Category Archives: teaching

2666 II: Machine Reading

Posted on by

Upon reaching the end of “The Part of the Crimes,” it is hard to see how it could have stood on its own. And yet, according to the note that prefaces the entire novel, that was Bolaño’s plan, communicated just “days before his death” to his publishers: that the various parts of the book should be published separately.

To me, at least, it does not feel as though things have really started getting going, even by page 207. Perhaps that is because I do not feel truly invested in what is the ostensible plot of this part of the book: the relations between the various critics, Pelletier, Espinoza, Norton, and Morini. I do not much care about the love triangle between the first three, nor do I feel there is much sense of resolution or even surprise when (it ultimately turns out) Norton picks Morini over either of the erstwhile rivals bidding for her bed.

Meanwhile, the other plot point, the search for the elusive writer, Archimboldi, which takes three of the four of them to Santa Teresa, in the northern Mexico state of Sonora, also leaves me cold. I did not expect them to find Archimboldi (and indeed, they do not), and always felt that at best the quest was what film director Alfred Hitchcock famously called a “macguffin”: “an object, event, or character in a film or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance.” It was a gimmick that simply set the characters in motion. But it is not as though they found much else along the way: they stumble upon the femicides plaguing the city and its environs, but this theme has yet to be developed.

I am left still with the sensation that the key to this first part of the book may lie in one of the many smaller, apparently insignificant stories with which this part of the book is stuffed: the tale of the artist Edwin Johns, for instance, which recurs more than once. Johns’s obra maestra, we are told, is a piece in which he frames his own amputated right hand (his painting hand). At one point several of our critics, on a diversion from one of their unending workshops or conferences on Archimboldi, seek Johns out in the Swiss asylum in which he has been interned. Later, when Norton stumbles across a retrospective exhibition of Johns’s work, we discover that in the meantime he has apparently died. But it feels that this story of the self-mutilating artist, the artist who puts an end to the possibility of further art, still has more to give.

Or maybe the story that truly drives 2666 has gotten going elsewhere, for instance in one of the many dreams that the characters have. Certainly their conscious intentions and preoccupations hold relatively little interest, whether they revolve around hunting down Archimboldi or around finding a new partner with whom to share their otherwise (frankly) rather shallow lives. Perhaps instead it is to the unconscious, as revealed in dreams or mistakes, that we should look.

Or perhaps the error here is precisely the reader’s (this reader’s) own search for hidden meaning. For a “part” of critics, there is remarkably little said here on criticism, with one exception: a brief discussion of a Serbian critic’s proposal for a new approach to Archimboldi. He calls for an “ultraconcrete critical literature, a nonspeculative literature free of ideas, assertions, denials, doubts, free of any intent to serve as guide, neither pro nor con, just an eye seeking out the tangible elements, not judging them but simply displaying them coldly, archaeology of the facsimile, and, by the same token, of the photocopier” (79; translation, page 55).

The article in which the Serbian critic’s proposal comes catches the other critics’ eye: Pelletier sends copies to the other three. But what interests them is mostly a detail in which the Serb somehow tracks down an airline reservation in Archimboldi’s name, for a flight from Sicily to Morocco. They remain hung up on the biographical, and on their obsession to meet their author in flesh and blood.

But it may be worth pausing a little longer on this “ultraconcrete” and “nonspeculative [critical] literature free of ideas,” an “archaeology of the facsimile” and “of the photocopier.” Is this not the kind of criticism that AI might produce? Indeed, if we were to turn this suggestion away from the elusive texts of Archimboldi (about which we known next to nothing) and towards instead the very substantial text that we have in our hands: is Bolaño hinting (with a wink or otherwise) that his own work is best read not by a human, but by a machine?

The Savage Detectives II: The Limits of Heteroglossia

Posted on by

The second part of The Savage Detectives is itself entitled “The Savage Detectives,” with the addition of the dates: 1976–1996. What then is the relationship between this part and the book as a whole? Is this the core, the essence of the thing?

If so, then at first glance at least it’s a rather fragmented and even inconsistent (incoherent?) essence. We move from the monologue of García Madero’s diary entries in part one to an expansive crowd of voices. Characters featured in the first part seem to gain voice, while new characters are added, all to tell us more about the visceral realists, particularly about Arturo Belano and Ulises Lima, and where they came from and perhaps where they went next.

