Author Archives: Syndicated User

For Whom the Bell Tolls I

Crossposted to Infrapolitical Deconstruction Collective.

Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls

Halfway through Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls, the protagonist Robert Jordan is thinking both forwards and back to Madrid. Forwards because, in the middle of the Spanish Civil War, stuck in a cave behind Fascist lines waiting to begin a tremendously risky and seemingly ill-fated operation to blow up a bridge, he distracts himself by imagining what he will do if and when his mission is successfully concluded. “Three days in Madrid,” he thinks. The capital is under siege, of course, but even so it would offer creature comforts unimaginable on the front lines: a “hot bath [. . .] a couple of drinks.” There would be music and movies: he’d take his peasant lover Maria to see “The Marx Brothers at the Opera” (231). He’d have dinner at Gaylord’s, a hotel that “the Russians had taken over” where “the food was too good for a besieged city” (228).

But all this also leads him to think back (unusually, for a man not given to reminiscence) to other experiences he has had at Gaylord’s, a place of intrigue thick with rumor and “talk too cynical for a war.” It was here that he’d met the shadowy Russian Karkov–introduced by the last dynamiter to work in the zone and described as “the most intelligent man he had ever met” (231). And it was largely Karkov who’d made “Gaylord’s [. . .] the place you needed to complete your education. It was there you learned how it was all really done instead of how it was supposed to be done” (230). For in Jordan’s (and Hemingway’s) jaded eyes, the Republican cause may be right, but it is far from pure. Behind “all the nonsense” (230) is a murky world of machination and deception that only fully comes into focus at the Russian-held hotel. This is the epicenter of disillusion and corruption, but it is also the only place to “find out what was going on in the war” (228).

The hidden reality of the war is not pretty, but in some ways (Jordan reflects) it is “much better than the lies and the legends. Well, some day they would tell the truth to everyone and meanwhile he was glad there was a Gaylord’s for his own learning of it” (230). And Jordan and Karkov talk about when and how this truth will emerge: “out of this will come a book,” Karkov says, “which is very necessary; which will explain many things which it is necessary to know” (244). Jordan himself, a Spanish instructor at a US university, has already written a book–about “what he had discovered about Spain in ten years of travelling in it”–but it “had not been a success.” Some day soon it would be time to try again:

He would write a book when he got through with this. But only about the things he knew, truly and about what he knew. But I will have to be a much better writer than I am now to handle them, he thought. The things he had come to know in this war were not so simple. (248)

Now, Jordan is not Hemingway–and Hemingway is not Jordan, though the author has surely invested plenty in his character, a man of few words who prides himself on his powers of observation and his knowledge of the human psyche. But is this novel the book that Jordan would have wanted to have written? The work of a “much better writer” that is to explain the truth of a complex war whose surface veneer is attractive but whose grim interior is more fascinating still. Perhaps.

But For Whom the Bell Tolls is not really about the war’s covert machination. Indeed, what’s interesting about the novel is that Hemingway refuses to accede completely to Jordan’s notion that the “truth” of the conflict is to be found amid the cynicism and corruption that his protagonist tells us “turned out to be much too true” (228). Or rather, Jordan himself is shown as struggling to determine where the reality of the situation lies. Up in the hills, he knows that the situation is bad, not least when he sees the “mechanized doom” (87) of the Fascist planes that roar overhead and announce, as clearly as anything, that the enemy knows of the forthcoming Republican offensive. But he can’t quite admit this: asked whether he has faith in the Republic he replies “’Yes,’ [. . .] hoping it was true” (91). To admit to the precariousness of their fate, the difficulty of their mission, would be to fall into the trap that has ensnared Pablo, the local guerrilla leader who has let fear (and alcohol) overwhelm him, because he knows that their cause is long lost: he toasts “all the illusioned ones” (214) and explains himself by saying that “an intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend his time with fools” (215).

