Carolina Lozada: “No one emerges unscathed from writing”
The name of Carolina Lozada (Valera, 1974) has been present in the circuits of literary promotion in Venezuela for a while now, even if they privilege work produced in Caracas above other important cities and states. Not just for having received a variety of acknowledgements, such as the Premio Municipal de Narrativa “Oswaldo Trejo” (2006), the Premio Nacional de Narrativa Solar (2007), the Premio para Jóvenes Autores de la Policlínica Metropolitana (3rd place in 2011) or the Premio Stefania Mosca in the category of non-fiction (2011), but also for her tenacious and constant oeuvre that, already counting four books of short stories published: Historias de mujeres y ciudades, Memorias de azotea, Los cuentos de Natalia and La culpa es del porno, and one of literary non-fiction: La vida de los mismos, establishes itself in the pursuit of its own imaginaries, equally distant from the mandates of literary fashion and from the exaltation of the local and the provincial. Her participation, moreover, in digital projects like the magazine Las Malas Juntas or the literary review site 500 ejemplares, demonstrates that one doesn’t have to live in the capital to be a part of the country’s literary panorama and, why not, of the continent’s.
Gabriel Payares: In your earlier short story collections previous to La culpa es del porno, one noted an effort to narratively construct women; while on this occasion the majority of your narrators are men who speak in the first person singular: defeated men or ones who have been abandoned by their women, living in situations that seem tragicomic. Are you now trying to place yourself in the shoes of men? What does this change in register obey?
Carolina Lozada: There’s no premeditation or forethought in La culpa es del porno. Without proposing to, the masculine voices began to impose themselves in nearly the entire book. The stories simply came to me and the majority of these were enunciated by male characters and by a few transvestites, as in the story “Libertad Queen,” for example. Regardless of the sexual gender, I’m interested in exploring through fiction the worlds of socially uncomfortable beings. I’m attracted to characters who couldn’t even be categorized as losers because they never had anything to lose. On the other hand, sexual ambiguity also piques my curiosity: to think of a man dressed as a woman in the privacy of his room while on the street or in front of his family he’s an exemplary man, what might pass through his head, this intrigues me. Maybe the transvestite element of that type of subject and of others in a similar vein imposed itself in my narrative voice. No one emerges unscathed from writing.
GP: In these stories the “normal” world, that is apparently under control, is always represented as obeying an aesthetics of the grotesque, the carnivalesque, as if wanting to highlight the ugliness or ridiculousness of the entire world, not just of the protagonist characters.
CL: Order, the correct, extreme neatness all make me suspicious; when I encounter these models of perfection I incite my nose like a dog to sniff out the dark side. I like to check under the carpet to find the miseries we try to hide and when I work on this I do it from the perspective of tragicomedy; human beings are so inhabited by it... I suppose this anxiety translates into an aesthetic that finds its basis in sarcasm, irony, the abject and the grotesque.
GP: Is humor part of a desire for social satire, or could it be more of a mode of resistance for the characters facing the humiliations and adversity they suffer, a means of naturalizing their pathetic nature?
CL: Humor is the weapon of the weak, it’s the ace under the loser’s sleeve, which though it might not make him win the game, it at least allows him to face defeat without having to go to a bridge with a stone tied to his neck. When faced with power’s clamorous discourse, humor functions like the little men stabbing the ferocious and clumsy cyclops. In moments of unbearable pressure, humor serves as an escape. And yes, I like that idea of humor as resistance.
GP: The other big theme of the book seems to be love, which you sometimes catalog as an “…arduous compliance,” a power capable of “... turning us into the most pathetic beings.” Do you locate love in the opposite spectrum of those freeing impulses, such as humor? Is there a struggle between freedom and love?
CL: I don’t think love is the other big theme of the book; on the contrary, I think it’s the great absence, it’s the brutal lack. Precisely, the examples you chose speak of the lack of love for oneself: the characters in La culpa es del porno are desperate beings, beggars for affection, capable of submitting to embarrassing humiliations and deranged manipulations just to receive some attention, not even love, but attention. Now, we could talk about the presence of love from its absence, perhaps desire frustrated by what doesn’t exist, but I’m not interested in narrating conventional love relationships, it bores me to read and write about couples with traditional amorous conflicts (he leaves her, she wants to leave him, etcetera), I prefer to wander around, looking for the freak point in those conflicts. This is the source of the mechanization, fetishism, mania, tragicomedy that some of the characters in this book suffer.
GP: And up to what point can that insistence on the twisted, on the affected be read as a pursuit of originality, of the anecdote that stands out because of its intricacy? Or is it instead a wager for morbidity, for the narrator’s intrusion (and thus the reader’s) in the character’s intimate panorama?
CL: When you set off to tell a story you don’t think of wagers or pursuits. You simply obey that tickling that pushes you to narrate something. When you do it the fixations are brought to the surface, but that’s a matter for the meddlesome Freud or any one of his boys. At the moment I’m interested in narrating from the perspective of the twisted (I like that term), it’s alluring for me to enter that dark room of sordid, pathetic characters. Maybe in the future I’ll want to write stories about paranormal powers, maybe when I’m old I’ll find shelter in alchemy and I’ll end up narrating mystical nonsense. You never know.
GP: And what other projects occupy your interests? What’s next for Carolina Lozada?
CL: I have a little book called El cuarto del loco, in which I try to narrate from the perspective of being locked up, delirium and the absurd. I also continue to work on my Animales domésticos, a book of short stories that I’m constructing with situations and characters that are cornered by the paralyzing omnipotence of power, beings who are submitted to a schizophrenic reality. Those are the alleys I’m passing through at the moment.
{ Gabriel Payares, Prodavinci, 16 October 2013 }
Showing posts with label Gabriel Payares. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gabriel Payares. Show all posts
10.20.2013
9.27.2012
Gabriel Payares: “Nos hace falta más tragedia y menos épica” / Michelle Roche Rodríguez
Gabriel Payares: “We need more tragedy and less epic”
(Photo: Manuel Sardá)
Gabriel Payares was born in England 30 years ago and he left that country when he was 3 years old. Since then he’s never gone back. He fears that doing so he’ll feel as foreign as he does in Venezuela. This sensation of foreigness embellishes his literature and is also the narrative motive that guides “Epílogo: Londres, 1982,” the seventh short story in his most recent collection, Hotel (Editorial Puntocero).
A man’s life changes course like a ship at the mercy of sea winds, a phone call that reveals the turbulent relationship between Mariana and her family and the disappearance of a hotel guest are the themes of some of the stories from the book by the author of Cuando bajaron las aguas (2008). The rest of them end up drawing a fictional cartography of alienation, the awareness of vital cycles and the art of writing. Thus in one of them appears the image of a man who arrives in Buenos Aires to revisit the memory of the woman who left him; in another, the Nagasaki bomb is a metaphor of an affair between a professor and a student; and in the one titled “Samsara” —which in Sanskrit means “rebirth”— we are shown when a writer’s marriage is brought back together, which coincides with the expected illumination of his novel.
Exile, rebirth and reflection on writing itself are persistent themes in Hotel. How do these ideas relate to your previous book?
In Cuando bajaron las aguas, the battered, destroyed home as a source of suffering was the predominant image. I was obsessed with inheritances, what we receive without wanting it, and some of that’s also in this book, where I work the opposing figure: that of the hotel, which summarizes the character of the ephemeral and the other. The world is a transitory place; assuming this awakens the awareness of death.
The hotel, as a metaphor of a brief stay, can also define the short story. In what way are these vignettes related to your own experience?
The prime material of writing is the writer. Now, some of them are more centered in the construction of characters and others, with whom I identify, are moved by the idea. In each character I find the echo of the ideas that obsess me. In Hotel each short story responds to an idea and the materialization of the story in its setting. IN this way, the story is an artifact of reading, on the one hand allowing us to read the anecdote (to recreate the idea) and on the other to think about concepts (to reflect on it).
Where does your fascination for the lower half of the South American continent come from?
The melancholic view is more frequent there, which can be depressing, but it allows a different national consciousness to emerge. Venezuela could benefit from that, since its people would acquire a tragic consciousness. The vocation for reflection would help us avoid to continue repeating ourselves, trapped in the time of a whirlwind of the homeland. We need more tragedy and less epic.
How can literature contribute to this?
We Venezuelans like the spectacular and in our avidity for entertainment we have forgotten that the idea is to think of ourselves. The reinstitutionalization of the country, which is the only possible path for us to get out of this mire, includes a process of national reflection that is inescapable and that’s why it worries me to see that people often propose the arts as a spectacle.
{ Michelle Roche Rodríguez, El Nacional, 26 September 2012 }
(Photo: Manuel Sardá)
Gabriel Payares was born in England 30 years ago and he left that country when he was 3 years old. Since then he’s never gone back. He fears that doing so he’ll feel as foreign as he does in Venezuela. This sensation of foreigness embellishes his literature and is also the narrative motive that guides “Epílogo: Londres, 1982,” the seventh short story in his most recent collection, Hotel (Editorial Puntocero).
A man’s life changes course like a ship at the mercy of sea winds, a phone call that reveals the turbulent relationship between Mariana and her family and the disappearance of a hotel guest are the themes of some of the stories from the book by the author of Cuando bajaron las aguas (2008). The rest of them end up drawing a fictional cartography of alienation, the awareness of vital cycles and the art of writing. Thus in one of them appears the image of a man who arrives in Buenos Aires to revisit the memory of the woman who left him; in another, the Nagasaki bomb is a metaphor of an affair between a professor and a student; and in the one titled “Samsara” —which in Sanskrit means “rebirth”— we are shown when a writer’s marriage is brought back together, which coincides with the expected illumination of his novel.
Exile, rebirth and reflection on writing itself are persistent themes in Hotel. How do these ideas relate to your previous book?
In Cuando bajaron las aguas, the battered, destroyed home as a source of suffering was the predominant image. I was obsessed with inheritances, what we receive without wanting it, and some of that’s also in this book, where I work the opposing figure: that of the hotel, which summarizes the character of the ephemeral and the other. The world is a transitory place; assuming this awakens the awareness of death.
The hotel, as a metaphor of a brief stay, can also define the short story. In what way are these vignettes related to your own experience?
The prime material of writing is the writer. Now, some of them are more centered in the construction of characters and others, with whom I identify, are moved by the idea. In each character I find the echo of the ideas that obsess me. In Hotel each short story responds to an idea and the materialization of the story in its setting. IN this way, the story is an artifact of reading, on the one hand allowing us to read the anecdote (to recreate the idea) and on the other to think about concepts (to reflect on it).
Where does your fascination for the lower half of the South American continent come from?
The melancholic view is more frequent there, which can be depressing, but it allows a different national consciousness to emerge. Venezuela could benefit from that, since its people would acquire a tragic consciousness. The vocation for reflection would help us avoid to continue repeating ourselves, trapped in the time of a whirlwind of the homeland. We need more tragedy and less epic.
How can literature contribute to this?
We Venezuelans like the spectacular and in our avidity for entertainment we have forgotten that the idea is to think of ourselves. The reinstitutionalization of the country, which is the only possible path for us to get out of this mire, includes a process of national reflection that is inescapable and that’s why it worries me to see that people often propose the arts as a spectacle.
{ Michelle Roche Rodríguez, El Nacional, 26 September 2012 }
1.18.2012
Cita comentada: Miyó Vestrini / Gabriel Payares
Commented Citation: Miyó Vestrini
This citation by Vestrini invites me to a reflection. Maybe hers was a generation of frustrated people, as she herself says, because having had so much youth and such a wealth of literary groups, important names and revolutionary proposals of radical ideologies, in sum, a frenetic and abundant time period, the future with its drowsiness and its eternal crisis, its slow and opulent decomposition of the country and its institutions, would have represented for them the absolute confirmation of the failure of the optimists, the beginning of the era of the hopeless and cynical. Were that to be so, Miyó foresaw it, and she chose to commit suicide before languishing and becoming a fossil.
We, who today remember that “lost generation” as the inhabitants of a type of golden era or, at least, a prodigious and abundant time, are on the other hand a disconsolate generation, born of its own broken dreams and guided in life by the maxim that the latter is elsewhere. By nature desirous, we have been given the fate of witnessing how the country intends to return to its own empty shell, and how, within a panorama of grandiloquence and of the highest numbers of weekly murder rates, amid poverty and marginality and historic petroleum prices, it has been our place to know ourselves as foreigners, since every form of nationalism hides and involves –compensates– a galloping defamiliarization. Our Venezuela doesn’t belong, doesn’t apply, to anyone. We have a borrowed, portable, mobile country. We are the generation of the precipice, who look toward the future down below and with dread, while we dream with the wings of our ancestors that were broken.
“I don’t think our generation will ever mean anything, for anyone,” Miyó said, and today we’re surprised how wrong she was.
{ Gabriel Payares, Blog Caribe, 9 January 2012 }
“[The collectives of the 50s and 60s] were experiences full of vitality, that were never able to crystallize. We are a burnt-out, lost generation. A generation of frustrated people” (1976)
This citation by Vestrini invites me to a reflection. Maybe hers was a generation of frustrated people, as she herself says, because having had so much youth and such a wealth of literary groups, important names and revolutionary proposals of radical ideologies, in sum, a frenetic and abundant time period, the future with its drowsiness and its eternal crisis, its slow and opulent decomposition of the country and its institutions, would have represented for them the absolute confirmation of the failure of the optimists, the beginning of the era of the hopeless and cynical. Were that to be so, Miyó foresaw it, and she chose to commit suicide before languishing and becoming a fossil.
We, who today remember that “lost generation” as the inhabitants of a type of golden era or, at least, a prodigious and abundant time, are on the other hand a disconsolate generation, born of its own broken dreams and guided in life by the maxim that the latter is elsewhere. By nature desirous, we have been given the fate of witnessing how the country intends to return to its own empty shell, and how, within a panorama of grandiloquence and of the highest numbers of weekly murder rates, amid poverty and marginality and historic petroleum prices, it has been our place to know ourselves as foreigners, since every form of nationalism hides and involves –compensates– a galloping defamiliarization. Our Venezuela doesn’t belong, doesn’t apply, to anyone. We have a borrowed, portable, mobile country. We are the generation of the precipice, who look toward the future down below and with dread, while we dream with the wings of our ancestors that were broken.
“I don’t think our generation will ever mean anything, for anyone,” Miyó said, and today we’re surprised how wrong she was.
{ Gabriel Payares, Blog Caribe, 9 January 2012 }
11.20.2011
Las otras ruinas circulares / Gabriel Payares
The Other Circular Ruins

It’s always a discomfort to speak in generational terms: whoever does it runs the risk of raising a banner in the name of many. Which is why in the following lines I’ll try, in any case, to speak from a perspective that’s my own, singular and personal. I think that those of us who were born in the eighties were fated to begin writing surrounded mostly by ruins: those of a formal educational system, for example, that a long time ago lost its bearings and collapsed, in a frank and open demonstration of the scant interest Venezuelans take in the construction of their future generations; but also the ruins of a culture of citizenship, manifested in the post-apocalyptic aspect of our unloved cities, in our shameful political behavior or in the brutal quota of violence that day by day desensitizes us to death and suffering. A country in ruins, then, to reiterate the journalistic cliché. I’m afraid this won’t be a very hopeful reading.
But it’s not my intention to repeat here what everyone knows, rather to own that metaphor for a while: ruins are, at once, remembrance of an ancient project and totem of a future desire, and that is precisely the idea that governs our particular imaginary of home: since every moment in the past was always better, we’ve chosen to wait for it to magically repeat itself; we are the debtors of Bolívar’s cadaver, waiting for the instant when he’ll rise from his bicentennial tomb and rescue us. The term “ruin,” [ruina] on the other hand, contains the word “contemptible” [ruin], whose most obvious meaning is linked to a state of moral degradation, of evil, of vileness. And it isn’t accidental: our crisis, it has already been said quite frequently, is a profound moral crisis, which both film and literature have tried to echo, maybe not in the most effective manner. It’s enough to recall the films of the nineties, incapable of overcoming their surprise at the country’s growing marginal communities, or the literary production of more or less the same era, half obsessed with finding answers in national historical references, as in that branch of fiction that Luz Marina Rivas has baptized as “intrahistoric,” and likewise with the idea of reporting an increasingly coarse reality, perhaps as a strategy to digest it: to make it fit within a narrative, to summarize it, quantify it.
