|
The Nobel
Prize in Literature
2010
RICARDO
SOMOCURCIO is in love
with a bad girl.
He loves her as a coy
teenager known as "Lily" in Lima
in 1950, when she flits into his life one summer and disappears again
without
explanation. He loves her still when she reappears as a revolutionary
in 1960s Paris, then later as Mrs.
Richardson, the wife of a
wealthy Englishman, and again as the mistress of a sinister Japanese
businessman in Tokyo.
However poorly she treats him, he is doomed to worship her. Charting
Ricardo's
expatriate life through his romances with this shape-shifting woman,
Vargas
L10sa has created a beguiling epic romance about the life-altering
power of
obsession.
Gái hư
làm nát tan trái tim của
bạn, nhưng The Bad Girl, không phải chỉ
là về gái hư, về ‘viết lại’ Madame
Bovary, mà còn là về 1 thời, thập
niên 1950,
1960 của tác giả và của nhân vật của mình:
VL viết ‘tửng tửng’ [wry
humour],‘nhân hậu và cảm động' [affection], về cả hai, những nhân vật,
và hai thập niên đã biến mất của ông 1950, và 60. Câu chuyện,
the story, về nhựa đời
và kẻ đào vàng, sau cùng biến thành một câu chuyện cổ tích, a tale, về
tình yêu
không đòi hỏi,
vô điều kiện, unconditional love.
The Christian Science
Monitor.
Day of the fox [Ngày của con chồn]
Mario Vargas Llosa: an unclassifiable Nobel winner
Novelist
William Boyd pays tribute to 'a great
chroncicler of the highs and lows of our carnal and passionate
adventures as
human beings'.
Vargas
Llosa is very hard to
classify and pin down as a writer: he has written short novels and very
long
novels, comic novels and deeply serious novels, straightforward
realistic
novels and recognisably South American "magic-realist" novels.
Perhaps this unclassifiability has been seen as a disadvantage. Indeed,
when
one compares Vargas Llosa to his great South American literary rival
Gabriel
García Márquez one is reminded of Archilochus's old fox and hedgehog
adage:
"The fox knows many things, the hedgehog knows one big thing."
Márquez, a hedgehog novelist if there ever was one, received his Nobel
in 1982
at the age of 55. Vargas Llosa received his at the age of 74. Almost 30
years
later the day of the fox has arrived – it inevitably comes around, even
if it
takes a little longer.
Bài
viết trên đây, về Vargas Llosa, cũng thật tuyệt.
Nó làm Mít chúng ta nhớ tới Kim Dung, và nhân vật chưởng môn nhân phái
Tiêu
Dao, sư phụ của Tô Tinh Hà của ông, ngoài võ công ra, cầm kỳ thi họa,
chi cũng
rành, sau
bị học trò Đinh Xuân Thu, chuyên học chỉ một môn võ công, hất ngôi.
Con
chồn
biết nhiều thứ, con nhím chỉ biết 1 thứ.
Nếu
chỉ nói văn chương, VL 'thua' GM, nhưng GM làm sao so được với một VL,
‘nhà tạp
ghi’?
GNV về
già tìm lại được cái
thú đọc tiểu thuyết, sau khi mất bao nhiêu ngày tháng, "quên cả thù
riêng", không
làm sao có thì giờ để mà trả lời câu hỏi ‘có mấy NQT,’ cho Thầy Cuốc,
và cho chính
GNV, chỉ một lòng một dạ truy tìm và tận diệt, search and destroy, (1)
Cái
Ác Bắc Kít.
Biết
đâu, nhờ vậy, mà viết
được cuốn tiểu thuyết về đời mình, thời của mình, [cũng thập niên 1950,
và 60],
và Gấu Cái, của mình!
(1)
'search and destroy':
thuật ngữ của giới nhà binh, đúng hơn, của tướng Westmoreland, khi điều
trần
trước quốc hội Mẽo, để xin thêm Yankee mũi lõ cho chiến trường Việt Nam.
*
Re: VL & Casement & Sebald.
Before becoming fatally entangled in the Irish nationalist movement,
Casement
was best known for his service as a British diplomat in Africa. His Congo
Report (1904)
exposed Belgian atrocities and was probably influenced by Joseph
Conrad’s great
1899 novella Heart of Darkness. When Dean read the pages
in which
Sebald describes Casement’s trial for treason, she realized that the
presiding
judge who had condemned Casement to death was her great, great uncle.
Source
*
"The story's message,
though, is as profound as it was when Flaubert set the template in
Madame
Bovary. Since desire defines us, the author is telling us, isn't 'the
bad girl'
our perfect hero?" -The Week magazine
Phải
chăng Gấu Cái mới đích
thực là nhân vật hoàn hảo của... chúng ta?
Tại sao trong truyện ngắn của
GNV, truyện nào cũng thấp thoáng một em, trừ… Gấu Cái?
Ui dào, toàn bản nháp không hà?
Thứ bóng hồng tuyệt hảo, của ông ta, là tui, nhưng ông ta đâu có đủ tài
năng, để
mà ‘dziết da’ [viết ra]!
