Having read a few of Orwell’s other books (Animal Farm, Down and Out in Paris and London, and Burmese Days) I’m quite familiar with his writing style, which has a very matter-of-fact way of explaining and analyzing situations.  There seems to be a deep sense of pessimism and disappointment with human nature throughout his works, from his account of the conditions in the trenches along the Aragon front, his experience in poverty recounted in Down and Out, or his chilling depiction of colonialism in Burmese Days.  Disillusionment seems to be a common theme; the loss of one’s ideals in the face of a reality to which they don’t conform.

After being swept up by the revolutionary fervor that had overtaken Barcelona and joining a Marxist militia, he sees the egalitarian principles by which the war was conducted on the Republican side slowly eroded away by sectarian in-fighting and propaganda.  The experience seems to have dispelled any romantic notions he may have held about communism (or at least the “official” communism promoted by the Soviets) and hardened his resolve as an opponent of totalitarianism (a role he would continue when writing Animal Farm and 1984).

Perhaps the pessimism expressed throughout Orwell’s work results from the era in which he lived, one in which war and economic hardship were prevalent for decades in a row. One can trace the formation of his political and social views throughout his books, and Homage to Catalonia could possibly be seen as a turning point in his political education. The point where rosy ideals about social equality are brought face-to-face with the tangible threat posed by fascism and Stalinism.  Indeed, his account of the conflict provides us a glance into the ideological divisions and partisan conflicts that engulfed not just Spain but all of Europe at the time.

In response to the question of what type of book this is, I think it combines elements of a historical novel with those of an autobiography.  Personable, anecdotal accounts of events as they happened to him, as well as an informative overview as to the larger political developments surrounding those events, combine to create a work of literature that not only draws the reader into a story of wartime struggle but is a critical account of the political climate of the time.  Perhaps its difficulty in being neatly categorized reflects its strengths in providing both an entertaining account of the war while also maintaining a journalistic duty to report the facts as they were witnessed.

Our discussion last week centered around two broad questions: What are they fighting for? and why did Malraux choose to write this book?  There are certainly many answers to these questions and our discussion covered many related topics.  The passage on pg. 263-267, in which Manuel had to keep the men from taking a train to Madrid with no one to operate it, provided considerable material to help ponder these questions: the Republicans’ clear technological disadvantage, their lack of organization or unity, and the shortage of necessary supplies all paint a dim picture.  Yet the revolutionary fervor that animates everyone against the common foe of fascism gives them a somewhat misplaced sense of hope that persists throughout the novel.

We also touched upon the great diversity of the men fighting the fascists: Italians, Germans, Algerians, Poles, etc. What exactly was it that motivated them to leave their homelands and fight in another country’s civil war?  Were they so committed to their ideologies that they jumped at the chance to fight for their cause alongside their comrades? Perhaps the sense of duty that brought them there in the first place was what kept them going even when their prospects were clearly grim.

The attempted fairness in Orwell’s narration is what originally struck me in this narrative. It’s not common for authors to point out their own allegiances and limited scope when writing to illustrate to their reader how their writing may not be a precise account of the actual events.

Unfortunately (for Orwell) I believe he did not do enough to accomplish a fully fair narrative. I think he creates an ambiance of chaos and distrust of other sources, which coupled with his sporadic admissions of bias creates an artificial trust in his narrative over all other sources. His repeated cherry picking from other journalists in order to discredit them maybe does paint a picture of how badly this war was being told internationally, but ultimately just discredits all journalists from that time period as a whole (at least to the simple eyes of a reader) and Orwell fills the vacuum for information (even if unintentionally) with his own narrative exclusively.

I mention this may be unintentional because he does a fairly good job physically separating (by chapters) discussing historical events and his own experience. The problem I’m alluding to is, in terms of perceived accuracy of the story as a whole, I believe Orwell could easily trick readers.

Orwell does an effective job as described above in singling out his narrative as accurate. For the chapters in which he isn’t (exclusively) dealing with his own experiences like his time in the trenches and on guard, but talking about party politics and historical events that may be the case. For the other chapters, which occupy the vast majority of the book, I don’t believe there is the same fairness in recognizing bias and warning the reader of this fact.

Once the reader is convinced that all other sources are a lie trying to further their own agenda, and Orwell is being absolutely fair, nothing stops them from extrapolating from his experience to the entire war. Orwell, as objective as he may have tried to remain for the entire book, voluntarily signed up to fight in a foreign war. He was being shot at by another faction. He endured hunger and lack of every day amenities. He was restricted to a very specific geographical area. Just as foreign journalists had their reasons to misrepresent this war, I believe it’s quite evident so did Orwell.

