This week’s reading dealt head-on with some of the darkest themes we have discussed thus far this term, making it definitely one of the most emotionally challenging reads for me personally so far. Professor Beasley-Murray began his lecture by discussing the inherent barbarism at the heart of society, especially one which imposes hegemony. In the context of Latin America emerging from authoritarian governments into democratically elected states, this barbarism that is more obvious through systems of government like authoritarianism is nonetheless a very prevalent issue in democracies as well. I think this point was an important place to start for reading this text from Bolaño. The overarching perspective of a long period in history found in this novel mimics the reflective period of reconciliation that Latin America went through during this period. This text deals with and portrays the barbaric side of society in a much more impactful way than say, The Underdogs. As that text takes place during an active civil war, a lot of the brutality and results of the violence fade due to the disorienting and sparsely detailed writing style that Azuela employs. In Distant Star, the detached unnamed narrator (who I understand through a little research is an author stand-in character that Bolaño uses) brings an outside perspective that emphasizes the consequences and atrocities that come with war and violent conflict. Instead of thrusting his narration into the midst of the action, Bolaño’s much more reserved approach serves to highlight the horrific and traumatic events he details.

Bolaño grapples with representing atrocities and traumas of the past in a very interesting way, through the creative expression of poets and writers. As writers often serve as cultural creators in the sense that they give voice or form to nascent societal truths and desires, the narrator’s participation in writing groups can be seen as his attempt to contribute to or improve his society. The narrator’s obsession with Alberto Ruiz-Tagle and his ascription of all of Chile’s genocidal and authoritarian crimes against its population demonstrates a possible bias in the author to believe the most powerful political tool is a writer. This may in fact be true, as the narrator is later sent to a prison camp for holding socialist views. As the narrator undoubtedly is looking for explanations for the state of his home country, it does make sense that he views someone with the same profession but politically opposed to him would be instrumental in grand societal change. As may be evident, I’m not entirely sure what to make of the narrator’s obsession with Alberto, so for my question this week: why do you think that the narrator fixated so keenly on Alberto?