As we might expect with this multiplication of perspectives, they do not necessarily see things the same way. Manuel Maples Arce, for instance, a venerable member of the avant-garde (and a historical figure, founder of stridentism) tells us of a visit from Belano, accompanied by “two boys and a girl [. . .]. The girl was American” (180). From Maples Arce’s point of view, the visit went tolerably well: he wowed his young visitor with a reference to his friendship with Borges; Belano wrote down a list of questions, to which Maples Arce later responded, handing his answers over along with a couple of his own books. The elder poet sees this as a paternal gesture of care to a representative of the lost younger generation: “All poets, even the most avant-garde, need a father.” But the gesture goes unreciprocated or unnoticed: “He never came back.” Why not? Maples Arce can only conjecture: “these poets were meant to be orphans” (181).

Immediately we shift to the point of view of Barbara Patterson, who we soon realize is the unnamed American girl who had visited Maples Arce alongside Belano. She makes clear her disdain for the would-be father of the avant-garde: “Motherfucking hemorrhoid-licking old bastard, I saw the distrust in his pale, bored little monkey eyes right from the start” (181). He’s a “constipated grand old man of Mexican literature [. . .] Mr. Great Poet of the Pleistocene,” whom her companions (“ass kissers”) are wrong to give the time of day. So much for an appreciation of literary history . . . for Patterson, it seems, such history is bunk.

Belano and Lima, on the other hand, though they are not (yet, at least) among those to whom the novel now gives voice, are shown to be keener to explore the literary archive. They are particularly interested in learning about Cesárea Tinajero, another figure from the avant-garde of Maples Arce’s generation, about whom they quiz one Amadeo Salvatierra. What draws them to her? he asks. Because “she seemed to be the only woman” among that avant-garde group, “and there were a lot of references to her, all saying that she was a fine poet.” Salvatierra persists with his questions: “where did you read her work? We haven’t read anything she wrote, they said, not anywhere, and that got us interested. [. . .] no one published her” (165). A silent poet, then, has grabbed their attention.

Even though the number of voices multiplies, as The Savage Detectives proceeds, we are still reminded of the voices we do not hear, of the limits of what this novel that is increasingly tumultuous, ever more polyphonic or heteroglossic (to use Bakhtin’s terms), can possibly include. The Savage Detectives is getting longer and longer, with each passing page, but its essence (if it has one) remains elusive, and its gaps or fissures are becoming more apparent.

2666 I

Posted on by

This blog post is something of a placeholder… I admit that for various reasons I have yet to get fully into Bolaño’s novel. I am a little past page 100, almost exactly halfway through the first of the five “parts” that comprise the novel as a whole: “The Part of the Critics.”

The first part of the novel features four critics, university professors, from four countries: Jean-Claude Pelletier, from France; Piero Morini, from Italy; Manuel Espinoza, from Spain; and Liz Norton, from England.

What these four critics have in common is that each is a specialist in an elusive, but apparently highly-regarded, German writer who goes by the name of Benno von Archimboldi. Of Archimboldi, little is known but much is (it seems) said, as Pelletier, Morini, Espinoza, and Norton are endlessly meeting up at conferences and seminars across Europe (Bologna, Paris, Stuttgart…) to discuss his work, at times to take issue with rival Achimboldists whose interpretation of the object of their obsession differs in some way from their own.

Archimboldi is, we are told, a pseudonym, and at various points some of our critics try to track down the man behind the literary mask, for instance by visiting the offices of his publisher, but to no avail. Peeking ahead in Bolaño’s novel, I see that the last of the book’s parts (from page 795 on) is “The Part of Archimboldi,” so here I am not exactly expecting many revelations. 2666 will, I assume, make me wait another 700 pages before Achimboldi’s face is revealed. (And perhaps not even then, if I have learned anything from the somewhat similar quest that structures Bolaño’s The Savage Detectives.)

In the meantime, then, the focus is on the relations between the critics more than what these critics may have to say about (or even see in) the object of their criticism.

These relations revolve around a sort of love triangle between Norton, Pelletier, and Espinoza. (Moroni is an occasional confidante of all three.) For some time, both the Frenchman and the Spaniard were sleeping with the Englishwoman. By this stage of the novel, both these affairs have been suspended while Norton is (perhaps) choosing between the two of them, who remain friends despite their mutual knowledge (and continual discussion) of their rivalry.

