Hi all,
This week we discuss Captain Pantoja and the Special Service, paying homage to the increasing demand for specialists (aka lust), the ridiculous professionalism/euphemisms of bureaucratic systems, and the racial depiction of Chino Porfirio.
Question: What do you think is the role of the Brothers of the Ark in this story? Is there an underlying message Vargas Llosa is attempting to make, potentially about the dangers of cults? Or maybe of ‘culty’ beliefs as such? Share some thoughts and some examples of why you think what you do.
I like what you have to say here about euphemisms… saying and at the same time not saying. As you point out, in one way or another we use euphemisms all the time, but here it’s taken to an extreme. It’s like the whole semi-official existence of the special service in the first place… acknowledging something (because not to do anything would be much worse) and yet denying it at the same time. Repression doesn’t work, so the soldiers’ desires have to be catered for in some way, but it’s done in as unerotic manner as possible. Until everything breaks down…
Dear Curtis,
I feel obliged to answer your question here, as I’ve just posted my blog and have asked exactly the same question for this weeks reading.
I was a bit surprised that we didn’t hear more about this crazy aspect that continued alongside the story of Pantoja’s whirlwind adventure.
I talked about the weird “psychologically disorienting” effect that seemed possessed by the jungle. Either drawing in groups to commit to an insane religion (or at least, with insane sacrifice), or sending otherwise “straight-headed-army-captains” down a rabbit hole of sensual infatuation. Perhaps Pochita represents someone who was able to avoid this hypnotism (reminds me of Ursula now…). But what do we do with this enchanted jungle, and why include the story of this culty religion?
Perhaps to show the dangers of extremity (even for something that appears good at first). Taken further, if extremity is the problem, and this is why the secret service fails (rather than being horrible at the outset) – then one might be able to argue Llosa’s indicating his support for what could have been a logical and efficient mission to protect innocent civilians, ruined by “extremity” (instead of sin – as is the main interpretation by the community).
Maybe that was too much of a tangent and I need to think more about this, but I’m curious what conclusions you’ve drawn since reading!
Hi Curtis,
I loved your video, it was nice to watch your video instead of reading another blog post, so I full-heartedly appreciate that.
Firstly, yes, what a cover does this book have. Looking back on the cover now, I am trying to think of a deeper meaning behind the artwork. They look like they are supposed to represent the specialists who serve the soldiers.
Secondly, I think you perfectly mention how this lust keeps growing and expanding, like I mentioned, it will never be enough. When you ask if there is a message, I say yes. The more you give, the more is desired. It keeps taking like a never-ending cycle which will ultimately corrupt the system.
Lastly, you mention the professionalism, which I also mention in my blog. This professionalism for the terms feels like euphemism to make the term less harsh. Typically people use words like prostitute, but here they are not called that; instead, more professionally, they are reffered to as specialists.