Whatever the case, the conclusion this leads to was already announced to us by the great Juan Liscano, when he affirmed that our creators have always succumbed to an imperative desire for realism, for an artist’s commitment to his corresponding historical moment, in frank detriment however of the deployment of his inner worlds. The exercise of fiction, it seems, constitutes in our country a form of cultured referentiality, and in obedience, quite often, to a political mandate that assumes the writer’s role is to raise the awareness of the masses, to “open their eyes” to reality, as if people were sleeping and expectant, waiting for an illuminated figure to point the way for them or speak as their representative. Seen in this manner, it is the literary equivalent of populism, whose most recent evolution proposes one write for a “basic” reader, one who is “down to earth” and “average,” like a reading for invalids, and which in many cases is merely an excuse to hide the scarce poetic projection of the whoever is writing. I think one should distrust whoever proposes a decaffeinated literature for vacations.
The critic Carlos Sandoval critiqued something similar in a recent edition of the Bienal Mariano Picón Salas prize, when he referred to the predominance, in our 21st century fiction, of proposals that are incapable of “...overcoming the anecdotal and descriptive.” Our fictional muscle, it seems, continues to be just as weak as before, despite the fact that the unbearable social crisis, to which a political crisis has been added, already has more popular figures that concern themselves with it, such as journalists and data analysts, political scientists or pollsters, and that historical discourse, which today resounds louder than ever, remains a territory for scholars of the field and historians. So what then is the role, the place of the writer today?
There’s more than one answer. For some it’s found under the lights and cameras, in hundreds of photos tagged on Facebook, new stars of the naked king, of the writer who never writes, or in interminable lists of blogs and web pages of varied and often contradictory poetic value. For others it’s found anchored in the idea of the city, in the description of urban surroundings like postmodern chroniclers of the Indies, determined to combat the worn out rural and epic discourse of the independence era with a paradoxical exaltation of our impoverished modernity. And for a very few the writer’s place is in the dark, struggling with language in order to attempt to create a world of one’s own, an “inner meadow” –as the cartoon character Miguelito by Quino would say– that will allow him to endure (or not) Venezuela’s crushing and autonomous reality. “More fiction and less realism” was also the diagnosis of the fiction writer from Trujillo Carolina Lozada, in a recent interview, worried about the myopia with which we seem to contemplate the task of writing, a myopia that gets worse with the deficit of specialized editors in the country and which moreover forgets that the commitment of every writer is first to fiction, to poetry, to finding the answers to life in a language that is his own and autonomous, as free as possible yet believable, by which I mean, with the production of keys that can interpret not only the country and the world, but also the self: the writer’s commitment should be profoundly subjective, and it should be a priority in his life.
Maybe for thinking in this manner it’s been my role to insist, maybe foolishly, stubbornly, stupidly even, in mistrusting the excessive celebratory eagerness to which we tend to be so disposed. The recent multiplication of young voices willing to enter into the field of writing should no doubt make us happy, but not so much as to affirm the existence of a boom, or much less of a golden age for our fiction, irresponsible affirmations that simply raise the bar beyond reach, sentencing us later to settling with what exists, since as our invisible friends say, “this is what we got.” A disservice, in my opinion, for those of us who have the hope of being read, and which ends up being more painful today, in the light of the implacable recession we suffer in the editorial world. Where are they now, the voices who sang about our unstoppable advance, our golden age, our editorial flowering? It ends up being ironic, what’s more, that we celebrate a realist literature without having our feet firmly on the ground, ignoring the fact that in literary matters, one, two or three books published are little more than the beginning of a career, and not the cusp and much less the goal, and that complacency, short cuts and immediacy, conditions so in tune with our sad idiosyncrasy, once again play, just as they do in other realms of experience, openly against us. Moral: we shouldn’t want to resuscitate, like voodoo priests, that better past that our abundant ruins accuse. The road lies, instead, in the demanding maturation of our incipient talents and excellence: if we never learned how to sow our petroleum, at least we should learn to cultivate patience. Cadenas has said it: “culture is a thing of patience.”
And in this sense, I would like to close by remembering what the good Ednodio Quintero was kind enough to share with me one day, a product of his readings of the Argentine César Aira: the samurai from Los Andes told me there are two ways to become a writer, which are: to publish first and then write, a strategy that guarantees a quick access to fame, or writing first and publishing later, by which you place your wager on the rigors of transcendence. And since it will be time that decides the wheat from the chaff, we should procure to keep our feet on the ground, and in the best of cases, and paraphrasing a famous Spanish painter, let time find us writing. Everything else, I’m afraid, is new illusions.
Thank you very much.
Text read at the Universidad de Carabobo, in the city of Valencia, by invitation from the Jornadas de Voz Creativa 2011.
{ Gabriel Payares, Blog Caribe, 18 November 2011 }

It’s always a discomfort to speak in generational terms: whoever does it runs the risk of raising a banner in the name of many. Which is why in the following lines I’ll try, in any case, to speak from a perspective that’s my own, singular and personal. I think that those of us who were born in the eighties were fated to begin writing surrounded mostly by ruins: those of a formal educational system, for example, that a long time ago lost its bearings and collapsed, in a frank and open demonstration of the scant interest Venezuelans take in the construction of their future generations; but also the ruins of a culture of citizenship, manifested in the post-apocalyptic aspect of our unloved cities, in our shameful political behavior or in the brutal quota of violence that day by day desensitizes us to death and suffering. A country in ruins, then, to reiterate the journalistic cliché. I’m afraid this won’t be a very hopeful reading.
But it’s not my intention to repeat here what everyone knows, rather to own that metaphor for a while: ruins are, at once, remembrance of an ancient project and totem of a future desire, and that is precisely the idea that governs our particular imaginary of home: since every moment in the past was always better, we’ve chosen to wait for it to magically repeat itself; we are the debtors of Bolívar’s cadaver, waiting for the instant when he’ll rise from his bicentennial tomb and rescue us. The term “ruin,” [ruina] on the other hand, contains the word “contemptible” [ruin], whose most obvious meaning is linked to a state of moral degradation, of evil, of vileness. And it isn’t accidental: our crisis, it has already been said quite frequently, is a profound moral crisis, which both film and literature have tried to echo, maybe not in the most effective manner. It’s enough to recall the films of the nineties, incapable of overcoming their surprise at the country’s growing marginal communities, or the literary production of more or less the same era, half obsessed with finding answers in national historical references, as in that branch of fiction that Luz Marina Rivas has baptized as “intrahistoric,” and likewise with the idea of reporting an increasingly coarse reality, perhaps as a strategy to digest it: to make it fit within a narrative, to summarize it, quantify it.
Whatever the case, the conclusion this leads to was already announced to us by the great Juan Liscano, when he affirmed that our creators have always succumbed to an imperative desire for realism, for an artist’s commitment to his corresponding historical moment, in frank detriment however of the deployment of his inner worlds. The exercise of fiction, it seems, constitutes in our country a form of cultured referentiality, and in obedience, quite often, to a political mandate that assumes the writer’s role is to raise the awareness of the masses, to “open their eyes” to reality, as if people were sleeping and expectant, waiting for an illuminated figure to point the way for them or speak as their representative. Seen in this manner, it is the literary equivalent of populism, whose most recent evolution proposes one write for a “basic” reader, one who is “down to earth” and “average,” like a reading for invalids, and which in many cases is merely an excuse to hide the scarce poetic projection of the whoever is writing. I think one should distrust whoever proposes a decaffeinated literature for vacations.
The critic Carlos Sandoval critiqued something similar in a recent edition of the Bienal Mariano Picón Salas prize, when he referred to the predominance, in our 21st century fiction, of proposals that are incapable of “...overcoming the anecdotal and descriptive.” Our fictional muscle, it seems, continues to be just as weak as before, despite the fact that the unbearable social crisis, to which a political crisis has been added, already has more popular figures that concern themselves with it, such as journalists and data analysts, political scientists or pollsters, and that historical discourse, which today resounds louder than ever, remains a territory for scholars of the field and historians. So what then is the role, the place of the writer today?
There’s more than one answer. For some it’s found under the lights and cameras, in hundreds of photos tagged on Facebook, new stars of the naked king, of the writer who never writes, or in interminable lists of blogs and web pages of varied and often contradictory poetic value. For others it’s found anchored in the idea of the city, in the description of urban surroundings like postmodern chroniclers of the Indies, determined to combat the worn out rural and epic discourse of the independence era with a paradoxical exaltation of our impoverished modernity. And for a very few the writer’s place is in the dark, struggling with language in order to attempt to create a world of one’s own, an “inner meadow” –as the cartoon character Miguelito by Quino would say– that will allow him to endure (or not) Venezuela’s crushing and autonomous reality. “More fiction and less realism” was also the diagnosis of the fiction writer from Trujillo Carolina Lozada, in a recent interview, worried about the myopia with which we seem to contemplate the task of writing, a myopia that gets worse with the deficit of specialized editors in the country and which moreover forgets that the commitment of every writer is first to fiction, to poetry, to finding the answers to life in a language that is his own and autonomous, as free as possible yet believable, by which I mean, with the production of keys that can interpret not only the country and the world, but also the self: the writer’s commitment should be profoundly subjective, and it should be a priority in his life.
Maybe for thinking in this manner it’s been my role to insist, maybe foolishly, stubbornly, stupidly even, in mistrusting the excessive celebratory eagerness to which we tend to be so disposed. The recent multiplication of young voices willing to enter into the field of writing should no doubt make us happy, but not so much as to affirm the existence of a boom, or much less of a golden age for our fiction, irresponsible affirmations that simply raise the bar beyond reach, sentencing us later to settling with what exists, since as our invisible friends say, “this is what we got.” A disservice, in my opinion, for those of us who have the hope of being read, and which ends up being more painful today, in the light of the implacable recession we suffer in the editorial world. Where are they now, the voices who sang about our unstoppable advance, our golden age, our editorial flowering? It ends up being ironic, what’s more, that we celebrate a realist literature without having our feet firmly on the ground, ignoring the fact that in literary matters, one, two or three books published are little more than the beginning of a career, and not the cusp and much less the goal, and that complacency, short cuts and immediacy, conditions so in tune with our sad idiosyncrasy, once again play, just as they do in other realms of experience, openly against us. Moral: we shouldn’t want to resuscitate, like voodoo priests, that better past that our abundant ruins accuse. The road lies, instead, in the demanding maturation of our incipient talents and excellence: if we never learned how to sow our petroleum, at least we should learn to cultivate patience. Cadenas has said it: “culture is a thing of patience.”
And in this sense, I would like to close by remembering what the good Ednodio Quintero was kind enough to share with me one day, a product of his readings of the Argentine César Aira: the samurai from Los Andes told me there are two ways to become a writer, which are: to publish first and then write, a strategy that guarantees a quick access to fame, or writing first and publishing later, by which you place your wager on the rigors of transcendence. And since it will be time that decides the wheat from the chaff, we should procure to keep our feet on the ground, and in the best of cases, and paraphrasing a famous Spanish painter, let time find us writing. Everything else, I’m afraid, is new illusions.
Thank you very much.
Text read at the Universidad de Carabobo, in the city of Valencia, by invitation from the Jornadas de Voz Creativa 2011.
{ Gabriel Payares, Blog Caribe, 18 November 2011 }
9.04.2011
“Quisimos ser voluntariamente críticos” / Gabriel Payares
“We wanted to be voluntarily critical”
Thirty years have gone by since the appearance of the literary group Tráfico and its “Sí, manifiesto,” one of the country’s last and most cited poetic and collective shouts, arising from the heart of a society made drowsy by petroleum money during the eighties. Armando Rojas Guardia, founding poet of the group, looks back and evaluates what was undoubtedly a fundamental poetic experience in Venezuela’s literary development.
Most of the approximations of the Tráfico group coincide in seeing it as an attempt to restore a critical will of the intellectual toward power, which was lost during the years of petroleum boom. “To make more sincere the poet’s relationship with Venezuela,” stated the group’s manifesto. How do you perceive that need today?
Exactly, we emerged as a group in a historical context where that critical disposition in the face of power had become rather feeble. La República del Este represented that feebleness for us, that unnatural fraternity of a certain left with Miraflores Palace. It was the symbol of everything we didn’t want for the intellectual, for the writer and, specifically, for the poet. Seen retrospectively, however, the manifesto is saturated with a messianic voluntarism. We postulated that the poet had to go out into the street and create, write and publish a type of poetry that would approximate the average Venezuelan, and we were guilty of overlooking the fact that the divorce between poetry and the majority of Venezuelans isn’t the fault of poets, but rather obeys structural causes of a political, social, cultural and economic type. So, the idea that the poet had to go out to the ghetto, to the army base, to the factory, to the public plaza, to the parks, today sound to me like that messianic voluntarism, as if the qualitative change represented by a new perception of the poetic phenomenon and the role of the poet in society depended on the exclusive will of poets.
So Black Friday and the debacle in Venezuelan democracy that began with it meant the confirmation of Tráfico’s complaints?
Of course. We were talking about the petroleum-based democracy, and in a certain way we were echoing what Arturo Uslar Pietri called “Balthazar’s feast,” that dance of the millions that materialized in the “That’s cheap, gimme two” attitude of the Miami-centric Venezuela and the urban middle class. Black Friday came to be the sign of alarm that the decadence had begun, that the feast, if it hadn’t ended, was about to end. We wanted to speak consciously and voluntarily from the urban middle class, but without identifying ourselves with the majority of their stereotypes and with a great deal of their mental universe. We wanted to be voluntarily critical regarding those stereotypes and that mental universe.
Do you think the “critical realism” Tráfico proposed is something outdated, or do your still consider it a necessary path in Venezuelan poetry?
Each thematic focus in poetry involves its own procedures. When I wrote La nada vigilante I faced an intra-psychic problem for whose treatment the procedures postulated by the manifesto were of no use to me. I wanted to write about a psychic block, I wanted to write the poem of the impossible poem, I wanted to write about the impossibility of writing. That involved a stylistic procedure that didn’t have anything to do with Tráfico. The ontologizing psychology of Rafael Cadenas, Juan Sánchez Peláez’s critique of the world’s apparent reality by means of the primordial images of poetic dream or the philosophical-aesthetic preoccupations of Alfredo Silva Estrada, for example, require their own stylistic procedures that have nothing to do with what is postulated in the manifesto. In that sense, the wager for critical realism seems valid as an option to choose; the manifesto erected it as the only one possible and in that sense it’s a dogmatic and fanatical affirmation. Miguel Márquez has just made, in his latest book, Poemas de la Independencia y del escarnio, a stylistic experiment that hadn’t ever been done before in Venezuela and for which I can only remember as an antecedent a book by Ernesto Cardenal, El estrecho dudoso. Miguel takes historical texts and chronicles from the period of Independence and subjects them to a musical rhythmic treatment that places them in new dimensions, in the same manner as Cardenal takes some texts from the chroniclers of the West Indies: Fernández de Oviedo, Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Bartolomé de las Casas, and obtains from them a distinctly poetic value. This experiment is inscribed within a type of critical realism that’s perfectly valid as an option, but not as the only legitimate one. In poetry, as in literature and social life, the plural game of options must have the final word.
So, did the experience of Tráfico stray in its subsequent writing journey?