Ultimately, Jordan–and Hemingway–know that Pablo is right. But that cynical truth has to be both acknowledged and at the same time staved off, postponed, in the name of another truth that resides within the illusion itself, the legends and lies. So what we get is an ebb and flow, a tense and agonizing interchange between these two truths, between an apparent simplicity and purity (incarnated above all perhaps in the figure of Jordan’s lover Maria–who can never be taken to Gaylord’s–but equally in Hemingway’s characteristically terse and understated style) and a darker, more cynical complexity that can neither be denied nor allowed to dominate. So the paradoxical result is that simplicity ends up being far more complex than the web of machinations that it endlessly has to deny, precisely because in fending them off it recognizes and so includes them, while the cynic can only destroy all that is pure. It preserves, in other words, the infrapolitical paradox: that what is necessary for politics is never inherent in it, but vanishes with scarce a trace.


Class Discussion Reflection – Homage to Catalonia

Sebastian Lee and Annie Lu

Annie and I both thought that the class discussion went well. We initially created a surplus of slides on our PowerPoint presentation, with various questions that we had about the book and the war, as well as passages and quotes we found interesting. In particular, we had many questions centered on the politics of the civil war.

Ultimately, the slides were sufficient in provoking discussion for most of the class period, and there were very interesting points brought up by our classmates throughout.

Topics that frequently came up in discussion included Orwell’s motivations for writing the book (as a form of “propaganda”), Anarchist, Communist and Socialist policies, and what made foreigners want to participate in the war.

I felt that we presented some decent ideas, but to improve for next time, we could phrase the questions differently in order to make it easier for our classmates to respond. For a book discussion, I would make the questions more answerable by (and more specific to) the contents of the book itself, rather than more general questions about the civil war.

Also, the digressions from the planned topics of interest were quite entertaining and informative (e.g. the Cricket test matches), but as regulators we could keep the discussions a little more focused.

Overall, we felt that we asked significant questions, questions that went deeper than the superficial layers, and that the class generated good dialogue about the book.

Class Plan: Homage to Catalonia

 

Sebastian Lee and Annie Lu

 

We created a PowerPoint presentation with our personal questions regarding Homage to Catalonia to facilitate the class discussion.

We divided the questions/quotes into general categories, sharing and discussing the topics with the class in approximately the following order:

-The purpose, style and tone of the book (How was the book written? Why so?)

Point Of View

What was Orwell trying to achieve?

 

-The setting of the book (What kind of atmosphere did it create?)

Also: “Spanish” qualities, and their take on the war (“Mañana”)

 

-Politics

Subtopics:

War vs Revolution (What’s the difference?) – simplifying to “Fascism vs Democracy”

Motivations of the War (foreign interests, interparty skirmishes etc…)

The USSR’s effect on Spain

Anarchist and Egalitarian societies: how would they work?

Motivations of international fighters in Spain (e.g. Bob Smillie)

Skirmish of the Telephone Exchange: could it have been avoided?

The POUM microcosm: why was the class system unable to be abolished?

What happened to Georges Kopp?

 

–Miscellaneous: events of the book (Orwell getting shot in the neck, Rats, rats, rats! Weapons distribution to the public…)

-Religion: changing roles of the church

Homage to Catalonia

443px-Placa_George_Orwell_1.jpg

Fundada con motivo del sesenta aniversario de la Guerra Civil en 1996, la Plaça George Orwell, ubicada en el corazón del Barrio Gótico del centro de Barcelona, fue la primera plaza catalana en disponer de cámaras de videovigilancia desde el año 2001, (un homenaje un tanto irónico al creador del «Gran Hermano»).

Debo confesar que Homage to Catalonia rompió con varias de mis expectativas. En primer lugar, porque Orwell fue el primer escritor que empecé a leer en inglés cuando tenía quince años y yo sentía, por eso, que lo conocía bien. En este sentido, mi horizonte de expectativas estaba muy condicionado por dos recuerdos: mi lectura adolescente de Animal Farm y 1984 (que juzgué entonces como novelas profundamente políticas, o debería más bien decir ideologizadas) y la insistente recomendación de parte de varios amigos y profesores catalanes, para quien Orwell es prácticamente un prócer nacional.

