Categories
Uncategorized

Deep Rivers

Reading Deep Rivers by José María Arguedas kinda messed with my head. It feels less like learning a story and more like learning how to perceive the world differently. Rather than explaining Peru’s colonial history or Indigenous suffering in direct terms, Arguedas filters everything through Ernesto’s body: what he touches, hears, and feels before he can fully understand it himself. I think this choice made the novel quiet, immersive, and at times, disorienting, but also deeply powerful.

One moment early in the novel captures this approach perfectly. As Ernesto stands in a narrow street in Cuzco, he presses his hands against an Inca wall and observes that “the wall appeared to be alive; the lines I had touched between the stones burned on the palms of my hands” (6). This is not a metaphor Ernesto explains or analyzes but is a physical sensation he feels. The past is not something he learns through stories or lessons, but something that makes itself known through touch. The stones resist being reduced to history and instead, they insist on presence.

This moment stuck with me because it shows how the novel understands memory and power. The Inca wall exists beneath colonial buildings, literally supporting structures that tried to erase it. Ernesto feels this contradiction before he can name it. His body registers the tension between what endures and what dominates. In this sense, the novel suggests that colonial violence is not only ideological or historical, but spatial and physical, as it is built into walls, streets, and institutions.

Throughout the novel, Ernesto continues to respond to the world in this embodied way. Spaces like the cathedral or the boarding school overwhelm him not because he fully understands their authority, but because he feels their weight. By contrast, rivers, stones, and Indigenous songs offer moments of connection and clarity. Arguedas does not romanticize these experiences, but presents them as alternative ways of knowing that do not rely on explanation.

One of the most striking parts of this novel is the way it refuses to translate everything for the reader. Ernesto cannot always articulate what he feels, and in this way, the novel resists smoothing out cultural difference. Instead of making Indigenous experience fully legible to an outside audience, Arguedas asks readers to sit with uncertainty and sensation, just as Ernesto is doing in the book.

In this way, Deep Rivers challenges how we read stories shaped by colonial histories. It suggests that not all knowledge arrives through language or clarity and that some of it burns quietly, like stone warmed by memory.

To end with a question, if Deep Rivers presents history as something felt rather than explained, what does that suggest about the limits of language in representing Indigenous experience?

 

Categories
Uncategorized

A book about nothing (that somehow meant a lot)

When I first finished Nada, my immediate reaction was kind of anticlimactic. After a full year of Andrea’s life in Barcelona, she leaves feeling like she’s taken nothing away from the experience. She didn’t have a crazy transformation, didn’t really take away a clear lesson, and the story ended with no dramatic resolution. Just… nada. And honestly? I still really enjoyed the book.

What makes Nada interesting isn’t what happens, but how it feels to live through it and how Andrea remembers it after. The novel is filled with images of death and stagnation. For example, the way Uncle Juan’s face is described as “skull-like,” and even the beds in the house resemble coffins. The apartment feels less like a home and more like a space where life is slowly paused. Everyone seems exhausted, emotionally drained, and trapped in routines that lead nowhere. This links to the Spanish Civil War; even though it is never explicitly mentioned, the war hangs over everything, shaping the characters’ bitterness, poverty, and inability to move forward.

What I found most compelling, though, is the way Andrea tells her story after it has already happened. She is not telling the story as it happens; instead, she is recalling her year in Barcelona later in the future. She insists that the year she spent amounted to nothing and that she leaves unchanged. However, the fact that she can still narrate the year suggests otherwise. This shows that memory gives shape to what felt meaningless at the time. The year only gains significance through retrospection.

This is where Uncle Román’s comment really stuck with me, when he tells Andrea that she has been “dreaming up stories with us as characters.” On the surface, it sounds dismissive, like he’s accusing her of turning reality into fantasy. But he is also accidentally naming exactly what she is doing as a narrator. Andrea is turning real people, conflicts, and moments into a story. Storytelling becomes her way of surviving a suffocating environment and making sense of the emotional chaos she is going through.

In a world marked by war, mourning, and stagnation, narration is one of the few forms of agency Andrea has. While the adults around her seem stuck in the past, Andrea processes her experience by observing, remembering, and eventually leaving. Even if she doesn’t recognize it in the moment, she gains perspective, distance, and a voice.

Overall, yes, Nada really is about “nothing.” There is no dramatic plot or satisfying payoff. But that is kind of the point. The novel captures what it feels like to live through a period of emotional emptiness and only later realize that it mattered. In the end, the irony is that a book about nothing leaves you with quite a lot.

To end with a question, is Nada really about the absence of meaning, or about how meaning can only emerge once an experience is over?

Spam prevention powered by Akismet