Well, Yolanda Pantin was telling me a few weeks ago over the phone that all the poetry those of us from Tráfico make at this moment has nothing to do with what we postulated in the manifesto, except, of course, Miguel’s. I’m not sure that’s true. Igor Barreto’s poetry is one that maintains a surprising fidelity, in its procedures and in its style, to what was pointed out in the manifesto. I myself couldn’t have written a poem like “La desnudez del loco” without having passed through Tráfico. The collage technique I learned in Solentiname studying Pound –because every afternoon after five hours of manual labor in Solentiname I would devote myself to studying the collage technique Pound uses in The Cantos, or that T.S. Eliot uses in “The Waste Land,” or that Robert Lowell uses in his poetry–, I later applied to some of what I consider to be my best poetic texts. The same thing happens with the revaluing, which we claimed, of narrativity and in consequence of the anecdote; facing the mostly abstract, quintessential and impersonal poetry that was being written and published in the country, we felt that one of the specific means of bringing back to Venezuelan poetry an existentialism and committed and explicit subjectivity consisted in returning to narrativity, preferably autobiographical. Although it’s a poem written after Tráfico had already disappeared, “Retén judicial,” that text of mine included in Patria y otros poemas, carries the narrative imprint of the group’s poetry. We always acknowledged a slender but true tradition in what we were proposing at the time: the poetry of Víctor Valera Mora and the one represented in Copa de huesos by Caupolicán Ovalles and, to a degree, also in Oh smog and Ciudadanos sin fin by Juan Calzadilla. Likewise, we felt an affinity for the Alejandro Oliveros of El sonido de la casa, for Blas Perozo Naveda, William Osuna and the more narrative poems of Enrique Hernández-D'Jesús. As for Latin American poetry in general, we perceived ourselves as being very close to creators like Ernesto Cardenal, José Coronel Urtecho, Juan Gelman, Antonio Cisneros, Rodolfo Hinostroza, Mario Rivero, Jotamario Arbeláez, Luis Rogelio Noguera: all of them elaborate a poetry with room for local dialects, first names, colloquial turns, conversational diction, the incorporation of conventionally non-poetic elements in lyrical discourse, the first person singular, aesthetically calculated prose, the narrative. In the same way, we recognized the teaching represented by the so-called Spanish “poetry of experience,” whose greatest exponent was Jaime Gil de Biedma.
And what happened, as you see it, to the legacy of Tráfico in the subsequent collectives and poetic tendencies?
I’ve been leading poetry workshops on a weekly basis for eight years, I’m currently teaching three of them at once and I’m in touch with a good part of what young poets write and publish in the country. I wouldn’t say that Tráfico constitutes the fundamental reference point in the work of these poets; but it’s undoubtedly an important one in their mental map. In our effort to reconnect the poet with the audience, and in that sense to give poetry a new social dimension, in Tráfico we wanted to renovate readings. The poetry reading is today a currency widely in use, something that didn’t happen in the beginning of the eighties, when it was looked down upon, considered something for patron saint festivals, for high school cultural events and it was associated with declamatory affectation; so that we proposed to resuscitate that practice for the purpose of a new connection for the poet with the audience. Another undeniable conquest by Tráfico was its insistence on a poetry that would rescue the historical and the quotidian, the collective macro-history and the individual and existential micro-history of man in his daily life. We felt that the poetic orb within modern poetry where these elements were most explicitly displayed was that of American poetry. And if today poets venture into those themes, and even more if people are studying American poetry with new eyes, all that is due to Tráfico. Collections of excellent aesthetic quality such as Harry Almela’s La patria forajida and Armadura de piedra by Edda Armas, in which the country’s historical present stirs, I don’t think these are conceivable without the experience of Tráfico having acted on their creators at least as a mental reference point. And if we focus on what the youngest ones are writing, the extraordinary homoerotic poetry of Alejandro Castro, his irreverent ease, his wise and subversive irony, within which the urban atmosphere is a tacit but also an overwhelming presence, this isn’t explainable without the antecedent of Tráfico. The same can be said of the political and urban code in the marvelous poem called “Sexto mandamiento,” by Leonardo González Alcalá.
{ Gabriel Payares, Papel Literario, El Nacional, 9 July 2011 }
Thirty years have gone by since the appearance of the literary group Tráfico and its “Sí, manifiesto,” one of the country’s last and most cited poetic and collective shouts, arising from the heart of a society made drowsy by petroleum money during the eighties. Armando Rojas Guardia, founding poet of the group, looks back and evaluates what was undoubtedly a fundamental poetic experience in Venezuela’s literary development.
Most of the approximations of the Tráfico group coincide in seeing it as an attempt to restore a critical will of the intellectual toward power, which was lost during the years of petroleum boom. “To make more sincere the poet’s relationship with Venezuela,” stated the group’s manifesto. How do you perceive that need today?
Exactly, we emerged as a group in a historical context where that critical disposition in the face of power had become rather feeble. La República del Este represented that feebleness for us, that unnatural fraternity of a certain left with Miraflores Palace. It was the symbol of everything we didn’t want for the intellectual, for the writer and, specifically, for the poet. Seen retrospectively, however, the manifesto is saturated with a messianic voluntarism. We postulated that the poet had to go out into the street and create, write and publish a type of poetry that would approximate the average Venezuelan, and we were guilty of overlooking the fact that the divorce between poetry and the majority of Venezuelans isn’t the fault of poets, but rather obeys structural causes of a political, social, cultural and economic type. So, the idea that the poet had to go out to the ghetto, to the army base, to the factory, to the public plaza, to the parks, today sound to me like that messianic voluntarism, as if the qualitative change represented by a new perception of the poetic phenomenon and the role of the poet in society depended on the exclusive will of poets.
So Black Friday and the debacle in Venezuelan democracy that began with it meant the confirmation of Tráfico’s complaints?
Of course. We were talking about the petroleum-based democracy, and in a certain way we were echoing what Arturo Uslar Pietri called “Balthazar’s feast,” that dance of the millions that materialized in the “That’s cheap, gimme two” attitude of the Miami-centric Venezuela and the urban middle class. Black Friday came to be the sign of alarm that the decadence had begun, that the feast, if it hadn’t ended, was about to end. We wanted to speak consciously and voluntarily from the urban middle class, but without identifying ourselves with the majority of their stereotypes and with a great deal of their mental universe. We wanted to be voluntarily critical regarding those stereotypes and that mental universe.
Do you think the “critical realism” Tráfico proposed is something outdated, or do your still consider it a necessary path in Venezuelan poetry?
Each thematic focus in poetry involves its own procedures. When I wrote La nada vigilante I faced an intra-psychic problem for whose treatment the procedures postulated by the manifesto were of no use to me. I wanted to write about a psychic block, I wanted to write the poem of the impossible poem, I wanted to write about the impossibility of writing. That involved a stylistic procedure that didn’t have anything to do with Tráfico. The ontologizing psychology of Rafael Cadenas, Juan Sánchez Peláez’s critique of the world’s apparent reality by means of the primordial images of poetic dream or the philosophical-aesthetic preoccupations of Alfredo Silva Estrada, for example, require their own stylistic procedures that have nothing to do with what is postulated in the manifesto. In that sense, the wager for critical realism seems valid as an option to choose; the manifesto erected it as the only one possible and in that sense it’s a dogmatic and fanatical affirmation. Miguel Márquez has just made, in his latest book, Poemas de la Independencia y del escarnio, a stylistic experiment that hadn’t ever been done before in Venezuela and for which I can only remember as an antecedent a book by Ernesto Cardenal, El estrecho dudoso. Miguel takes historical texts and chronicles from the period of Independence and subjects them to a musical rhythmic treatment that places them in new dimensions, in the same manner as Cardenal takes some texts from the chroniclers of the West Indies: Fernández de Oviedo, Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Bartolomé de las Casas, and obtains from them a distinctly poetic value. This experiment is inscribed within a type of critical realism that’s perfectly valid as an option, but not as the only legitimate one. In poetry, as in literature and social life, the plural game of options must have the final word.
So, did the experience of Tráfico stray in its subsequent writing journey?
Well, Yolanda Pantin was telling me a few weeks ago over the phone that all the poetry those of us from Tráfico make at this moment has nothing to do with what we postulated in the manifesto, except, of course, Miguel’s. I’m not sure that’s true. Igor Barreto’s poetry is one that maintains a surprising fidelity, in its procedures and in its style, to what was pointed out in the manifesto. I myself couldn’t have written a poem like “La desnudez del loco” without having passed through Tráfico. The collage technique I learned in Solentiname studying Pound –because every afternoon after five hours of manual labor in Solentiname I would devote myself to studying the collage technique Pound uses in The Cantos, or that T.S. Eliot uses in “The Waste Land,” or that Robert Lowell uses in his poetry–, I later applied to some of what I consider to be my best poetic texts. The same thing happens with the revaluing, which we claimed, of narrativity and in consequence of the anecdote; facing the mostly abstract, quintessential and impersonal poetry that was being written and published in the country, we felt that one of the specific means of bringing back to Venezuelan poetry an existentialism and committed and explicit subjectivity consisted in returning to narrativity, preferably autobiographical. Although it’s a poem written after Tráfico had already disappeared, “Retén judicial,” that text of mine included in Patria y otros poemas, carries the narrative imprint of the group’s poetry. We always acknowledged a slender but true tradition in what we were proposing at the time: the poetry of Víctor Valera Mora and the one represented in Copa de huesos by Caupolicán Ovalles and, to a degree, also in Oh smog and Ciudadanos sin fin by Juan Calzadilla. Likewise, we felt an affinity for the Alejandro Oliveros of El sonido de la casa, for Blas Perozo Naveda, William Osuna and the more narrative poems of Enrique Hernández-D'Jesús. As for Latin American poetry in general, we perceived ourselves as being very close to creators like Ernesto Cardenal, José Coronel Urtecho, Juan Gelman, Antonio Cisneros, Rodolfo Hinostroza, Mario Rivero, Jotamario Arbeláez, Luis Rogelio Noguera: all of them elaborate a poetry with room for local dialects, first names, colloquial turns, conversational diction, the incorporation of conventionally non-poetic elements in lyrical discourse, the first person singular, aesthetically calculated prose, the narrative. In the same way, we recognized the teaching represented by the so-called Spanish “poetry of experience,” whose greatest exponent was Jaime Gil de Biedma.
And what happened, as you see it, to the legacy of Tráfico in the subsequent collectives and poetic tendencies?
I’ve been leading poetry workshops on a weekly basis for eight years, I’m currently teaching three of them at once and I’m in touch with a good part of what young poets write and publish in the country. I wouldn’t say that Tráfico constitutes the fundamental reference point in the work of these poets; but it’s undoubtedly an important one in their mental map. In our effort to reconnect the poet with the audience, and in that sense to give poetry a new social dimension, in Tráfico we wanted to renovate readings. The poetry reading is today a currency widely in use, something that didn’t happen in the beginning of the eighties, when it was looked down upon, considered something for patron saint festivals, for high school cultural events and it was associated with declamatory affectation; so that we proposed to resuscitate that practice for the purpose of a new connection for the poet with the audience. Another undeniable conquest by Tráfico was its insistence on a poetry that would rescue the historical and the quotidian, the collective macro-history and the individual and existential micro-history of man in his daily life. We felt that the poetic orb within modern poetry where these elements were most explicitly displayed was that of American poetry. And if today poets venture into those themes, and even more if people are studying American poetry with new eyes, all that is due to Tráfico. Collections of excellent aesthetic quality such as Harry Almela’s La patria forajida and Armadura de piedra by Edda Armas, in which the country’s historical present stirs, I don’t think these are conceivable without the experience of Tráfico having acted on their creators at least as a mental reference point. And if we focus on what the youngest ones are writing, the extraordinary homoerotic poetry of Alejandro Castro, his irreverent ease, his wise and subversive irony, within which the urban atmosphere is a tacit but also an overwhelming presence, this isn’t explainable without the antecedent of Tráfico. The same can be said of the political and urban code in the marvelous poem called “Sexto mandamiento,” by Leonardo González Alcalá.
{ Gabriel Payares, Papel Literario, El Nacional, 9 July 2011 }
8.08.2011
Nagasaki (en el corazón) / Gabriel Payares
Nagasaki (In the Heart)
for Ednodio Quintero
Man lives everything all at once, for the first time, and without preparation. As if an actor were playing his role in the show without any type of rehearsal. But what value can life have if the first rehearsal for living is life itself?
MILAN KUNDERA
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
This would never have been the city I would have chosen for my old age. If some emissary of destiny had consulted me about the matter, my finger would have pointed without hesitation to the East, to distant cities in an improbable country, to places where being a foreigner and reaching maturity are, at the end of the day, indistinguishable conditions. I feel a sincere mistrust toward cities such as this one, built on the constant memory of the fall; a city where you wander with the sensation that any unexpected stumble could mean violently rolling toward hell, without anything to prevent the body from falling like a boulder. This vertigo is surely the source of the confident way of walking of those born in these mountains: they grip the asphalt closely with each step and never look back –below– unless they’ve reached their destination. Only then do they allow themselves a quick glance toward the abyss. And it’s just that their eyes, fixed on the ground, don’t seem made for looking toward the sun, but instead toward their own shadow on the earth that feeds them, the same one that will eventually receive them in its arms.
Though I inhabit my own exile amidst them, the product of bad decisions taken in even worse moments, I don’t tend to really complain too much: I’ve always been able to abandon these steep corners with the frequency and impetus of the moment, with that gesture of a human boomerang that for years pursues a distant homeland and doesn’t manage to return with anything save a few postcards and a couple rolls of film. And in the end you grow tired of betting everything on the debauchery of the trip; I often ask myself if homeland might not just be that soft ground in which it hurts the least to grow our final roots, and home the place you choose to welcome death. My problem is that I’m a descendant of a much warmer lineage than this one, conceived during the restless galloping of the plains, among distances measured with the wind and a father who would predict the drizzle with just a glimpse of the vultures in the distance. I come from a family that raised other people’s horses. I preferred to teach literature.
My classes are the only thing that give me oxygen from day to day. The passion and curiosity that once threw me headfirst into reading have been dying over the years until becoming soft embers: ideal for cooking and digesting, but of a barely notorious presence. My students, on the other hand, semester after semester exhibit the sterile flame that characterizes one’s twenties, that time when males pursue thoughtlessness and women a substitute father whose heart they might destroy. And literature, that odious and untouchable object, at once serpent and charmer, is the site from which I contemplate their epidermic passions, with a mixture of desires and emotions that I’ve preferred to think of as envy. I continue to be amazed, year after year, by the nearly identical reaction I obtain from them when reading certain poets, almost always the same ones: Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Ramos Sucre. Always those three, in any order. Kids are exceedingly enthused by the suffering of the figure of the poet, the daring their verses display and the tragic fate that awaits them. They love death, an abstract concept without any real ties to their existence, and they name it in nearly all their final essays. I wish you could maintain that romantic vision of fate throughout life, instead of this blind panic at the disappearance of the senses.
In class I often explain that life, were it not for memory, would barely be a brief alternative to emptiness: each daybreak would always be the last, but each verse we read would always be the first. My students pretend to understand, they nod and wrinkle their brows; but I know you need a great deal of mastery in the art of losing to understand the deceitful web of memory: what Dalí saw in melted clocks, a ductile and deceitful time that promises to leave us eternally in our own and same point of departure. We’re terrified, deep down, that death might be the only memory impossible to formulate; we’re terrified that we can’t even dream it.
“But poets can, professor,” her voice interrupts me and I direct my glance to the end of the classroom, stumbling on her face for the first time. It’s not hard, doing so: each classroom holds about thirty different kids and I’m in charge of three simultaneous courses. But among the ninety or so students that year, none has given me the first impression she does, nor has anyone ever known how to answer anything, besides repeating what I said minutes before, or at most asking impudent and insistent questions, which must be pulled out from the roots in order to proceed with the seeding and plowing. Maybe it’s my own foreignness, reflected in her citrine factions or in her elongated eyes and vowels, that immediately seduces me about her; something in her gestures seems to invite me to play, a certain ingenuousness that has already abandoned its larval stage, a pupa of future perversions, and offers itself to me with an air that is irreverent and sweet at the same time, like an angry grimace in a declaration of love. Or maybe it’s her eagerness for recognition, a veiled promise of another type of seduction. I don’t know. I immediately assent, not knowing if I’m supporting her intervention or my own ruminations, and with the cruel determination power endows I ask her to share with the class some example of what she’s saying. My inquisitorial tone intimidates her, she doesn’t know whether to back down or wave a banner. She finally traces a line in the sand: she timidly names Ramos Sucre. That would have been the appropriate instant for agreeing with her with a condescending gesture and letting her run like rain. But no: I prefer to indulge myself and contradict her for long enough to get her excited about writing a final essay on the poet from Cumaná. I tell her, as a game, that if she manages to convince me about her point she’ll get the highest grade; but otherwise she’ll have to retake my class. She accepts without a pause. I understand, looking back at the moment, that she does this under the impulse of some secret and Artemisal instance, an inner voice that convinces her she can’t lose in this wager, that it’s a game of fools, won at the very instant I formulate it.
