Love in the time of Who cares?

[Muhammad]

i think that the book is appalling more than the movie ... the author has a really rich imagination..

[Marcelo]

John wrote: "Marcelo wrote: "OK, I am going to have to disagree here with the simplification in many comments on these forums dealing with GGM that chalk up certain traits of his writing up to "Latin culture" o..."

Anytime. I do think that people are not really thinking through the book many times, and just taking the word "love" at face value... think about it a bit: the conclusion is two people, retreating from everyone else in the world, locked in a forever ride that cannot come to a stop lest it loses its spell. I would not call that a happy ending...

[Kristin]

QueenAmidala28 wrote: "Amy_victoriana wrote: "I totally agree.. I was expecting to be blown away by the novel but I actually found myself decidely underwhelmed. I didn't engage with the characters and the plot just didn'..."

I've heard that the Spanish version is better. I found it really hard to get through the English version. The movie was better.

[[deleted user]]

Thematically, as an exploration of love (esp. obsessive "love"), this book is brilliant. It makes its point very well indeed.

The strongest thing about the book is definitely the characters -- especially the two men, Florentino and Juvenal Urbino. They are extremely well developed and you can fully understand them, regardless of what judgements you might make about them.

However, the book is definitely not one of my favourites. Mainly because the book should be almost twice as long, I think, but the author tries to condense it into under 400 pages. I think that's a big mistake because it means there are very few actual scenes, which makes it very hard to get into the story. A pretty bad writing decision. He should have either made it much longer, OR cut out about half the plot so that it fits properly into 400 pages.

As for the idea that the book is "offensive" I have to say I wasn't offended myself lol. It's irrelevant anyway. Since when has anyone said you should "agree" with a book in order for it to be good?

My conclusion: Marquez is very good at some things (developing themes, realistic characters) but very poor at others (scenes, structuring, pacing), which means Love in the Time of Cholera is a pretty average book overall, but worth a read anyway for the good stuff. It definitely is NOT a bad book. There are LOTS AND LOTS of worse books than this (Ulysses and On the Road for example)!

[David]

"Since when has anyone said you should "agree" with a book in order for it to be good?" Couldn't agree more. Good point.

[Palazzo di]

This book left me flat. I bought it without having read it and gave it to my daughter trying to encourage her to read. She wasn't at all interested, so it ended up on my shelf. Not far into it, I thought "oh dear ..... so sorry daughter!!". I did eventually force myself to finish it, but it wasn't my thing, and certainly not hers!! Really don't understand why it got all the chatter it did. Oh well, to each his own ......

[Bevannes]

I purchased this book because it had a major role in a motion picture I loved. I slogged my way through it, hating every minute of it. Goes to show what product placement in cinema does.

[i.]

Loved the book,I guess it takes all sorts...

[Betty]

I don't know about the book (I read it a long time ago) but the movie is one of my top 10 favorites.

[Guilie]

Marcelo wrote: "OK, I am going to have to disagree here with the simplification in many comments on these forums dealing with GGM that chalk up certain traits of his writing up to "Latin culture" or "Latin America..."

Absolutely AWESOME post to this thread, Marcelo--thank you for explaining it so succinctly. GGM is not for everyone, certainly not (as someone else said) for the Harlequin romance readers. One must know one's limitations :) But if the reader is of broad mind and inquisitive nature, of the kind that strives to glimpse past the actual sentence and perceive the smoke the words make (to paraphrase Toni Morrison), then GGM--and this amazing book--will leave an indelible mark on you.

[Esther]

I wonder if it says something about this book that so many of the people who liked it feel the necessity to make disparaging remarks about those who didn't.

[Palazzo di]

Indeed Esther, thanks for your comment! I for one am not a Harlequin reader, however, I am highly intelligent, well read, broad minded and inquisitive. I do not feel the need to make uninformed, condescending, derogatory, sweeping generalizations about people I don't know simply because they don't feel the same way I do about a book. Oh, and I have no limitations!! Happy reading people!! =D

[Guilie]

I didn't intend the limitations comment as offensive to anyone, and I'm sorry it sounded that way. I, for one, do know my limitations. I can't read Saramago, for example. Can't do it. He's one of the modern Greats and everything, but--I just can't. I can't read Sci-Fi, I just don't get into it. That doesn't mean these aren't works with literary value that shouldn't be read, it just means I don't like it. Same goes for Harlequin romances. They wouldn't sell so well if there wasn't some value to them, right? If someone picks up Love In Times Of Cholera expecting a love story or an easy read, there's going to be disappointment. That's what I meant by limitations.

[Roxanne]

I kept reading it to see what was around the next wall, down the next street...pretty walls and streets they were...but the story never grabbed me

[Jane]

Jess wrote: "we just read this at book club and I have never seen so many people hate one book so much. I was told it was a must read and a literary classic but i too have never hated a book so much! Anyone e..."
This was a dud! After reading his masterpiece
100 Years of Solitude this one was a big disappointment.

[Malcolm]

Quite late, but I loved the beginning and the end (up to a point). The middle could have been a third of its size without harming the story for me. Gorgeous writing, really delicious, but then he stalks her for a million pages and goodness, I get it. OK. The prose wasn't good enough to make it worth it for me. Cut out a bunch of the stalking (there will still be more than enough), and I'd like it a whole lot more.

[Aliyah]

What irritated me was the fact that Urbino would not shut up about medicine, Fermina was a bitch and Florentino was a creep and a rapist. All the listed characters were one-dimensional and dull, what freaked me out was that Florentino murdered a woman. I just can't get why Florentino and Fermina could'nt screw themselves from the get go...(book would definitely be shorter)

[Kara]

read the whole thing but hated it!

