In this week’s reading, I decided to read “Distant Star” by Roberto Bolano. If I am going to be completely honest, this story did not connect with me as much as the other stories we have read this term. It wasn’t that the story was unenjoyable or not interesting, but I found myself struggling to finish the story as it was a little confusing to me and didn’t have the same impact as the recent books we’ve such as The Hour of the Star or 100 Years of Solitude. It’s possible that part of this is due to the fact that we are nearing the end of the term and I now have a large inventory of Latin American stories to compare the book to, however, I thought I would share my honest opinions of the book to start.
One thing that I did find interesting is that this story follows a theme I have seen in multiple stories we have read throughout the term in which the narrator or author plays with the timeline in a way that is different from what we may see in so-called “traditional writing”. To elaborate, “Distant Star” takes a unique approach to its time sequence as we are aware that the events in this story, including the very end, have already occurred when the narrator starts the story, as we see little remarks and comments from the author’s present point of view throughout the story.
Additionally, another theme that I have also noticed in different stories we have read this term (more specifically, “The Hour of the Star”) and is significantly highlighted in this story is the way in which the author plays with the perspective of the story. As I mentioned before, the narrator seems to be looking back on the event and the story of Carlos Wieder through his own memory of him (with the addition of information from his friends incorporate throughout). In this sense using an anonymous writer to tell the story from “many years later”, allows the author to create some distance from the events and provide a clear and full picture of the events that occurred while also illuminating the emotions that were present by someone who was here.
Growing on this idea, I would love to hear more of your thoughts about the perspective and time approach this story took. How else might this story have changed if we had looked at the narrator’s account while it was occurring? Or how do you think we would of view the themes throughout the story if it was written from the perspective of Carlos Wieder/Albert Ruiz-Tagle instead?
I’m sorry to read that you didn’t like this novel so much. But you found some interesting topics to discuss, for example the topic of memory and the reconstruction of the past. It is not the same artistic proposal that we find in “Mamá Blanca…” or “Cien años de Soledad”, but the search for the past takes the structure of a detective plot, curiously similar to certain Borges stories. The narrator’s memory is fragile, but the intrigue thrives on that ambivalence, when “archival” sources enter. Maybe after class you can give it a second chance!
This book would have been radically different if it were told from the perspective of Wieder. If he is indeed the “Distant Star” of the novel, then a large part of what defines his character is his distance from the narrator, the mystery as to his true background and intentions; showing these more clearly would probably change the whole orientation of the story. Plus, it can be quite disturbing to write from the perspective of someone so opposed to the writer’s own views, especially when one finds themself even momentarily sympathizing with such an antagonistic narrator – disturbing yet powerful in showing how people can arrive at such inhuman positions. I’m reminded of Borges’s “Deutsches Requiem,” in which he writes from the perspective of a Nazi commandant sentenced to execution for crimes against humanity: the most striking part of this story for me was the repurposing of “let heaven exist, though my place be in hell,” a charming line originally from “The Library of Babel,” towards sinister ends.