And that’s how things happen, with a subtle violence we both seem to propitiate. Although precarious, my command of her tongue is sufficient to initiate a game of mirrors: translation implies knowing how to reflect oneself in the other and both of us seem very willing to peek into the opposite corner. A couple of timid conversations, under the excuse of coffee, leave the panorama sufficiently open for us. But reluctant to interpret the unpleasant role of a Lolita, we keep our lips as free of chalk as possible. Our encounters occur far from the academy, vertiginously sheltered in the excuse of chance and the small city, until they become nights that close in a spiral, as if spinning, falling toward my apartment and my bed.
Within a few days, her company becomes notably pleasing: she never asks about my divorce, although she often imprisons the mark of the ring on my finger between her teeth, nor does she allude to the faces on my few photo frames, despite the fact that many of them are roughly her age. I let her wander through my memory with the delicacy of a cat, indifferent to everything except my vocation for the Far East, a trait that soon becomes evident in my disorganized library and at times seems to call her attention. While she browses the bookshelves, briefly checking out one book or another with the air of confidence recognition brings, I ask myself if some of those names make her feel more at home perhaps, if her parents might have named one of them during dinner or if they read their last names aloud in the newspaper. But I don’t dare ask; youth always carries its homeland between its legs. In any case I prefer to contemplate her path with discretion, entertaining myself with her air similar to arrogance, a respect like that of the conqueror who inspects aboriginal ruins. I’m grateful for that silence to a certain degree, the false side of the coin, because it provides me with additional time for the memory: that time she still has plenty of, since she still has too many memories left to build.
We ignore each other during the day, so far from the other that her nocturnal visits seem to be the echo of fortunate dreams. And though I never dare attempt it, I have the constant sensation that the slightest gesture of indiscretion on my part would unleash a wrathful response from her, who knows if even some type of public denunciation for harassment; as if the day erased in her the naked traces of the previous night in my parquet. Her interventions in class continue, likewise, discreet and distant, playing to perfection her role of star student; sometimes I have the impression she is two completely different people. Everything about her is peculiar: she hardly shows any interest in luxury and the experiences it might be able to offer her, closed off to the perspective of traveling or going out together beyond our nocturnal hunts, or even to receiving gifts other than books or some minor detail. I’m also baffled by the absence of a young and jealous boyfriend who might make our romance difficult: after all she’s an attractive girl, endowed with an unusual beauty, contrary to the voluptuousness of the tropics; but a solitary girl above all, whom I never see forming part of a group, or involved in parties, or establishing any type of lasting connections. One would say she knows she’s transitory, indisposed to allowing herself to lay anchor among us.
As the days pass, however, her barriers give way, almost imperceptibly showing me softer zones, with the same urge of the bee that has stuck its stinger and runs the risk of tearing its own belly if it tries to fly off. Too old to not realize it, I leave the dagger at the bottom of my pocket, certain that she’ll be the one who’ll try to plunge it in first: sooner or later she’ll know who I am and where I come from, why I suffer and with what ghosts I speak while I sleep; sooner or later she will have conquered everything and she’ll grow bored with lending me her body. I know very well seduction consists in maintaining a shadow of mystery in what you reveal, in withholding a little from everything you give so as to keep the other waiting for the missing crumb; because ignorance is conducive to love as much as understanding mutilates it. But even though when you reach your fifties you resign yourself to occupying your place in the world and abandoning the youthful anxiety to resonate within it like a giant tuning fork, there are things within you that never lose their primitive force: a youthful and voluptuous glance is not something you’ll renounce without a sincere moment of doubt. So I decide to await the sword thrust; I decide to let myself be stabbed.
Abundant excursions in the world of lovers taught me to pay close attention to the minutes after sex. That pause in the fury of the senses contains the exhausted serenity of the re-encounter: with your body, with your own dimensions, with the hoarse silence of breathing. And in contrast to my usual drowsiness, she prefers to talk, almost as if something stuck in her belly has been liberated during the orgasm. Hypnotized by the scent we leave in each other, again and again I accept the distracted role of the listener: I accompany her to a childhood of wretched frustrations, to a violent relationship with a pusillanimous and manipulative father, to a painful and abusive first time at the hands of a much older cousin, silenced by the irrational fear of disgrace. Finally, she tells me about her unfinished studies in modern languages, a bridge toward a fellowship fallen from the sky to study Spanish abroad. There’s something of Ulysses in her hairless body, a certain hardening that makes me ask myself if I’ll be Calypso or Polyphemus when the adventure comes to an end. Regardless, I listen to her inventory as if through the little door of a submarine: I’ve heard it all before, in so many different faces. If people knew how similar our lives are, how indistinct we can become after a few years, like similar waves succeeding each other in a pond, sooner or later they’d reach the same exact conclusions: there are no good or bad initiations, but there are first and second times, and the only thing that can mediate between one and the other is the sieve of memory. That’s why old age consists of repetitions: memories of memories, anecdotes told over and over. A long life is like an enormous cavern: everything echoes inside it. Finally, her tale interrupts itself in search of the appropriate word and stops, excusing itself with the furious grammar of Spanish. As for me, I limit myself to assenting in silence. Soon she catches that silence.
I convince her to have dinner at my house on the following weekend. I like the idea of making her try new flavors, of silent recipes that come to mind murmured by my mother on Sundays, the only day her six children shared the house and her attentions. What remains of my mother are the seasonings and the rough skin of the plains, and at most a couple photos chewed by mice; taking a portrait, in those days, was still something exclusively for the rich. And for those of us who grew up without the support of the shutter, without being able to hold on to fragments from life, memory turns out to be a form of evanescence, a ghost you can’t depend on: faces and details blur over time, until they barely leave in their place ideas and sensations, weak erasures of the absent. Young people, on the other hand, lack this defect: they came to the world to register everything on their cell phones, to own everything that happens as if the real had always belonged to them. Eternally hungry, they’ve been promised the whole world: one so big their lives won’t be long enough to even dream it all. I doubt, for example, that my foreign lover can even imagine the place where I grew up; and that’s assuming she could understand the words I need to describe it. Not everything, as we can see, can really be shared.
Guessing my reflections, that same night she gives me the story of her most recent nightmares: she imagines herself abandoned in the inner patio of some prison or fort, perhaps an ancient deserted monastery, invaded by an invisible terror in the pit of her stomach. And though she claims to be fully conscious during the dream, constantly repeating this to herself, she isn’t able to wake up until she discovers a giant wave approaching in the distance. I listen to her with my brow furrowed, but there’s not much I can tell her; in any case, she seems preoccupied with starting each day with the same foggy sensation of disaster. She says she is suspicious of the imposing heights that surround the city: her own, she explains, rests on a coastal plain, with cordial hills like the size of her breasts, quite far from the fury of the sharpened Andean peaks. I ask her if she misses seeing the horizon, free from the green walls that prevent her from doing so, and she agrees placing both hands on her chest and directly assuming, for the first time since we’ve been together, her already evident condition of being a foreigner: “Nagasaki is always in the heart.”
Nagasaki: the four syllables of that name so distant and so well-known, so mine and so hers at the same time, repeat themselves in my lips with indifference, quick despite their consonants. Na-ga-sa-ki, just four syllables, enough to evoke an entire city I simultaneously know and don’t know, like a naked woman under my sheets: a girl engendered in horror. I ask her in a whisper to repeat that name –her name, from now on–, as if it were some spell or prayer known only by those raised in the scars of the world. And at that instant from her lips surge entire generations born of that flapping of butterfly wings: litters of children baptized with the ashes of their ancestors, raised looking toward the sky with mistrust; entire families marked from within, having more and more children deformed like mummies, living in a ruined city, a home that others give to them already broken. That name unleashes a fever within me, perhaps infected by some millenary curse locked in its round consonants, Na-ga-sa-ki, a word repeated by the children of impoverished Africa, by 15-year-old Vietnamese girls holding their babies to their chest to stop them from seeing the face of death, by men resigned to sleeping in cattle trains or in hermetically-sealed trucks loaded with families suffering the horror of a border, by the wind in small villages devastated by the fire of conquest; always the same word, spoken from the beginning of time, in primitive languages, in mournful howls, in the exhausted silence of the cemetery. Nagasaki: four syllables repeating themselves in the mouth of those who perish, a few sounds to name human cruelty. Noticing the total confusion her look professes, I’m barely able to mutter a few sweaty apologies. Her home has become a nightmare in me; her nostalgia, my violent shame. Two sides of the coin.
I explain there hasn’t been a more cruel gesture in the history of humanity than that second atomic bomb, dropped just three days after the first nuclear massacre ever was perpetrated. But if Hiroshima meant the awakening of humanity to its own moral failure, like a child who opens his eyes for the first time, Nagasaki then was its first blink, its first moment of doubt, first repetition of a mistake already made, of a nightmare that recurs from then on and consequently its greatest sentence of eternity. Were the horror and shame of the first detonation not warning enough, so as to prevent the second one at all costs? Fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice, shame on me, goes an English proverb, since reiterating mistakes is the most human of all traits. Nagasaki is at once a human gesture par excellence and a total failure of the moral existence of mankind: the second chance wasted, the reprise that allows itself to happen so as to stupidly repeat the first. Nagasaki is the negation of experience and apprenticeship: it is what we decide to relive. Good and bad intentions don’t exist; only first and second chances.
I’m about to retract my words, ashamed, sure that I’ve brutally trampled the sensible fibers of her native land, when she merely shrugs her shoulders. The atomic bomb and its horrors belong to a remote past, a life she not only didn’t live, doesn’t remember and doesn’t understand, but also one she probably knows through the same photographs as me. And with that gesture I confirm the abyss that unites and separates us: we are, at the core, just as foreign to each other, both of us from an alien world; lost adventurers, like Gulliver, in a completely unrecognizable world. With just two phrases, she avoids the topic at full speed, something she manages to do without much effort: a small grimace, a barely perceptible movement of her face are enough for her to awaken in me the parts made drowsy by the horrendous panorama of the bomb, and in a few moments my lips silence the possible responses from hers. I let her do it, abandoning myself to her as always. Nagasaki falls asleep amidst damp sheets.
Now I understand that we’ve associated our women and cities for a specific reason. Determined for the world to go into decline and die like us, we’ve wanted to see the aging of the former in the decadence of the latter; that’s why each new generation has a better city to remember in its childhood, and a reality that’s a little sadder to live: nations are founded in the shadow of their own nostalgia. The ruins of the bombing for which we were born too late, the war in which we didn’t participate, the economic debacle we never witnessed, everything we missed without knowing it and which occurred before we did, denies our memory of a lost paradise, of the better time it sealed: the Garden of Eden is barely someone else’s memory, a loan, an impossible inheritance that dies with our parents. And home, then, is that place where we play at repeating their gestures: we have descendants, we offer them a world and we tell them how it’s barely the shadow of what we were given. “You got here late,” is the welcome we give them.
Doubting, at that instant, the sincerity of her ignorance, I insist on discovering the details my student forgets, in asserting others I’m unaware of and asking about the many I’m already clear about: I’ve never been to Nagasaki, but there are masks of eloquence. Something unhealthy in me, I now realize, wanted to take her by the skin and chest and open her up, like a leather sack or a child’s lunchbox, and stretch her out on the same bed in which moments before I had crumbled grunting between her thighs. But my odd games soon disconcert her, or bore or intimidate her, I don’t know what’s worse, and from that point on she measures her answers, pretending to forget certain words or to not understand my questions about her country, her parents, her grandparents charred in a fraction of a second. She denies me her home, and with it the possibility of repeating it in others like her: she wants to be unique, all of them want it. Spanish, she says as an excuse, is an irregular and capricious language, and my accent is quick and serpentine. I acknowledge she’s right, even though I don’t believe a word she says.
Thus we submerge ourselves in a prolonged state of mourning from which neither of us is able to gain an advantage: the fearlessness of youth compensates for the calm cynicism of maturity, which lets one glimpse much stronger blows in the past. Assuming that sensual combat, I postpone for as long as possible the instant of giving in to her lean and ferocious flesh, to her bony hands as if made of wood; I know very well once I’m inside her my resistance won’t last long, and that the only thing left for the vanquished is the honor of a long battle offered. And yet, the Cold War doesn’t last too long: a few days later she disappears, without explanation, from my class and my bed and from all our places in common. She doesn’t answer my calls or my messages, as though she had never existed. And after a couple days of patience, I resent her silence in silence.
But there’s little I can do, besides abandoning the classroom each day looking back over my shoulder, like Lot’s wife, fearing I’ll leave her forgotten face amid the crowd. And it seems as though what’s been lived is made to be seen in this manner, like someone who flees from a beast that pursues him and he twists his neck to make sure he still keeps a certain distance between them. Finally, already defeated, I ask her classmates about her, disguising my interest as mere academic preoccupation, and they respond vaguely, evasive, parricidal accomplices whom I start to hate immediately. How many of them know about what I thought was a secret between us? How many laugh, behind my back, about the emptiness my questions reveal? The worst tortures, however, are inflicted by my own hands: day and night I imagine her in younger, fiercer arms, that make make mine seem like weak and emaciated bundles in comparison; and though the frown of jealousy is present at every thought, at every suspicion, little by little routine imposes itself again.
I’ve given her up for good, when one afternoon she knocks on my door, hidden behind the enormous eye of an instant camera. I observe her for a few moments, hidden behind the peephole, tempted to leave her out there and in that way enact a stupid vengeance. But acknowledgment has its own laws: the two cyclops smile at each other. I let her in without saying a word and she steals a few playful portraits with the Polaroid. I don’t know whether to welcome her, like the prodigal son, or if I should try to demand some explanation; I opt to smile in silence. “They’re so I can take you home with me,” she responds to my surprise at the unexpected gesture of possession. I ask her who she plans on showing them to, and she says there’s no one awaiting her return. So then I ask her for the camera and we switch roles for a few moments: there’s no doubt this was her true intention, to be photographed. She came to leave me her portraits, to endure in my memory and to say goodbye. She wants to be the only one, just like all of them do.
Her first portraits are lugubrious and distant, as though she had suddenly been left without batteries; so I turn my attention to other parts of her body: strong white thighs, breasts barely noticeable beneath the blouse or a neck dotted with red freckles, until I finally convince her to model for me. Initially with timid poses, full of smiles and adolescent expressions, or false gestures of seduction. I let her exaggerate at will, since only a few clicks of the machine are enough to reach the living light inside her: a nipple hidden between the fabric, a glimpse of her pubic hair or a completely naked back. Her body is offered to me in pieces, and the plastic squares that contain them flutter around us, falling onto the pieces of her clothing on the ground. I imagine her like a naked tree, prostrate on her knees, staring at my only open eye while her hands rise to liberate my sex. The image is nearly religious. The camera functions at full speed, and I photograph her devouring me, given over to her cannibal caresses until she extracts the last drop from me. She rises licking her lips while I collapse, now a felled tree, and then, victorious, she announces the imminence of her departure.
My offers to accompany her to the airport are politely rejected: no love, or desperation, or passion; politeness, like someone who thanks you for a seat on the bus. And with a chilly cordial gesture, Japanese. Her only goodbye gift consists of the pile of photos I took of her: breasts, legs, lips, hands, dissociated segments of her body, sometimes mixed with mine, without lipstick traces, or the bold handwriting of a tenebrous oath of love. Only fragments of a very brief collage, that I keep in my coat pocket. I don’t see or hear from her again.