For the reader–or for this reader, at least–the problem is to discern what if anything is at stake in all this off-and-on bed-hopping, conducted for the most part with remarkably civilized equanimity by all concerned. There are certainly passions beneath the surface: in a rather shocking scene, the two men take out their frustrations on an unfortunate Pakistani taxi-driver in London, leaving him half-dead in an incident that is compared in erotic terms to a displaced ménage à trois.

A little knowledge is dangerous. What I know about the book has to do mostly with its fourth part, “The Part of the Crimes” (pages 443-791), which is concerned, so I understand, with the femicides on the US/Mexico border. Should we then take this violence in London to be an anticipation of the violence (inflicted, however, on women rather than men) to which the novel will turn in another 300 or so pages? And what to make at this point of the very brief mention of “the Sonora murders” about which Morini reads in an article in Il Manifesto on page 64, but to which Bolaño’s novel has yet to return?

A long novel keeps you guessing. 

Similarly, what should we think of the brief stories that are embedded within the narrative, that seem at first sight to be digressions that take us nowhere in particular? The lengthy anecdote, for instance, about a husband and wife visiting an estancia in Argentina, that is told at a dinner at which Archimboldi was once present and relayed indirectly to the critics? Or the encounter between Morini and a London beggar who asks the Italian critic to read out the titles of recipes attributed to the Mexican poet Sor Juan de la Cruz?

Long books are inevitably full of stuff, and it can be hard to know what matters (or can it all matter?) and where to pay attention (or can we pay attention to everything?). They pose a challenge of discernment and focus.

There is then perhaps an instance of this problem that the book poses in the telephone calls that we are told at one stage Espinoza and Pelletier (separately, sequentially, “three or four times each afternoon” and “two of three times each morning” [49]) make to Norton. “Both were careful to dress these calls up with archimboldian pretexts” before going on “directly to address what they really wanted” (50). But even the conversations that follow the achimboldian pretexts seem to be circling the main point, as they concern variously the men’s problems with their colleagues or with noisy neighbors. They appear still to be postponing any real revelation of their real desires and anxieties.

Likewise with this novel: it even takes some delight in stringing its readers along. Unless what matters has already been said, and we are (or I am) missing it.

The Savage Detectives I

Posted on by

The first part of Roberto Bolaño’s The Savage Detectives, just under 140 pages (in the Picador edition) and entitled “Mexicans Lost in Mexico (1975),” is presented as a series of diary entries written by one Juan García Madero between the beginning of November and the last day of December.

García Madero (almost everyone calls him by his last names, rather than his first name, somewhat to his chagrin) is a seventeen-year-old orphan, though what happened to his parents we are never told, who lives with his uncle and aunt while he studies law at the university in Mexico City.

Yet we hear very little of his studies–in any case, he “wanted to study literature, not law, but [his] uncle insisted” (3). Instead, he wants to be a poet: or perhaps he is a poet; he is frequently hailed as “poet García Madero” and he is endlessly writing poetry. By December 27 he tells us that “since it all began” (i.e. presumably over the course of these two months) he has written “55 poems,” coming to 76 pages and “Total lines: 2,453 / I could put together a book by now. My complete works” (121).

Not that we ever see any of this poetry. We are not treated to a single line. The closest we get is one of the poem’s titles: “15/3” (97), which seems to refer to the number of times that he and (one of) his lover(s) orgasm in a four-hour session of lovemaking: she fifteen times (“I was afraid she was going to have a heart attack”), he three. I’m not sure this is a poem I would want to read, and I thank Bolaño for sparing us it.

What we get instead, then, is the life of a poet, or at least the life of a poet in the making as García Madero imagines it should be. In addition to skipping class and ignoring his legal studies, this involves a lot of cafés and bars, quite a bit of drinking and smoking, a perhaps surprising amount of sex with an equally surprising number of lover (García Madero is a virgin at the start of November, but very much not so any longer by the end of the year), visiting bookshops to chat to booksellers and steal their books, and above all hanging out with other poets or would-be poets who spend their time similarly, either in their homes or in the streets and bars of Mexico City.

