This week’s reading, Captain Pantoja and the Special Service by Mario Vargas Llosa was interesting but pretty confusing. I found the style of writing to be interesting and pretty easy to follow along with compared to other readings this term. The authors use of multiple narrators to tell the story from different perspectives through personal letters, memos, radio broadcasts, news reports and accounts written by various characters provided a more complex and complete understanding of the story. I think the shifting of perspectives, made the story more personal and exciting than it would have had it been written from the point of view of a single narrator reciting the chronological events of this army operation.
Pantoja’s growth into his position in the army and as the leader of the special service taking his life over was the overarching narrative that stood out to me as most events connected back to his story. Although originally apprehensive against the idea of it, he signs on to lead the special service for the benefits it will provide his family. Overtime, he grows more entrenched in his work, his morality skews, his wife finds out about his affair with one of the prostitutes working under his command who later dies and the operation ends.
I watched the lecture prior to reading the book and the mention of dark themes like the death of Pantoja’s mistress had me wondering how the novel would unfold to be a comedy as mentioned. After completing the reading and watching the film I’m not sure I share the same definition of comedy or let alone know how to define this style of comedy. Sure, there were comical elements like the girl named knockers, referring to project as the “special service” and various other innuendos but the main themes of the story were more tragic than funny. Maybe there’s some comedy in the ridiculousness of solving the problem of rape in the town with an army sanctioned brothel but even then, the dark implications that come with it like violence and death make it hard to laugh at. I feel like I might be missing something when it comes to the humor in Mario Vargas’ writing but it was surly entertaining and hard to put down.
My question for discussion: What did you believe would make this novel a comedy? Is there anything you found particularly funny throughout your reading?
Vargas Llosa is an experimenter in narrative forms, and you have noticed very well that the variety used in this novel gives it rhythm, and there is a variation in tones that keeps us reading. In that sense, the novel entertains us and achieves its goal. What seems debatable, as you also mention, is that ridiculous situations are openly laughable. Is it possible to separate these two issues (which some would express as form vs. theme), when we read literature of this type?
Hi there,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the novel. I enjoyed reading your comments and thought it was interesting how you describe the structure of the story and how each narrator gave it depth. I agree with this and I especially appreciated when we would get a glimpse into the mind of Pochita. And to answer your question, I did not find the novel particularly funny, due to its controversial elements, though I guess I did find some comedy in the absurdness of the novel, which maybe was Llosa’s intention.
Hi Diana! I also appreciated the shifting of perspectives throughout the novel. I think it allowed me to feel more connected to each character and what they were going through. I think you worded the type of comedy that was present really well. I agree that it was mainly the out-of-pocket lines that made me laugh throughout. The fact that this novel was considered a comedy was definitely different than I had expected for sure with all the dark themes and history relating to this time.
Hi Diana! I also enjoyed the varying perspectives throughout the story and found that using different mediums to tell the story interesting and engaging. It helped keep me interested in the story and hearing other people’s perspectives on the events happening. In terms of the story being a comedy, I think there were comedic elements, from the entire premise to the specific inner workings of the secret service. The seriousness that everyone treated the absurdity was another comedic elements. But yeah, I agree that the humor isn’t what one normally sees in a “comedic” novel.
Hey,
I think this novel had elements that can be seen as comedic but to me it wasn’t. It’s more satire and exaggerated than a true funny reading. I didn’t find any part particularly funny, but I found myself snickering at the absurdity of things.
Hi Diana!
Thanks for your blog post–I think your post highlights well the usage of various mediums and how that overall impacts the greater story at hand. To answer your question, like some others mentioned, the satirical elements stood out to me more than the comedic elements of the story. I think the one that stands out the most perhaps is as you mentioned, the name of the program itself being called the Secret Service–its funny how something so unseemingly can be right under our noses
Great blogpost! I totally agree to your point that it was hard to find out what the comical aspect of the book was. There were some ‘ridiculous’ moments in the book, but overal I don’t think I can personally agree to its genre being ‘comedy’. As Ashley pointed out above, satire was the only element that felt somewhat close to comedy, but only when I thought about it deeply. For this book, ‘going with the flow’ of the book didn’t help me find out what the comical aspects of it were.
– Daniel C