I felt that the notion of revolutions are cyclical and doomed to recreate and/or sustain the conditions they were conceived in really came through in this novel, especially in the latter half. This sentiment is encapsulated by a phrase near the end of the book which reads, “”If you’ve got a rifle in your hand and your cartridge belts are full its because you’re going to fight. For whom? Against whom? For whom? No one even cares about that.” (Pg 78) In this instance, revolution, and specifically its violent qualities, are seen as mindless and mechanical. The fighting loses its meaning. We see this again when Demetrio’s wife asks him why he is still fighting and he replies, “see how the pebble can’t stop…” (Pg 86) Positing what began as revolutionary violence as not only inevitable but natural as well.
When Demetrio and his crew begin looting more regularly, we see a much darker side of them than we did before. Or perhaps we only see it pronounced in comparison to the first half of the book. Eventually while looting they “clean out” a peasant man. They take all his corn and he cannot feed his family. When he brings this to their attention they make a show of accommodating him but then make him “beg for mercy.” (Pg 68) This scene puts into focus, who, if anyone, Demetrio & his gang appear to be fighting for. At this point, it seems that they are only fighting for themselves. What is telling about this scene is that they are not only unwilling to meet this man’s needs but they actually make a spectacle of his suffering.
Luis Cervante does a curious thing in the same scene. When the looting is over he says, “Look what a mess the boys have made. Wouldn’t it be best to keep them from doing this?” (Pg 48) He is condemns looting but as readers we know he himself has pocketed one of the most valuable things found, diamonds. (The person he’s talking to also knows this but declines to comment on his obvious insincerity.) Cervante maintains an air of superiority throughout the story which reaches its peak when we learn he has taken his spoils and enrolled in medical school in America. It seems to me that in this scene especially he is demonstrating a double standard. He appears to feel moral/intellectual superiority even though he engages in similar and/or identical activities as his peers. What I found strange is that when I looked into the author’s background it was very similar to Cervante’s in that the author also had a background in academia and in medicine. This portrayal then confused me because I couldn’t tell whether the author’s intent was to demonstrate the precarity of Cervante’s superiority or the legitimacy of it.
I agree with you when you started off by saying that the notions of revolutions are cyclical and/or sustain the conditions they were conceived in. It does appear to be so. Then might I pose a question. If this is true, why then do revolutionaries start a revolution if it’s not going to change the prexisting conditions? How do they see revolutions as an effective way of bringing change?
Also commenting on your notion of “double standard” I guess the author is showing the hypocritical aspect of revolutions. The example you gave about Luis Cervante also parallels the scene in Viva Zapata where close to the end the brother of Zapata takes land away from the campesino, something which, as an ideal, he was opposed to and fought since the beginning. I guess these examples show how fragile or easily manipulative revolutions can become, and thus go back to what we agreed on, that revolutions are cyclical and sustain the conditions they were conceived in.
Cervantes’ behaviour towards the other characters also struck me as both contemptuous and hypocritical. I’m tempted to think that Azuela wrote him this way intentionally as a form of self-criticism and to argue that ideals rarely last in the heat of revolutionary combat.