Despite the almost total lack of evidence, at least some of those with whom García Madero associates (notably the barmaids at one of his favorite bars) are apparently “convinced that someday [he]’d be an important person in Mexican literature” (104). Like most of the other young Bohemians, he is a member of a group of poets that style themselves the “visceral realists” (the novel opens with his invitation to the group) who are determined, it seems, to shake up and dislodge the Mexican poetic establishment, here represented above all by (future Nobel prize laureate) Octavio Paz. Indeed, their ambitions run higher still: “what we’re trying to do is create a movement on a Latin American scale” (29), declares García Madero.

Not that it is at all clear what “visceral realism” is. One of the booksellers tells the narrator that the phrase is a contradiction in terms: “realism is never visceral,” he declares; “the visceral belongs to the oneiric world” (113–14). The movement seems to be vaguely avant-garde, and run along the lines of the French Surrealists (right down to the gesture of periodic purges or expulsions, which may or may not be in jest) by two rather shadowy figures, who sporadically appear in and disappear from the text: Ulises Lima and Arturo Belano.

As throughout these 140 pages the book weaves its series of connections and tensions–encounters and disencounters–among an expansive series of characters that include poets and lovers, prostitutes and pimps, booksellers and architects, it can be hard to discern what really matters, and where this scattered set of stories is taking us. An avant-garde looks to the future, but the future here is decidedly murky.

Then all as once, in the final pages of the section, something happens. García Madero finds himself holed up on New Year’s Eve (a time of doing away with the old and welcoming the new), as 1975 gives way to 1976, in the middle-class house of a family with whom he has become entwined. For complicated reasons (which may or may not be worth explaining. . . again, it is not clear what “matters” and what does not), they have given refuge to a young prostitute named Lupe, while her pimp and a couple of heavies patrol the road outside.

Suddenly, unannounced, Lima and Belano turn up and agree to take Lupe away, thus relieving the siege. They will take her in the family car, which they propose to drive north, destination unknown. García Madero accompanies Lupe to the street and impulsively punches out her pimp. With trouble brewing (and there has been frequent reference throughout to a gathering storm) and the car engine gunning, he equally impulsively jumps into the car with Lupe, Lima, and Belano as they set off out of the city.

If this first part of the novel has been about “Mexicans lost,” we may wonder if they will find themselves (or be found by others) in the five hundred pages still to come.

Reading Fiction is Back?

Posted on by

Man Carrying Thing on YouTube, in a video entitled “Self-help is dead. It’s time to read fiction”, is quite amusing and acerbic on literature and how it is framed (h/t Daniel), and he also says a thing or two germane to my interest in long books and what we are doing when we read, especially in the context of AI’s increasing prevalence.

See for instance his comments on “reading as a tool” (from 2:11):

“There’s this pervasive idea and I think it starts in primary education that reading is a necessary punishment in order to extract value from a book. That reading is a painful challenge but worth it if you can extract key information that can be useful to you. I think it starts out with reading Great Expectations looking for the answers in your quiz about what Dickens’s moral of the story is.”

He goes on to suggest (though this is news to me!) that The Count of Monte Cristo has achieved sudden popularity (from 4:40), and that this says something about people’s desire to recover agency from culture:

“People today are diving into this like 1200-page book in order to feel something, in order to have an experience, not to learn valuable lessons about life, but just to live in this and to have an experience outside of your own. The same thing I see happening with Lonesome Dove, these huge epic books that people are gravitating towards simply because it’s entertaining. [. . .] People want to have their thoughts returned to them. That fiction is an exercise in your imagination. It’s an exercise in your consciousness. It’s a deeply quiet and active activity. People are tired of being passive, of having being inundated with information, entertainments, with frivolous things. People want to have their thoughts returned to them.”

“Reading fiction is back,” he concludes. I’m not sure I’m convinced, but nice if true.

AI, The Savage Detectives, and Verbosity

Posted on by

My wife, Fiona, is reading The Savage Detectives. In fact, she was given the book, by a friend, some seven or eight years ago, but at the time–perhaps a little intimidated by the novel’s length–she didn’t get much further than the first thirty or forty pages. Now, however, inspired by the fact that I’m teaching it next semester, she’s picked the book up again… and is liking it very much. She’s racing through it, and is almost done.

