Out of all of the works that I’ve read so far during this term, I believe that Roberto Bolaño’s Amulet may be my favourite. Despite the novel’s “ordinariness” (as described in the lecture), I really felt that there was something magical about it – not exotic or romanticized, or even anything like the “magic realism” that I have come across before, but magical in the sense that it holds powerful meaning and truth.

However, as Auxilio tells us from the beginning, Amulet is also a horror story – maybe on a number of levels, from her point of view. The main “horrors” are, of course, the ones that we can pretty easily recognize as horrific: war, state violence against the student movement, and generally frightening interactions like the one with the King of the Rent Boys. But what seems to horrify Auxilio most is violence of a more metaphorical sort: the trials of her individual poet “children,” the fate of the “lost generation,” and the experiences that she lives in her own memories and premonitions. The most terrible part, I found, is that what Auxilio witnesses is always out of her reach in some way – it’s the terror and tragedy of watching as everything that matters is destroyed, and knowing that there is no way to make a difference.

Something that struck me about this story is how Auxilio lives between the past and the future, but not exactly in the present. Auxilio remembers her poets and encounters out of necessity; she has visions out of fear; and as I understand it, the main thing that connects the two is a sort of love or devotion. I’m not sure that “love” is represented very strongly in Auxilio’s present, but maybe the desperation that comes from it is.

One thing that I am still trying to understand is the purpose of all of Auxilio’s predictions about various writers. For example, I wondered what was meant about certain individuals being “reincarnated” – not only as humans, strangely enough; and I was curious about how certain dates were chosen for certain people. Considering Auxilio’s state of mind at this point, I’m not even sure that there is meant to be logic behind her statements – but I don’t believe that she would make them for no reason. Do you think that Auxilio’s predictions are truly meaningful for her? Or are they more simply a message about literature from the author?