Mi lectura postergada de este libro chocó de frente con estos recuerdos al leer una de las frases que inaugura el extenso capítulo V: «At the beginning I had ignored the political side of the war». ¿Cómo? ¿Orwell, el gran novelista y periodista comprometido de la primera mitad del siglo XX, se había ido hasta España para poner su vida en riesgo sin tener la menor idea de qué estaba pasando a nivel político? ¿Entonces resulta que hay otro lado de la guerra que no es político?

Desde la semana pasada cuando leímos L’Espoir, me quedé pensando mucho en la noción de afecto que Jon mencionó como explicación posible a por qué los milicianos extranjeros registrados por Malraux en su novela exponían sus cuerpos para ir a pelear a una guerra que a simple vista parecía serles ajena. Me quedé cuestionando mi previsible interpretación de que esa decisión sistemática de miles de personas se debía exclusivamente a ideales, a principios ideológicos. Creo que todo el capítulo V de Homage to Catalonia (hablo de aquel que comentábamos que algunos editores decidieron publicarlo en forma de apéndice por su notorio cambio de registro) puede leerse a partir de este concepto filosófico y me quedé con la impresión de que me gustaría ampliar esta lectura tal vez para el trabajo final.

Otro de los elementos que me llamaron la atención del libro fue la combinación de géneros que mencionamos a principios de la última clase. Me pareció interesante sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que Orwell presenta también una multitud de personajes pero a diferencia de Cela o de Malraux lo hace desde una voz narrativa más dominante, que no abunda tanto en cambios de voz abruptos ni en diálogos introducidos por un narrador que parece mantenerse al margen. La polifonía en Homage to Catalonia, entonces, estaría no sólo en los personajes sino en las múltiples elecciones formales: una suerte de mezcla entre proto-Non-Fiction Novel y periodismo gonzo (unas décadas antes de que ambos géneros se institucionalizaran, por cierto) yuxtapuesta con la crónica literaria y la novela histórica. Esta multiplicidad de géneros, para mí, no hace otra cosa que evidenciar las grandísimas dificultades que implica abordar desde la literatura un evento histórico sin la ventaja que ostenta el discurso historiográfico: narrar la Historia cuando ya se ha escrito sobre ella.

Homage to Catalonia

While reading Homage to Catalonia, I thought about the hypotheses that Jon mentioned in class at the beginning of the course, particularly the hypothesis that the Spanish Civil War was not really civil, nor was it a war. In the previous novels, we have seen that the war tends to be portrayed as a revolution, which is maintained here. Orwell talks often about the revolutionary spirit of the war that was intentionally sabotaged by the Communist Party.

However, it seemed to me that a secondary characterization was also present: rather than a war, especially in the earlier chapters, the conflict is depicted as a sort of camp-out or survival exercise. This can be seen in the many descriptions of looking for firewood, having to make due with little water and food, and having to put up with the discomforts caused by the weather. Indeed, the most important military objective is firewood, and the men even risk their lives going under fire to collect this valuable resource. For Orwell, this becomes a way of coming in contact with and learning about the plants around the posting:

“We classified according to their burning qualities every plant that grew on the mountain-side; the various heaths and grasses that were good to start a fire with but burnt out in a few minutes, the wild rosemary and the tiny whin bushes that would burn when the fire was well alight, the stunted oak tree, smaller than a gooseberry bush, that was practically unburnable” (30).

It seems like he is getting to know intimitely the land and its plants, and this is probably true, but he is motivated, mostly at least, by a desire to simply exploit it (by taking away the firewood). 