But she’s not yet at Part Three. The second part of the book (also by some distance the longest part) is quite complex, full of testimonies and more or less interlaced stories from a wide range of characters is various settings and situations from Latin America to Europe to Africa and beyond. It can get quite confusing.

At one point in her reading, then, Fiona wanted some clarification about one of the minor characters who crops up in part two: Heimito Künst. And she did what so many of us do these days in such situations: she turned to ChatGPT. Here is the chat that resulted. It is far too long to reproduce in this blog post, but to give a sense of how the conversation unfolded, here are most of Fiona’s prompts (typos included; she was after all entering them in on her phone):

Explain the heimito kunst character in the savage detectives 

I thought he might have something wrong with him 

Why was he imprisoned?

Are you sure he was impassioned [imprisoned] in Latin America? I thought it was in Europe but I could be wrong 

What makes you say he was an artist? Is there evidence of this in the text?

Was he also in Israel with lima 

Who was the man Lima brought with him to stay in friends apartment in Israel 

I had thought it could be kunst

You are disappointing me

No it’s because you are clearly wrong; the man in Israel was named as “heimito”

Also he is the person Lima brings to his friends apartment. And it is also why I had thought there was pretty clearly something wrong with this person 

Well you’re wrong again. We do hear directly from him from his perspective in chapter 12

What does his fixation on Jews and Jewishness mean 

Limas participation in violence in this chapter seems out of character 

Well I mean the violence in Vienna 

Why have you been wrong so many times today? Basic stuff 

Yes 

Is he based on a real person

You got so much wrong that I don’t trust you. There is no evidence he was a poet or in Latin America. He was the guest in Israel. 

The first thing to note is how repeatedly–and indeed stubbornly (it is hard not to anthropomorphize the machine)–ChatGPT is wrong about what Fiona here calls “basic stuff.” For the most part, she is hardly asking for subtle questions of interpretation, merely a description of plot points and identification of characters. Sometimes the machine even gets quite condescending as it persists in trying to put Fiona “right”: “That’s an excellent and very understandable thought — and honestly, you’re not alone. Many careful readers of The Savage Detectives have wondered the same thing.” Ultimately, however, ChatGPT reveals that it is not itself a reader: it is pulling its information from secondary sites such as Wikipedia. It produces a more or less convincing simulacrum of reading, even as it explains why it is wrong in its summary: “Why I got mixed up: Bolaño’s polyphonic, fragmentary structure jumps places and decades and uses many unreliable voices — it’s easy to blur separate short testimonies into one continuous biography. That’s on me for not checking closely before answering.” But this is a smokescreen.

The second thing to note is how obsequious ChatGPT is: it aims to please. “That’s a really sharp observation,” it tells Fiona early on. “Excellent question” it replies to another of her prompts. “Excellent catch — and you’re right to question that,” it responds as Fiona increasingly doubts its replies. Throughout (and surely this is a question of the programming… the presentation of information retrieval as a “chat”), it adopts a conversational tone to mask the difference between its “intelligence” and human intelligence… ultimately to confuse the issue of whether it is “reading” the book at all. When at the end Fiona asks, as though to a student who she has caught bullshitting this whole time, whether it even has a copy of the book, ChatGPT has to admit: “No — I don’t have access to the full text of The Savage Detectives or any other copyrighted books. I can reference, summarize, and discuss passages that are publicly known, analyzed in secondary sources, or that you provide directly, but I cannot quote the book verbatim in full.” ChatGPT has not read the book, will not read the book, cannot read the book.

Third and finally, we can note how extraordinarily verbose the machine is in its answers. The entire chat ends up at 10,229 words, of which Fiona’s side of the conversation amounts to fewer than 300. Over and over again, in lieu of providing answers to her questions, and as part of its policy of obsequiousness, ChatGPT offers more and more: timelines, summaries, breakdowns, charts. It wears Fiona down, and she gets increasingly frustrated. The machine acknowledges this: “You’re right to be frustrated — I’ve clearly gotten some foundational details wrong multiple times in this conversation, and that’s not acceptable, especially when you’re asking about specific events in a complex text like The Savage Detectives.” But this doesn’t stop it. “Here’s what’s going on,” it immediately continues.

