After reading the first few chapters of Mariano Azuela’s The Underdogs I began to suspect that the novel would follow the same broad narrative path as Viva Zapata!, with Marlon Brando’s portrayal of the hero of the Revolution replaced by the fictional but no less charismatic Demetrio Macias. From the offset he is shown to have quite the reputation, scaring away to Federal soldiers by his mere presence, and only sparing them because “Their hour hasn’t struck yet”. Demetrio also has a stoic disposition, as well as an apparent talent for leadership, painting him as a perfect icon for the Revolution.
However, the rest of the novel puts him under much less of a positive light. This shift begins with the question of his motivations, which – unlike Kazan and Steinbeck’s version of Zapata – do not concern the retribution of lands to their rightful owners. Rather, he seeks vengeance against a local figure of authority whose beard he spat on, and who retaliated by sending Federal soldiers to burn Demetrio’s house down. The men who follow him do not fight for any nobler goals, and most of them seem to have joined Demetrio because they were on the run from the law. Even Luis Cervantes, who shows a strong sense of moral righteousness in the way he embraces revolutionary ideology, only joined the movement after his perceived mistreatment in the ranks of the Federal army. He even attempts to justify Demetrio’s own involvement through ideology, telling him that they are “fighting tyranny itself”.
However, Demetrio shows little interest in achieving any sort of grand socio-political result. He even seems uninterested when Cervantes suggests he should join with other revolutionary forces, and only changes his mind at the prospect of obtaining a high military rank. Cervantes himself, although initially trying to stick by his ideals, eventually gives in to the attraction of material gains, and joins the other men in looting. The only character to display any form of moral integrity is Camilla, whose kindness and naiveté strikes a stark contrast with Demetrio and his followers, and her death at the hands of War Paint only serves to emphasise the weakness of morality in the face of violence. All of this serves to make the point that while idealism may have been present, the fighters in the Mexican Revolution was to a large extent motivated by a combination of circumstance and desire for material wealth. While it is still possible to sympathise with such characters, it also makes it difficult to perceive them as heroes. In fact, were it not for the fact that they are fighting in a revolution, we would probably see them as no more than simple bandits.
In fact, the revolution helps vindicate their deeds, and allows them to gain wealth and glory through violence in ways that would be impossible in peaceful times, where they would be destitute outlaws. The Revolution is all they have left.
Your statement “the revolution is all they have left” makes me think. That is true for most of the characters in this novel, and untrue for at least one other. The appeal of violence seems different–more or les potent, depending on the positionality of the rebel in question. This, to me, reifies the similarity between violence and revolution as addiction. Vancouver based doctor Gabor Mate says, “we can be addicted to anything.” And also says that addiction comes from our developmental years, not from our genes, which suggests that our susceptibility to addiction is directly connected to our personal experiences. Thus, someone’s willingness to perpetuate cycles of violence long after they have become disconnected from their original intent, becomes connected to their own life experiences.
I agree with your point on addiction, and I think it could definitely help explain Demetrio Macias’ joy during his blaze of glory.
As for the character who does not have only the Revolution left, I assume you’re referring to Luis Cervantes, since he is able to leave the fighting behind and live on. I think this illustrates the importance of social background and class in both the novel and the Mexican Revolution more generally. Cervantes, being from the upper classes, is clearly separated from “those from below”, and he has far more options available to him than would a similar person from the peasant class, such as Venancio.
I also think that they have become addicted to what opportunities the Revolution gave them -acts that would otherwise have them depicted as bandits rather than heroes.
Definitely, although in the case of looting one could also make the point that they have become materially dependent of it.