Last night I was at a popular bar frequented by poets and storytellers. After a long time I found friends who had lost it a year ago and I caught up the literary world. What surprised me is that tell me something directly involved: a document out of a provincial meeting of writers, poorly judged my literature of war. The argument that would wield my detractors, according to friends last night, is not to have fought in the PCP-Sendero Luminoso and therefore did not participate in the war "popular."
I have not read the text, but I can clarify some things. One of them is that they never had belonged to the PCP-SL. For reasons of training Marxist would never have agreed with the metaphysics of fundamentalism gonzales. Much less was now applying the "doctrine of justification" to conceal the delivery of Comrade Gonzalo cowardly and dishonorable claudication. The Gonzales is religion, not science, therefore we must have faith to believe in his great theological virtues.
There are other explanations that are historically accurate. The war had more players than those who are self-contained in the rebel groups. While some of the key players we have in the armed forces (the state), the PCP-Sendero Luminoso and MRTA were not the only ones to spend their gunpowder and dynamite. Let's give an example: the MIR resurfaced in the mountains of Santiago de Chuco, Liberty, in the early 80's with a column were supported armed peasant. This was a Maoist faction of the MIR who did not survive the siege the armed forces and the Shining Path sectarian harassment. The latter demanded the dissolution of the MIR guerrillas and their incorporation into the PCP-SL in the arbitrary conditions imposed on them. Let provide another example: Ricardo Uceda's book "Death in the little Pentagon" the author is guilty of lightness and points to the formation of two separate military aircraft in two games of Izquierda Unida. The information is accurate, (though in reality there were three), as in the legal left, those who bet on elections as the main form of struggle, also armed struggle brewing germs. Ricardo Uceda luckily did not write details. I appreciate your silence. But
State violence had suffered it all, walkers and non walkers and non MRTAs MRTAs. And the clash of the working class against the bourgeois state was not the exclusive or exclusive of armed groups. The national strikes, street fights, taking of local roads, had a vast range of political actors.
For these and other reasons I hold the following: The literature of political violence occurred in the 80 -90 does not belong to an armed group of those who fought or those who suffered. It was not necessary to have belonged to this group to suffer imprisonment, torture or exile, or to make it literature. A narrative theme may be addressed effectively by those who have talent, is assisted by the collective experience and draws from its own investigations. The most painful is to see publications who did participate and do not express themselves in literature.
still some people in the name of fundamentalism Gonzales dare to pontificate about literature and social commitment, on art and political commitment. The funny thing is they are called "Maoists" and poverty of intellect does not know how to interpret what he meant by Mao Ze Dong in his thesis on art and literature. This is no longer a political problem, but the interpretation of texts or reading comprehension. Let's see what light wrote the great helmsman of the Revolution China:
"For progressive they are politically, a work of art that has no artistic value, no force. That is why we oppose both works of art with a wrong political views, and the creation of works 'style poster and slogan' successful work in political terms but lacking in artistic power. "
(Mao, spoke at the Yenan Forum on Art and Literature, 1942).
Returning to the case of the "authentic" versus "Pharisee" I suggest that the literature of war must be differentiated from the testimony, the trial and autobiography. Even in these genres paraliterarios, you need to write well. The narrative of war can not fall into the exclusivity of functionally illiterate and self-proclaimed "legitimate stakeholders", leave the monopoly of the field to play and to assume the creative act with parameters outside the literature. Literary creation must bear fruit among those directly involved in the conflict. This will require you to shed the straitjacket imposed an erroneous and castrating political line. As they come to the office, they should understand that the great revolutionary writers distinguished for his humility, a prerequisite for learning.
When that did not automatically fall from the sky, I'm prepared emotionally for literary and ideological confrontations. My work will be judged with glasses extraliterary because "no member of the party" and because I am against fundamentalism gonzales metaphysical. But be warned: do a literature class is not the same as doing a literature of the party. Class consciousness is something different (although it should not always be others) to the organic militancy. It said something criticizing Cesar Vallejo Mayakovsky, author of works 'style poster and slogan' apparatus writer, poet, subject to directives.
0 comments:
Post a Comment