[Robin]

The movie was good. Javier Bardeem made it all the more thrilling!

[Esther]

Robin wrote: "The movie was good. Javier Bardeem made it all the more thrilling!"
I have seen Javier Bardeem playing so many unpleasant characters that I find him creepily repugnant which IMHO made him perfect for the part.

[Mrmrooty]

Noways
that is not how i expected the book , i don't think that the title is the best for the story
i mean yes cholera was mentioned several time but just name , not connected with the events of the story
::
and the story , i really can't call this love , what florentino ariza‏ have done to keep himself for fermina daza‏ is love , it is worse than getting marriage
also the story showed florentino using a 14 years old and never get caught , and then he resembling the good man in the story who Sacrificed for his love ?
i find it all about adultery.
i didn't understand the end

i liked " One hundred years of solitude" way more than this novel
still good but not the standard i've expected

[Feliks]

Lev_Boy wrote: "Having read both 'Love in the time of Cholera' and 'One Hundred Years of Solitude', I hold 'Solitude' as a far superior piece of work than 'Cholera'. No comparison to be honest...."

Being honest? Thanks, but honesty about your own opinions isn't really a sticking point. Its clarity under strain here. The two books may not compare in your opinion--based on the disparity in how you enjoyed them--but they most certainly do compare to each other. In a myriad of ways; they certainly can be compared. So, just somewhat of a poor choice of words on your part, if you don't mind me pouncing on a pet-peeve. You did make the comment twice, so..thanks for indulging me.

Jess wrote: "we just read this at book club and I have never seen so many people hate one book so much..."

Doesn't sound like much of a book club. Can you name some titles which wound up being smash hits with this bunch? Just for context?

Marcelo wrote: "There is absolutely no such thing, the same way that there is not a Latin American aesthetic - although there might be some traits in Latin culture (such as the central tenet of family) that do inform certain choices each author makes when writing about his / her culture."

That's a pretty cold, flat, absolute statement. Even the minimal lit-crit which I've encountered about latin authors (from their own self-appraisal, in some instances) doesn't echo in any way, this kind of bald remark you just gave. Can you cite some supporting analysis somewhere which corroborates what you just said? Even a little bit? You're saying there is no over-arching latin culture which pervades these writers' works? At all? That would be a strange statement about any nation and any set of authors, anywhere.

Jess wrote: " the writing annoyed the hell out of most. as well as the characters and some of the plots - he was sleeping with a child in his care of about 13, I mean - horrible people!!"

It was the way of the world practically since our species came out of the trees and in fact, still goes on all around the globe. Not an excuse, just an attempt to hack away at some of the ignorance on display here in this thread. If this fact of human history shocks you (or your book group) then yes, you really ought not to choose titles of an 'international' origin.

Esther wrote: "As I read on I actually found this book offensive and I began to feel sullied by reading it."

Oh, good heavens Mildred. I mean, Esther. How unfortunate you had to go through this traumatic ordeal. Let's write our pastors and congressmen.

Esther wrote: "Basically the main 'romantic' character is a pedophile "

Now, let's also contact Interpol; because there are sure a heckuva lot of husbands around the world who need to be arrested immediately.

Anyway, pedophelia--clearly--was not the main character's ...main character trait. Ha. It was merely one episode in a life filled with diverse, torrid, affairs. He didn't just sleep with one girl; he slept with many; of all different ages and walks-of-life. [And btw, how can the may-december fling even be the only one which you call out as objectionable?]

Esther wrote: "and takes advantage of a child who is supposed to be in his care, leading to disastrous results."

What disaster specifically? For that timeperiod in that part of the world; (if we infer correctly from the author) this type of romance was commonplace.

Esther wrote: "And then the end was a total cop out in that they were all so proud of their love they hid on a boat and pretended to be sick with cholera!"

Boy. Saying they 'hid on the boat' is truly 'missing the boat'. That is only the most superficial veneer of what happens at the close of this tale. Their decisions and actions at the end of the story are really, triumphant. Lifelong love is finally requited. Do you honestly think Marquez conceived of the end to his tale, as two people skulking and ashamed of their feelings? Does it even make sense that this author would articulate the end of an epic romance in that manner? You just didn't grasp the best part of the novel the way the author intended. Don't blame him; don't blame those of us who did.

[Feliks]

Marwa wrote: "Noways
that is not how i expected the book , i don't think that the title is the best for the story
i mean yes cholera was mentioned several time but just name , not connected with the events of t..."

"Cholera" is a metaphor. It exactly describes practically the entire story.

[Ali]

Personally, I just don't care for his writing style, especially when it's talking abou the smell of a man's penis after he's just cheated on his wife. Vivid imagery? Certainly. But why not leave a little to the imagination of the reader?

[Charlie]

Good writing, grating characters.

This thing was a chore to complete.

[Feliks]

Ali wrote: "Vivid imagery? Certainly. But why not leave a little to the imagination of the reader..."

There's something in what you say. Much of the novel has that 'oops, please send the women out of the room' aspect.

Charlie wrote: "Good writing, grating characters."

I will agree that the characters were not as warm, cuddly, and lovable as those in 100 Years

[Jess]

Feliks wrote: "Lev_Boy wrote: "Having read both 'Love in the time of Cholera' and 'One Hundred Years of Solitude', I hold 'Solitude' as a far superior piece of work than 'Cholera'. No comparison to be honest...."..."

