In the authors Laura Esquivel and Franz Kafka use the idea of distorting reality in order to create an idea

of authority. A primary issue within both texts is that both lose track of the authoritarian motif. This results comes from the issue that the idea of an author is lost within the text. Both books attempt to use magical realism in order to truly describe the struggle of an authoritarian, but they in the fact that there is no true definition. Both Laura Esquivel and Franz Kafka present authority idea with their respected texts, yet both tend to lose track at the main idea of authority. Kafka presents the Father whos very opening line asserts an idea of dominance, There is something the matter with him (9-10). Kafka introduces the Fathers first instance of abuse although it is not physical. Esquivel in the same manner introduces Mama Elana, the mother of Tita, denying the request for Tita to marry Pedro (9-11). The section presents a dual authority aspect of not just Mama Elana but also the authority of tradition over everyday life. Yet even though both Mame Elana and the Father are one of the main subjects within each respected books, both are lost in the world of over examination. There is the issue that both Kafka and Esquivel try to put too many motifs in order to describe bigger pictures. The clearest example is with the fact that Kafka tries to explain a multitude of symbolic gestures (35). This is in the way that Kafka tries to promote the idea of an oppressor and the idea of economic imperialism through symbols like the bank and the apple. But there is the issue of subjectivity that creates a parallax viewwhen two people look at one single object but see it in a different way due to their line of sight. The authors focus too much on expanding many different ideas that the main idea becomes lost. The

makes it that the reader will not in fact be able to truly understand if the idea of authority can even possibly be assumed. This parallax view and the loss of idea further entrenches the fact that the author is lost within the text. Laura Esquivel presents this first with the installation of the no back talking rule (11). This first transcends that idea that there is authority but there is the issue that it is described through what is called, Magical Realism. Kafka first uses the initial transformation of Gregor into a monstrous vermin (1). This first use of magical realism leaves an audience not only curious but also the author. Although there is the assumption that the magical realism is used to show the creation of an authority idea, there is also a side that believes that it is used to create the loss of place. This coming from the essential loss of what the books true meaning is and the gap between thought and assumption in order to clarify a deeper meaning. When writing a book an author will present an initial idea that he or she is trying to present; this gets lost though in fact that a reader may interpret these ideas into a whole new idea. This continues the idea of the parallax view point and the issue of subjectivity. This in fact continues that the authors have lost their idea within the text due to subjectivity and differential thought. Yet even with subjectivity being an issue between both authors, there is still the issue that even though both try to use magical realism in order to describe authority. This initially continues off of the loss of an idea but truly the issue is that there is no clear definition. Kafka describes Gregors father in his uniform to give the idea of a strong man that is bigger than others (35-36). But even with that it only at most describes that authoritarians are oppressors. This continues with the no

talking back rule and with Mama Elana forcing her children to continue calling her mommy (Esquivel 11; 13). These continually have been interpreted to be that the authoritarians are oppressive and degrading. But there is no clear definition for authorityaccording to Merriam-Webster dictionary; there are 14 different definitions for the word authority. Both authors attempt to describe the authoritarians in unrealistic ways yet there is not one singular definition. Even with as much description as possible, not one description is quantitative enough to follow one single idea. Both authors use ideas of magical realism in order to attempt an accurate portrayal of authority. With the complexity of each text, both authors have destroyed the main idea/motif in order to allow for the creation of subsequent ideas. This follows with the issue that both authors have lost their ideas within the text by actually putting it down in writing. This by following the issue within subjectivity and a parallax view of the text and by just the initial creation of an idea attempting to spread to others. But this also has the problem that the authors attempts to use magical realism does not allow for the singular definition of authority to be used. In fact there is not one singular definition that either author could use in order to truly describe what authority could possibly mean. All take account the fact within postmodernism there is an issue that singular thought even if described in vivid fashion still will be lost to the reader no matter how much effort and work is put in to give a clear analysis.