2010: Mario Vargas Llosa

Arequipa, Perú, 1936-

Isn't this book an education of left-wing splinter groups in 1950s Peru?  I must confess that my knowledge on this topic is finite, and so I've done a bit of research in order to help me understand the pedantic differences.



The Stalinists and the Trotskyites are both Marxist:  They look to implement socialism with a proletarian revolution, and gain equality of the working class and the bourgeois, namely by taking back the land.  However Trotsky argued for a vanguard party for the working class, working-class self-emancipation, proletarian internationalization, and mass democracy.  Conversely a Stalinist believes in an overly-centralized state with a totalitarian figure head, secret police, and propaganda.  It is associated with a regime of terror.  According to Trotskyites, Stalinism is a bureaucratized degenerated worker's state, where the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.  In short they're like the Montague’s and the Capulet’s.

Maoism is a form of Marxism originating in China that, like Stalinism, is “anti-revisionist”, meaning that it's not looking to change the system (and therefore it is also anti-Trotskyism).  A Maoist believes that fixing the social system is the road to capitalism, an “if it ain't broke...” sort of idea.

The Revolutionary Worker's Party aka the Marxist Workers Group, with whom Mayta is affiliated with in the book, is the first Trotskyite political party in Peru.

The APRA is the Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana, the oldest political party in Peru and the most established.  In the 2006 election they brought in 22.6% of the popular vote. Their politics-centre-left, democratic, and socialist- were toned down in the 50s so that the party could achieve legal status.

Pabloism is based on a man named Michel Pablo who formed an international communist party in Europe called “The Forth international”, with the goal to help the working class bring about socialism.  Not all socialists supported his politics though, and in 1953, those opposed started “The International Committee to the Forth Action”.  A person who is hostile toward the ICFI is known as a Pabloist.

Paz y la Intelligentsia mexicana

Chapter 7 of “El laberinto de la soledad” revolves around the Mexican “Intelligistsia” and their contributions to education, literature, and psychology.  After the revolution the young intellectuals began to work with the new government on legal projects, government plans, education, diplomatic services, public administration etc.  This situation is very different to that of Europe or the United States, as the educated middle class's principle mission is to examine, critique, and judge the government’s actions.  Nevertheless, in this essay Paz praises many different people of that era for their admirable work about the Mexican identity.

Ramos

Like Samuel Ramos, for example, who wrote “El perfil del hombre y la cultura en México”, the first serious Mexican attempt at self-knowledge.  Although Paz states that the central idea of this book-that the Mexican is isolated, and hides himself when he expresses himself-is valid, he also asserts that it suffers from limitations, as Ramos’ resentment reduces the significance of his conclusions.



Cuesta



Additionally there is Jorge Cuesta, who coined the phrase “Frenchification” when he investigated the meaning of tradition.   In his articles of politics, Cuesta is of the opinion that Mexico either lacks a past or re-created itself in opposition to its past.  It denies both the Indian and the colonial tradition, adopting the free election of French rationalism values.  Paz refutes the idea of adapting to French rationalism, because he feels that the Mexican revolutionary movement as well as its contemporary poetry and paintings emphasize individuality.

Reyes

Alfonso Reyes is spoken about with great admiration in this essay.  Poet, critic, and essayist, Paz states that his work is a literature in itself and a lesson in expression and clarity.  Reyes writes of the dangers and the responsibilities of language, and since the roots of language are the roots of morality, writing must be pure.  The Mexican writer has a duty, beyond the fidelity of language, to express his own nature and the feelings of a confused, inarticulate people.  Reyes also asserts that a writer is broken, because although language is a social mechanism, a writer must write in solitude.  He also complains that Latin American writers must use a European language to describe a very different world, and that it is necessary to break down and then re-create the Spanish language so that it becomes Mexican without ceasing to be Spanish.

1990: Octavio Paz

Mexico City:  March 31, 1914 – April 19, 1998

So far I've really enjoyed “El laberinto de la soledad, and Paz's insight on the Mexican identity.  In chapter four, Paz describes the Mexican as inscrutable and a contradiction to outsiders: courteous, but reserved, solemn, but outrageous during fiesta, a being that retracts and then repels.   He goes on to sub-categorize his people by describing the difference between a worker and a technician (eg a government employee), their roles and effects on a contemporary, capitalist society, and how it all connects to totalitarianism.