I spend the following days in a rare solitude, trying to listen to certain inner echoes that have been stirred by her second departure. It’s a cliché to say life rarely gives us second chances: actually it’s made up of them. A debut is appreciated only when you see the piece performed again, a recipe is verified after having tried it for the first time in someone else’s hands and an abandonment is truly suffered to the degree it echoes previous ones; every second time alienates the spirit of the first, pursues and claims it: it demands we ignore what we know and pretend we don’t see, that we look the other way instead of sounding the alarm. The place of second chances is always the same as the first: always identical, always unprecedented, second times are the moments we spend realizing it’s déjà vu, what we decided, in one way or another, not to foresee.
Seduced by these ideas, I lose myself in my dusty encyclopedias and wander about for hours on the computer, tracing an unknown path until I unwittingly penetrate previously veiled territories: forbidden drawers, notebooks sentenced to ostracism in some cabinet, dedications torn out of books given as gifts or thrown away. I pursue some answer to the enigma of Nagasaki in my old notes for class, in my research journals, in the letters I should have thrown in the trash or in that timid collection of poems I chose to never publish. Everything returns to my eyes, traveling backwards in time, backwards in lost faces: love is the eternal promise of a new attempt, of an impossible second chance composed of forgetting and forgiveness. All lovers are in Nagasaki. I go through so many lines written by a now distant I, in hopes of finding in my own handwriting the answers to recent questions: some type of alchemy that will turn the painful past into a magic key to the present, because what value does it have if not memory, that expanded memory with which we keep notebooks, books and ledgers? What’s the purpose of tolerating suffering, if not as a promise of peace in experience?
“Poets can, professor,” the memory of her whispers in my ear. Poets can work that alchemy. Beauty will save the world. I laugh, finally, at my own reflections, dictated in class with such grandiloquence for those who see the world for the first time: if every second time is cruel, it’s because in it memory and experience are tested. And the repetition of the mistake is the very proof of its nonexistence, the final triumph of the abyss: growing old means making the same mistakes over and over again, being mercilessly conscious of them but desiring youth’s tragic freshness. All old age insists on the mistake, we are exhausted echoes of ourselves.
I pull out her photographs and one by one I place them, savoring their familiar sweetness, behind the glass in my old photo frames, on the shelves of my library, on the little table in the dinning room. And quietly giving up everything else, I take up my routine again, smiling sadly, traveling through this city both foreign and my own, this path I’ve taken so many times. Traveling, in the end, has lost any purpose: wherever I might find myself I will always be looking over my shoulder at the end of the day, languidly waiting to see it happen again. Wherever I might go, I tell myself with a bitter smile of resignation, I’ll always find myself, again, in Nagasaki.
Winner of the 66th edition of the El Nacional short story contest. Published on 5 August 2011, in the anniversary edition of the newspaper.
Gabriel Payares (London, 1982) is the author of Cuando bajaron las aguas (Caracas: Monte Ávila Editores, 2008). He lives in Caracas and writes a blog called Blog Caribe.
{ Gabriel Payares, Las Malas Juntas, 6 August 2011 }
for Ednodio Quintero
Man lives everything all at once, for the first time, and without preparation. As if an actor were playing his role in the show without any type of rehearsal. But what value can life have if the first rehearsal for living is life itself?
MILAN KUNDERA
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
This would never have been the city I would have chosen for my old age. If some emissary of destiny had consulted me about the matter, my finger would have pointed without hesitation to the East, to distant cities in an improbable country, to places where being a foreigner and reaching maturity are, at the end of the day, indistinguishable conditions. I feel a sincere mistrust toward cities such as this one, built on the constant memory of the fall; a city where you wander with the sensation that any unexpected stumble could mean violently rolling toward hell, without anything to prevent the body from falling like a boulder. This vertigo is surely the source of the confident way of walking of those born in these mountains: they grip the asphalt closely with each step and never look back –below– unless they’ve reached their destination. Only then do they allow themselves a quick glance toward the abyss. And it’s just that their eyes, fixed on the ground, don’t seem made for looking toward the sun, but instead toward their own shadow on the earth that feeds them, the same one that will eventually receive them in its arms.
Though I inhabit my own exile amidst them, the product of bad decisions taken in even worse moments, I don’t tend to really complain too much: I’ve always been able to abandon these steep corners with the frequency and impetus of the moment, with that gesture of a human boomerang that for years pursues a distant homeland and doesn’t manage to return with anything save a few postcards and a couple rolls of film. And in the end you grow tired of betting everything on the debauchery of the trip; I often ask myself if homeland might not just be that soft ground in which it hurts the least to grow our final roots, and home the place you choose to welcome death. My problem is that I’m a descendant of a much warmer lineage than this one, conceived during the restless galloping of the plains, among distances measured with the wind and a father who would predict the drizzle with just a glimpse of the vultures in the distance. I come from a family that raised other people’s horses. I preferred to teach literature.
My classes are the only thing that give me oxygen from day to day. The passion and curiosity that once threw me headfirst into reading have been dying over the years until becoming soft embers: ideal for cooking and digesting, but of a barely notorious presence. My students, on the other hand, semester after semester exhibit the sterile flame that characterizes one’s twenties, that time when males pursue thoughtlessness and women a substitute father whose heart they might destroy. And literature, that odious and untouchable object, at once serpent and charmer, is the site from which I contemplate their epidermic passions, with a mixture of desires and emotions that I’ve preferred to think of as envy. I continue to be amazed, year after year, by the nearly identical reaction I obtain from them when reading certain poets, almost always the same ones: Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Ramos Sucre. Always those three, in any order. Kids are exceedingly enthused by the suffering of the figure of the poet, the daring their verses display and the tragic fate that awaits them. They love death, an abstract concept without any real ties to their existence, and they name it in nearly all their final essays. I wish you could maintain that romantic vision of fate throughout life, instead of this blind panic at the disappearance of the senses.
In class I often explain that life, were it not for memory, would barely be a brief alternative to emptiness: each daybreak would always be the last, but each verse we read would always be the first. My students pretend to understand, they nod and wrinkle their brows; but I know you need a great deal of mastery in the art of losing to understand the deceitful web of memory: what Dalí saw in melted clocks, a ductile and deceitful time that promises to leave us eternally in our own and same point of departure. We’re terrified, deep down, that death might be the only memory impossible to formulate; we’re terrified that we can’t even dream it.
“But poets can, professor,” her voice interrupts me and I direct my glance to the end of the classroom, stumbling on her face for the first time. It’s not hard, doing so: each classroom holds about thirty different kids and I’m in charge of three simultaneous courses. But among the ninety or so students that year, none has given me the first impression she does, nor has anyone ever known how to answer anything, besides repeating what I said minutes before, or at most asking impudent and insistent questions, which must be pulled out from the roots in order to proceed with the seeding and plowing. Maybe it’s my own foreignness, reflected in her citrine factions or in her elongated eyes and vowels, that immediately seduces me about her; something in her gestures seems to invite me to play, a certain ingenuousness that has already abandoned its larval stage, a pupa of future perversions, and offers itself to me with an air that is irreverent and sweet at the same time, like an angry grimace in a declaration of love. Or maybe it’s her eagerness for recognition, a veiled promise of another type of seduction. I don’t know. I immediately assent, not knowing if I’m supporting her intervention or my own ruminations, and with the cruel determination power endows I ask her to share with the class some example of what she’s saying. My inquisitorial tone intimidates her, she doesn’t know whether to back down or wave a banner. She finally traces a line in the sand: she timidly names Ramos Sucre. That would have been the appropriate instant for agreeing with her with a condescending gesture and letting her run like rain. But no: I prefer to indulge myself and contradict her for long enough to get her excited about writing a final essay on the poet from Cumaná. I tell her, as a game, that if she manages to convince me about her point she’ll get the highest grade; but otherwise she’ll have to retake my class. She accepts without a pause. I understand, looking back at the moment, that she does this under the impulse of some secret and Artemisal instance, an inner voice that convinces her she can’t lose in this wager, that it’s a game of fools, won at the very instant I formulate it.
And that’s how things happen, with a subtle violence we both seem to propitiate. Although precarious, my command of her tongue is sufficient to initiate a game of mirrors: translation implies knowing how to reflect oneself in the other and both of us seem very willing to peek into the opposite corner. A couple of timid conversations, under the excuse of coffee, leave the panorama sufficiently open for us. But reluctant to interpret the unpleasant role of a Lolita, we keep our lips as free of chalk as possible. Our encounters occur far from the academy, vertiginously sheltered in the excuse of chance and the small city, until they become nights that close in a spiral, as if spinning, falling toward my apartment and my bed.
Within a few days, her company becomes notably pleasing: she never asks about my divorce, although she often imprisons the mark of the ring on my finger between her teeth, nor does she allude to the faces on my few photo frames, despite the fact that many of them are roughly her age. I let her wander through my memory with the delicacy of a cat, indifferent to everything except my vocation for the Far East, a trait that soon becomes evident in my disorganized library and at times seems to call her attention. While she browses the bookshelves, briefly checking out one book or another with the air of confidence recognition brings, I ask myself if some of those names make her feel more at home perhaps, if her parents might have named one of them during dinner or if they read their last names aloud in the newspaper. But I don’t dare ask; youth always carries its homeland between its legs. In any case I prefer to contemplate her path with discretion, entertaining myself with her air similar to arrogance, a respect like that of the conqueror who inspects aboriginal ruins. I’m grateful for that silence to a certain degree, the false side of the coin, because it provides me with additional time for the memory: that time she still has plenty of, since she still has too many memories left to build.
We ignore each other during the day, so far from the other that her nocturnal visits seem to be the echo of fortunate dreams. And though I never dare attempt it, I have the constant sensation that the slightest gesture of indiscretion on my part would unleash a wrathful response from her, who knows if even some type of public denunciation for harassment; as if the day erased in her the naked traces of the previous night in my parquet. Her interventions in class continue, likewise, discreet and distant, playing to perfection her role of star student; sometimes I have the impression she is two completely different people. Everything about her is peculiar: she hardly shows any interest in luxury and the experiences it might be able to offer her, closed off to the perspective of traveling or going out together beyond our nocturnal hunts, or even to receiving gifts other than books or some minor detail. I’m also baffled by the absence of a young and jealous boyfriend who might make our romance difficult: after all she’s an attractive girl, endowed with an unusual beauty, contrary to the voluptuousness of the tropics; but a solitary girl above all, whom I never see forming part of a group, or involved in parties, or establishing any type of lasting connections. One would say she knows she’s transitory, indisposed to allowing herself to lay anchor among us.
As the days pass, however, her barriers give way, almost imperceptibly showing me softer zones, with the same urge of the bee that has stuck its stinger and runs the risk of tearing its own belly if it tries to fly off. Too old to not realize it, I leave the dagger at the bottom of my pocket, certain that she’ll be the one who’ll try to plunge it in first: sooner or later she’ll know who I am and where I come from, why I suffer and with what ghosts I speak while I sleep; sooner or later she will have conquered everything and she’ll grow bored with lending me her body. I know very well seduction consists in maintaining a shadow of mystery in what you reveal, in withholding a little from everything you give so as to keep the other waiting for the missing crumb; because ignorance is conducive to love as much as understanding mutilates it. But even though when you reach your fifties you resign yourself to occupying your place in the world and abandoning the youthful anxiety to resonate within it like a giant tuning fork, there are things within you that never lose their primitive force: a youthful and voluptuous glance is not something you’ll renounce without a sincere moment of doubt. So I decide to await the sword thrust; I decide to let myself be stabbed.
Abundant excursions in the world of lovers taught me to pay close attention to the minutes after sex. That pause in the fury of the senses contains the exhausted serenity of the re-encounter: with your body, with your own dimensions, with the hoarse silence of breathing. And in contrast to my usual drowsiness, she prefers to talk, almost as if something stuck in her belly has been liberated during the orgasm. Hypnotized by the scent we leave in each other, again and again I accept the distracted role of the listener: I accompany her to a childhood of wretched frustrations, to a violent relationship with a pusillanimous and manipulative father, to a painful and abusive first time at the hands of a much older cousin, silenced by the irrational fear of disgrace. Finally, she tells me about her unfinished studies in modern languages, a bridge toward a fellowship fallen from the sky to study Spanish abroad. There’s something of Ulysses in her hairless body, a certain hardening that makes me ask myself if I’ll be Calypso or Polyphemus when the adventure comes to an end. Regardless, I listen to her inventory as if through the little door of a submarine: I’ve heard it all before, in so many different faces. If people knew how similar our lives are, how indistinct we can become after a few years, like similar waves succeeding each other in a pond, sooner or later they’d reach the same exact conclusions: there are no good or bad initiations, but there are first and second times, and the only thing that can mediate between one and the other is the sieve of memory. That’s why old age consists of repetitions: memories of memories, anecdotes told over and over. A long life is like an enormous cavern: everything echoes inside it. Finally, her tale interrupts itself in search of the appropriate word and stops, excusing itself with the furious grammar of Spanish. As for me, I limit myself to assenting in silence. Soon she catches that silence.
I convince her to have dinner at my house on the following weekend. I like the idea of making her try new flavors, of silent recipes that come to mind murmured by my mother on Sundays, the only day her six children shared the house and her attentions. What remains of my mother are the seasonings and the rough skin of the plains, and at most a couple photos chewed by mice; taking a portrait, in those days, was still something exclusively for the rich. And for those of us who grew up without the support of the shutter, without being able to hold on to fragments from life, memory turns out to be a form of evanescence, a ghost you can’t depend on: faces and details blur over time, until they barely leave in their place ideas and sensations, weak erasures of the absent. Young people, on the other hand, lack this defect: they came to the world to register everything on their cell phones, to own everything that happens as if the real had always belonged to them. Eternally hungry, they’ve been promised the whole world: one so big their lives won’t be long enough to even dream it all. I doubt, for example, that my foreign lover can even imagine the place where I grew up; and that’s assuming she could understand the words I need to describe it. Not everything, as we can see, can really be shared.
Guessing my reflections, that same night she gives me the story of her most recent nightmares: she imagines herself abandoned in the inner patio of some prison or fort, perhaps an ancient deserted monastery, invaded by an invisible terror in the pit of her stomach. And though she claims to be fully conscious during the dream, constantly repeating this to herself, she isn’t able to wake up until she discovers a giant wave approaching in the distance. I listen to her with my brow furrowed, but there’s not much I can tell her; in any case, she seems preoccupied with starting each day with the same foggy sensation of disaster. She says she is suspicious of the imposing heights that surround the city: her own, she explains, rests on a coastal plain, with cordial hills like the size of her breasts, quite far from the fury of the sharpened Andean peaks. I ask her if she misses seeing the horizon, free from the green walls that prevent her from doing so, and she agrees placing both hands on her chest and directly assuming, for the first time since we’ve been together, her already evident condition of being a foreigner: “Nagasaki is always in the heart.”
Nagasaki: the four syllables of that name so distant and so well-known, so mine and so hers at the same time, repeat themselves in my lips with indifference, quick despite their consonants. Na-ga-sa-ki, just four syllables, enough to evoke an entire city I simultaneously know and don’t know, like a naked woman under my sheets: a girl engendered in horror. I ask her in a whisper to repeat that name –her name, from now on–, as if it were some spell or prayer known only by those raised in the scars of the world. And at that instant from her lips surge entire generations born of that flapping of butterfly wings: litters of children baptized with the ashes of their ancestors, raised looking toward the sky with mistrust; entire families marked from within, having more and more children deformed like mummies, living in a ruined city, a home that others give to them already broken. That name unleashes a fever within me, perhaps infected by some millenary curse locked in its round consonants, Na-ga-sa-ki, a word repeated by the children of impoverished Africa, by 15-year-old Vietnamese girls holding their babies to their chest to stop them from seeing the face of death, by men resigned to sleeping in cattle trains or in hermetically-sealed trucks loaded with families suffering the horror of a border, by the wind in small villages devastated by the fire of conquest; always the same word, spoken from the beginning of time, in primitive languages, in mournful howls, in the exhausted silence of the cemetery. Nagasaki: four syllables repeating themselves in the mouth of those who perish, a few sounds to name human cruelty. Noticing the total confusion her look professes, I’m barely able to mutter a few sweaty apologies. Her home has become a nightmare in me; her nostalgia, my violent shame. Two sides of the coin.