I'm quite surprised by your post. Most people just leave notes here about their opinion of the book but you seem to be having a go at anyone on here that doesn't agree with you! Some people hate it, some loved it. It's a matter of personal preference. I have to admit I was slightly insulted by your comments and by you calling me ignorant. I don't find it necessary on a Goodreads forum!

[Marcelo]

Feliks - whether you found some "lit crit" or not that validates your opinion is really none of my concern. Take it from one who was born in Argentina, lived in Bolivia and Spain, traveled around Latin America and studied Latin American authors as a matter of course in school and understands the diversity of cultures involved much better than you ever could from wherever you may be writing. Or not, your choice.

Plus, you didn't even read my entire post. I said: Yes there may be central tenets or themes that ring common across Latin authors because they are shared traits (family, religiosity tend to be central to many of them, but not all), and yes there may be movements (such as magical realism) mainly working in Latin America that have common traits, though authors tend to move in and out of those much more fluidly than you'd think (I mean, even a hack like Isabel Allende has shown that ability).

But what I was taking a stick to is to the notion that ALL Latin American authors share these themes, that there is a "Latin American Aesthetic". This is such a broad-based assessment that it doesn't stand the minimal analysis (that's like saying every planet in a galaxy is alike, because it shares a galaxy) and doesn't even need debating. Authors are not cogs, they are individuals - to toss them all into one pile (whether it is for expediency, marketing, or whatever) is just intellectual laziness. It's just the basic misunderstanding of people looking from the outside in and trying to simplify all they see so that they can better digest it.

Even within one country this is not true. Take Argentina for example: to take the cerebral, metaphysical, Norse and Saxon mythology-steeped works of Borges and try to bunch them with Manuel Mujica Lainez (a neo-Proustian more concerned with tracing the decay of old society into modernity, a much more precious writer too), Julio Cortazar (probably the world's first post-modernist, much more concerned with language and structure as means of deconstructing intent) and Ernesto Sabato (existentialist, dark, not a speck of sun in the whole thing - Nietzche would be proud) as if they were all one aesthetic is ludicrous. Imagine what happens when you expand from one country to the entire continent: more fragmentation, more diversity. Throw Amado, Paz, Puig, Puglia, Rulfo, Garcia Marquez, Vargas Llosa, and the rest of them in the pot and they resemble each other as much as an egg resembles a chestnut (and yes, that's a translation from a Spanish saying)

All I am saying is that geographical generalizations are the grossest of generalizations. And they do not contain much truth, other than in passing. Read the book, understand the individual, see what he tells you about his specific local culture. And give each one their due. That's all you can aspire to.

[Marcelo]

And Feliks, as far as not seeing this book as a love story (something that you cannot bear), it's a totally valid reading of it. Garcia Marquez himself has said "readers need to be careful not to fall into my trap" about this book - a clear sign that he did not intend this a great love story, triumphal against all odds, but rather used the device to shine a light on the underside of love. This is more in the "love as sickness" category (which is also, um, why they end up in a boat under the flag of cholera), much in the tradition of Proust (see the analysis from Marilyn Yalom in "How the French Invented Love", p.271 if you are interested). Let's see - Florentino is sooo in love with Fermina that he stalks her, declares his love at her husband's wake, engages in years of unrelenting sexual connections with no emotional component, mistreats (and eventually leads to her demise) another woman that loves him (and one who is under age, natch), and finally absconds with the object of his love to a secluded location where noone else can intrude. A completely different reading is indeed valid (and one that many others have had.)

[Feliks]

Jess wrote: "I'm quite surprised by your post. Most people just leave notes here about their opinion of the book but you seem to be having a go at anyone on here that doesn't agree with you! Some people hate it, some loved it. It's a matter of personal preference. I have to admit I was slightly insulted by your comments and by you calling me ignorant. I don't find it necessary on a Goodreads forum! ..."

In the post immediately above your response; I had just agreed with the comments of two individuals in this thread. (Just sayin'.) There's absolutely nothing personal in the way I respond to anyone. I focus on what people's arguments are. The issue is always: the quality and strength of their argument. If you watch carefully, you will see it is that which draws my commentary.

Next: in this thread--in the 'Moby Dick' thread--in the 'Gatsby' thread--where do you see people just leaving harmless, innocuous "thumbs-up/thumbs-down" type of comments? There are debates raging all over the forums section of Goodreads.

I've read the Goodreads 'Terms of Use' because yes, I am aware I like to exchange points-of-view with others; (sometimes) vehemently so. But I've not seen anywhere yet that I have committed any infractions. If I do, I will be happy to apologize to one and all. And it will be a sincere apology. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings.

On the other hand, I don't see the point in reining in free debate; in favor of tip-toeing around with timidity. Goodreads provided this forum for discussion. Why not use it for that purpose? If you've got a deeply-felt opinion..share it! Express it!

Next: I didn't call you an ignorant person, above. Nothing of the kind. I just felt that one of your opinions was based on ignorance. There's no slur implied in this; I'm not questioning your brainpower. Do you consider it an attack? It wasn't. Hey, I have areas I'm ignorant in. We all do. We're all a collection of strengths and weaknesses in our learning.


Finally: I disagree that ...summing up, or assessing a book, or a movie, or a musician, or a statue, or a building; or a poem..I say, I disagree that it all "comes down to one opinion vs another opinion". There is a lot that can be sorted out, analyzed, ranked, compared, studied when it comes to creative products and cultural artifacts. Its not all merely "I like this" "you like that". There are questions which can be asked and answers which can be discovered, and a lot which can be learned.