The war is portrayed as if it were almost an annoying afterthought. The real enemies were the lice that infested their clothing or the weather conditions; he notes at one point that “two Englishmen were laid low by sunstroke” (105 in my version). This trend comes full circle near the end of the book when human violence is likened to phenomena from the natural world. For Orwell, “a sudden clash of rifle-fire” is “like a June cloud-burst” (142) and, as in Cela, the violence is presented as “some kind of natural calamity, like a hurricane or an earthquake” (142). The idea seems is that this war is somehow uncontrollable, but in other ways ‘natural’. I wonder how widespread this use of ‘natural’ metaphors is in other war novels of this period, especially about the first and second world wars.

On the other hand, there are many passages that talk about the beauty of the landscape surrounding the battlefields, despite the poor conditions and the suffering that they bring him. At one point, he mentions both sides of the coin (i.e. the suffering and the beauty) in the same breath:

“seas of carmine cloud stretching away into inconceivable distances, were worth watching even when you had been up all night, when your legs were numb from the knees down, and you were sullenly reflecting that there was no hope of food for another three hours” (40).

Even though he ends the sentence with a complaint about the cold, still he says that it was “worth watching”. In some passages, it seems that the landscape —and the reproductive, cyclical aspect of the natural world— is evoked to contrast with the death and destruction of the conflict. Life will go on, despite the war.

Later, this contemplation of the landscape turns into a contemplation of the ‘human’ or ‘cultural’ landscape of the place, with accounts of the different customs of the Spaniards near the front, their dwellings, and their ways of making a living. These passages are particularly interesting given the end of the book that portrays the cultural and natural landscape of southern England. There seems to be a connection between ‘Englishness’ or ‘Spanishness’ and these landscapes that are presented in both cultural and ‘natural’ terms. This last passage is very interesting to me, especially because of the opposition that Orwell establishes between the “industrial towns” and “the England I had known in my childhood” (237). There is a desire to somehow preserve this landscape, both from war and  (as we are led to believe from the opposition industry-old England) from industrial development. 

This is a very rich book and I am excited for our discussion tomorrow evening.

 

Homage to Catalonia

George Orwell’s book, Homage to Catalonia, as discussed in class, could be of many genres, specifically historical, political, and autobiographical. This memoir, is a personal account of his time during the Spanish civil war. In the beginning of the novel, Orwell describes the atmosphere and the feelings of camaraderie felt at the start of this ‘revolution’. He talks about the atmosphere in the town of Barcelona,

“Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initial of the revolutionary parties…Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying it had been collectivized” (3).

This gives the reader a sense of the feelings of how the people felt, plus the extent of control the Anarchists had over the city. The condition of the town can only be described as ‘shabby,’ ‘untidy,’ kind of sombre, which is evidently a sign of the coming war. The fact that formal speech for addressing others, was not to be used, ‘Señor’, ‘Don’, and ‘Usted,’ gives me the idea that language is also a significant part of a country and that by changing certain parts of it, is a part of the ‘revolutionary’ movement. The people have all joined the ‘workers’ side,’ which says a lot about the fear people may have of not being a part of the norm, such as the people of the bourgeoisie class. The attitudes of the people part of the revolutionary army, were obviously layed-back because of how much the Spanish people have a habit of being late. What they share in addition to that, is their goal of going against the fascists. The idea of pushing things off, delaying, being unprepared with the equipment, contributed significantly to their continuous loss. Much like in Days of Hope, feelings aren’t enough.

In Chapter V of the novel, I find it interesting how Orwell describes rats, being almost nearly as big as the size of cats, making the reference through an old army song “There are rats, rats,/ Rats as big as cats,/ In the quartermaster’s store!” (56). This makes me recall, in Orwell’s novel 1984, O’Brien, a member of the Inner party, uses psychological torture and Blackmailing through the use of rats, in-order to threaten Winston into obeying. It is clear that in both of Orwell’s works, his fear of rats is brought to light. Like most writers, what they write can reflect how they are as a person.