I explain there hasn’t been a more cruel gesture in the history of humanity than that second atomic bomb, dropped just three days after the first nuclear massacre ever was perpetrated. But if Hiroshima meant the awakening of humanity to its own moral failure, like a child who opens his eyes for the first time, Nagasaki then was its first blink, its first moment of doubt, first repetition of a mistake already made, of a nightmare that recurs from then on and consequently its greatest sentence of eternity. Were the horror and shame of the first detonation not warning enough, so as to prevent the second one at all costs? Fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice, shame on me, goes an English proverb, since reiterating mistakes is the most human of all traits. Nagasaki is at once a human gesture par excellence and a total failure of the moral existence of mankind: the second chance wasted, the reprise that allows itself to happen so as to stupidly repeat the first. Nagasaki is the negation of experience and apprenticeship: it is what we decide to relive. Good and bad intentions don’t exist; only first and second chances.
I’m about to retract my words, ashamed, sure that I’ve brutally trampled the sensible fibers of her native land, when she merely shrugs her shoulders. The atomic bomb and its horrors belong to a remote past, a life she not only didn’t live, doesn’t remember and doesn’t understand, but also one she probably knows through the same photographs as me. And with that gesture I confirm the abyss that unites and separates us: we are, at the core, just as foreign to each other, both of us from an alien world; lost adventurers, like Gulliver, in a completely unrecognizable world. With just two phrases, she avoids the topic at full speed, something she manages to do without much effort: a small grimace, a barely perceptible movement of her face are enough for her to awaken in me the parts made drowsy by the horrendous panorama of the bomb, and in a few moments my lips silence the possible responses from hers. I let her do it, abandoning myself to her as always. Nagasaki falls asleep amidst damp sheets.
Now I understand that we’ve associated our women and cities for a specific reason. Determined for the world to go into decline and die like us, we’ve wanted to see the aging of the former in the decadence of the latter; that’s why each new generation has a better city to remember in its childhood, and a reality that’s a little sadder to live: nations are founded in the shadow of their own nostalgia. The ruins of the bombing for which we were born too late, the war in which we didn’t participate, the economic debacle we never witnessed, everything we missed without knowing it and which occurred before we did, denies our memory of a lost paradise, of the better time it sealed: the Garden of Eden is barely someone else’s memory, a loan, an impossible inheritance that dies with our parents. And home, then, is that place where we play at repeating their gestures: we have descendants, we offer them a world and we tell them how it’s barely the shadow of what we were given. “You got here late,” is the welcome we give them.
Doubting, at that instant, the sincerity of her ignorance, I insist on discovering the details my student forgets, in asserting others I’m unaware of and asking about the many I’m already clear about: I’ve never been to Nagasaki, but there are masks of eloquence. Something unhealthy in me, I now realize, wanted to take her by the skin and chest and open her up, like a leather sack or a child’s lunchbox, and stretch her out on the same bed in which moments before I had crumbled grunting between her thighs. But my odd games soon disconcert her, or bore or intimidate her, I don’t know what’s worse, and from that point on she measures her answers, pretending to forget certain words or to not understand my questions about her country, her parents, her grandparents charred in a fraction of a second. She denies me her home, and with it the possibility of repeating it in others like her: she wants to be unique, all of them want it. Spanish, she says as an excuse, is an irregular and capricious language, and my accent is quick and serpentine. I acknowledge she’s right, even though I don’t believe a word she says.
Thus we submerge ourselves in a prolonged state of mourning from which neither of us is able to gain an advantage: the fearlessness of youth compensates for the calm cynicism of maturity, which lets one glimpse much stronger blows in the past. Assuming that sensual combat, I postpone for as long as possible the instant of giving in to her lean and ferocious flesh, to her bony hands as if made of wood; I know very well once I’m inside her my resistance won’t last long, and that the only thing left for the vanquished is the honor of a long battle offered. And yet, the Cold War doesn’t last too long: a few days later she disappears, without explanation, from my class and my bed and from all our places in common. She doesn’t answer my calls or my messages, as though she had never existed. And after a couple days of patience, I resent her silence in silence.
But there’s little I can do, besides abandoning the classroom each day looking back over my shoulder, like Lot’s wife, fearing I’ll leave her forgotten face amid the crowd. And it seems as though what’s been lived is made to be seen in this manner, like someone who flees from a beast that pursues him and he twists his neck to make sure he still keeps a certain distance between them. Finally, already defeated, I ask her classmates about her, disguising my interest as mere academic preoccupation, and they respond vaguely, evasive, parricidal accomplices whom I start to hate immediately. How many of them know about what I thought was a secret between us? How many laugh, behind my back, about the emptiness my questions reveal? The worst tortures, however, are inflicted by my own hands: day and night I imagine her in younger, fiercer arms, that make make mine seem like weak and emaciated bundles in comparison; and though the frown of jealousy is present at every thought, at every suspicion, little by little routine imposes itself again.
I’ve given her up for good, when one afternoon she knocks on my door, hidden behind the enormous eye of an instant camera. I observe her for a few moments, hidden behind the peephole, tempted to leave her out there and in that way enact a stupid vengeance. But acknowledgment has its own laws: the two cyclops smile at each other. I let her in without saying a word and she steals a few playful portraits with the Polaroid. I don’t know whether to welcome her, like the prodigal son, or if I should try to demand some explanation; I opt to smile in silence. “They’re so I can take you home with me,” she responds to my surprise at the unexpected gesture of possession. I ask her who she plans on showing them to, and she says there’s no one awaiting her return. So then I ask her for the camera and we switch roles for a few moments: there’s no doubt this was her true intention, to be photographed. She came to leave me her portraits, to endure in my memory and to say goodbye. She wants to be the only one, just like all of them do.
Her first portraits are lugubrious and distant, as though she had suddenly been left without batteries; so I turn my attention to other parts of her body: strong white thighs, breasts barely noticeable beneath the blouse or a neck dotted with red freckles, until I finally convince her to model for me. Initially with timid poses, full of smiles and adolescent expressions, or false gestures of seduction. I let her exaggerate at will, since only a few clicks of the machine are enough to reach the living light inside her: a nipple hidden between the fabric, a glimpse of her pubic hair or a completely naked back. Her body is offered to me in pieces, and the plastic squares that contain them flutter around us, falling onto the pieces of her clothing on the ground. I imagine her like a naked tree, prostrate on her knees, staring at my only open eye while her hands rise to liberate my sex. The image is nearly religious. The camera functions at full speed, and I photograph her devouring me, given over to her cannibal caresses until she extracts the last drop from me. She rises licking her lips while I collapse, now a felled tree, and then, victorious, she announces the imminence of her departure.
My offers to accompany her to the airport are politely rejected: no love, or desperation, or passion; politeness, like someone who thanks you for a seat on the bus. And with a chilly cordial gesture, Japanese. Her only goodbye gift consists of the pile of photos I took of her: breasts, legs, lips, hands, dissociated segments of her body, sometimes mixed with mine, without lipstick traces, or the bold handwriting of a tenebrous oath of love. Only fragments of a very brief collage, that I keep in my coat pocket. I don’t see or hear from her again.
I spend the following days in a rare solitude, trying to listen to certain inner echoes that have been stirred by her second departure. It’s a cliché to say life rarely gives us second chances: actually it’s made up of them. A debut is appreciated only when you see the piece performed again, a recipe is verified after having tried it for the first time in someone else’s hands and an abandonment is truly suffered to the degree it echoes previous ones; every second time alienates the spirit of the first, pursues and claims it: it demands we ignore what we know and pretend we don’t see, that we look the other way instead of sounding the alarm. The place of second chances is always the same as the first: always identical, always unprecedented, second times are the moments we spend realizing it’s déjà vu, what we decided, in one way or another, not to foresee.
Seduced by these ideas, I lose myself in my dusty encyclopedias and wander about for hours on the computer, tracing an unknown path until I unwittingly penetrate previously veiled territories: forbidden drawers, notebooks sentenced to ostracism in some cabinet, dedications torn out of books given as gifts or thrown away. I pursue some answer to the enigma of Nagasaki in my old notes for class, in my research journals, in the letters I should have thrown in the trash or in that timid collection of poems I chose to never publish. Everything returns to my eyes, traveling backwards in time, backwards in lost faces: love is the eternal promise of a new attempt, of an impossible second chance composed of forgetting and forgiveness. All lovers are in Nagasaki. I go through so many lines written by a now distant I, in hopes of finding in my own handwriting the answers to recent questions: some type of alchemy that will turn the painful past into a magic key to the present, because what value does it have if not memory, that expanded memory with which we keep notebooks, books and ledgers? What’s the purpose of tolerating suffering, if not as a promise of peace in experience?
“Poets can, professor,” the memory of her whispers in my ear. Poets can work that alchemy. Beauty will save the world. I laugh, finally, at my own reflections, dictated in class with such grandiloquence for those who see the world for the first time: if every second time is cruel, it’s because in it memory and experience are tested. And the repetition of the mistake is the very proof of its nonexistence, the final triumph of the abyss: growing old means making the same mistakes over and over again, being mercilessly conscious of them but desiring youth’s tragic freshness. All old age insists on the mistake, we are exhausted echoes of ourselves.
I pull out her photographs and one by one I place them, savoring their familiar sweetness, behind the glass in my old photo frames, on the shelves of my library, on the little table in the dinning room. And quietly giving up everything else, I take up my routine again, smiling sadly, traveling through this city both foreign and my own, this path I’ve taken so many times. Traveling, in the end, has lost any purpose: wherever I might find myself I will always be looking over my shoulder at the end of the day, languidly waiting to see it happen again. Wherever I might go, I tell myself with a bitter smile of resignation, I’ll always find myself, again, in Nagasaki.
Winner of the 66th edition of the El Nacional short story contest. Published on 5 August 2011, in the anniversary edition of the newspaper.
Gabriel Payares (London, 1982) is the author of Cuando bajaron las aguas (Caracas: Monte Ávila Editores, 2008). He lives in Caracas and writes a blog called Blog Caribe.
{ Gabriel Payares, Las Malas Juntas, 6 August 2011 }
8.27.2010
El jardín de los pasillos que se bifurcan / Gabriel Payares
The Garden of Forking Hallways

There are those who think that nothing is written without being about the author himself. No matter the genre chosen, the topics favored or the unquestionable marks of style, all acts of writing contain an individual battle for deciphering one’s own labyrinths, for making out of the ink on paper a very personal Ariadne’s thread, at once escape and minotaur. This labyrinthine image, a somewhat cliché borrowing from Greek mythology, accompanies the present reading of Pasillos de mi memoria ajena (Caracas: Monte Ávila Editores, 2007), the first publication by the young writer Mario Morenza, and it serves as a point of departure for certain reflections that are evident in the work.
One would have to begin by stating the obvious: Morenza seems to be conscious of the labyrinth he offers us, of his proposal for a complex and rigorous writing, which he sometimes catalogs as a diary, other times as a novel, but which he structures like a compendium of tales, or perhaps even like a personal collage: a sort of written Frankenstein built out of the textual snippets he was able to find dispersed in notebooks and journals. As with every labyrinth, Morenza’s tends toward dispersion, undoubtedly imitating the capricious prancing of memory, which leaps from one remembrance to another without any apparent fixed and coherent path; and at the same time he submits the very language that constructs it to a chain of mutations, of alterations in register and of apparent entrances and exits from the terrain of fiction, as though the text were trying to destabilize itself and become something new, something whose forms demand, as a first step, the demolition of all linear trajectories. Morenza’s hallways, present in the title of the work itself, are the routes of entry and escape from that personal chaos we tend to call memory, they are a possible direction amidst deviation: family, friends, one’s own personality, the Escuela de Letras at the Universidad Central de Venezuela, the very writing of the book that is being read; Morenza uses himself openly as prime material, in what could be considered a narcissistic gesture by the author, whose work erects for him a golden seat of honor in his own world, or also as a sacrificial outburst: the author presents his own life as a holocaust for fiction.
In this manner, the work’s hallways lead once and again to the author: they are perhaps an attempt to provide himself with an order, to create a map of the labyrinth in which he lives, in hopes of guiding himself toward an exit. This is why the photographs, charts and drawings that illustrate various sections throughout the book turn out to be a series of elements of intimate accompaniment, that contribute for the purpose of drawing a portrait of Morenza himself, in the same way in which a child’s free drawings in a notepad might; but at the same time they constitute elements of collectible meaning, dispersed in the labyrinth as though a family album lay beneath the tale. Because underneath it all there is a curatorial gesture in this deployment of personal forces, and Morenza himself makes note of it in the text that serves as an introduction, “I Can Speak”: “I want to protect my memory from the world so that it won’t continue to be, in this sublime moment, the same or more remote than what it’s already been. No one will interrupt me while I speak to myself.” (6)
This overwhelming introspection involves a risk similar to that of an intimate diary or a confession: the author must choose from among multiple scenarios –hallways– of his life what to tell and what to hide, and in what specific sequence narrate what he chooses. He clearly runs the risk of granting the most superfluous anecdotes an false air of transcendence, or of betraying life –as if the latter were of any concern to the reader– and of attributing to himself an agreed upon, treacherous and convincing memory. But, isn’t this exactly what one does when writing? Isn’t the narrator’s voice always treachery, as it recalls events it never witnessed and never will?
In any case, Morenza assumes this risk and allows himself to be misplaced in this new memory of his, a memory that is both his own and someone else’s. This what probably stands out the most in this book, and offers a certain consolation to the reader who faces the 270 pages of a text that wanders among various genres and which can occasionally discourage its reading, with its close-ups that are too prolonged: the daring versatility of the whole, that often allows its fragments to be taken separately as a type of mosaic or meccano. “Vitrum” and “Demons in the Backyard,” in fact, two of the best tales in the work, are texts that can be appreciated on their own, and whose inclusion in Pasillos de mi memoria ajena provides, more than meaning or clues or alignments, a series of enigmas and questions whose answer we must seek out in the previous blocks, taken from the author’s own life. A game of unfoldings that will culminate in the dialogue between a Mario 8236 and a Mario 8237, versions perhaps of clone travels across the labyrinth of a memory that is now foreign.
One could, finally, say that Morenza wagers for making the life a tale, or for erasing as much as possible the border between the two; traces of bravery and of a certain writerly pride that is surely surprising when found in a young writer, even more so when this is his first book.
Gabriel Payares
Illustration: “Relativity,” Escher
{ Gabriel Payares, 500 ejemplares, 1 August 2010 }

I have become a conjurer of seasons.
I hold in my hands that fraction of a second.
I ignore what came before and after.
Mario Morenza
Pasillos de mi memoria ajena
I hold in my hands that fraction of a second.
I ignore what came before and after.
Mario Morenza
Pasillos de mi memoria ajena
There are those who think that nothing is written without being about the author himself. No matter the genre chosen, the topics favored or the unquestionable marks of style, all acts of writing contain an individual battle for deciphering one’s own labyrinths, for making out of the ink on paper a very personal Ariadne’s thread, at once escape and minotaur. This labyrinthine image, a somewhat cliché borrowing from Greek mythology, accompanies the present reading of Pasillos de mi memoria ajena (Caracas: Monte Ávila Editores, 2007), the first publication by the young writer Mario Morenza, and it serves as a point of departure for certain reflections that are evident in the work.
