I’m going to write about Invisible because it seems like no one else is but also because I think it’s very cool. I didn’t read the whole thing but just went through it stopping at different points and reflecting on them. I probably will read it all once term is over and I have the time if I can still access it by then. I obviously loved that it’s in three languages. Obviously many texts exist in multiple languages but very few, to my knowledge, exist all at once, in three languages. When I tried to find out more about the project I had a lot of difficulty so I wasn’t able to contextualize it or learn about it to the degree that I wanted to. I am still unsure exactly what the text was trying to accomplish specifically, but I actually love that. The foreword reads, “here, there is neither praise nor triumph, nor cynicism or sarcasm, but rather a sincere love for human beings in their entirety, flaws and limitations included. This is a book about us, the people, excessive, possessive, sluggish, shaky.” For this reason, I think this texts lack of clarity (in an academic sense) is deliberate and telling. It is not trying to give us just one perspective or opinion.
Honestly, this sort of reminded me of my two favourite texts of the semester, combines. It’s composed of what may seem like excerpts or vignettes, like Cartucho but the voice is often really effusive, like Omar Cabezas’.
I love the language in diction in the sections. Like in one entitled, “The Social Mask,” the ending reads, “the masquerade will last until we return home; there, we will find, deep in ourselves, the lucid being that we were ceaselessly trying to conceal. slightly disgusted, we will simply fall asleep, in our insignificance.” I like how this connects our internal life to the way we may feel we do or do not fit into revolutionary action/movements. To be clear, this except doesn’t necessarily show that, but to have it amidst other excerpts that are referring to political individuals does that for me as a reader.
While reading this I am reminded of poetry and also a little of Kurt Vonnegut, especially of his books that include pictures. He is always writing with a lot of exclamation mark and he is often saying things that feel similar to or related to the content of these sections. I hope that when we talk about this book in class we are able to make more sense of the connections in this book. I am often failing to see how these things are connecting and interacting, and I’m unsure whether everything would become clear if I read the whole thing or if the whole piece is like this. A portrait of Gandhi is followed by a section in which the narrator speaks about walking around in the rain and body falls from a window and impales itself on the narrator’s umbrella. What’s up with that?
The images and the subsequent passages actually do correspond with each other. They tell a part of life of each person. Something that was (symbolically) important to them. But yes, at the same time there does seem to be this sense of confusion between the images and passages, hence the title Invisible. The title evokes this sense that something is not clear, not well understood, or a sense of secrecy. I do not understand why the text was written in 3 languages. If the purpose of the text (which of course we do not know) is about secrecy, translating it therefore in 3 languages seems contradictory as there is a greater chance that more people will be able to understand one of the languages. So maybe instead, this book was intended for people to read, understand, and have accessible. The title Invisible is therefore up for further analysis.
I also really appreciated the “here, there is neither praise nor triumph, nor cynicism or sarcasm, but rather a sincere love for human beings in their entirety, flaws and limitations included. This is a book about us, the people, excessive, possessive, sluggish, shaky” passage. It is so refreshingly honest. I think it is a good push back against a corrupting/unsustainable idealism while still inspiring hope.