I would like to see Cesárea Tinajero dance. — [the savage detectives; pp. 206–399]
While my respect for Arturo Belano and Ulises Lima steadily decline, my intrigue for characters like Cesárea Tinajero and Xóchitl García and María Font and Lucious Skin keeps growing. (RIP Ernesto San Epifanio). I wonder if there is a point to it. To be making Arturo Belano and Ulises Lima the foregrounding characters of the book thus far, and to do so in the most backgrounding way. Save for, the anomaly that was the first part of this book and García Madero’s involvement. Why are these two characters seemingly so central to whatever plot is brewing in this book, (what the actual plot is, I’m not quite sure of myself).
I would like to preface the rest of this blog by saying that I read the majority of this section of the book through audiobook and that I do not think I have all the details correct anymore. I apologize for any literary mistakes or misunderstandings I may write about.
I have really enjoyed hearing Amadeo Salvatierra’s musings about Cesárea Tinajero. His entries often feel like the historical backbone that the characters, visceral realism, and the book at large, needs. Like a founding myth. Cesárea Tinajero feels like a mythic, elusively hermetic, poetess figure that binds together something. Or maybe she is a ghost. Musing or haunting? What’s the difference? And with her poem ‘Sión’… I am not sure what to think. I did ask for more poems from this book supposedly about an unnumerable amount of poets, but this is not what I expected in the least.
Is Sión (i.e., Zion) the poem, some sort of biblical foreshadowing of visceral realism? God’s fallen city? Is it a Tower of Babel-esque prophecy? Especially given Arturo’s(?) fever dream prophesying the poem. Does Amadeo’s last name have any significance? Salvatierra… translates as saving earth? (I could be very wrong about this last point).
Similarly to my feelings from all our previous readings, I am slightly stumped, intrigued, and left wondering what is actually important.
In one of those rare moments where I think the author is trying to point something out from within the narrative, I was caught by this passage:
Cesárea Tinajero’s poem? Had he seen it when he was seven years old? Did he know what it meant? Because it had to mean something, didn’t it? And the boys looked at me and said no, Amadeo, a poem doesn’t have to mean anything, except that it’s a poem, although this one, Cesárea’s, might not even be like that.
What do you all think? Does a poem have to mean anything? What is it mean, to be a poem?
Here, I am brought back to Cesárea’s dancing. Does a dance have to mean anything, except that it’s a dance?