One would have to begin by stating the obvious: Morenza seems to be conscious of the labyrinth he offers us, of his proposal for a complex and rigorous writing, which he sometimes catalogs as a diary, other times as a novel, but which he structures like a compendium of tales, or perhaps even like a personal collage: a sort of written Frankenstein built out of the textual snippets he was able to find dispersed in notebooks and journals. As with every labyrinth, Morenza’s tends toward dispersion, undoubtedly imitating the capricious prancing of memory, which leaps from one remembrance to another without any apparent fixed and coherent path; and at the same time he submits the very language that constructs it to a chain of mutations, of alterations in register and of apparent entrances and exits from the terrain of fiction, as though the text were trying to destabilize itself and become something new, something whose forms demand, as a first step, the demolition of all linear trajectories. Morenza’s hallways, present in the title of the work itself, are the routes of entry and escape from that personal chaos we tend to call memory, they are a possible direction amidst deviation: family, friends, one’s own personality, the Escuela de Letras at the Universidad Central de Venezuela, the very writing of the book that is being read; Morenza uses himself openly as prime material, in what could be considered a narcissistic gesture by the author, whose work erects for him a golden seat of honor in his own world, or also as a sacrificial outburst: the author presents his own life as a holocaust for fiction.
In this manner, the work’s hallways lead once and again to the author: they are perhaps an attempt to provide himself with an order, to create a map of the labyrinth in which he lives, in hopes of guiding himself toward an exit. This is why the photographs, charts and drawings that illustrate various sections throughout the book turn out to be a series of elements of intimate accompaniment, that contribute for the purpose of drawing a portrait of Morenza himself, in the same way in which a child’s free drawings in a notepad might; but at the same time they constitute elements of collectible meaning, dispersed in the labyrinth as though a family album lay beneath the tale. Because underneath it all there is a curatorial gesture in this deployment of personal forces, and Morenza himself makes note of it in the text that serves as an introduction, “I Can Speak”: “I want to protect my memory from the world so that it won’t continue to be, in this sublime moment, the same or more remote than what it’s already been. No one will interrupt me while I speak to myself.” (6)
This overwhelming introspection involves a risk similar to that of an intimate diary or a confession: the author must choose from among multiple scenarios –hallways– of his life what to tell and what to hide, and in what specific sequence narrate what he chooses. He clearly runs the risk of granting the most superfluous anecdotes an false air of transcendence, or of betraying life –as if the latter were of any concern to the reader– and of attributing to himself an agreed upon, treacherous and convincing memory. But, isn’t this exactly what one does when writing? Isn’t the narrator’s voice always treachery, as it recalls events it never witnessed and never will?
In any case, Morenza assumes this risk and allows himself to be misplaced in this new memory of his, a memory that is both his own and someone else’s. This what probably stands out the most in this book, and offers a certain consolation to the reader who faces the 270 pages of a text that wanders among various genres and which can occasionally discourage its reading, with its close-ups that are too prolonged: the daring versatility of the whole, that often allows its fragments to be taken separately as a type of mosaic or meccano. “Vitrum” and “Demons in the Backyard,” in fact, two of the best tales in the work, are texts that can be appreciated on their own, and whose inclusion in Pasillos de mi memoria ajena provides, more than meaning or clues or alignments, a series of enigmas and questions whose answer we must seek out in the previous blocks, taken from the author’s own life. A game of unfoldings that will culminate in the dialogue between a Mario 8236 and a Mario 8237, versions perhaps of clone travels across the labyrinth of a memory that is now foreign.
One could, finally, say that Morenza wagers for making the life a tale, or for erasing as much as possible the border between the two; traces of bravery and of a certain writerly pride that is surely surprising when found in a young writer, even more so when this is his first book.
Gabriel Payares
Illustration: “Relativity,” Escher
{ Gabriel Payares, 500 ejemplares, 1 August 2010 }
3.12.2010
Elefantes y desapariciones: Una novela de Luis Enrique Belmonte / Gabriel Payares
Elephants and Disappearances: A Novel by Luis Enrique Belmonte

I began to work as an artist when I began to be an adult, when I understood that my childhood was finished, and was dead. I think we all have somebody who is dead inside of us. A dead child.
–Christian Boltanski
The phrase is almost a cliché, but that doesn’t make it false: the end of childhood is the beginning of the end of life, the first step toward aging and death. Only after we have overcome childhood do we gain an awareness of death: first in relation to our parents and, eventually, through this discovery, of our own. The task of art –and of literature in particular–, when facing such a rough panorama of life, is none other than to provide man with an instant of recuperation of that lost initial stage, of that dead child mentioned in our epigraph; this is why Bataille affirmed of literature that it is “childhood finally regained.” Art, then, is a constant search for the ontology of the human, which is presumed to be lost with childhood: whether it be to preserve it, to spread it, to question it, or even to unveil it, to find the human element in reality’s most unusual corners. This, along with the awareness of one’s own finitude, and above all the capacity to visualize one’s own absence, to prepare us for it and to leave a legacy, makes art a particular disposition of the individual toward the coming absence, that is, man’s preparation for death: his own and that of others.
Such a poetics of disappearance animates the pages of the first work of fiction by the poet Luis Enrique Belmonte, the novella Salvar los elefantes (Caracas: Equinoccio, 2006). In its pages, the hot Catalonian summer serves as the ideal stage to illustrate the gradual dissipation of the world, the slow melting of a humanity that is broken and tied to itself, symbolically summarized by the protagonist’s damaged refrigerator, and at the same time transmuted, by means of media deception and televised simulacra, into the poor little African elephants that the Sheldrick Foundation promises to save.
In this manner, the anonymous protagonist of Salvar los elefantes plays the role of audience to a cruel performance of disappearance: trapped between the warm agony of his refrigerator, which exudes the stench of its own decomposition onto everything around it –a strange smell “of fermented mayonnaise” (p. 10) sticks to the striped pajamas the protagonist wears–, and the prolonged academic trip of his girlfriend Evelyne, from whom he will barely receive a couple of postcards with increasingly terse phrases –as if she herself were slowly dissipating–, the narrator seems to become more and more linked to a group of absent characters, dead, or in a steep trance toward disappearance, leaving behind the more “alive” or palpitating dynamics of existence: beginning with his anodyne sleepiness, a type of renunciation of a vital posture in the face of life –maybe only interrupted by his brief attempt to exercise by swimming, which logically culminates with a near-drowning–, and later on with his constant reference to (and even his dialogue with) actual characters whose deaths occurred amid intriguing conditions of sudden dissipation.
Thus the objects of his continuous reflection include the celebrated disappearances of Chet Baker, who died under suspicious circumstances after falling from a window in Amsterdam, or Saint Exupéry, who disappeared without a trace in a Lightning P38 airplane flying over the coast of Marseilles; along with those of several neighbors in the Barcelona neighborhood where he lives: Mrs. Cremer, consumed by the heat, or the neighbor dressed in pajamas with little snakes and arabesques. Something similar happens with the character Dumont the antiques dealer, a sort of imaginary friend to the narrator –an homage or reference to the first known aviator, the Brazilian Alberto Salas Dumont, whose suicide by hanging remains clouded by uncertain details–; and with Dr. Boltanski, the narrator’s psychiatrist –whose surname references the Jewish artist Christian Boltanski, famous for his tireless exploration of the themes of death, memory and disappearance in his many works and performances.
The experience of absence, then, takes place in the very writing of the story, understood as a type of detective work in which the aforementioned clues point not to a restitution of memory or of legacy, as would be the case in Boltanski’s installations, but rather to the consummation of disappearance itself: as though the very act of writing were providing an account of forgotten details about and by the absent ones. Writing as a remainder, a retelling of what endures, but at the same time the story of the disappearance of the writer himself. This meta-discourse makes its appearance within Belmonte’s narrative, present in the photos the protagonist obtains from an abandoned roll of film, and which exhibit the sequence of a photographic calendar of a man’s disappearance. It is a trace, undoubtedly, because the photos are the testimony of something that existed, but a trace that leads to a definitive absence, and from whose reading the narrator extracts the conclusion that, the more perfect the disappearances, the fewer traces of themselves they leave behind, the more impossible will be the existence of magic, art and writing:
How many of us haven’t felt disappointed when, at the disappearance of a dove or a parrot, the magician has been incapable of hiding the feathers that remain at the bottom of his top hat? It’s true that it would be very difficult to disappear into thin air, and that without the traces that bodies in transit leave behind detective stories wouldn’t be possible. Auguste Dupin wouldn’t have invented the police genre had it not been for the carelessness, almost always involuntary, of the turncoats. To hide the tracks, or to erase them, is one of the greatest challenges for anyone with the intention –the vocation– of disappearing. (p. 80)
Listening to the narrator himself, the novella is followed by a brief “Report Regarding the Absent,” which offers the reader various additional clues regarding certain referents that could be considered “lost” within the story. However, these annexes in the form of short stories run the risk of being unnecessary details: weakening the whole with their lack of fluency and their tendency toward narrative dispersion, instead of reinforcing a global imaginary that, in the end, doesn’t really need additional pivots.
In the end, saving the elephants perhaps represents the act contrary to that ideal disappearance by which Belmonte seems to renounce the human. But the narrator asks himself: “Why save the little elephants and not the little crocodiles or the chiripas? Mrs. Sheldrick has the answer to this: elephants are humans.” (p. 11) Maybe the answer lies in finding the human where we least suspect it: in seduction, in the pure desire (to help the little elephants, in this case) that will hide the absences; a hopeful gesture, perhaps, the suggests the quintessence of the human in other regions of existence, such as mercy or nobility; but one subject to the laws of the society of the spectacle: Mrs. Sheldrick will turn out to be a marketing ploy to promote the protection of the poor little animals, and with this discovery a new disappearance will end the spell the elephants cast over the narrator. It would seem that the human, after all, is destined to vanish in any of its spheres of existence, just like it’s also destined to leave behind a long trace. Therefore, the perfect disappearance, the absolute erasure of man, resides, according to Belmonte’s poetics, in assuming the inevitability of death as a vocation, as a commandment, as an explicit desire for escape; like that pilot who climbs into his plane and midway through his journey cuts off communication with the control tower, so as to then mysteriously disappear into the air.
Illustration: “The Disorganized Life of Maxim Valletin,” Christian Boltanski
{ Gabriel Payares, 500 ejemplares, 2 February 2010 }

I began to work as an artist when I began to be an adult, when I understood that my childhood was finished, and was dead. I think we all have somebody who is dead inside of us. A dead child.
–Christian Boltanski
The phrase is almost a cliché, but that doesn’t make it false: the end of childhood is the beginning of the end of life, the first step toward aging and death. Only after we have overcome childhood do we gain an awareness of death: first in relation to our parents and, eventually, through this discovery, of our own. The task of art –and of literature in particular–, when facing such a rough panorama of life, is none other than to provide man with an instant of recuperation of that lost initial stage, of that dead child mentioned in our epigraph; this is why Bataille affirmed of literature that it is “childhood finally regained.” Art, then, is a constant search for the ontology of the human, which is presumed to be lost with childhood: whether it be to preserve it, to spread it, to question it, or even to unveil it, to find the human element in reality’s most unusual corners. This, along with the awareness of one’s own finitude, and above all the capacity to visualize one’s own absence, to prepare us for it and to leave a legacy, makes art a particular disposition of the individual toward the coming absence, that is, man’s preparation for death: his own and that of others.
Such a poetics of disappearance animates the pages of the first work of fiction by the poet Luis Enrique Belmonte, the novella Salvar los elefantes (Caracas: Equinoccio, 2006). In its pages, the hot Catalonian summer serves as the ideal stage to illustrate the gradual dissipation of the world, the slow melting of a humanity that is broken and tied to itself, symbolically summarized by the protagonist’s damaged refrigerator, and at the same time transmuted, by means of media deception and televised simulacra, into the poor little African elephants that the Sheldrick Foundation promises to save.
In this manner, the anonymous protagonist of Salvar los elefantes plays the role of audience to a cruel performance of disappearance: trapped between the warm agony of his refrigerator, which exudes the stench of its own decomposition onto everything around it –a strange smell “of fermented mayonnaise” (p. 10) sticks to the striped pajamas the protagonist wears–, and the prolonged academic trip of his girlfriend Evelyne, from whom he will barely receive a couple of postcards with increasingly terse phrases –as if she herself were slowly dissipating–, the narrator seems to become more and more linked to a group of absent characters, dead, or in a steep trance toward disappearance, leaving behind the more “alive” or palpitating dynamics of existence: beginning with his anodyne sleepiness, a type of renunciation of a vital posture in the face of life –maybe only interrupted by his brief attempt to exercise by swimming, which logically culminates with a near-drowning–, and later on with his constant reference to (and even his dialogue with) actual characters whose deaths occurred amid intriguing conditions of sudden dissipation.
Thus the objects of his continuous reflection include the celebrated disappearances of Chet Baker, who died under suspicious circumstances after falling from a window in Amsterdam, or Saint Exupéry, who disappeared without a trace in a Lightning P38 airplane flying over the coast of Marseilles; along with those of several neighbors in the Barcelona neighborhood where he lives: Mrs. Cremer, consumed by the heat, or the neighbor dressed in pajamas with little snakes and arabesques. Something similar happens with the character Dumont the antiques dealer, a sort of imaginary friend to the narrator –an homage or reference to the first known aviator, the Brazilian Alberto Salas Dumont, whose suicide by hanging remains clouded by uncertain details–; and with Dr. Boltanski, the narrator’s psychiatrist –whose surname references the Jewish artist Christian Boltanski, famous for his tireless exploration of the themes of death, memory and disappearance in his many works and performances.
The experience of absence, then, takes place in the very writing of the story, understood as a type of detective work in which the aforementioned clues point not to a restitution of memory or of legacy, as would be the case in Boltanski’s installations, but rather to the consummation of disappearance itself: as though the very act of writing were providing an account of forgotten details about and by the absent ones. Writing as a remainder, a retelling of what endures, but at the same time the story of the disappearance of the writer himself. This meta-discourse makes its appearance within Belmonte’s narrative, present in the photos the protagonist obtains from an abandoned roll of film, and which exhibit the sequence of a photographic calendar of a man’s disappearance. It is a trace, undoubtedly, because the photos are the testimony of something that existed, but a trace that leads to a definitive absence, and from whose reading the narrator extracts the conclusion that, the more perfect the disappearances, the fewer traces of themselves they leave behind, the more impossible will be the existence of magic, art and writing:
How many of us haven’t felt disappointed when, at the disappearance of a dove or a parrot, the magician has been incapable of hiding the feathers that remain at the bottom of his top hat? It’s true that it would be very difficult to disappear into thin air, and that without the traces that bodies in transit leave behind detective stories wouldn’t be possible. Auguste Dupin wouldn’t have invented the police genre had it not been for the carelessness, almost always involuntary, of the turncoats. To hide the tracks, or to erase them, is one of the greatest challenges for anyone with the intention –the vocation– of disappearing. (p. 80)
Listening to the narrator himself, the novella is followed by a brief “Report Regarding the Absent,” which offers the reader various additional clues regarding certain referents that could be considered “lost” within the story. However, these annexes in the form of short stories run the risk of being unnecessary details: weakening the whole with their lack of fluency and their tendency toward narrative dispersion, instead of reinforcing a global imaginary that, in the end, doesn’t really need additional pivots.
In the end, saving the elephants perhaps represents the act contrary to that ideal disappearance by which Belmonte seems to renounce the human. But the narrator asks himself: “Why save the little elephants and not the little crocodiles or the chiripas? Mrs. Sheldrick has the answer to this: elephants are humans.” (p. 11) Maybe the answer lies in finding the human where we least suspect it: in seduction, in the pure desire (to help the little elephants, in this case) that will hide the absences; a hopeful gesture, perhaps, the suggests the quintessence of the human in other regions of existence, such as mercy or nobility; but one subject to the laws of the society of the spectacle: Mrs. Sheldrick will turn out to be a marketing ploy to promote the protection of the poor little animals, and with this discovery a new disappearance will end the spell the elephants cast over the narrator. It would seem that the human, after all, is destined to vanish in any of its spheres of existence, just like it’s also destined to leave behind a long trace. Therefore, the perfect disappearance, the absolute erasure of man, resides, according to Belmonte’s poetics, in assuming the inevitability of death as a vocation, as a commandment, as an explicit desire for escape; like that pilot who climbs into his plane and midway through his journey cuts off communication with the control tower, so as to then mysteriously disappear into the air.