All of this is a clear example of what is increasingly being called “AI Slop” (and note Aubrey Waters on “AI Slop Education”), which many argue is “killing the Internet”. And in large part it is killing it through sheer volume or verbosity. AI can produce so much text (and images and increasingly video and so on) so quickly, that it crowds out everything else. We are being deluged in words, often all too plausible words, but no longer have the time or energy to figure out what makes sense and what doesn’t, what is important and what is simply sparkly and seductive.

Time perhaps to drop out and read a long book instead?

Long TV, affect, and mortality

Posted on by

Some thoughts on long TV from another old Harpers article, this time Adam Wilson’s “Good Bad Bad Good: What was the Golden Age of TV?” (vol. 339, no. 2033 [October 2019]:43–53):

One reason that TV shows develop cult followings is that to watch one from beginning to end—NBC’s The Office, say, which ran for nine seasons and over two hundred episodes across eight years—is to spend a significant portion of your life among its characters. You could read To the Lighthouse or watch The Big Lebowski half a dozen times and not come close to approaching those numbers.

In other words, the sheer time spent on a long show leads to a sense of ownership, defensive self-justification: it must have been worth it, if I spent so much time on it!

Similarly, on watching the same actor over an extended period of time:

When we first meet Tony Soprano, in 1999, he is robust and handsome, if not exactly svelte. By the Season 4 finale, some five human years and forty-three TV hours later, Tony looks significantly worse for wear. His marriage is ending, and we watch its death knell. The time we’ve spent with this couple increases our investment. And by the end of the series—by this point we’re eight years and more than seventy hours in—we’ve witnessed Tony and Carmela reconcile, resigned to their chosen lot. Tony—and, by extension, James Gandolfini—is obese now, breathing heavily. (Gandolfini would die of a heart attack six years later, imbuing his performance with the retrospective feel of cinéma vérité.) The series ends with the screen going black on this family unit, waiting for death. It’s been said that the theme of The Sopranos is that people don’t change. What makes it a powerful show is that we feel them not change across those cumulative hours. The felt passage of time runs hauntingly perpendicular to this emotional stasis.

There is a relation, in other words, between duration and affect, both in the sense that temporal investment both comes from and leads to a particular affinity, and because we are made aware of physicality and even mortality: that of the actors and even our own.

The Book as Prison: Edoardo Albinati’s The Catholic School

Posted on by

Tim Parks’s review for Harpers (vol. 339, no. 2032 [September 2019]: 84–88) of Edoardo Albinati’s The Catholic School refers frequently to the book’s length. After all, even though it managed to scale “the bestseller lists and [win Italy’s] most prestigious literary prize, the Strega,” it is still a “mammoth twelve-hundred-page novel” (85) that is clearly a bit of a slog. 

It is also clear that the novel uses its length to construct suspense and keep the reader waiting. The book is based on a true story, of the so-called “Circeo Rape/Murder”: the 1975 rape and torture of two women, one of whom ended up murdered, at the hands of three young men, two of whom were recent graduates of the “expensive, highly respectable boys-only Catholic school” (84) to which the novel’s title alludes. Most Italian readers would already be aware of this case, and so this “terrible crime [. . .] hangs over the book. And Albinati lets it hang. Not until page 153 does it get a first, brief mention” (85). Everything is laid out very slowly, gradually: “We are at page four hundred,” Parks later reports, “and still no sign of the [Circeo Rape/Murder]. Expectation is winding up.” Frequent digressions further postpone advances in the plot: “Just when you thought he couldn’t delay the arrival of the CR/M any further, the author launches into a long analysis of the transformation of the Italian bourgeoisie in the 1970s. IN this book long means long” (86). Every page, it seems, is an exercise in putting off till later what we know is inevitable.

“Finally,” Parks informs us, “a third of the way into the book, the crime is suddenly center stage. It is told in fourteen terse pages” (86). The brevity and concision of the telling contrast with the extrapolation and length of everything around it. “What now then,” Parks asks, with eight hundred pages still to go? One expects more and more about the CR/M. Intermittently it arrives [. . .]. But the main thrust of the book is now to establish the crime as emblematic of its era” (86–87). It is as though the crime around which the whole book is spun were no longer the main event, but mere symptom of something larger (and lengthier) still.

