeological procedure in her ferocious and volcanic work, Dogeaters, a text which systematically dismantles the ruthlessness and heartlessness of the Marcos regime, as well as indicting the American colonial presence which still lingers in the Philippines in the form of Hollywood films, American servicemen, and the long shadow of global capitalism and conspicuous consumption. Her heroes are the forgotten and marginalized members of a society—-the hustlers, the whores, the transvestites, and the guerrilla rebels who dare to resist the lies perpetrated by the First Lady and President and the military-economic power structure that support them.
—Steve
I read this book as an undergrad and basically remembered NOTHING about it. nothing stuck. rereading it now, I was again underwhelmed, although the last two chapters (2 pp each) were phenomenal. although I think sudden revelations of narrator unreliability should be used advisedly, and this one seemed kind of weird since it wasn't clear how much of the book was supposed to have been narrated by Rio, and I had no real grasp of her as a character until right before the end, when she talks about her relationship to home. up to that point, the whole book felt very surface-level (although the food porn was quality). there's all this intense stuff happening, but it's all disjointed, and I never felt that invested in any one character, but maybe that's the point. but like, Romeo and Trinidad? they were kind of crucial to everything, but just dropped in and out. eh, I don't know.
—Lola Wallace