Illustration: “The Disorganized Life of Maxim Valletin,” Christian Boltanski
{ Gabriel Payares, 500 ejemplares, 2 February 2010 }
4.08.2009
Adentrándose en la escritura del borde / Gabriel Payares
Deep into Writing on the Edge
Just as this edition of Papel Literario was reaching its deadline, the country received the ill-fated news of the death of Stefania Mosca, novelist and essayist, who was born in 1957. Recently honored by the IV Feria Internacional del Libro, in 1997 she was awarded the Premio Municipal de Narrativa for her novel Mi pequeño mundo: el burdel nacional visto desde un hueco.
“I feared it from the start: it was late.”
Stefania Mosca, “Tic, Tac…”
“The problem is the real, how we function within this reality,” Stefania Mosca affirmed in an interview on the occasion of being chosen as the honored writer for the IV edition of the Feria Internacional del Libro de Venezuela (Filven), manifesting one of her greatest aesthetic and philosophical preoccupations, which she tackled head on in her essays from El suplicio de los tiempos (1999), to cite one example. Her voice, a national echo of the dilemmas inherited from the 20th century by Western culture, would immerse itself without a second thought in the discourse of the border: that fatal dividing line that declares inside and outside, us and them, and that far from being circumscribed to the flat and innocuous dimension of geography, today is erected more than ever as the instrument from which realities are molded.
In that sense, Mosca assumed her belonging to the place of those “on the outside”: a place of marginal and peripheral enunciation, that is nevertheless not exempt from the existential problems addressed by Sartre and his frequently cited Being and Nothingness, but rather the opposite. Reality, the body, the perception of the other and of the self are all so present in Mosca’s pen that they ended up being the ideal categories for researching the author’s adherence to a continental culture whose voice has been silenced within the symbolic realizations of media hegemony; in her own words, a “marginality of the periphery [that] does not have a story, outside those promoted by the DEA or obscenely typified by Hollywood films” (El hilo de la voz, 612).
Narrating the Margin to Ourselves
There we find the superposition of essay and fiction in Mosca’s work: responding to the need to offer ourselves our own story, of grabbing hold of our subalternity as prime material, through which we can get closer to our truth – our being-in-itself, Sartre would say –, attainable only through “liberational” writing and reading. Mosca’s seemed to be a poetics of approaching the real, in frank disagreement with the market’s so-called “simulacra”: a posture that turns out to be at once a logical consequence and an honest opposition to the global village’s millennial offers.
So her fictional construction of notable characters that conduct themselves in marginal or even alienated social ways is more than understandable – “The Cosmo Girl,” the “Beggar,” “The Sweet Wife” –, those whose voices have been silenced by the system and confined, either to the gym, to the street, to domestic chores, or to the consumerist noise of marketing. And yet, the case of the beggar contains a moment of significant humor, though not any less dark: the assumption of complete lack, the most absolute and pure mendacity, as the greatest state of liberation possible: “There will be no life beyond total lack. Freedom. My own, to be something apart, a ruin. To not have a credit card” (Ibid, 607). Although with marked sarcasm, the narrative of this indigent who has fled from a world that is repugnant to him and that offers no escape – even reaching the point of affirming that “the rural escapes of the sixties are fallacious (Ibid, 608) – contains the seed of the true liberation Mosca pursues: that of the story-teller who assumes her marginality and finds in her naked word, liberated from life – “there will be no more life” – the path to self discovery.
More than what we would call characters, these are fictional instances that allow an almost essayistic reflection on the aforementioned themes; almost excuses to research identity, the female body, love’s incomprehensibility, or the urban construction of the everyday – “six million caraqueños seeing Mount Ávila every morning creates a link” (Ibid, 610) – and memory, understood as the ancestral, inherited and legitimate trace that must be recovered and put back together within the individual: fragments of origin, whether it be national, familial or personal. A group of interests and of questions to which Julio Miranda adds, in El gesto de narrar, “the female complaint, that manages to critique itself as a dependency (…) as well as the concern for the body’s deterioration and aging; and no less, the contrast between the city of freeways and big buildings, of vertigo and violence, and the sea as fullness” (345).
“We’ve made the body Barbie’s territory”
The female condition, however, ends up being one of Mosca’s central interests in her attempt to reach, in this case, the ontological truth of woman. She frequently denounces an “autoinvisibility” of the woman’s body, a more frequent victim – although not the only one – of the demands of fashion, who gets lost in the illusions of a standard for femininity that is more demanding each time. It is “women, chasing after The Echo of Another’s Pleasure (Ana Teresa Torres), sweaty in the gym, or shamed and bruised on operating tables” (El hilo de la voz, 611). Mosca wagers on the body’s awakening, drowsy in its silent existential marginalization; a protest that, even if it might seem commonplace today, nonetheless finds its echoes, perhaps intelligently, in the “central” instances of Western thought, such as Descartes, Faulkner o Diderot, and in much more contemporary intellectuals such as García Canclini and Nelly Richards, or even in the Brazilian Clarice Lispector or the Czechoslovakian Milan Kundera.
In the same vein, these references, placed alongside much more local instances such as Simón Rodríguez, Luis Alberto Crespo and even, in an amusing though significant anecdote about Venezuelanness, the ex-president Luis Herrera Campíns, are used by Mosca to put into practice her own theory, appropriating hegemonic thought in order to force it to engage in dialogue with peripheral voices. Liberation, then, for Mosca is conceived as a staging of a marginal voice, that assuming its mediations narrates, describes and constructs itself all at once by means of pure written exercise: “First comes the tracing of the figure. We should delineate, define the contours, the territory’s forms. In order to know our body, we have the skin that, being an edge, is the sense that joins us to the outside, the other, the universe” (Ibid, 613).
In this way, giving a form to our territory – be this the country, the female body or literature itself – implies a journey towards origin, an inner glance that gains sense as it delineates – “discovers” – the truth that was previously occupied by illusion, simulacrum, phantasmagoria. A philosophical proposal that seems to be nourished by Baudrillard’s polemical theories, with the exception that he would have never accepted the existence of an “authentic” national reality; something that did seem to seduce Mosca, whose faith was invested in the ontological (re)discovery of “what is ours,” or more accurately, in its (re)creation: to fill with writing the void left by the market simulacra that, like a distorting mirror, “erases or assumes in a deformed manner, assimilates and transfigures (Ibid, 612) the countercultural manifestations that take place within its core. The author’s fundamental preoccupation, according to what she said in the interview with which we began this dissertation, is found in the reality’s fatal artificial nature, when man is not integrated with Nature: “…but it’s up to us that it be at least a more welcoming elaboration, that it not make us the victims of objects. Because our desire is no longer a desire for the other but rather a desire for the thing.” Perhaps this is announced by the earthquake that closes the bourgeois gathering of La última cena (1991), proposing through the tremor the necessity of fracturing our artificial social structures, in favor of a more direct relationship with the national “truth.”
Following Mosca, writing on the edge – a word [borde] which she aptly used to title the series of essays we’ve been citing – always turns out to be rewriting, in a palimpsest, in the almost archeological search of a negated truth, by means of the word: “The marks of origin have been diluted. The origin does not exist, or it is everywhere, but we can’t avoid the chimera of putting it back together. We have a birth. The body demands that its source be identified” (Ibid, 614). In this Mosca makes herself a spokesperson of a Latin American symptom, of a desire for a reestablishment very in tune with the majority of our nations, that insist on the urgency of rediscovering themselves, of arriving at their own truth as a nation, digging and digging in the ruins of our failed modernity.
From another perspective, this supposes the assumption of writing as the only possible means of salvation. “We all write. We want to save ourselves, to create our own images,” she affirms in her “Sueño de una noche de verano,” recalling the mythical relationship between the word and the genetic act our tradition attributes to it: the hope of recreating ourselves, this time in our own image and likeness – since our mestizo origin already points to the intervention of others, of those from outside – seems to be a constant element of this particular Latin American mythology, full of paradoxes and contradictions, a faithful reflection of the complexities of our social and political reality. Today, it doesn’t seem to exist for those of us who live on the edge of the possibility of enunciating an “us”; and perhaps that is what sentences us to a constant search for liberation, for the nakedness of the short story’s beggar.
{ Gabriel Payares, Papel Literario, El Nacional, 28 March 2009 }
Just as this edition of Papel Literario was reaching its deadline, the country received the ill-fated news of the death of Stefania Mosca, novelist and essayist, who was born in 1957. Recently honored by the IV Feria Internacional del Libro, in 1997 she was awarded the Premio Municipal de Narrativa for her novel Mi pequeño mundo: el burdel nacional visto desde un hueco.
“I feared it from the start: it was late.”
Stefania Mosca, “Tic, Tac…”
“The problem is the real, how we function within this reality,” Stefania Mosca affirmed in an interview on the occasion of being chosen as the honored writer for the IV edition of the Feria Internacional del Libro de Venezuela (Filven), manifesting one of her greatest aesthetic and philosophical preoccupations, which she tackled head on in her essays from El suplicio de los tiempos (1999), to cite one example. Her voice, a national echo of the dilemmas inherited from the 20th century by Western culture, would immerse itself without a second thought in the discourse of the border: that fatal dividing line that declares inside and outside, us and them, and that far from being circumscribed to the flat and innocuous dimension of geography, today is erected more than ever as the instrument from which realities are molded.
In that sense, Mosca assumed her belonging to the place of those “on the outside”: a place of marginal and peripheral enunciation, that is nevertheless not exempt from the existential problems addressed by Sartre and his frequently cited Being and Nothingness, but rather the opposite. Reality, the body, the perception of the other and of the self are all so present in Mosca’s pen that they ended up being the ideal categories for researching the author’s adherence to a continental culture whose voice has been silenced within the symbolic realizations of media hegemony; in her own words, a “marginality of the periphery [that] does not have a story, outside those promoted by the DEA or obscenely typified by Hollywood films” (El hilo de la voz, 612).
Narrating the Margin to Ourselves
There we find the superposition of essay and fiction in Mosca’s work: responding to the need to offer ourselves our own story, of grabbing hold of our subalternity as prime material, through which we can get closer to our truth – our being-in-itself, Sartre would say –, attainable only through “liberational” writing and reading. Mosca’s seemed to be a poetics of approaching the real, in frank disagreement with the market’s so-called “simulacra”: a posture that turns out to be at once a logical consequence and an honest opposition to the global village’s millennial offers.
So her fictional construction of notable characters that conduct themselves in marginal or even alienated social ways is more than understandable – “The Cosmo Girl,” the “Beggar,” “The Sweet Wife” –, those whose voices have been silenced by the system and confined, either to the gym, to the street, to domestic chores, or to the consumerist noise of marketing. And yet, the case of the beggar contains a moment of significant humor, though not any less dark: the assumption of complete lack, the most absolute and pure mendacity, as the greatest state of liberation possible: “There will be no life beyond total lack. Freedom. My own, to be something apart, a ruin. To not have a credit card” (Ibid, 607). Although with marked sarcasm, the narrative of this indigent who has fled from a world that is repugnant to him and that offers no escape – even reaching the point of affirming that “the rural escapes of the sixties are fallacious (Ibid, 608) – contains the seed of the true liberation Mosca pursues: that of the story-teller who assumes her marginality and finds in her naked word, liberated from life – “there will be no more life” – the path to self discovery.
More than what we would call characters, these are fictional instances that allow an almost essayistic reflection on the aforementioned themes; almost excuses to research identity, the female body, love’s incomprehensibility, or the urban construction of the everyday – “six million caraqueños seeing Mount Ávila every morning creates a link” (Ibid, 610) – and memory, understood as the ancestral, inherited and legitimate trace that must be recovered and put back together within the individual: fragments of origin, whether it be national, familial or personal. A group of interests and of questions to which Julio Miranda adds, in El gesto de narrar, “the female complaint, that manages to critique itself as a dependency (…) as well as the concern for the body’s deterioration and aging; and no less, the contrast between the city of freeways and big buildings, of vertigo and violence, and the sea as fullness” (345).
“We’ve made the body Barbie’s territory”
The female condition, however, ends up being one of Mosca’s central interests in her attempt to reach, in this case, the ontological truth of woman. She frequently denounces an “autoinvisibility” of the woman’s body, a more frequent victim – although not the only one – of the demands of fashion, who gets lost in the illusions of a standard for femininity that is more demanding each time. It is “women, chasing after The Echo of Another’s Pleasure (Ana Teresa Torres), sweaty in the gym, or shamed and bruised on operating tables” (El hilo de la voz, 611). Mosca wagers on the body’s awakening, drowsy in its silent existential marginalization; a protest that, even if it might seem commonplace today, nonetheless finds its echoes, perhaps intelligently, in the “central” instances of Western thought, such as Descartes, Faulkner o Diderot, and in much more contemporary intellectuals such as García Canclini and Nelly Richards, or even in the Brazilian Clarice Lispector or the Czechoslovakian Milan Kundera.
In the same vein, these references, placed alongside much more local instances such as Simón Rodríguez, Luis Alberto Crespo and even, in an amusing though significant anecdote about Venezuelanness, the ex-president Luis Herrera Campíns, are used by Mosca to put into practice her own theory, appropriating hegemonic thought in order to force it to engage in dialogue with peripheral voices. Liberation, then, for Mosca is conceived as a staging of a marginal voice, that assuming its mediations narrates, describes and constructs itself all at once by means of pure written exercise: “First comes the tracing of the figure. We should delineate, define the contours, the territory’s forms. In order to know our body, we have the skin that, being an edge, is the sense that joins us to the outside, the other, the universe” (Ibid, 613).
In this way, giving a form to our territory – be this the country, the female body or literature itself – implies a journey towards origin, an inner glance that gains sense as it delineates – “discovers” – the truth that was previously occupied by illusion, simulacrum, phantasmagoria. A philosophical proposal that seems to be nourished by Baudrillard’s polemical theories, with the exception that he would have never accepted the existence of an “authentic” national reality; something that did seem to seduce Mosca, whose faith was invested in the ontological (re)discovery of “what is ours,” or more accurately, in its (re)creation: to fill with writing the void left by the market simulacra that, like a distorting mirror, “erases or assumes in a deformed manner, assimilates and transfigures (Ibid, 612) the countercultural manifestations that take place within its core. The author’s fundamental preoccupation, according to what she said in the interview with which we began this dissertation, is found in the reality’s fatal artificial nature, when man is not integrated with Nature: “…but it’s up to us that it be at least a more welcoming elaboration, that it not make us the victims of objects. Because our desire is no longer a desire for the other but rather a desire for the thing.” Perhaps this is announced by the earthquake that closes the bourgeois gathering of La última cena (1991), proposing through the tremor the necessity of fracturing our artificial social structures, in favor of a more direct relationship with the national “truth.”
Following Mosca, writing on the edge – a word [borde] which she aptly used to title the series of essays we’ve been citing – always turns out to be rewriting, in a palimpsest, in the almost archeological search of a negated truth, by means of the word: “The marks of origin have been diluted. The origin does not exist, or it is everywhere, but we can’t avoid the chimera of putting it back together. We have a birth. The body demands that its source be identified” (Ibid, 614). In this Mosca makes herself a spokesperson of a Latin American symptom, of a desire for a reestablishment very in tune with the majority of our nations, that insist on the urgency of rediscovering themselves, of arriving at their own truth as a nation, digging and digging in the ruins of our failed modernity.
From another perspective, this supposes the assumption of writing as the only possible means of salvation. “We all write. We want to save ourselves, to create our own images,” she affirms in her “Sueño de una noche de verano,” recalling the mythical relationship between the word and the genetic act our tradition attributes to it: the hope of recreating ourselves, this time in our own image and likeness – since our mestizo origin already points to the intervention of others, of those from outside – seems to be a constant element of this particular Latin American mythology, full of paradoxes and contradictions, a faithful reflection of the complexities of our social and political reality. Today, it doesn’t seem to exist for those of us who live on the edge of the possibility of enunciating an “us”; and perhaps that is what sentences us to a constant search for liberation, for the nakedness of the short story’s beggar.
{ Gabriel Payares, Papel Literario, El Nacional, 28 March 2009 }
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


