Drawn from different sectors of Manila society in the 1950s, the characters in Dogeater are so vividly drawn, so complexly animated, that they appear primed for the big screen that they love so much. Through their interactions, often indirect, Hagedorn lays bare the obsession with American glamor, the ruthless suppression of political dissent, the awkwardness of coming-of-age, the irrepressible yearning for love. The novel is artfully constructed with alternating points of views, supplemented with fabricated news reports and surrealistic dream sequences. The plot curves with great speed towards its denouement, a political assassination and its shattering consequences.

This text is a caustic examination of post-colonial Filipino society. The novel follows a set of seemingly unrelated characters whose lives are all tangentially affected by a political assassination, upon which the whole novel rests.

The novel is superb. It is brutal in its examination of the venal upper classes, professing "traditional virtues" while depraved and sexually exploitative in private, parasitically leeching their wealth from the dictatorship they support. The text has strong parallels to other Latin American generalissimo literature in its depiction of the operations of the police state and its control/influence over all aspects of life, cultural and economic, and in its critique of the machismo that sustains these regimes. The novel brilliantly uses characters' shifting between different languages and slang, as well as insertions of American movies and fictionalized radio shows, to show the profound legacy of colonialism. Characters reject (delicious) Filipino food in favor of processed American products simply due to an internalized inferiority complex and the status associated with the Westernized goods. It is the same venal class professing "Filipino's First" that are so desperate to Westernize, to shed their relation to "dogeaters." Their cultural vapidity and degradation spills over onto other classes (i.e., lower middle class) who, too, are desperate for small increases in status. In this way, the novel criticizes post-colonial nationalisms rooted in a new elite reifying the same colonial edifices to maintain power.

Interestingly enough, it is the very "dogeaters" that Westerners derided and, now that the discourse is internalized, that the Filipino elite deride as well who are responsible for most of the resistance movements against Spanish and American rule. This, of course, reflects standard discourses of colonialism whereby the "tribal indigene," the very individual most able and likely to resist the colonizer throughout the colonial period, is written out of the national narrative by a Westernized, urban, bourgeois elite inheriting the nation-state from their colonial masters.

Beyond all of this, the text is just written so well. I thought the use of fragmented narratives and hyper-referential style really worked. I found the novel a compulsive read. The novel reminded me of the works of Ngugi wa'Thiongo.

Edit: The book, of course, is also about diasporic identity and immigrants looking back at their home country. This is made most clear with Pucha's letter in the final pages of the novel that draws attention to how Rio is an unreliable narrator. Rio's narrative of her family in the Philippines makes her family that remained more complicit in the island's dictatorship and minimized her and her mother's complicity by having them choose exile and break with their past. It is self-serving and helps to justify the love-hate relationship diaspora members have with the home country. Having left, they can never return, and they both crave the kinship of the home country, but. because this kinship is forever lost to them, hate the home country in turn.

“You’re going to hell for sure — you made the Iron Butterfly break down and cry.”

Reading Dogeaters was much better during this second read! It’s been four years since I *tried* to “read” it: I was 18 in my childhood room in Pampanga (I admit that I read it only looking for comforting sentences about love).

The line that I highlighted in 2016 in pink:
“They are both in love with other people, but he is compelled by her beauty and amused by her bluntness.”

There is no finality, no clear resolve in this book. That parallels Filipino politics post-EDSA to now right? It didn’t end with EDSA because EDSA wasn’t our cure-all.

“We are doomed by our need for assimilation into the West and our own curious fatalism. We Pinoys suffer collectively from a cultural inferiority complex.”

“The sleep had lasted for centuries, but one day the thunderbolt struck, and in striking infused light.” - Jose Rizal

This is the first book I read in March 2020, and I somehow found it hard to finish due to a lot of tasks and the anxiety brought about by the pandemic.
Undoubtedly, Hagedorn rendered the lyricism and the kaleidoscopic events very well. A staple reading on postcolonial literature, it has depicted the Americanization of the Filipinos by showing the colonizers’ influence that may appear innocuous at first: US films, materialism, small talks, inferiority complex, colonial mentality, Western beauty standards, and so on. It also takes a jab on the Marcos regime and the tomfoolery of the dictatorship, making those who are already powerful to be more power-hungry. We pay attention to four storylines: the ruling family’s utter disregard for the people they exploited, filthy rich businessmen, the struggle of the guerrillas, and the poverty sweeping the while country.
Dogeaters is driven not by plot but by characters and the cultural strains of a country plagued by oppressive influences by the American occupation. Thus it was hard to follow, with the shifting perspectives and a mixture of letters, news items, and quotations.
It makes up an interesting material for literature majors. I suggest the following topics for discussion: (1)in this book, much of the emphasis is the upper and lower class dichotomy. What does it say about the middle class society in the Philippines? (2) The text written by a Filipino writer who chose to publish it overseas; could the reception be any different if it was published in Hagedorn home country? What is its implication to the publishing industry in/literature of the Philippines? (3) It may be compared with Ilustrado by Miguel Syjuco (4) Comparing the material conditions in Manila in the milieu of the book to the present-day Manila, how are they similar and different?
2.5/5

(I review books and write anything here: https://kloydecaday.wordpress.com/; instagram: @kloydecaday. Feel free to discuss with me!)

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.

Colorful characters and an intimate, somewhat satirical look at life in the Philippines in the 1950s under a corrupt regime likely patterned on the Marcos (remember her 1000s of shoes?). The best part for me were the numerous, memorable characters - though I had to Google a few to remind myself who they were since I lost track - and the window into a country that I have personal connections with from early life due to the large Philippino population in my part of Philly and many first generation Philippino friends. I recommend it as an engaging escape to a far off, though not completely dissimilar land.

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?

A lot of unpleasant truths here--- and I hesistate to call this fiction, because it's clearly parafiction. An intriguing multi-character portrait of the Philippines' tangled political history. Nice job on the shifting perspectives, and the subjectivity of each one, though i would have appreciated an absolute truth at some point.

"Dogeaters" was a good interesting read. The book had some very delusional characters whose delusions served to provide the story its own twisted take on the Americanization of the modern day Philippines. The style and tone of the novel was great, it had dark humor throughout, and, at times through satire, was able to highlight some of the injustices that can occur when a country allows a dictatorship and suppresses free speech. I would have given this book a higher score, but since I read the book in intervals, I didn't feel I was able to experience the book as it should have been read. Overall, a great read that I recommend for those who like their humor dark and their characters to be all types of eccentric.

Jessica Hagedorn’s portrait of the Philippines in the late 1950s during the Marcos era is kaleidoscopic and fragmented but succeeds in bringing the time and place to life in a way that a more linear narrative might have failed to do. It comprises a series of vignettes or short stories rather than a sustained storyline, with a large cast of characters from the richest to the poorest and most humble. What binds them all together is their attempt to live their lives under a repressive, corrupt and often brutal regime. Some of the characters do indeed verge on caricature, but many feel very real and evoke the readers’ sympathies. Complex and occasionally confusing, the novel presupposes at least some knowledge of the country’s history and politics, without which it is difficult to navigate the twists and turns of the narrative. Overall I enjoyed it, but definitely feel it would reward a re-reading and some background research beforehand.

not a big fan of the prose.

The over-sized cast in this book represent variations on a dull theme. Except for the narrator, who is something of a blank slate, all the major characters are vain, corrupt, dissolute, uncaring, and nasty. The plot does not move much either, except for some moderate excitement near the end as some characters try to evade the police, and the style is fairly plodding except for a few lyrical flights. The bits of historical and political commentary fail to tie in to the main part of the book.