From Chapter VII and VIII on, there is a change in Orwells views, after experiencing the trench warfares and such, he started to become a “democratic socialist.” There seems to be a clear disappointment in his part, because once he returned to Barcelona, he felt that the revolutionary atmosphere had disappeared, perhaps due to the losses they’ve had. After all that they were fighting for, freedom and equality, the re-emergence of the class system most likely brought him down. From the start, this war, may have been a loss cause already, so why does Orwell, go back to the front to fight? Would it make much of a difference?

The political situation seemed to be unstable in Spain, perhaps one could say that thanks to this instability, Orwell and his family, were able to successfully escape prosecution. Which could be seen in Chapter XII. A question I’ve been wondering, is it possible that Orwell regretted joining the POUM? If from the start, Orwell had been on a different side to begin with, would he have been a regular journalist, or would he still eventually join the war? From the start, he was swept with the emotions of the people, that’s why he joined the revolutionary front instead of being a journalist. Given the political situation, it makes me unable to relate to his feelings because it feels like a whole other world and also since we live in a love different era, an era of peace.

 

Homage To Catalonia

Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell is a personal account of the Spanish Civil War. As a British expatriate, he joined the POUM (Worker’s Party of Marxist Unification) and fought on the Republican side. He grew to love the Socialist society the Republicans have built and it provided him the motivation to fight:

“In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no ‘well-dressed’ people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working class clothes, or blue overalls, or some variant of the militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for” (10).

However, he is soon disappointed by the state of the military. “To my dismay I found that we were taught nothing about the use of weapons. The so-called instruction was simply parade-ground drill of the most antiquated, stupid kind: right turn, left turn, about turn, marching at attention in column of threes and all the rest of that useless nonsense which I had learned when I was fifteen years old” (16-17). He was very disappointed at how disorganized the army was and the fact that no practical instruction was being done. He also finds that the soldiers were starving for months and exhausted.

He also talks extensively about the political differences within the Republican side. He states:

“As for the kaleidoscope of political parties and trade unions, with their tiresome names–P.S.U.C., P.O.U.M., F.A.I., C.N.T., U.G.T., J.C.I., J.S.U., A.I.T.–they merely exasperated me. It looked at first sight as though Spain were suffering from a plague of initials. I knew that I was serving in something called the P.O.U.M. (I had only joined the P.O.U.M. militia rather than any other because I happened to arrive in Barcelona with I.L.P. papers), but I did not realize that there were serious differences between the political parties” (75).

It seems like he was caught up in the revolutionary spirit that was present in Barcelona, and not necessarily for the cause. It seems like it was rather an emotional response as opposed to a response through constructive examination of his ethics.

The question is, why is the title of the book Homage To Catalonia when it seems like there is an absence of any respect or reverence rendered to Spain or Catalonia? I have yet to read the full text but I do not see any homage being paid to the respective country/ies so far.

Homage To Catalonia

Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell is a personal account of the Spanish Civil War. As a British expatriate, he joined the POUM (Worker’s Party of Marxist Unification) and fought on the Republican side. He grew to love the Socialist society the Republicans have built and it provided him the motivation to fight:

“In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no ‘well-dressed’ people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working class clothes, or blue overalls, or some variant of the militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for” (10).

However, he is soon disappointed by the state of the military. “To my dismay I found that we were taught nothing about the use of weapons. The so-called instruction was simply parade-ground drill of the most antiquated, stupid kind: right turn, left turn, about turn, marching at attention in column of threes and all the rest of that useless nonsense which I had learned when I was fifteen years old” (16-17). He was very disappointed at how disorganized the army was and the fact that no practical instruction was being done. He also finds that the soldiers were starving for months and exhausted.

He also talks extensively about the political differences within the Republican side. He states:

“As for the kaleidoscope of political parties and trade unions, with their tiresome names–P.S.U.C., P.O.U.M., F.A.I., C.N.T., U.G.T., J.C.I., J.S.U., A.I.T.–they merely exasperated me. It looked at first sight as though Spain were suffering from a plague of initials. I knew that I was serving in something called the P.O.U.M. (I had only joined the P.O.U.M. militia rather than any other because I happened to arrive in Barcelona with I.L.P. papers), but I did not realize that there were serious differences between the political parties” (75).

