H. says
Yepez, yesterday in his column Labyrinth: Okay, beloved Swedish Academy, American literature is a Texas ranch. But, ah heck, why Le Clézio?
The Academy says that Europe remains the center of literature. " A response to Time magazine predicted in 2007 death of French culture, as his prime minister left view when he said that this award devoted to France and showed that the rooster is still alive.
According to the announcement of the Academy, read by the controversial Professor Engdahl, Le Clezio won the prize for being a proponent of "new destination (departures), poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy." Do not think of this description, perhaps, the promotion of a tourist cruise?
is true: Le Clézio was marked by his trips to Africa, Mexico and South America. And is true that Le Clézio is idealistic and romantic. A light Artaud, a cheesy Conrad. Awarded to the exotic: the other colorful primitive beings.
"explorer of a humanity beyond and below (below) the reigning civilization." By any criterion, the official reason for the Academy grieves. A Le Clezio was given the Nobel why innovative?, How deep? No. As a Crocodile Dundee counsel. The European Good friend of the noble savage.
His relationship with the Third World is key. What was rewarded intellectual tourism, colonialism so sorry and empathetic cultures there "down." Ecomoralista multiculturalism was awarded. His autonostalgia of Rousseau.
If you want to reward a writer who has to do with the Indian, why not reward better León Portilla (which did change our understanding of these cultures)? And if, as hacérsenos wanted to believe, is awarded to an author beyond "Existentialism and the new novel," why not appointed Ernesto Sabato (who actually took the novel beyond)? Neither Gandhi nor
Borges. The Nobel is due to the outdated ideals of the Old World.
In recent decades, almost all the winners are traditional novelists, the most decrepit kind of writer! This award is given for political reasons, almost always well behaved writers, whose election is a tactical international sign.
Another thing, however, is real literature, nor is fashionable or idealizing the past, nor the easiest or the most isolated, but the most profound effect of self-criticism.
What award was the idea that European literature is self-sufficient. You only need the Third World as pre-text to prove that the Christ and remain masters of the world.
Paradoxically, the 2008 Nobel given to an Indian friendly French is a message that the Europeans themselves are massaged, and which says:
United States is not yet beyond us, the truth of the Third World is written in European languages, we are the best , los más buenos, ¡somos la Gran Autoconciencia de este planeta! En cambio, D. Miklos , lanza un elogio a este escritor out-of-mainstream :
Hace poco menos de diez años, mi primer editor me dijo "Hay libros que abren (y cierran) puertas". Tras esta sentencia, me tendió una amplia obra: La cuarentena (Barcelona: Tusquets, 1998), de J. M. G. Le Clézio, quien hoy ha sido galardonado con el Premio Nobel de Literatura. La portada era, sin lugar a dudas, un muy buen umbral: la costa de lo que imaginamos una isla, todo en tonos amarillos. Comencé a leer el libro. Y no lo solté. Novela search of adventure and quintessential literary pedigree, Quarantine, I found, was, and is one of those books that, as I wanted Aurelio Major, "open doors." Ie open doors to literature. A future creation. I have no doubt that much of what he wrote Le Clezio has had an impact on my (at that time postponed) own creative process. Anyway. A decade later, the Nobel for Le Clezio. Almost unknown author (decided to escape from the Parisian publishing literary life: the hated), JMG emigrated. Lived, among other countries, Mexico (has a book called The Mexican dream, published under the seal of the FCE, the French version I watched from the bookshelves of my parents) and the United States, where he finished to become an expert on Mesoamerican cultures. It is, yes, an author close to us. And it is curious that the press, so dumbed-down by the new publications and the names chosen for large groups, do not know what to do with him, with his work, or who to interview. So it is with the unchecked and with real literature, which almost always are not meat media. No open doors, though. So Le Clézio and things.
Addenda October 21. Now G. Sheridan bitterly rants French Nobel on the caller (gulp!) "Nobelito." So, and the Nobel.
Does JMG Le Clezio Nobel? Well ... the guerita Kate Leslie and Harriet Winslow has a new friend, thanks to a goofy academy so happy about its good conscience and so determined not to read too much (if it was French novelists ... have even heard of Michel Tournier? .)
I feel good on the emotion felt by hanging from Extranjía nationalists, commentary on Le Clezio Christopher Dominguez in his column in the Sunday supplement of the Reformation. After reading The Divine Conquest of Michoacan and the Mexican dream, concludes that "the reading of this pair of books will give the curious, whether Mexican or foreign, a rather poor impression of the new Nobel essay talent and maybe not leave much enthusiasm for his streak of thinker." The Mexican dream it seemed "a real book or dilettante aficionado," plus a university paper an essay, "when much recommended as a" good introduction to ancient Mexico and its myths "to a" tourist illustrated in its first trip to Mexico. " Although he considers that his preface to The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel is better, as an expression of interest for Le Clezio by the "meeting of literature and myth," concludes that "as an interpreter of Mesoamerican myths and survival among contemporary Indian ... Le Clézio is a small thing. " Instead, it seems to me as an interpreter of modern Mexican myths work is far more significant. Daring the reader to peek eloquent summary provides in Diego et Frida (Stock, 1993), a Guide of sentimentality and a rehash of the silly cliches and predictable more about Mexico, its revolution, its art and culture, embodied in the characters archetypal. Reinforced the myth of the familiar premise that the painter and the painter were "turned revolutionary faith by the glorification of Mexico's Native American past, and therefore
devoted their lives to seek the ideal of the Amerindian world. It was that ideal
which gave them their revolutionary faith that shone amid
a country devastated by civil war, the only flash past like a light that turns heads
the whole of America and symbolizes the promise
a new height. (P. 20)
This ideal, of course, is not highly profiled, for that is ideal (although it seems between the thighs of the goddess Tlazolteotl, according to M. Le Clézio in any time, grab and revive and give birth). Yes, same, worn, europeizante resurrection of the Aztec idols in Tablada was parody and ideological fantasy Lawrence ... Facing
Amerindian powers, the rest is horrible: the Porfiriato is just shameful scene of some monkeys that mimic "Western" as contempt for indigenous cultures, its taste is a "pompiere both sinister and ridiculous" writers flee to Europe to find "the air of freedom", the Madero revolution is a wave that is "born of the conquerors abuse and violation of indigenous consciousness" Villa and Zapata, "violent uneducated, hard-liners, are the true symbols of the Mexican people "Mexico City is" synonymous with a beacon for the oppressed peoples of America "while his culture reinvents Mexican values, art and thought of the prehispanic civilizations" and, of course,
In the history of Mexico, Diego and Frida continues to shine as live coals, and her red flashes
are pure gems of poor children ...
And so on.
No, never been played better modern Mexican myths. Why seek the truth if myths are so hospitable? Thanks to Le Clézio and his clientele of tourists in the coming months (including local), such myths take on a new, rejuvenated, stolid strength ...
Wow. In La Jornada must be retristes ...
