Tag Archives: The Puzzle of the Broken Watch

10/7/21

Holmes and A Tool

Armando Zozaya and Miguel Prado, the detectives in “The Puzzle of the Broken Watch” by María Elvira Bermúdez are parodies of Holmes and Watson. Miguel Prado, like Watson, does not pay attention to small details. For example, it did not “occur to [Miguel] to ask about [where the girl, Juan, bought for herself]” (4), but Armando did. Armando is like the Sherlock Holmes of this story, it seems like when everything seems to be already discovered- Armando asks the more important questions to gather even the most miniscule of details. For example, when he asks himself “why… the sisters and her little girl, [Rosita], gone so long on their errand”, it illustrates that even the most outlandish claims do not escape his eye. However, unlike Holmes, Armando is very compassionate towards others – as exhibited by his treatment of Rosita. Furthermore,  Armando is like the main protagonist in any generic story, he has the “intuition” to think of the exact thing that could have possibly happened to figure out the story. On the other hand, it seems like Watson acts like a dimwit to Holmes – just so the reader can understand the thought process of Armando when he arrives at his conclusions.  This is further backed by the fact that Miguel does not contribute anything significant enough to the plot and story. Thus, I personally think that this is a lazy way to explain plot and characters intentions in a story. Moreover, I believe that this would be a much greater story if Miguel had been killed at the beginning and Armando had to find his cause of death plus finish his case. This way the reader can interpret what happened in the story for themselves without a detective hand-holding them all the way through. Give the audience a beginning, an end, and enough meat/details in the middle; and it would have been a much greater story. 

10/7/21

When Will they Get it Right 

What struck me with interest was the difference between the lawyer and the police. Both were in a position of power to influence the lives of people yet only one was concerned with the lives themselves. So what caused this difference? 

First, let us note that the defense lawyer, Miguel Prado, seemed to be the only character who empathized with the victims of the crime. He was the only one who did not delight himself in the amusement of the tragic case at any point, unlike Zozaya. Furthermore, Miguel was helping the family (Lupe and Juan) deal with their case when it was obvious that they would not have enough money to pay for his service, as they could not even afford to buy many more simple things. Meanwhile, the police with far more resources than Miguel, demonstrated a lack of care to provide the victims and suspect with a non-negligent level of work for their case; such is an abuse of power.

Hence, one can conclude that when authority is not submitted to the needs of the people in their jurisdiction, they will use the people to serve themselves. Miguel was the only character that was concerned with benefiting the family of the victim and his client; he was submitted to their needs. Ultimately, this small piece of literature can be interpreted as a commentary for the larger scale leadership of the country and government. Possibly that the government in Mexico in that era was mostly concerned with profiting themselves using what resources they had (such as the people) to the extent that the people themselves suffered as shown through the living circumstance of Lupe’s family. Only leads one to ask; when will they get it right.

10/6/21

Spatial Inequality and Access to Justice: A Cross Comparison between Parasite (2019) and “The Puzzle of the Broken Watch”

Parasite (2019) is a Korean film directed by Bong Joon-ho. It follows attempts to class mobility by a lower-class Korean family. Although quite different genres, “The Puzzle of the Broken Watch” and Parasite explore spatial inequality through their surroundings and how those living in ‘slums’ access justice and navigate daily life institutions in unequal ways. 

In Parasite, the Kim’s home undergoes a fumigation leak, a man urinating in front of their family unit, and a disastrous inundation. Later, even at the shelter after losing their home to the rain, the conditions are inhumane, with the State’s unpreparedness to offer help to its lower-class citizens. Hence, the Kim family’s environment tells us how they experience neglect due to their economic status. In contrast, the Park family sees the rain as a blessing because the State has invested infrastructure into their area. 

In “The Puzzle of the Broken Watch,” class relations are not as explicit, but are still embedded within the narration of Juan’s neighbourhood and his dishonest arrest. Atlampa is a working-class neighbourhood in Mexico City, a city defined by its social stratification. Juan’s daily context is described as: “tenements which characterized the older, poorer Mexico … ravaged by the years … crowded with tables, assorted junk … improvised partition of bedspreads and sarapes” (pg. 4-5). Furthermore, there is constant neighbourhood vigilance, but this is not as to benefit each other. Instead, when needed, people keep silent to appease people in power (ex. gossiping ladies silence on Ismael). Ismael, a policeman and worker of the Mexican State, asserted his power against the neighbourhood, as they know if they speak on injustice, they will just be met with consequences. Juan’s unequal spatial context made him vulnerable to being framed in the first place. Ismael knew that Juan’s positionality within society was less valid than his. And had it not been for the willingness of the detective, Juan would have likely not gained justice. Or at least we assume he does, as the story ends without conclusion on Juan’s case. Additionally, it is interesting that when the detectives are looking at other plausible perpetrators, it is all working class people until they get to the murderer, perhaps representing their interchangeability.

Within both works, we see Mexican and Korean societal structures, given legitimacy by the State, keep cycles of exploitation and marginalization as to obstruct the working-class from obtaining justice. Both States deliberately fail to protect the working class, as they are seen as expendable. Their lives are not as valuable, and their spatial surroundings represent the lack of dignity that is assigned unto their identities. The States’ structures are built only for those who can afford freedom. Everyone else is in a state of survival, trying not to fall victim to the States’ corruption and negligence. Through a spatial context, both stories explore levels justice recognition.