It seems like he was caught up in the revolutionary spirit that was present in Barcelona, and not necessarily for the cause. It seems like it was rather an emotional response as opposed to a response through constructive examination of his ethics.

The question is, why is the title of the book Homage To Catalonia when it seems like there is an absence of any respect or reverence rendered to Spain or Catalonia? I have yet to read the full text but I do not see any homage being paid to the respective country/ies so far.

Sobre Homage to Catalonia

I would have to say that this was easily the most entertaining piece we’ve read so far, which is both interesting and surprising for a number of reasons, most notably because the subject matter of the book is dire and tumultuous (as Paz touched on in her blog post). I for one was pleasantly surprised because my experience reading two of his other books (Animal Farm and 1984) wasn’t exactly what I would call “entertaining.” I also, like Paz, found it curious that there was even humor to be found in some of the situations Orwell described, or the series of observations he had. And as I commented on her blog post, I’ll pose it to the rest of you whether you think those humorous insertions were wholly genuine or used primarily for the purpose of entertainment for the reader. This question also brings to mind previous conversations we’ve had in and outside of class, about the author’s intention versus the outcome of a certain authorial choice. Does it matter whether or not Orwell intended to entertain us with these few anecdotes or observations? Regardless, I was entertained, and I do feel that it kept me engaged throughout the narrative (I confess I ended up reading it in one sitting!).

Another matter I’m still not decided on is the issue of whether Homage to Catalonia was a “fair” or “unbiased” narration of the events of the Spanish Civil War that Orwell participated in (I’m referring both to Mauricio’s thoughtful and well-written post, as well as our discussion in class yesterday). On the one hand, I recognize that Orwell does comment several times on the fact that he’s trying to contribute to the narrative by presenting what he believes is more or less an “unbiased” account of the events as he witnessed them. He also goes as far as saying that he believes that 90% of what has been said about the uprising in Barcelona is untrue (thereby suggesting that his contribution is perhaps less biased and more “accurate.” But what I can’t shake is that he does say explicitly that (in my own words) you can’t always trust what you read and that he only offers one perspective on the events that befell Barcelona and greater Catalonia in this time. To me, that disclaimer doesn’t necessarily invalidate the other points in the book where he seems to suggest that his account is more accurate than others, or that his account is more trustworthy than what others have said (especially those who didn’t actually experience the events of the war firsthand), but in my opinion this remark leaves the text’s ultimate stance on its own accuracy or authenticity ambiguous (Orwell’s stance, on the other hand, I don’t think one reading of the book entitles me to venture a guess).

Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell

El libro para esta semana Homage to Catalonia escrito por el inglés George Orwell es menos complicado para leer en comparación con los de Cela y Malraux. No quiero decir que por eso es menos interesante, pues muchas veces al leerlo, lo encontraba muy divertido y me puse a reír. Tiene cierto sentido de humor, por lo menos para mí, un matiz satírico, aunque el tema que toca Orwell es realmente muy triste y se trata de una desilusión.

Todo el libro parece un proceso de la desilusión. En los primeros párrafos, Orwell nos presenta un miliciano italiano que ¨has stuck vividly¨ en su memoria. Esta imagen le afectó emocionalmente tanto que Orwell incluso escribió un poema Crystal spirit dedicado a él. Para Orwell, y muchos otros voluntarios internacionales, el perfecto italiano encarna este ¨crystal espirit¨, el cual atrajo a ellos a venir desde diferentes partes del mundo para luchar en contra el fascismo. En los primeros capítulos, el libro describe cómo era la sociedad de Barcelona bajo el ambiente del socialismo e igualdad. ¨It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle...so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; there was very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars...Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.¨ Esta sociedad suena fascinante y prometedora, en el libro todas las personas sumergieron en esta atmósfera y querían dejar sus propios trabajos que en ese momento lo más importante que parecía era participar en la revolución y realizar la esperanza. Orwell también dejó su intención del viaje de ser periodista y participó en el ejército. Estaban unidos en lo profundo por este espíritu cristal y querían llegar en la batalla y luchar por el empeño aunque podrían sacrificar su vida en la batalla.

