It's a short week around here in the run-up to our usual holiday break but we're devoting what time we do have to running some exclusive guest contributions on 2666. The first up is this brief consideration of Bolaño's use of non-sequitur offered up by Natasha Wimmer, translator of 2666 and The Savage Detectives (The contributions get longer as the week goes on ... ):
It could be argued that the non-sequitur is Bolaño's trademark literary device, and that in it reside all the temptations and terrors of the random. This is evident in both his storytelling and his imagery. Each section of 2666 is increasingly a collection of stories within a story, culminating in the tale of a Russian Jewish science fiction writer in Part V, which itself breaks down into any number of side-stories. A disquisition on Courbet leads to the following cascade: The Young Ladies on the Banks of the Seine recalls spies or shipwrecked sailors enjoying a brief rest, and Ansky goes on to say: spies from another planet, and also: bodies that wear out more quickly than other bodies, and also: disease, the transmission of disease, and also: the willingness to stand firm, and also: where does one learn to stand firm? in what kind of school or university? And also: factories, desolate streets, brothels, prisons, and also: the Unknown University. The critic Patricia Espinosa calls this tendency in Bolaño an anarchizing rebellion, an impulse toward permanent revolution -- the logic of dispersion.
to whom it may concern:
Qualify 'the random.' Elaborate on the process of 'anarchizing rebellion.' Explain further the 'logic of dispersion,' and please clarify which notion of 'dispersion' you mean, so readers can contextualize said logic.
I hope someone will speak eloquently on Natasha's behalf.
Posted by: Ayub | December 22, 2008 at 09:11 AM
...
Posted by: Ayub | December 22, 2008 at 09:16 AM
It's amazing rhetoric there. Describing a flaw or lack of sense as a device used by the author to symbolize or deepen his work someway. These are the kinds of "critical thinking" that make people drop out of college.
Posted by: K | December 22, 2008 at 02:04 PM
hey, i dont agree... the impulse to reach for poetic images and to celebrate literary imagination is not just irresponsible writing or critical gibberish- it's what bolano has perfected in his two largest works. further, it's what he identifies in savage detectives as the spirit of the '70s, if not of most young poets the world around.
Posted by: marko | December 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Yes, but what I'm - and presumably what 'K' is - concerned with is Wimmer's flimsy elucidation of her ideas about this, uh, supposed...formal randomness? vis-a-vis Bolano's use of it as a "device" (which, to her credit, I don't take to be a necessarily reductive term). Put simply: that, up there, is patent highbrow hogwash. She's throwing out hollow terms - and coining some odd phrases along the way - without any regard for context. The word 'dispersion,' for instance, has very specific connotations if used in, say, the context of statistical analysis. It is, in that sense, anything BUT random. It is governed by mathematical properties. And it's vehemently organized - that is, orderly; it is not anarchy. There's a big schism, then, between the idea of a "device," and notions of "disorder." They appear mutually exclusive. How, I'd ask, does Wimmer see them in tandem?
Posted by: Ayub | December 23, 2008 at 07:40 AM
Wimmer probably assumes that you have read the book, K and Ayub, and would know that she is talking about anarchic interruptions in otherwise coherent, sometimes high-velocity narratives. The interrupting narratives themselves, in fact, are often as gripping as anything in the book. And obviously, Wimmer is not using "dispersion" as it is used in statistical analysis. Quite plainly, she seems to be talking about a dispersion of plot, of the reader's focus, of literary effects, away from any standard dramatic arc.
Posted by: M. | December 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM