This is probably my favourite book we’ve read so far. Or a close second to Cartucho, I haven’t decided yet. What I really like about this book is the overall tone which manages to be both truthful and sardonic and the voice of the narrator who I have come to think of as personable, or at least relatable. Reading this directly after two of Che’s books definitely enhances its convivial nature (almost as if it was planned that way…) I get the feeling that the narrator takes his roles/tasks seriously but knows when and how to joke around. (Think we discussed in class how this was definitely not one of Che’s qualities.) I think this is a decidedly better way to come at revolution than the stoic approach Che has, but I can see myself getting a lot of flack for this opinion. I recognize the importance of discipline but I also think that many people have difficulty empathizing with or committing to a cause or a person that cannot affect them in a real and visceral way. A narrator like this one, who is organized but fallible, is more endearing to me and frankly, more believable. We see his relatability when he says things like, “I was scared shitless of getting myself killed.” (9) or when he compares joining the Frente to “the end of your childhood happiness.” (13) Basically, I can see myself saying/feeling those things so I immediately identify with the narrator. Call it what you will.
One part I particularly like is when he says, “I remember the motto […] FREEDOM FOR THE UNIVERSITY. I thought, what garbage!” And he defaces the dean’s house with the words: THROUGH THESE DOORS ONE ENTERS THE 15TH CENTURY,” (31) an obvious parody of the university’s slogan, about reaching the stars, or some similar metaphor. I think this is an interesting scene because it illuminates something we have really talked little about (ironically) in our classroom together which is: how effective (if at all) is mobilizing from within an institution that has perpetuated all kinds of subjugation since its inception? I am tempted to say: not at all but then here I am, fulfilling my contractual obligation to write this, hoping I will learn anything during my undergraduate degree that I can use to make a positive impact on anything. By not only attending UBC, but paying to do so I am, however sad it makes me to think about, condoning the hierarchies prodced by/within the university/academia, in general. I am curious to know what other people think but I wonder: if I can only conceptualize addressing a problem through the same avenues and with the same skills which sustain the problem am I really addressing it at all, or just making it bigger. Why do we suspect that the knowledge systems that have paralyzed us (the myth of higher learning, for example) are ultimately the ones that will save us? There’s a fitting quote to go here, something about shackle becoming tools but I can’t remember it exactly or who said it so I’m going to quit while I’m ahead.
Yeah, I agree that this is the best book we’ve read so far. This or Cartucho. (Which is not to say that the others aren’t interesting, but…) It’s more human, I think, though I like your term “convivial.” And I agree that it’s refreshing that Cabezas is ready to admit when he’s a bit of a fuck-up.
(Though doesn’t Brand also try very hard to be convivial, and to admit that he’s far from perfect…?)
I also like your second point, which could provoke a lot of discussion. But perhaps we can put it this way: in Cabezas’s case, at least, the university is important, as it’s a place where he learns to become an activist, and meets many of the people who will go on to be important comrades in the struggle to come. So it is a place of learning, if not necessarily the sort that others might imagine.
And I very much like this view of the university, as a place where things don’t quite work out the way you, or others, expect them too. This is one reason I don’t like the whole notion of “learning outcomes,” in which we (the professors) are supposed to state from the outset what students are to learn or get from a course. I want students to be surprised, and to surprise us, by what they learn. A university should be a place in which we are open to changing our minds, finding new directions that nobody can ever anticipate.
I really enjoyed your comments on university and the ridiculousness of it all in regards to our current situation today. It’s baffling to me how universities are actively moving away from a model of knowledge and understanding and more towards another means to generate capital.
Your comment on University, reminds me of a comment you made during class one day regarding higher education and how much you hated the phrasing. University is very much a social construct which we find ourselves in, and during this time, we try to break that social construct in order to gain the freedom of our own thoughts.
Great blog!
I would just like to say one thing. I think an important thing to consider when giving our opinions as to whether we liked or disliked this book more than others is to ask who we think the audience is intended to be. With Che’s texts, it’s very political, and for that reason there is a very serious tone. He might therefore be addressing to politicians, government officials, and soldiers. Whereas in this novel Fire from the Mountain, the author makes a lot of reference to the localness of things. Therefore I think the audience is meant to be the popular people. By making something popular, I think people can connect to your ideas more easily.