“Amulet” by Roberto Bolaño examines a Uruguayan poet, Auxilio Lacouture, grounded in being stuck in a fourth-floor university bathroom cubicle for thirteen days (or so) with no food during the Tlatelolco massacre in Mexico City. This massacre was a real life event in which the Mexican armed forces opened fire on unarmed students protesting the Olympics which were to be held in Mexico city that year. 

She often mentions how she does not remember the timing or how “memory plays malicious tricks” (107) on her after this dramatic experience occurred. Throughout the book, we witness her sporadic thoughts that often contradict real life. For example, she’ll talk about how someone is dead when she is saying she is going to her house. I think we can attribute these confusing and disarranged thoughts possibly to the trauma she experienced during this time that has led to serious mental discombobulation. Her socioeconomic status must contribute to this as well, seeing as she does not have money nor access to consistent food or housing. 

I found it interesting that the author, Roberto Bolaño, chose to write this book from a woman’s perspective compared to a mans. He writes how Auxilio feels becoming a poet, which is male-dominated field at the time, and how being this minority plays a role in her everyday struggle. Bolaño tries to step into a woman’s shoes when talking about women not being taken seriously in their profession.

Auxilio talks about love in a very odd way as well that seems similar to how a man would typically think about it; “I did take part in the games of passion and love” (pg44) and “Nothing ever good comes out of love. What comes out of love is always something better but better can sometimes mean worse if you’re a woman” (pg54). While he pays attention to the disadvantages of being a woman, this is not a typical narration of a woman talking about love. Though she may be of low socioeconomic status and may not have time to contribute to the womanly illustration of love (as she is just focused on surviving). We see her friend Lilian Serpas, of the same poorer economic level, with a lot more interest in men and love in general. She also says; “despite appearances to the contrary, I was a woman and not a saint” (pg45), further contributing to a kind of male perspective when we discuss love and pleasure.

With this observation in mind, I pose this question to my classmates: do you think that this is a usual way for a woman to talk about love or do you think the fact that Bolaño wrote this piece impacted her as a character? What makes you think this?