45 pages • 1 hour read
Both Elvis and Maite dream of upward class mobility. Their aspirations are inherently gendered: For Elvis, such mobility would enhance his masculinity, while for Maite, wealth would ensure safety as a single woman. Ultimately, neither character achieves their vision of success by the novel’s end, leaving both disillusioned about material wealth as a solution for life’s problems.
Elvis idolizes El Mago because El Mago is of a wealthier social class. Elvis’s desire for El Mago’s wealth is a desire for not the older man’s many possessions but his “way of life” (37). Elvis notes, “El Mago was kingly. Elvis had never seen anything like it, such assurance in manner, such class. He was a gentleman” (37). Elvis believes that having access to wealth like El Mago’s will not only transform how he lives but also transform his very self: In Elvis’s eyes, wealth brings a more refined, successful masculinity than he’s ever been able to perform before. He wants to be able to command other men the way El Mago does; he dreams of being able to use his boss’s smooth, confident language in speaking to women. Elvis’s desire to enter a wealthier class is connected with his desire to embody a different masculinity.
Outwardly, Maite also seems to crave the material wealth that would come with upward mobility, but her desire for wealth is ultimately rooted in her need for safety. Upon entering Emilio’s apartment for the first time, Maite exuberantly observes its excesses: “Acrylic bubble chairs, a long, beautiful, red velvet couch, a table big enough for eight, green glass vases filled with flowers…it all seemed plucked out of a catalogue. Maite’s atelier, which she’d thought quite adorable, now became shabby” (132). On the surface, it seems that Maite craves upward mobility for the extravagance and beauty of the material wealth that comes with it. Her motivations, though, are more complicated than this. When Maite’s car—one of her few expensive possessions—is held by the mechanic, she is forced to take the bus. On public transportation, “if she had to stand, it was an invitation for every pervert in the city to rub himself against her or try to touch her ass. Every female from the age of twelve to sixty-five had to endure the same treatment” (73). Maite sees upward mobility as a potential means of escaping the sexism and abuse that permeates her daily life. Wealth, from her perspective, is useful not only for the luxuries it offers but also for the relative safety that it might provide.
At the end of the novel, Maite’s aspirations of upward mobility are completely cut off. She dreams of potentially pursuing a life with Rubén, which would mean giving up her class aspirations in order to enter into a stable relationship that might shield her from some of the difficulties of living as a single woman in Mexico City. When Rubén chooses to rekindle his relationship with Leonora, though, this dream is ended; Maite quite literally finds herself back on the bus in the novel’s epilogue. Elvis, by contrast, has his dreams of upward mobility radically reconfigured at the end of the novel. El Mago’s violence against Maite, and his lies to Elvis, debunk the notion that wealth can create the “gentlemanly” masculinity that Elvis desires. If anything, El Mago’s actions show Elvis that wealth is a shield men like El Mago can use in order to manipulate and control those around them. This revelation leaves a disillusioned Elvis at the end of the novel looking for new ways of modeling the type of masculinity he desires—one that is absent of wealth like El Mago’s. Though neither Maite nor Elvis have found what they are looking for in the closing chapters, Maite’s willingness to accept Elvis’s offer of a coffee date suggests that they might find in each other what they were unable to find in their aspirations of class mobility.
Both Elvis and Maite struggle to fit into rigidly defined and often damaging gender roles that are modeled for them by life in 1970s Mexico City. The characters’ arcs demonstrate the challenges of both adhering to and rebelling against gendered expectations amidst turbulent times.
Maite finds herself in a cultural moment that is very much defined by sexism but is also at the start of a transition that might offer her the beginnings of liberation. On the one hand, Maite notes that this historical moment offers shifting expectations of what womanhood is or should be. Maite reflects that her views of what is and isn’t respectable for a woman to do differ from her mother’s: “Women didn’t leave home until they were married, but two years before, Maite had grown tired of the limits of her mother’s home and decamped for her place at the Escandón” (23). This observation reveals how this historical moment is a watershed for women’s liberation. Maite, in spite of her conservative upbringing, feels empowered enough to leave home as a single woman and become financially independent.
