This week I read Amulet by Roberto Bolaño. The novel follows the narrator Auxilio Lacouture, a woman from Uruguay and the coined “mother of Mexican poetry.” She works at a university in Mexico City, and when she realizes the university is surrounded by an army, she finds herself hiding alone and reflecting on her past. I found this novel to be unique as the author tells a story while also addressing the truth of the political climate.
The novel’s narration reminded me a lot of Paris Peasant by Louis Aragon. It followed the narrator’s stream of consciousness. You can learn a lot about a character by following their every thought. As the novel explores Auxilio’s memories, I found her to be very unsure of herself, “one day I arrived in Mexico without really knowing why or how or when.” The memories of her personal self seem like she is unsure of her purpose or like she was trying to reimagine herself, whereas when she talked about the poets she worked for, her voice seemed more determined, like she understood their lives and their purpose more than her own. It might have been her attempt to connect with a higher society to which she felt a stranger.
I had difficulty determining the past from the present and the future throughout the novel. Auxilio was observing, commenting, and participating in the events of the book all at once. This was a unique way of narration, I thought. As we discussed in the last few classes, the theme of memories has been a pattern throughout the course, but this one was the most interesting to me out of all the novels and different methods of exploring memories. Somehow, it felt like even when we were in the present, the narrator reflected as the events had already happened.
Although the historical context is important in the novel, I felt like the author perfectly addressed the political climate in a way that allowed me, as a reader with no previous knowledge of the conflict, to understand the author’s point of view and what was meant to be taken away. So I guess in that way, the historical context was not important at all. So my questions for the class are, what role did time play throughout the events in the novel? How did this story of memory differ from others we have read in the class?
Hi Spencer.
Yes, I agree that it is reminiscent of Paris Peasant. It has similar techniques, such as the monologue or the stream of consciousness; also, when time appears unstructured and basically what happened to you: the novel produces confusion of time. I believe that time is linked to memory because the latter is fragmented, especially after (or because) experiencing a trauma, which complicates how time is processed.
Hi! Personally, I didn’t particularly find the narration of this book interesting but as you said, it was definitely unique. To answer your question about how this story of memory differs from the other we have read, I’ll compare this to Proust’s “Combray.” In “Combray”, each memory was very, very detailed and every smell, taste, colour and texture was reminisced upon by the narrator. For him, it was like he didn’t want to forget a single part of it because each small detail was what made the memory so full and so important. In contrast, Auxilio’s memories were like half-remembered anecdotes of people she had met and conversations she had had in the past. For her, it seemed as if it was more so the fact that she had that experience that mattered and not necessarily the details of the conversation or the meeting that mattered.
Hi Spencer! I had not made the connection before, but after reading your post I agree that this novella was similar to Paris Peasant in the way it flowed. I think the concept of time was interesting in this story, as time did not seem to always be a key concept to the narrator. We saw many times that she was unable to remember exact dates of event that seemed quite impactful on her life. For this, I feel as though time maybe did not play as big of a role as it does in some other stories we have read.