I intend to reply in the same spirit to Marcelo; next. Looking forward to his input. I feel this is a place for learning. If you give your point-of-view; you should enjoy having it tested and sounded out. Opportunity for improving one's understanding!

[Feliks]

Marcelo wrote: "Feliks - whether you found some "lit crit" or not that validates your opinion is really none of my concern. "

Well, it would really validate itself; in the first place. Right? Literary criticism satisfies many other rigorous purposes before any of mine. But for a topic like this, its a very good place for any opinion to start off from; I think. There's a benefit of beginning from a known point of established veracity. I mean, why begin a discussion inadvertently at odds with what 'our best human knowledge' says about something?

To me, when I first read your views it sounded as if they were straying pretty far out of the range of what you could reasonably assert, as an individual reader. Your statement like, 'it absolutely doesn't exist' is a very flat, absolute 'maxim'. It just can't go unquestioned, when phrased like that. So yes, it should rather concern you because instead of taking your points on their own merits; you invoked doubt --which you are now at pains to dispel.

Marcelo wrote: "Take it from one who was born in Argentina, lived in Bolivia and Spain, traveled around Latin America and studied Latin American authors as a matter of course in school "

Doesn't mention of all this kind of thing, contradict your entire argument? The mere fact of where you've resided geographically doesn't seem (to me) to be a strong argument at all.

Marcelo wrote: "and understands the diversity of cultures involved much better than you ever could from wherever you may be writing. "

Even weaker argument. Outlandish, even. How do you know where I've lived or what I've studied? Wherever either of us grew up matters not a whit. I hope to see a better variety of counterpoint from you, as I read further down...

Marcelo wrote: "Plus, you didn't even read my entire post. "

I did my best, but you really didn't provide enough paragraph breaks to make for easy reading. Instead, it was one long 'block' of text. If there was some minor point I missed (due to this accident); I still trust I grasped --and objected to--the most salient component.

Marcelo wrote: "I said: Yes there may be central tenets or themes that ring common across Latin authors because they are shared traits (family, religiosity tend to be central to many of them, but not all),"

Yes, I saw this. But it was not enough of a 'qualifier' or a 'modification' to your earlier overarching statement, to satisfy me. The premise you were trying to cast down--that there is at the 'macro' level, no broadly-assumed "latin american traits" which can be ascribed to latin american authors; still seems a vastly unsupportable notion.

Marcelo wrote: "and yes there may be movements (such as magical realism) mainly working in Latin America that have common traits,"

There are absolutely no other shared hallmarks of latin american authors? Not at all?? I could name a dozen possible points of possible similarity...

Marcelo wrote: "though authors tend to move in and out of those much more fluidly than you'd think (I mean, even a hack like Isabel Allende has shown that ability)."

I wasn't contradicting this; I'm still objecting to the statement which you housed this under.

Marcelo wrote: "But what I was taking a stick to is to the notion that ALL Latin American authors share these themes, that there is a "Latin American Aesthetic". "

I don't think anyone here spoke in terms of 'all'-- nor does literary criticism habitually do this-- no matter what nation's authors are under scrutiny. Because the subjects being regarded, are human beings, there are always 'exceptions'.

Yet, this doesn't halt both accurate and broad observations from taking place. Example: the 1930s in America and England were the 'Golden Age' of the Pulp Detective. Can you deny this based on the fact that WH Auden, TS Eliot, or Evelyn Waugh were not pulp authors?

Its comfortable enough to speak in terms of 'most' or 'many' or 'some' and should anyone do so--its both valid and acceptable.

Me, I have absolutely no quibble with use of the phrase, 'latin american aesthetic' and I am increasingly startled to hear that you do. I see no reason for it.

Does your antipathy extend to say, dancing? Fashion? Cuisine? Music? Film? Or is it just in literature where you take exception?

Marcelo wrote: "This is such a broad-based assessment that it doesn't stand the minimal analysis (that's like saying every planet in a galaxy is alike, because it shares a galaxy) and doesn't even need debating."

Your twist on what is supposedly 'valid to say'--at a national level--seems (to me) to be completely improper; going in exactly the opposite direction.

Being obsessed with 'the particular' and 'the specific' is as bad a flaw as any grievance you raise above. [In the example above; you can say a lot about each planet which finds it 'alike' to its fellow; without saying that each planet 'resembles each other'. For example, described in gravitational equations; you might find them all conforming to precise rules as to how they affect each other, orbitally].

I digress. Key issue: its as if you are trying to outlaw all generalizations because some rogue generalizations are superficial. Well, its not so easy. Many generalizations are quite legitimate.

And if you don't think this is worth debating --at the same time you are suggesting that we should all toss them out the window as you are doing--well, I declare! :D

Marcelo wrote: "Authors are not cogs, they are individuals - to toss them all into one pile (whether it is for expediency, marketing, or whatever) is just intellectual laziness. "

No, not at all. There are a lot of perfectly valid things to say about authors on a cultural or nationalistic or even regional, level. You can be an individual and certainly be part of a larger trend or intellectual movement. Examples: the beaux ars movement; the bauhaus; modernism; surrealists; symbolists; naturalists; romantics. Nothing wrong with this.

Marcelo wrote: "It's just the basic misunderstanding of people looking from the outside in and trying to simplify all they see so that they can better digest it."

No, its surely *not* just a critical habit which just occurs from members of one culture towards members of another culture. That is giving short shrift to what is a necessity of intellectual activity: taxonomy and cladistics.

This is why I asked you to point us to some sources of lit-crit from within your own country. It certainly exists; and if you've lived and studied in all those countries you should know that it exists.