I may be letting my cynicism get to me again, but I don’t believe these are the traits and experiences that lead to an unbiased account of an event as polarizing and agonizing as is a war. For an author personally involved in the conflict he probably did an extremely good job at being unbiased, but I claim he could not avoid it altogether and misleads the reader into thinking he has.

*OS DEJAMOS ABAJO EL LINK DE LOS APUNTES Y EL PPT QUE HICIMOS PARA MODERAR LA DISCUSIÓN*

No es sorprendente que planear y guiar una discusión sobre San Camilo, 1936 por Camilo José Cela (un libro sumamente difícil de leer y entender, tanto por los hispanohablantes como aquellos para quien el castellano es su segundo idioma) será una tarea bastante difícil y complicado, y aún más dado que a ninguno de los dos facilitadores les gustó al libro.

Pero a pesar de las dificultades inherentes, creemos que hicimos un esfuerzo admirable generar varios temas y citas de discusión, intentando cubrir la mayoría de lo que sucede en la segunda mitad del libro. Si hubiéramos podido hacer algo más para mejorar la presentación, habríamos preparado más preguntas específicas de discusión para incluir en el PPT para así estimular más discusión. Al planear cómo íbamos a guiar la discusión, nos pareció que tuvimos demasiado que decir entre nosotros dos y por eso, decidimos cortar las preguntas de discusión del PPT. Otra motivación por esta decisión fue nuestra creencia que las citas, las cuales habíamos seleccionado el libro para estimular la discusión, eran bastante reveladoras y así estimularían discusión sin la necesidad de articular una pregunta específica. Pero al fin, debido a los pocos comentarios y preguntas que estas mismas citas generaron (a pesar de nuestros intentos de guiar la clase un poco hacia estas respuestas), nos dimos cuenta que hubiera sido útil incluir preguntas específicas.

Obviamente, otro factor para nuestra discusión guiada en particular era el hecho de que pocos habían leído el libro, y por eso sólo pocos podían participar y contribuir a la discusión. Pero, otra vez, si hubiéramos incluido más preguntas, tal vez habríamos podido estimular más participación. Al fin y al cabo, el libro de Cela fue muy difícil y confuso, justo como fue la tarea de intentar descifrarlo y determinar qué se podía decir sobre ello, con fin de llegar a algunas conclusiones sobre ello y entender cómo cabe este texto no sólo en nuestra clase, sino también en nuestro entendimiento sobre cómo se representa la guerra civil española por través de la literatura.

*Aquí puedes ver los apuntes y el PPT que hicimos para preparar para esta discusión.*

El desaparecido Hotel Colón de Plaça Catalunya, en el centro de Barcelona (convertido hoy en un Apple Store), donde transcurren las primeras páginas de l’Espoir, acá retratado durante los últimos años de la República, antes de ser tomado por los falangistas. Más fotos acá.

Uno de los elementos que más me llamó la atención del L’espoir (1937) fue la fascinación del narrador por la tecnología bélica. Por un lado, me hizo pensar en el potencial destructor de la tecnología, me recordó las ideas que enarbolaron Adorno y Horkheimer al pensar Auschwitz en Dialéctica de la ilustración. Aquellas que nos hablan sobre cómo la producción sistemática de muerte a escala industrial, por parte del nacional socialismo alemán durante la primera mitad de los cuarenta, más que una muestra de barbarie irracional es la culminación lógica del proyecto racional ilustrado y el triunfo de una dimensión particular de la razón: la instrumental. Aquella que emplea la capacidad racional del hombre para controlarse y dominarse en lugar de emanciparse a sí mismo, utilizándolo como un medio más que como un fin en sí, fundamentalmente, a través de la implementación de rigurosas herramientas técnicas, fruto de la evolución científica. En este sentido, las batallas representadas en L’espoir del verano español de 1936 pertenecen ya a ese mundo. Esta fascinación del narrador (que es tecnófila y tecnófoba al mismo tiempo) agota todas las posibilidades, como podemos observar en las múltiples elecciones léxicas que escoge para enumerar un sinfín de armas: metralletas, arietes, subfusiles, mosquetes, escopetas, carabinas, dinamitas, aviones bombarderos de combate, algunos de ellos elementos inéditos, nunca utilizados en guerras anteriores, desfilan por las páginas de la novela a la par que los múltiples personajes, dándonos una idea de paralelismo entre la técnica y hombres atrofiados, que terminan mecanizándose y convirtiéndose en un arma más.