¨War, to me, meant roaring projectiles and skipping shards of steel; above all it meant mud, lice, hunger, and cold. It is curious, but I dreaded the cold much more than I dreaded the enemy.¨ (18) ¿Cuánto tiempo Orwell esperaba para llegar al frente de la batalla? ¿Cuándo tiempo él esperaba para lograr un arma? ¿Cuándo tiempo esperaba para ver realmente a un enemigo y matar al primer enemigo? ¿Cuándo tiempo esperaba para ser herido como un soldado honrado? Las apasionantes escenas sobre la guerra, el sacrificio, el heroísmo, etc., como en las novelas o las películas, son simplemente piezas fragmentadas. Claro que existía la escasez de armas para los revolucionarios en el frente, como se describe bien en el libro de Malraux, pero creo que además de la falta de armas, en muchas situaciones las guerras no son tan apasionantes como uno imagina. En el libro, se tardó bastante tiempo para encontrarse con el primer enemigo, muchas veces los enemigos eran unos puntos vagos de lejos, casi invisibles, o sólo existían en la mente. Sin embargo, cuando lograron a un desertor del ¨monstruo fascista¨, se dio cuenta que el desertor del ¨monstruo¨  era como ellos, una persona pobre e ignorante de la guerra a veces. En la mayoría del tiempo, el enemigo real era el frió, el aburrimiento, la hambre, los piojos...o el enemigo real era uno mismo y era la esperanza, la fe (no importa ser ciega o no) o la imaginación del enemigo que apoya a la gente a persistir. Creo que es análogo a la revolución. En el libro, Orwell sí menciona pero no tanto a Franco, al fascismo, al enemigo real, pero describe y analiza con detalles los conflictos dentro de la revolución, la lucha dentro de sí mismo y el colapso de ese espíritu cristal. No critica contra ese espíritu cristal, que para él es siempre una belleza pura y más que una vez lo veía en algunas personas, pero critica cómo la gente no lo merecía, que traicionaron al espíritu, cómo el espíritu cristal se convirtió en pretexto para manipular a las personas y eliminar a los disidentes.

Dije al principio que me puse a reír al leer el libro porque muchas veces Orwell describe la guerra como una caricatura. No parece nada seria sino cómica e incluso ridícula como una broma. Por ejemplo: ¨As a matter of fact, on this front and at this period of the war the real weapon was not the rifle but the megaphone. Being unable to kill your enemy you shouted at him instead. This method of warfare is so extraordinary that it needs explaining.¨ "Sometimes, instead of shouting revolutionary slogans he simply told the fascists how much better we were than they were..'Buttered toast! ..'we are just sitting down to buttered toast over here! Lovely slices of buttered toast!' "  La guerra es descrita a veces como fuera un juego de niños, pero ante la elevada esperanza inmortal, realmente sí somos mortales y carnales, e incluso infantiles, ¿no?  Después de la risa también siento junto con el autor un cansancio de las luchas interiores incesantes, de la desconfianza, de las demasiadas informaciones o rumores, de las trampas...

En un párrafo dice:"To the Spanish people, at any rate in Catalonia and Aragón, the Church was a racket pure and simple. And possibly Christian belief was replaced to some extent by Anarchism, whose influence is widely spread and which undoubtedly has religious tinge." Recuerdo esta pieza porque después del libro, siento que Orwell cuestiona las apasionantes creencias y los partidos políticos o religiosos y sus convicciones, los cristianos, los fascistas, los comunistas o los anarquistas como sea. Si este libro es una propaganda, dudo que sea una propaganda completamente para el bando republicano.