Marcelo wrote: "Even within one country this is not true. "

Its certainly true that the countries we've been discussing--all with as rich literary traditions as they all enjoy--all have had plenty of internal literary criticism, as well. It goes hand in hand. Criticism helped the respective audiences absorb these authors' talents and aims, with ever-increasing fullness.

For, it was surely not always lucid or clear where some authors 'stood' (spiritually, politically, ethically, gender, etc) and of all the arts, literature certainly lends itself the most to questioning. "Readers, did Puig's recent trip to Miami Florida add this imperialistic and frivolous tone to his latest work?" etc etc etc

Marcelo wrote: "Take Argentina for example: to take the cerebral, metaphysical, Norse and Saxon mythology-steeped works of Borges and try to bunch them with Manuel Mujica Lainez (a neo-Proustian more concerned with tracing the decay of old society into modernity, a much more precious writer too), Julio Cortazar (probably the world's first post-modernist, much more concerned with language and structure as means of deconstructing intent) and Ernesto Sabato (existentialist, dark, not a speck of sun in the whole thing - Nietzche would be proud) as if they were all one aesthetic is ludicrous. Imagine what happens when you expand from one country to the entire continent: more fragmentation, more diversity. Throw Amado, Paz, Puig, Puglia, Rulfo, Garcia Marquez, Vargas Llosa, and the rest of them in the pot and they resemble each other as much as an egg resembles a chestnut (and yes, that's a translation from a Spanish saying)"

You are quick to state what is 'ludicrous' but you are apparently mocking a series of observations for which you haven't even supplied a source. Putting words in others' mouths is a poor practice. If you are paraphrasing, who are you paraphrasing? This is very strange.

And also: I thought you were against generalizations? Right here you are generalizing some set of descriptors you feel "were wrongly applied".

Your summary though, is hardly all that was ever said about these writers; its a pastiche of superficial comparisons. Even in your own country; more depthful analysis of each author was prevalent in each literary community and they, too--relied on generalization.

You seem to think only outsiders ever 'painted these men with broad strokes'. You've never seen an article in Spain or Portugal (for example) asking something like...oh..I'll just make one up: "Jose Ortega Y Gassett: is he one of us? Is he too Northern? Too Southern? Where do his loyalties lie?" " Lorca's legacy: is it north, south, left or right?" Come on. That kind of thing is endless. And carried out from within all the countries you've lived in; more so than from without!

Marcelo wrote: "All I am saying is that geographical generalizations are the grossest of generalizations."

For the time being, national and cultural traditions are often aligned with geographical boundaries...

Marcelo wrote: "And they do not contain much truth, other than in passing. "

Well, for a long time they've been the bread'n'butter of every literature section of every newspaper in every country everywhere the scope of this discussion has touched on. Truth is, the intellectual world could not get along without them.

Marcelo wrote: "Read the book, understand the individual, see what he tells you about his specific local culture. And give each one their due. That's all you can aspire to."

If any reader insists on treating all observations as 'valid' if they are 'granular and specific '..that individual gets nowhere;. That is being unable to draw conclusions or inferences; unable to reach overarching truths. It is being a prisoner to minutiae.

Now then. Let me say I enjoyed your points and enjoyed reading your well-written defense of your POV. Not a shed of 'hard feeling' on my part and I hope none on yours either. Well done! A grand exchange of ideas. I salute you.

[Marcelo]

Feliks - the reason why I bring the "have you been to the place" argument to bear is that even if you had spent a whit of time (to take your preferred turn of phrase) in more than one of the countries involved, you would know that their cultures are unique and very different from each other. There is but a passing semblance and a common language for example between Bolivia and Argentina (especially for the period that such criticism undertakes, namely 1950-80 coinciding withe the "Latin American Boom" abroad. Globalization has indeed jumbled things more since) Same applies to Colombia, Brazil, Peru, etc.; so the widest you can cast your culture net is countrywide, not continent-wide. And even in such a case, which is why I bring up Argentina, that doesn't apply (maybe in cultures with one dominant figure, such as Colombia, it can be more so - Argentina definitely wasn't) - and I didn't bring up just about any author to bear, but probably the four most prominent working within that country at that time and not even among themselves you can detect that trend. So, as a reader, I don't see it. Sorry. And I don't need a critic to tell me so. Glad to have my own informed opinion based on 35 years of reading the authors involved.

Sure there may be works in conversation with one another. "Pedro Paramo" sure influenced "100 years of solitude". I can make a very nifty argument that Cortazar's "Casa Tomada" is a spiritual progenitor of Denevi's "Rosaura a las diez". From there to say their entire oeuvre shares a common thread: different (and untrue) story. I find it is quite true that specific books are in dialogue with each other across authors and ages. Such a dialogue never carries to an entire output. No author is that obsessive or lacking in ambition to zero in on one concern their entire lives.

As for literary criticism and the reams of paper that may have been written on such an alignment of stars - well PhDs have to pay their bills also, theories sell well, especially ones that align with editorial sales targets ("GGM is big! Try Vargas Llosa! They are so alike! And while you are at it, please disregard the graphic scenes of bullying in 'Time of the Hero' -you'll have a blast!"). Certainly in all my years living in Argentina I didn't see much of a case made that GGM was part of a driving continent-wide aesthetic (now, after he got big, commercial copycats sure abounded - again see: Allende, Isabel.). Which goes back to my point: to me this is a visualization imposed from the outside, as a way to simplify the world and remove complexity, folding all into a simplified narrative. Good try. Still wrong.

