In reading Amulet by Roberto Bolano, there were many things in the book that were difficult to understand, and I had to honestly Wikipedia some things, such as the attack on the demonstrators of the university in Mexico. However, I think the point of the book is to show the flow of history and the role perspective and memory play in it, so it was not necessary to know all the events in it. I also think it was interesting to write from a female perspective because it maybe helped to distance his own experiences so that it would not be so autobiographical. It also helped to give the idea of being “the mother of Mexican poetry”.
I have thought about what the meaning of the book is and I think it is a kind of journey about the poet’s role and how they make poetry. It also gives insight into the subculture of poets. For example, she says that she met Arturito Belano; “I met him, I was his friend, and he was my favourite young poet, although he wasn’t Mexican, and the expressions ‘young poets’ and ‘new generation’ were generally used to refer to the young Mexicans who were trying to take over from Pacheco or the conspicuous Greek of Guanajuanto…” (p. 60). This gives insight into what goes on in the groups and how they see themselves and each other. It also shows the way they interacted with each other during this time.
Another aspect of the book is to look at Latin American history and the way that it affected people. For example, she writes that Arturo returned from Chile he was different; “Allende had been overthrown, and Arturito had done his duty, so his sister told me; he’d obeyed his conscience” (p. 73). There was a cross between the artists and the political situation they were in. The overthrow of Allende had the big impact on Latin American history, and for many artists who thought it was going to be great progress for people but were then disappointed when there was the overthrow. The book helps to show the feelings that people had about these historical events.
A question that I think would be interesting for discussion is – what do you think a writer takes into consideration when they go over the history of a whole area in the world? How can they decide what to include and what to exclude?
Hello!
I really like how you describe the intention of the novel – “to show the flow of history and the role perspective and memory play in it […]”
To answer your first question, I think that the people of a region must be one of the major considerations. As for choosing which points or groups to include, I would guess that it depends on the idea or question that the writer wants to address: Bolaño, for example, focuses less on major events in Latin America and more on the trials and efforts of writers and young people – because, like you say, these topics are closer to the “point” of the work.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
To answer your question, I think aside from in Amulet, a writer chooses to write what had the most impact in themselves, what had impacted society, and what readers could relate to. When writing to readers with a shared history, the writer and readers share a special unspoken bond through the memories and events they encountered. I think that shared history plays a part in what they choose to include.
Hi!
As someone who loves to write and admires literature, that is something I often think about. Could the slip of my tongue or a quick un-ruminated comment be the downfall of y career in writing? I can’t imagine studying the entirety of cultural norms and historical significance of a country if I wanted to base a story about it. Better yet, I don’t know if that is expected but it is definitely something to look at and even to apply to other domains. I wonder if one must study the history of all birds to write a short story about a pigeon haha