No en vano, por otra parte, comienza el narrador la novela poniendo en el centro de la escena un artefacto técnico: la centralita telefónica, una herramienta que mediatiza la relación de milicianos y rebeldes, al mismo tiempo que despliega Madrid hacia el resto de la Península. El teléfono, dicen Horkheimer y Adorno, es el último estadio en el desarrollo técnico en el que la tecnología aún no uniformaba ni paralizaba al sujeto. El teléfono, «dejaba aún jugar al participante el papel de sujeto. La radio, democrática, convierte a todos en oyentes para entregarlos autoritariamente a los programas, entre sí iguales, de las diversas emisoras». Este atributo de los avances tecnológicos para conferir paulatinamente cada vez más pasividad a los sujetos, homogeneizándolos, puede palparse también en la dependencia por las armas que experimentan los milicianos republicanos en la novela: es la asimetría en relación al desarrollo técnico que ostenta cada uno de los dos bandos, en otras palabras, es la capacidad de poseer tecnología lo que parece condicionar el devenir del conflicto, una idea que reside en las palabras de García y Vargas, cuando discuten con Monsieur Magnin: «Los zaristas no tenían tanques ni aviones; los revolucionarios usaban barricadas. ¿Cuál era la idea detrás de estas barricadas? Resistir al Calvario Imperial […] Hoy España está repleta de barricadas para resistir a los aviones de combate de Franco».

Por otro lado, el imaginario relativo a la tecnología bélica no participa solamente de la estrategia descriptiva que sigue el narrador para brindarnos una atmósfera vívida de los primeros días de la Guerra Civil; también es utilizada como símil en distintas ocasiones. «La esperanza», según la define el americano Slade, «es la fuerza impulsora de la revolución»; el coraje «algo que debe mantenerse como los rifles»; la pipa de García es apuntada «como un revolver» cada vez que realiza una afirmación. La técnica invade y contamina al lenguaje como una forma, tal y como quiere Beatriz Sarlo, de estructurar la imaginación.

Malraux’s Days of Hope is an account of the Spanish Civil War told from the perspective of the Republicans. It is a unique novel in that he does not demonstrate the perspective of the Fascists. Malraux completely rejects the Fascist perspective on the war, and explores the Republican psyche extensively. He demonstrates two sides of the Republican movement. First, the unitive nature of the Republican faction, provoked through their unanimous distaste for the Franco leadership and support for the Second Spanish Republic; and the second, the divisive nature of the Republican faction through political disputations between the Communists, the Anarchists, and the like which in turn contributes to the defeat of the Republican faction.

The first part of the novel maps the battleground and gives a brief overview of numerous characters. It also takes the readers to the battleground during the beginnings of the civil war using specific phrases in Spanish used during the war: “Salud,” “Arriba España,” “Viva El Cristo Rey,” and “Compañeros.” It’s a constant dialogue through the telephone operators, between Republicans and at times brief moments of communication between the Nationalists and the Republicans trying to locate which areas they control. I was overwhelmed by the amount of action that was occurring in the story and could not quite get into the story. However, as the story progressed Malraux demonstrates that the war wasn’t just a battle between the Republicans and the Nationalists but also the socio-philosophical ideas that were unveiled by the characters and their version of the revolution. The conversations between the Anarchists and the Communists and their own ideas of what they should get out of the war gave me a better understanding of why the Civil War was a complete failure for the Republicans.

“The communists, you see, want to get things done. Whereas you and the anarchists, for different reasons, want to be something. That’s the tragedy of a revolution like this one. Our respective ideals are so different; pacifism and the need to fight in self-defense; organization and Christian sentiment; efficiency and justice—nothing but contradictions. We’ve got to straighten them out, transform our Apocalyptic vision into an army—or be exterminated.” (210-211)

There was no desire between the Anarchists and the Communists to form a unitive structure. It was interesting for me that Hernandez claims the Anarchists have a “Christian sentiment” which almost sounds like he is suggesting the Anarchists are no different from the Nationalists, who had the backing of the Church. It almost sounded like Malraux was sympathizing with the Communists and suggesting that the Anarchists were ruining the revolution. In general it was interesting for me to see how organization, the very thing that unified the Left, ultimately failed the Left.

