In class we spoke about the significance of the difference in the title of Aria’s work between the English and Spanish versions. The English version offers a prelude of “Guatemala 1954” giving the reader a direct context for the events of the short story. I believe the significance of this relates to the extent of American intervention in Latin America and the Guatemalan conflict expressed in the story.
I propose that the specifics of the setting of the story are made to call the people of English speaking countries directly to the content of the story, without any room for misinterpretation, and without offering space for denial of the content of this story. Far too often in American media, issues are offered in a palatable way. Offering the American audience a choice in whether they consume the media, or live in their ignorant bliss. This title does not offer that bliss. It directs the reader to a specific moment with a specific history. This call out could be more dangerous in the context of Spanish speaking and Latin American countries, so the addition of the pretext in the English version leads me to the conclusion, that it is there for a reason, and that reason is for the benefit of English readers. The critical nature of the texts leads me to the conclusion that the title offers a critical address to the interventional tactics, and forces its readers to confront the severity of their country’s actions, and further perpetuation of interventional ideals in American culture and legislation.
The title offers English readers space to confront the realities of their county’s international affairs, and extends the teachings of revolution to an American front.
Hi Julia, thanks for your insight. I agree with you that the difference in the English title is intentional. In North America people are too easily dismissive and blind to the horrors that other nations have endured as a result of their country’s actions. The signaling of the title reminds us as English readers that despite this story being fictional, it is based on true events that occurred during the Guatemalan Revolution and is reflective of the realities of a whole nation of people, victimized by the authoritarian forces of the US. It creates discomfort to place this devastating story into its real-world context, which is important because as you say, American media dilutes itself to a softer version of the truth when these injustices deserve to be told in their entirety so that they do not repeat themselves. I like your point that the title is also an opportunity to teach Americans about their history since the story’s significance could slip away too easily without a reference to its context. I would also suggest that the title offers a form of remembrance and respect for those lives that were lost because of the revolution; there can be no confusion that this disheartening and harrowing story is based on the true experiences of innocent people. Thank you again for bringing up an important discussion.
I agree with you that the addition of Guatemala 1954 to the title is an intentional choice. I also like that you said the title does not allow for ignorant bliss. I’m from Ohio, so I was taught the history of Latin America through a very US-centric lens. I learned about interventionism, but I never had to know specifics, so this was the first time I had learned the Guatemalan Civil War and the amount of lives lost during it. So, I had lived with this ignorant bliss of the lives the US had cost Guatemala. Additionally, I think the title provides important background information to english readers, since many most likely do not know about the war. Without its inclusion, the story could be generalized to any war-torn community, and although still powerful, the context of the year and country only add to the story Arias is telling.
I appreciate your analysis of the original Spanish title, Kiri. By titling the story “Funeral para un pájaro,” the story absolutely could have been generalized to any context, which is a powerful literary technique often employed by authors. However, as you aptly observe, the English title insists on specificity, and has all of the effects that you, Julia, and Anna note. Great intervention!
Hi there Julia. Thanks for writing about the title – I found our discussion in class about the change between translations to be quite interesting. I largely agree with you that the title offers specificity for an audience that may not be familiar with the 1954 coup in Guatemala. As someone from the states, we were rarely taught about Latin American history in school further perpetuating ignorance about the United State’s interventionism and violence. While a Latin American audience would likely see the language around Maximo’s father’s “disappearance” as a direct nod to a particular period in history, I am not sure an English-speaking audience would have the same association. I do wonder if adding the specificity was also due to the fact that the translation was published much later… Perhaps Arias could directly reference the coup and dictatorship without facing possible retribution?