According to Paz, the worker represents the death of old society and the birth of a new one, presumably due to the industrial revolution and the migration of workers from the country to the cities.  He lacks individuality because, like his boss, “son hijos de la máquina”, and can be bought and sold.  Neither the machines that he works on nor the product that is made belongs to him, therefore he loses his human relationship tot he world.

Contemporary society is described by Paz and complex. and the condition of the worker extended to other groups, such as the technician.  Although he (being a government employee, or another white collared worker) has a higher salary, he also lacks awareness of his creations.  The workers can be considered an analogy for society that has a great efficiency but no aim, “la del mecanismo que avanza de ninguna parte hacia ningún lado”.

He goes on the ascertain that a totalitarian regime makes this concept general when looking at capitalism in a social or political sphere.  He compares mass production to totalitarian politics, such as propaganda, terrorism or repression.

Using the example of terrorism, Paz claims that although it starts with the persecution of isolated groups (like races), it gradually touches everyone.  At the onset it is treated with indifference by a society that may even contribute to the discrimination out of hatred.  With being an accomplice comes feelings of guilt.  Therefore the terrorism is generalized, and the persecuted becomes the persecuted. 

Another interesting idea introduced in chapter for is the “moral de siervo...  son rasgos de gente dominada que teme y que finge frente al señor”.  It states that the Mexican is only intimate during fiestas, while drinking, or when a death occurs, and that metaphorically they always wear masks.  Only alone do they show themselves how they really are, and their relationships are constituted by fear and suspicion.   Paz claims the Mexican is a product of social circumstances, and blames the history of Mexico (especially the colonial period) for the psyche of the people.  He states that the country has not yet overcome their social differences, the abuse of authority by the powerful, the violence, and the skepticism and resignation of the people.

1982: Gabriel García Márquez

March 6, 1927 Aracataca, Colombia-

I’m tickeled pink that we’ve arrived at the Marquez portion of the class; I love his work and La Hojarasca didn’t dissapoint.  The story revolves around the suicide of a doctor, and the memories of the family that has come to bury him.  It takes place in the course of a single afternoon in the fictional town Macondo, but through flashbacks the reader is transported to many different periods of the town’s history. 

Maquez seemlessly switches narradors throughout the story (sometimes so seemlessly that I missed it!), and in their different perspectives the reader is better able to piece together events that have taken place in the life of the dead man.  The Colonel acts as an omniscent narrador, who has witnessed events about which rumours swirl, and is sympathetic to the hated doctor.  Isabel is an observer, but with limited knowledge, and represents the town’s feeling of spite and non-understanding toward him.  The child is an innocent and un-biased however sensitive in an almost supernatural way.  By exploring the thoughts of three narradors Marquez creates a more well-rounded tale.

Time is used cleverly in a variety of ways throughout La Hojarasca.  Times in the day are repeated to suggest the simplicity (and banality) of daily life in Macundo:  The still of the afternoon when eveyone takes a siesta, the meeting of the men at the barbarshop at dusk, the 2:30pm train that passes (but no longer stops).  It is also a trigger of memory, like when the Colonel remebers that the docotr arrived in the town at 2:30 when he heard the train.  Marques also uses months of the year to suggest the passing of time:  Martin’s arrival in December, then July, the March, then July, and that the women start preparing Isabel’s wedding dress in September, and she marries in December.  Additionally, days of the week are randomly used to mark events in the story:  The doctor dies on a Wednesday, Isabel is married on a Monday, Meme and her ruffles at church on a Sunday.

The sense of smell is also an interesting isotopía in the tale.  The child with his keen sense of smell can wander around his home blind-folded, and know who’s room he’s outside of.  At the begining of the book he is unnerved by the smell of trash (death) in the room of the doctor, later on he is visited by the spirit of his dead grandmother as the Jasmine tree “comes-out”, and of course the very end of the story:

“Ahora sentirán el olor.  Ahora todos los alcaravanes se pondrán a cantar”.