Malraux’s Days of Hope is an account of the Spanish Civil War told from the perspective of the Republicans. It is a unique novel in that he does not demonstrate the perspective of the Fascists. Malraux completely rejects the Fascist perspective on the war, and explores the Republican psyche extensively. He demonstrates two sides of the Republican movement. First, the unitive nature of the Republican faction, provoked through their unanimous distaste for the Franco leadership and support for the Second Spanish Republic; and the second, the divisive nature of the Republican faction through political disputations between the Communists, the Anarchists, and the like which in turn contributes to the defeat of the Republican faction.

The first part of the novel maps the battleground and gives a brief overview of numerous characters. It also takes the readers to the battleground during the beginnings of the civil war using specific phrases in Spanish used during the war: “Salud,” “Arriba España,” “Viva El Cristo Rey,” and “Compañeros.” It’s a constant dialogue through the telephone operators, between Republicans and at times brief moments of communication between the Nationalists and the Republicans trying to locate which areas they control. I was overwhelmed by the amount of action that was occurring in the story and could not quite get into the story. However, as the story progressed Malraux demonstrates that the war wasn’t just a battle between the Republicans and the Nationalists but also the socio-philosophical ideas that were unveiled by the characters and their version of the revolution. The conversations between the Anarchists and the Communists and their own ideas of what they should get out of the war gave me a better understanding of why the Civil War was a complete failure for the Republicans.

“The communists, you see, want to get things done. Whereas you and the anarchists, for different reasons, want to be something. That’s the tragedy of a revolution like this one. Our respective ideals are so different; pacifism and the need to fight in self-defense; organization and Christian sentiment; efficiency and justice—nothing but contradictions. We’ve got to straighten them out, transform our Apocalyptic vision into an army—or be exterminated.” (210-211)

There was no desire between the Anarchists and the Communists to form a unitive structure. It was interesting for me that Hernandez claims the Anarchists have a “Christian sentiment” which almost sounds like he is suggesting the Anarchists are no different from the Nationalists, who had the backing of the Church. It almost sounded like Malraux was sympathizing with the Communists and suggesting that the Anarchists were ruining the revolution. In general it was interesting for me to see how organization, the very thing that unified the Left, ultimately failed the Left.

What occurs to me when reading Days of Hope is the amount of variation in ideologies between the different characters. The dialogue hints at a sense of unity among the various Republican factions insofar as the struggle against Franco is concerned, but also reveals deep gulfs between how they would ideally like society to be organized. The different factions of communists, anarchists, and everyone else opposed to fascism mostly all held genuinely left-wing, egalitarian ideals but their disunity and lack of a clear chain of command were what doomed them from the start, notwithstanding their clear technological disadvantages.

There’s a lot at play in this book and it feels like as one reads it the sense of despair and hopelessness that engulfs the characters only becomes more apparent. It’s somewhat ironic considering the title of the novel. The militias are ill-equipped to take on a well-trained and supplied army that has the support of two fascist states with a group of rag-tag peasants and laborers operating shoddy rifles that easily jam. It dawns upon the characters that if they truly want to win this war they’ll have to compromise their egalitarian and anti-fascist beliefs. But most of all they’ll need more technology that they simply don’t have access to: more planes, machine guns, and bombs.

Malraux’s emphasis on the technological aspects of warfare are what put the Republican’s situation into perspective. It all comes down to logistics: who has more machine guns? Who controls the train station? How many men do they have? This focus on technology, and the destruction it can cause, adds to the sense of hopelessness one feels throughout the book. It also helps one see how the Spanish Civil War was a sort of precursor to World War II. Though Malraux couldn’t have been intentionally foreshadowing (as the book was published before the end of the Civil War), he certainly helped set the mood for what was to come to Europe as a whole. The book helps one understand the political and ideological fervor with which people were acting. The conflict brought people from all over, inspired by their strongly-held beliefs, to fight for or against fascism in what they saw to be a global struggle. Spain was just one arena in which it would be fought, and it would overtake the rest of Europe and much of the rest of the world in the following decade.

I also want to make a note about the idea raised in class yesterday regarding the novel as possible pro-Republican propaganda. Later in life, Malraux was the French Minister of Information and then Minister of Cultural Affairs under Charles de Gaulle, which seem to me like good positions for a propagandist. The idea that Malraux wrote this and emphasized the clear technological disparity between the two sides to try to persuade the French government to arm the Republicans seems plausible to me.