Last item and pet peeve. While dissecting and responding to a comment phrase by phrase may give you some sort of adolescent satisfaction (or so I gather from your thinly veiled sarcastic asides over your entire series of posts; ...and please do not protest your innocence here, I am too old to play intellectual peek-a-boo with you), it is not the best way to address a posting if you really want a discussion. Read the entire entry and pull your arguments together into one response addressing a comment on its totality, and do so only after you've read the entire point. Otherwise you may be missing the forest for the trees. And God knows I have too many books waiting to be read to waste my time pulling your thousand strands into one cohesive response (sorry, I do not do "veiled"). Also why I am signing off from this discussion. Much luck.

[Feliks]

Marcelo wrote: "Feliks - the reason why I bring the "have you been to the place" argument to bear is that even if you had spent a whit of time (to take your preferred turn of phrase) in more than one of the countr..."

I have spent time in one of those countries; actually; studied there in school; and have been in a whole bunch of countries around the world besides. Why do you insist on going back to this faulty argument? 'Length of residence' is irrelevant to this discussion.

After all, no one is stating that those countries are not all very unique to one another...ANY two countries are unique to one another. Nevertheless, common elements of Latin American culture does unite South America; Spain; and Central America. Without question.

Here's what you're doing. You're NOT stating that the 'cultural similarity' that has been casually mentioned in this thread..'does not exist'--not because it can't be perceived ..(similarity certainly can certainly be detected all throughout Latin culture).

For some quirk of your own--you insist that generalizations themselves, aren't ever faithful. This is ludicrous, as I'm sure you can agree. Gigantic over-reaching. Furthermore, your argument isn't evidence-based; its abstract. Its a pointless obstacle to discussing the authors at all. It would be futile prevarication in any discussion. You just can't examine the world in an 'item by item' fashion; almost no topic lends itself to that. You have to be able to make summary statements, somewhere.

Just look at what you wrote. In your previous post, you trotted out some obviously 'bad generalizations' for the purpose of scorning them. Okay, so..? That hardly means that all generalizations are invalid. You just cherry-picked some you found faulty. A vast array of others, are still true.

Let's put all this in another format. The following mimics the way this chat has gone (let's pretend we're discussing cuisine)

FD: "Chiles rellenos (stuffed peppers) served in Mexico will be found to be spicier than chiles renellos eaten in Spain"
M: Oh no, you can't say that! Not all dishes in Mexico are as spicy as Mexican chiles renellos"
FD: Nevertheless, Mexican dishes are in general, spicier than their Spanish counterparts.
M: "But chiles rellenos uses an actual pepper to house the filling...!"
FD: Be that as it may--it is still a fact that Mexican food is spicier.
M: "No, no, no, no...!"


See what I mean? You're rather absurdly arguing against a principle ('heterogeneity' vs 'homogeneity').

The other thing I think you're neglecting is you have a somewhat exaggerated resentment to 'outside scrutiny'. As if westerners can't really say anything about Latin culture because 'we're not inside it'.

If this principle were true, Britons could never describe correctly American faults and foibles (which they can and do); Americans could never make observations about Germans (which we can and do); the Belgians could never make any kind of statement about the people of Cameroon..get it? People have 'blind spots' about themselves (both as individuals and as cultures). But very often, it is the visitor to a country who --bringing a fresh set of eyes--crystallizes the truth about a people. Very often, it is the outsider to a culture who can assess his hosts better than they do, themselves.

I'll go further than this: on many levels, individualism --especially overt belief in one's uniqueness--is a fallacy. People are far more 'alike' than they are 'different'. Only vanity and human nature often prevent people from seeing this. Nationalism is another 'filter' of the same type.

But under analysis--in literature and politics, in romance and psychology, in the sciences; in custom, and tradition and history--serious study reveals the world is homogenous in many respects. I think this is the root of what's bothering you...

[Marcelo]

Scale of generalization correlates with its inaccuracy, that is all. Your example itself focuses on one country alone (Mexico), you wouldn't posit the same axiom across all Latin cultures. Now, as I said before it is possible certain countries where no dominant figure existed correlated easily with a movement. And movements do exist, and can be studied. This is valid in my approach - you can indeed detect that certain authors tied to a movement, sharing a common culture and steeped in it at a point in time put out works that are in conversation with each other (the Grupo Sur, for example, in Argentina in the 30s-40s). These conversations seldom carry across country borders easily, and while some themes (for the nth time) can be common (because, in any case and Shakespeare used to say there are only seven stories in the world, which is quite convenient when trying to draw literary parallels), they are treated much differently the wider you cast your net. It's a matter of both prism and outlook, steeped in everyday culture, which is different. Now, serious literary criticism will key on this, in the shape of studies that focus on the variations and not the similarities - e.g. "the concept of multigenerational family in Latin American literature", showcasing multiple works from many authors to see how they diverge and show different facets of the thing. Hacks, on the other hand, focus on the similarities and try to make the case that they are all part of the same body of work, that they share an "aesthetic". It doesn't work that way.

Now, to your charge of cultural chauvinism on my behalf. It isn't so much that I find the wider generalization offensive as I find it impoverishing, wherever it may come from (I am sure I can find some hacks within these countries doing the same - God knows Argentinian papers have gone down the drain since the time Borges was a regular contributor). A reader that approaches these various authors and tries to bring them all to drink from the same trough because of some unifying theory posited by a critic / scholar is all the poorer for it, and will miss the nuances in the works. And yes, it is usually the case that such generalizations do come from the outside, because those on the inside are better tuned to the nuances from their everyday life exposure - it's not a matter of intent, it's a matter of degree of familiarity. You can make a case that external eyes can bring a fresh perspective and it's absolutely true; but you cannot use that freshness as an excuse to narrow your field of study to those works that work for your theory, in essence cherry-picking the evidence to fit your hypothesis. That is just lousy research and scholarship. So in the end, those fresh eyes have to do the same as everyone else - look at the wide variety of what is presented, steep themselves deeply into it and try to make some sense of it, and usually end up showcasing that the world is wide, and varied, and these seven basic stories and themes are never presented the same way twice.