Despite this, Maite lacks empowerment in her life as a lower-middle-class woman in Mexico City. This fact is repeatedly underscored by her interactions with the mechanics who are holding her car: She believes that they are taking advantage of her because she is an unmarried woman. Because she’s unable to do anything about this, she is subjected to even more abuse on public transportation at the hands of men. Maite also internalizes this disempowerment, in part through the types of media she consumes. Her female-focused magazines, for example, tell her exclusively about how she should act in public in order to attract men: “‘The Fantastic Guide to Flirting’…included the recommendation to remember that every man you meet is a potential date, so women shouldn’t ruin their chances by being too rude or shy” (61). Maite internalizes the idea that women exist only as objects for the male gaze. In reflecting on her relationship with Cristóbalito, she remembers how she hated looking fat around him and how she “pinched the flabby skin of her belly and thought about cutting it with a pair of scissors” (98). Maite’s internalization of sexist beauty standards creates her self-loathing; she sees herself both as a body that must be desirable at all times and as one that is constantly under threat from male violence.
Cultural attitudes toward women and femininity also impact how men in the novel perform masculinity. Working for the Hawks, Elvis is surrounded by men who constantly police other men’s masculinity. Before Elvis becomes El Güero’s boss, El Güero tells him, “A man who spends so much time running a comb through his hair isn’t a man at al […] The real Elvis Presley is a hip-shaking girlie man” (4). In this critique of Elvis Presley and implicit attack on Elvis himself, El Güero defines successful masculinity in opposition to femininity; men should, in his estimation, never possess qualities like vanity, which belong only to the realm of the feminine. For the men of the Hawks, masculinity is also defined by its proximity to violence. When the group is tasked with following Maite, the Antelope complains, “I’m damn good at target practice and never get to shoot anyone. Instead, there’s this fucking busywork, which, frankly, should be for bitches” (82). According to the Antelope, men’s work is that of action, violence, and destruction. This is a construction of masculinity that Elvis is part of but one that he also hopes to escape. His obsession with El Mago is, in part, an obsession with gaining access to a type of masculinity that is both socially acceptable and free of the expectation of violence, revealing the connections between gender roles and Aspirations of Class Mobility. At the end of the novel, Elvis discovers that the masculinity El Mago inhabits is deeply toxic in its own right; he is left to define what a “successful” masculinity might look like on his own terms.
Throughout the novel, the Mexican government and the various extra-governmental groups in its employ are constantly surveilling the citizenry: The Hawks spend most of their time watching Maite and anyone else connected to Leonora’s disappearance, and Anaya and his men only know that Rubén and Maite have Leonora’s film because they’ve been tapping Maite’s phone. Surveillance is a means by which the government can exercise control over a restless population; citizens who know that left-leaning political affiliations are more likely to be surveilled are less likely to make those affiliations. The surveillance is so ubiquitous that when watching the Café La Habana, Elvis reflects:
[I]t was almost a game: every patron knew they were being watched, but the constant watching also ensured a certain safety net. Better to be watched here than to have an asshole putting on binoculars and trying to peep through your window. Maybe it was force of habit. Someone’s got to spy on someone (119).
Elvis’s attitude demonstrates that Mexican citizens have accepted government surveillance as a part of their lives, something to be expected rather than resisted.
The novel’s plot is put into motion by the disappearance of Leonora and her mysterious film, which El Mago, Anaya, and Jackie all want so desperately. Leonora’s film and camera as a central symbol of the novel is notable: The camera is a tool through which the Mexican citizenry can enact their own surveillance and, in doing so, weaken the power the government wields over its people. The film canisters’ journey over the course of the narrative explores some of the ways in which citizen-led surveillance is both disseminated and quashed. Leonora attempts to publish her surveillance of the government through channels that exist outside of the government’s control—in this case, the American reporter Lara, who lives in Cuernavaca because “it’s harder to be placed under surveillance outside of Mexico City” (182). This speaks to the bind that leftist dissidents in Mexico City have been placed in: Within a surveillance state, they struggle to successfully disseminate information without it being manipulated or destroyed by that state. The ending of this novel offers a pessimistic response to the activists’ struggle. Leonora’s film is intercepted by the Hawks and destroyed before its contents can be revealed. The narrative even keeps the contents of the film from the reader; those who know what it contains never openly speak of it, and neither of the point-of-view characters ever learn the truth. This choice to keep the mystery of the film a mystery speaks to the totality with which the dissidents’ attempts to build knowledge and power can be annihilated by the surveillance state.
Plus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features:
By Silvia Moreno-Garcia