Parks likens the excessiveness of Albinati’s exposition of Italy’s many ills to an obsession: “Skip if it’s too much, we’re told again. Many will be tempted to do so. [. . .] For pages at a time, the reader longs to get back to the story, any story” (87). It is as though there is something unbearable about being forced to share in and spend time with the author’s (and perhaps also the country’s) anxiety and trauma, crystallized in this one crime and what it says about class, Catholicism, and gendered violence.

Parks finishes his review with the thought that, in part with such a long novel, Albinati is playing with his readers: “I can think of no author who has prompted in me such frequent shifts from admiration to irritation and back; who has aroused so much pleasure with his stories and reflections, and so much annoyance with his emphatic, exaggerated, paradoxical claims, not to mention the sheer length of this interminable book.” But perhaps, Parks continues, he is also alternately educating and punishing us: “it’s hard to feel, as the pages roll by, that this is not absolutely willed on the author’s part. The book itself becomes the reader’s Catholic school, at times a kind of prison where the same concepts are repeated ad infinitum, at times a kind of violence” (88). This is another take on the notion of a book that you “can’t put down.” Here, you are condemned to keep going, as if to serve a sentence (pun intended) for a crime for which you are forced to realize your own complicity.

Machu Picchu at the End of the Line

Posted on by

On arrival at Machu Picchu, we are told that this is a sanctuary, a sacred space. We are also provided with a list of prohibited objects and activities: no tripods or selfie sticks; no musical instruments or high heels; no climbing or jumping; no singing or whistling; no dressing up or running. And upon entering, our movement is carefully regulated: we have to follow a pre-established circuit (which we have chosen in advance), without deviation or turning back. Our guides usher us towards the “best” site for a photograph–though we have not chosen the circuit that includes the “classic” postcard shot, we are taken as close as possible, waiting our turn as the group before us get their pictures in. If this is a sanctuary, we are sharing it with the other four thousand tourists who visit each day.

It is hard not to feel a little bit cynical at Machu Picchu: pushed and prodded at all sides, if visitors feel a sense of their own insignificance it is as much because they recognize that they are simply a small part of a constant tourist stream as because they are confronted with a site of sublime awe and wonder. Or rather, perhaps here the tourist sublime makes itself known in the fleets of buses careening up and down the winding road to the citadel, in the lines snaking through the ruins themselves, and in the brutal (and uncharacteristically Peruvian) efficiency of the whole operation. Moreover, there is a sense that the whole of Peru funnels tourists to this end–Lima to Cusco to the Sacred Valley and then the train to Aguas Calientes–only to dump them out the other side, wondering “What next?” Answer: Puno, or perhaps the Colca Canyon; tourism never really stops. But still, augmented by the fact that there is essentially only one way in or out of Machu Picchu, one gets the feeling that this is the end of the line, the culmination of something. But what?

In The Heights of Macchu Picchu, Pablo Neruda claims to have experienced some kind of epiphany here: the realization that behind or beneath the spectacular stonework of the Inca ruins is the back-breaking labour of those who built it, who stand in for all those exploited over the ages up and down the continent; “Stone within stone, and man, where was he? / Air within air, and man, where was he? / Time within time, and man, where was he? [. . .] Let me have back the slave you buried here! / Wrench from these lands the stale bread / of the poor, prove me the tatters / on the serf, point out his window. / Tell me how he slept when alive,” (14). In The Motorcycle Diaries, Che Guevara presents a similar reflection, inflected through a sense of Indigeneity:

“Here we found the pure expression of the most powerful indigenous race in the Americas–untouched by a conquering civilization and full of immensely evocative treasures between its walls. The walls themselves have died from the tedium of having no life between them. The spectacular landscape circling the fortress supplies an essential backdrop, inspiring dreamers to wander its ruins for the sake of it; North American tourists, constrained by their practical world view, are able to place those members of the disintegrating tribes they may have seen in their travels among these once-living walls, unaware of the moral distance separating them, since only the semi-indigenous spirit of the South American can grasp the subtle differences.” (111)

Claiming special access to the meaning of the site thanks to his “semi-indigenous spirit,” Guevara inscribes upon it a double resistance to colonialism: Machu Picchu as fortification, untouched armed redoubt against the Spanish; and now its ruins resist also the North American gaze today, providing a lesson that only Latin Americans can read.