Now, there is the opposite and we better not deny it - there is some cultural imperialism when it comes to parts of the world usually identified as the "Third World". No serious author would make a case that European literature is all aligned in the same manner - yet still that is the scale (continent-wide) that we are trying to impose to Latin American literature, or African literature, or Asian literature. Usually when it comes to European literature we focus on movements (existentialism, romanticism, etc.), yet we deny the same level of granularity from every other literature in the world: no, this is "Latin American literature", it sure must coincide in one aesthetic. Well, it doesn't, that just shows lack of familiarity. And it doesn't because of your own argument - people are more alike than different, including writers. Writers tend to work in movements, tend to be drawn by themes and intellectual concerns more than nationality, and then to be shaped by their immediate influences more than an overarching narrative ascribed to them by others. And most valuable authors try to do something different in each book, albeit with varied success.

That is all, and really we are boring everyone with this discussion by now. My take is that literature is kaleidoscopic, and while the color chips involved are true, we superimpose wider images based on our perception at our own risk. You believe this is not so, that these patterns are indeed real and everlasting and not tinged by perception, weaved into works across space and time and bodies of work (plus what seems to be some need to be irrevocably correct). The discussion ends there, as that is the unbridgeable gap.

[Feliks]

Marcelo wrote: "Last item and pet peeve. While dissecting and responding to a comment phrase by phrase may give you some sort of adolescent satisfaction ... it is not the best way to address a posting if you really want a discussion. Read the entire entry and pull your arguments together into one response addressing a comment on its totality, and do so only after you've read the entire point. Otherwise you may be missing the forest for the trees..."

Marcelo, I suppose I apologize if the format of my response to your writing earned a label of 'peeve'. No 'veiled sarcasm' was intended; I usually prefer to be sarcastic right out in the open. Still, I'm sorry you saw 'sarcasm' as the overall tone of my reply. I actually found your commentary very worthwhile reading; even though I disagreed with it.

Anyway. I gotta say your complaint is --in itself--confusing.

Look here: earlier, you complained that I "didnt read one of your messages carefully enough". Now, when I demonstrate that I am clearly responding to every point you make, its also unsatisfactory. 'No-win' situation. :(

And--you mention--that I may be 'missing the forest for the trees' when ..isn't that exactly the practice you have been arguing against all along? You've said repeatedly you are against people 'seeing the forest'. You only want people to see trees, as I've learned over the last two days.

I actually showed respect for your points by combing through them one-by-one; and this truly does facilitate discussion. An argument rests on the validity of all its internal points, right? Furthermore, I congratulated you and commended you at the finale; whereas you kinda kept on bristling and taking offense.

Perhaps all this is the result of a --dare I say it--'latin temper'? Common to the Latin American male? :)

[Marcelo]

In the (lost) hope that this may somehow diminish your trolling ways, let me summarize your misdeeds for all to read:

- Your own commentary said towards the beginning "I hope to see a better variety of counterpoint from you, as I read further down...". That means clearly you didn't read the whole comment first, but were disassembling as you went along with the sole purpose not of understanding but of winning a discussion.

- No veiled sarcasm? Please. comments such as "Not at all??" or the comments about what I should know or not (in italics of course), or others made to other people (e.g. "can you tell me a book that was a hit with this bunch?") tell more than your protestations ever could.

- As far as "missing the forest for the trees", and me falling into the same fault, let me point to your fallacy quickly: again my phrase was directed to the fact that you may be missing the argument I am trying to make (forest) in your rush to rebut each and every sentence separately (trees), as it seems to please you. To somehow equate that with an overall generalization of Latin American lit as a whole (forest) when all there is is books / authors / movements (trees) is a false analogy.

- Finally, you play the coy game of darned if I do, darned if I don't. Let me put forward that your dissection is actually the opposite of careful response. Careful response means you read the entire thing, reviewed it, then addressed it - when you are going sentence by sentence saying let me see what you put forward next, it's the opposite of careful discussion. Now let's say I did the same to your points: I could point that you mentioning movements actually supports my assertion (geographical arguments are bogus, intellectual ones are not), that you also provide no sources but yet demand them of me, etc., etc., etc. But I take your overall assertion at face value (Latin American Lit shares a common aesthetic) and I debate that, not each specific turn of phrase in making the case, because we'd never finish. That's how civilized conversation goes - it's the difference between trying to illuminate a subject vs. trying to win an argument. Then again, trolls being trolls, it may be difficult for you to see the difference (as to you not being a troll, having a non-anonymous, not named-after-a-communist-revolutionary profile where people can see your activity might help in dispelling that notion. Alas, all the arrows point in that direction)

All of the above takes away from constructive discussion. Not that you are really interested in it. So now, to oblivion...

[Jane]

I loved 100 Years of Solitude....a #5 rating. I have read three other books of his and did not particularly enjoy them. Love in the Time of Cholera was the least interesting. I guess he was destined for one master piece and several duds.

[Zadignose]

Re: the heated debate above, I had intended to say that, though the participants may have been frustrated, it was one of the more interesting and thoughtful exchanges of late.

