Comments on: Week 1: Characters

By: Terrell Williamson

Terrell Williamson — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:30:18 +0000

Maria, I’m not sure at whom your post is directed, but I’m take a shot, re: the politics. Based on By Night in Chile, Amulet, and Nazi Literature in the Americas, Bolano is clearly opposed to fascism. I would go so far as to say that Bolano places blame with Europe for the prevalence of right-wing dictatorships in South America. In my view, Bolano is a very political writer and one of his main concerns is how easily in morality and art can be divorced from one another. That’s been one of his main concerns in his earlier short novels and I believe that you will see it is one of his concerns in 2666.

Hope that’s helpful.

By: Maria Bustillos

Maria Bustillos — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:25:46 +0000

You have to wonder what a Chilean who grew up in Mexico and Spain, who “regarded himself as a Latin American,” would think of such stuff. What is the politics here? We know hat Bolaño regarded himself as a Trotskyist, a term I’ve never understood exactly (beyond a seeming Marxist intent to slide clear of Leninism, or Stalinism?)

Enlightenment, if you”ve got it!

By: Terrell Williamson

Terrell Williamson — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:40:51 +0000

Susan, I think that’s a point worth bearing in mind. This is my second time reading 2666. This time I’m trying to read much more closely. Based on the first 51 pages, I’ve found this to be extremely fruitful. I think Bolano uses both fictional titles and real titles, authors, and artists to hint at the themes he intends to explore and to prefigure where the story is headed. While Bolano doesn’t describe Archimboldi’s books, he compares the fictional oeuvre to that of real authors to indicate the important aspects of Archimboldi’s books.

By: Terrell Williamson

Terrell Williamson — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:33:31 +0000

Junger is presented in By Night in Chile as being associated with the supporters of Pinochet, i.e, associated with Nazism. Notably, Junger first book has been criticized as glorifying war. So in this context, Bolano may be suggesting something about Archimboldi’s fictional oeurve: that it is anti-Nazi (conceivable since he is a post-WWII writer) and that is doesn’t glorify war (also conceivable under the circumstances). I think this is clarified by the comparison of Archimboldi’s fictional oeuvre to Heine, presumably Heinrich Heine, who was a Jew and a German ex-patriot. In contrasted to the perceived Nazism of Junger, Heine’s works were among those burned by the Nazis in Berlin in 1933. “To commemorate the terrible event, one of the most famous lines of Heine’s 1821 play “Almansor” was engraved in the ground at the site: “Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.” (“Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people.”)” Archimboldi oeuvre is associated with ideas antithetical to Nazism.

By: Maria Bustillos

Maria Bustillos — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:40:23 +0000

Woke up this morning thinking of St. Thomas More and St. Thomas Becket. Blast it.

By: miette

miette — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:04:38 +0000

Oh, I know, re: the Swabian Infestation. A quick look at the Wikipedia shows it houses Western Europe’s greatest collection of (among other great qualities) very self-serious 20th century philosophers. Another thing to note: the Swabian dialect is notoriously difficult for many speakers of Standard German to make any sense of, which is a trivial little bauble but perhaps a thing to consider — could some of the inconsistency in the Swabian’s story be lost in (the characters’) translation of that story?

By: brooks

brooks — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:12:59 +0000

Very good points. I guess I with with Thomas the Apostle because I assumed that the title would more directly reference Aquinas if he were the intended reference. And maybe it’s intentionally vague on purpose!

By: brooks

brooks — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:09:55 +0000

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Jünger stuff with Espinoza and why Bolaño would have chosen Jünger over another writer. As far as Espinoza’s timeline goes, I’d guess that it was probably the mid to late 1980′s. Was there a Jünger resurgence at that time? Was he enjoying a resurgence with the university crowd?

As for the Swabian stuff – you’d be surprised at how many of those German artists referenced in my post are from that region! I wonder if the whole Swabian thing is interesting or seems notable to us because it’s something foreign. For example, if the Swabian had been referred to as “the south-westerner” I think we’d be far less interested.

By: miette

miette — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:00:15 +0000

A quick connection I’d made between the supporting cast in this section (N.B. this is my first read, so please indulge what may a current moment of ignorance and what may become a down-the-road Archimedes moment if I’m stating the obvious):

Ernst Jünger proves an interesting note to me as he lived through Imperial Germany, Weimar Germany, Nazi Germany, and the Federal Republic, settling his final years (he lived to be 102) in, of all places, Swabia.

And, it’s perfunctory for any fan of Jünger’s writing to disclaim that while he was a radical right-winger opposing the Weimar Republic, he was deeply critical of the Nazis. Jünger is also mentioned in By Night in Chile, about which I can’t say much as it’s buried somewhere in my now knee-deep to-read pile.

So, I’m not sure if there’s a Jünger-Swabian connection, or something more to suss out with Bolaño (or Pelletier’s) forays into Jüngerian study, but there it is.

And Brooks, let me add a “holy shit, thanks for all this” to the well-earned encomia above.

By: Maria Bustillos

Maria Bustillos — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:46:47 +0000

Two reasons, I guess, though on reflection, the ‘doubts’ set up here are interesting too. One is that Aquinas is this towering figure in the world of letters whom so much has been written about, whereas the apostle’s writings are noncanonical and have never excited a whole lot of attention in literary circles (to my knowledge.)

The other reason is that some of Aquinas’s most famous writings are about the nature of knowledge and reason itself as distinct from divine revelation and I guess that seemed kind of Archimboldian to me, given the various tastes and interests of the critics (?)

Maybe we are supposed to be doubting, though.