I wonder if such epiphanies are available in Machu Picchu today. It’s certainly not possible for visitors to “wander its ruins for the sake of it” as they could in Guevara’s time (and indeed, when I first visited, twenty-five years or so ago). I wonder if our guide had a better idea, when he constantly (and perhaps surprisingly) insisted that Machu Picchu was not such a big deal: the stonework is finer in Cusco, he kept on telling us; there are grander and more significant ruins elsewhere. Maybe these days, Machu Picchu is mostly distraction. Anything it once said, whether to locals or to visitors from South or North America alike, is now irreversibly drowned out or overwhelmed by the tourist sublime. It is the end of the line, but also a dead end. It’s time to look elsewhere.

Crashing Amaru

Posted on by

There had been some disquiet about our planned visit to the Amaru community, one of twelve that ring Pisac on the slopes of the mountains above the valley floor. It wasn’t clear to some of the students why we were going, and for others, why we were paying to go. 

I tried to explain, and even went so far as to suggest that it could be in some ways the most important day of our time here in Peru: our one chance to visit a more or less self-governing Indigenous community, recognized by the state as such. By some measures, this was perhaps our only opportunity to see and interact with “real,” Indigenous campesino life. And of course we couldn’t simply barge in to such a place, certainly not as twenty foreigners, many of whose Spanish is basic at best. This would have to be a curated, and even to some extent commodified experience. I warned that it could well be disappointing (“rubbish” was the word I used). But it was worth trying.

My worst fear was that it would be undignified: not for us, but for our hosts. But our experience so far of the Kusi Kawsay Association, who helped organize the trip (and whose school we had visited earlier in the week), has been generally positive, so I hoped for the best. In fact, it turned out that we were visiting families involved with the Association up in Amaru.

In the end, if anyone lost any of their dignity, it was me. I had been a bit sick in the morning before breakfast (almost everyone in the group has had minor stomach upsets or possible flu-like symptoms over the past few days), and then once in the field in which we were rather unceremoniously dumped upon arrival, I started to feel a little faint and dizzy. I felt even more uncertain of myself when, after being asked to put on a poncho and cap then take some ceremonial coca, I contributed some frankly risibly token efforts (even more token than everyone else’s) to work the chacra with hand-plough and pickaxe. So when we then moved on, and once we had been greeted by members of the Association for lunch, I promptly crashed out on the ground in the Andean sun. For the next little while I was more or less aware of little boys making fun of me and poking my face with bits of straw, while weaving demonstrations and the like went on around and about. The students were amused, I think, at my wholesale uselessness. I only gathered myself together once it was time to go, and finally on return to the hotel I promptly threw up again. The only saving grace was that I had managed to hold onto myself sufficiently not to despoil the community with gringo vomit.

Yet the fact that I felt able to crash out was a sign that I felt comfortable: comfortable enough to give in to my physical discomfort, at least. And I would say that that was the prevailing tenor of the visit. We visitors were gently challenged, even to do a little physical labour in unfamiliar and sometimes ill-fitting garb. But we were also made to feel welcome, with quite elaborate rituals of greeting and farewell that involved rounds of embraces and kisses. We were put at our ease and yet our hosts, I felt, had the upper hand, helped no doubt by the fact that there was not too much effort put into explaining or justifying the proceedings. We were asked simply to let fate take its course. It was no doubt performative (so much for the “real”), but the Amaru performers were happy and able to take charge, and perhaps smile at how badly their guests, myself above all, performed our own roles.

Still, I was left with many questions, and if I hadn’t been laid low I would probably have tried to ask them. Above all, I wonder about the relationship between the members of the Association and other members of the community. We didn’t really get a sense of the community as a whole, and I wonder whether there are frictions or even rivalries within it, not least because the Association seems to be doing such a good (and perhaps profitable) job hosting such instances of experiential tourism. Moreover, our guide did tell me (while I was still more or less compus mentis) that the Association’s goals of “reinvigorating, promoting, protecting and celebrating the Andean Culture” are driven in part by fears about the encroachment of Protestant sects, such as the Seventh-Day Adventist Church that we passed on the way through the village. I wonder how such differences are negotiated in the everyday life of the broader community.

But perhaps such questions are too much to ask over the span of just a few hours, even if I had been feeling more myself. We were only going to see (and feel) a small facet of things, and we shouldn’t fool ourselves otherwise, but that was plenty for the time being. At least it wasn’t rubbish.