Seeing the overall intent of what is being expressed is important to understanding. Perhaps the exchange could be summarized thus (though objections will probably be raised):

M: It's facile to imagine that all works by Latin authors belong to a homogeneous literary culture or genre, and to reduce criticism of all works to a reference to this mythical "Latin Culture." It's dismissive of the diversity across nations, eras, movements, and the inventiveness of individual authors. (Comment at least partially inspired by the commenter's frustration and or peevishness regarding overgeneralization, and perhaps some earlier comments which may have made lazy and casual use of such generalizations).

F: (who is frustrated by the dismissal of a work he considers great, and by a series of comments which appear thoughtless and crude, so that he is inspired to find logical fault in much of what came before). Surely you can't literally mean that it is impossible to find any meaningful generalizations, by reference to which we can critique individual works.

Imbroglio: In the ensuing exchange it becomes clear that one seeks to debate in abstract and logical terms whether there can be any utility in using generalizations to critique works, while the other wants to express clearly why the tendency to overgeneralize regarding Latin literature is an error.

Possible middle ground: It's possible that there is an excessive tendency to generalize about Latin works, that such generalizations are often flawed, and that the imagined Latin literary culture is a mostly false construct; while at the same allowing the theoretical possibility that some generalization MAY be possible and MAY be able to enlighten us regarding a particular work.

How this discussion could lead to further progress: Someone could try to supply an actual example of a generalization about Latin literature which demonstrably enlightens us about this particular work. I.e., answer the question "what can understanding Latin literary culture do to help us better understand or appreciate Love in the Time of Cholera?" Then, perhaps, continue to the questions "would it not be possible to come to a similar understanding WITHOUT reference to a supposed Latin literary culture? Perhaps even by simply referencing the work itself? What are the relative advantages of the varying approaches to understanding this work?"

[Marcelo]

Hi Zadignose,

Leaving aside the subject of my peevishness (which really was not directed to the theory itself, but to the proponent and his way of not reading through comments), let me address the topic of literary theory and its relation to the generalizations above

My take on literary theory is that it is pretty much always (with the exception of those cases where the writers have aligned themselves with a movement and are commenting on each others works) an ex post facto affair, and as such a very subjective one - which is why I bristle at its imposition as a universal key for understanding.

Let me draw an analogy here. The universe is full of stars, which have started at different points in time and are pretty much independent of each other, with some relationships between them of gravitational pull. So far so good. Now, we, looking at these stars, have grouped them in constellations based on how we see them from our vantage point. Are these constellations useful? Sure, they allow you to navigate, among other things. They strike our fancy, also, which is a nice plus. Are they absolutely true? By all means no - first of all, the stars involved have no idea of your grouping them, nor are close to each other nor related to start with; second, viewed from another point of the universe you would see a completely different arrangement. The constellation is just your construct, not theirs. Constellations can remain useful to you, but you must admit they are wildly subjective.

Literary theory is pretty much the same. Now, that being the case, the validity of any given literary theory then is reduced to its usefulness to the reader. My contention is that a widely generalized view of any literature, based on something as wide as a geographical distinction is not very useful at all for a reader. It just tries to cram too much, and ends up fudging the evidence to fit the theory - that's how we end up with some pretty crazy book readings, which are not close at all in line with what the authors may have intended (as for their subconscious tendencies, I tend to give them as much validity as the rest of psychoanalysis once you go out of the individual - that is, slim to none) A system that works to understand the works of a Colombian author has very limited applicability to understand the work of an Argentinian one, to key on my argument before. They just come from different places. Their makeups are different.

Now, what would be useful systems to understand them? For one, I believe intellectual movements have a certain validity (existentialists tend to view the world one way, romantics another, etc.), especially among authors that have collaborated or worked near each other.

In the case of Garcia Marquez, and I think I have said this before in other places, I believe the sense of wonder (which is a component of his aesthetic) has more to do with a tropical sensibility than a specifically Latin American one; well in line with the overall tropical history of polytheistic religions which see nature as the realm of the gods, etc. Think Rushdie, Ondaatje, et al. As for his use of signs and enclosed human systems (Macondo, etc.) I see more of a connection with Faulkner, whom he's acknowledged (notably on his Nobel acceptance speech) as his master.

In the case of "Cholera" itself, I don't think the geographic reading adds much. Does knowing that this is a Latin American country help in understanding Florentino's motivation (since he drives the narrative, we must start there)? I don't believe so, though I am happy to debate if anyone can come up with a specific Latin American perspective they can detect. To me, Florentino's naive vision of romantic love as a one-sided ideal (when successful love should be a two-way affair) is the driving point. It informs every action he takes. In that sense it owes more to, for example, "Mme Bovary" than to other works of contemporary Latin American fiction - like Emma Bovary, Florentino Ariza spends his life chasing that which he cannot have (that he does not end the same way as Emma owes probably more to the fact that he is a man...). You can probably draw a line to quest narratives, where the trials and tribulations of the protagonist are the measure of his commitment (to what goal, in this case, we must wonder - GGM seems ambivalent on it, but I believe likes the device as a way of building our goodwill towards a pretty crappy character in human terms). And I am sure you can make a political reading (Booker hints it in his analysis) of the triangle (where Urbino = European imposed structures; Fermina = Colombia and Florentino = locals trying to regain control of what's theirs; in the Bloom Interpretations book); though I tend to think that's a bit forced.

In any case, all those ways of looking at the book actually deal with the book itself as its own system. To me, any of those is more valid than a view on some (to me fictitious) widely shared culture continent-wide. Just read the book, do expand the view for more context if you wish, but don't try to force preconceived notions into it.