[Gấu Cái trả lời phỏng vấn báo
Sóng Văn, ở Mẽo] (1)
Tại sao mi không chọn 1 trong
những thánh nữ của mi, mà lại chọn nỗi đau khổ của mi, là… ta?
(1)
Đọc loáng thoáng cuốn Vera, của tay Stacy Schiff, Gấu
mua ‘xôn’,
từ đời nào, viết về bà xã của Nabokov, vớ được một ‘giai thoại’ thật
thần sầu.
Vera, một lần, khi một nhà xb
xin chân dung ông chồng, đã gửi đi một tấm, khi Nabokov còn là một đứa
con nít,
kèm ghi chú: "Bạn cứ nhìn vào mắt thằng bé con này, là thấy ra tất cả
những tác phẩm của ông chồng tôi".
[If U look carefully into the
baby’s eyes, U can see all of my husband’s books].
Kể cho Gấu Cái nghe, bả bĩu
môi, sao hay bằng câu của ta. Mà mi đâu có nhớ?
Gấu,
nhớ.
Lần đó, tờ Sóng Văn của tay
Sao Mai, Gấu cộng tác, qua sự giới thiệu của nhà thơ LH, có làm một
cuộc phỏng
vấn, không phải nhà văn, mà vợ nhà văn. Gấu Cái trả lời, có hai câu
thật bảnh.
Kỷ niệm nhớ đời, trong cuộc
đời làm vợ nhà văn nhớn, Gấu Nhà Văn.
Đó là lần rước dâu, từ Cai
Lậy về Sài Gòn. Năm đó, lụt lớn [1966, hay 67, Gấu không nhớ rõ]. (2) Có những đoạn đường phải dùng đò. Trên đò, có
đủ khổ đau, đủ dùng, không chỉ đời này, mà còn cho đời sau, không chỉ
cho
“hai”, mà “ba” người ngồi trên đò.
Gấu nhà văn chỉ có vài truyện
ngắn, vậy mà có đến vài hình bóng đàn bà…?
Ôi dào, toàn là bản nháp
không à. Bản thực sự, viết về tui, ông ta không đủ tài viết ra.
*
Câu của Gấu Cái quả là bảnh
hơn nhiều, nếu phải so với câu của Vera.
Bạn có nhớ con thuyền Noé?
Và cuộc di tản ra biển sau
1975?
*
Câu của Vera, còn thua cả câu
của Sáu Dân, ngay sau khi giải phóng Sài Gòn.
Ông VC Trùm cả nước phán:
Nhìn vào vầng trán cháu
ngoan
Bác Hồ thành phố, thấy cả tương lai Mít.
(2) Gấu
Cái đọc, đoạn trên,
bực quá, chửi, lấy nhau năm nào, mà mi cũng quên ư?
NKTV
The Nobel
Prize in Literature
2010
Trong
bài viết Xứ sở với ngàn
bộ mặt, VL nhắc tới tuổi thơ, những năm đầu đời, mê Faulkner, ‘y chang’
GNV, thời
gian mới ra trường, đi làm Bưu Điện, gặp lại BHD, ở nơi con đường băng
ngang vườn
Tao Đàn khi em trên đường đi tới trường Gia Long, sau bao năm năm
tháng, nghĩa
là sau cái lần bị ông bố tống cổ ra khỏi nhà, thời gian gia đình BHD
dời con phố
Phan Đình Phùng lên khu Ngã Sáu Gia Long.
And in
a way I was, because I
was reading voraciously, and with growing admiration, a number of
writers
considered by Marxists at the time to be 'gravediggers of Western
culture':
Henry Miller, Joyce, Hemingway, Proust, Malraux, Celine, Borges. But,
above
all, Faulkner. Perhaps the most enduring part of my university years
was not
what I learned in lecture halls, but what I discovered in the novels
and
stories that recounted the saga of Yoknapatawpha County.
I remember how
dazzling it was to read - pencil and paper in hand - Light in August,
As I Lay
Dying, The Sound and the Fury and the like, and to discover in
those
pages the
infinite complexity of shade and allusion and the textual and
conceptual
richness that a novel could provide. Also to learn that to tell a story
well
required a conjuror's technique. The literary models of my youth have
palled,
like Sartre, whom I can no longer read. But Faulkner is still a major
writer
for me and every time that I read him, I am convinced that his work is
a
novelistic summa, comparable
to the great classics. In the 1950S in Latin
America, we read mainly European and North
American
writers and hardly looked at our own writers. This has now changed:
readers in Latin America discovered
their novelists at the same time
as the rest of the world did so.
THE COUNTRY OF A THOUSAND
FACES
Bởi vì tôi ngốn sách như điên, và, cùng với sự ngưỡng mộ tăng dần là
con số những tác giả, được đám Mác Xít thời đó coi là "những kẻ đào mồ
chôn văn hóa Tây Phương": Henry Miller, Joyce, Hemingway, Proust,
Malraux, Celine, Borges. Nhưng, trên tất cả là Faulkner. Có thể nói,
những năm học đại học, cái phần dai dẳng còn đọng lại ở trong tôi thì
không phải là từ những bài học tại giảng đường mà là những gì tôi khám
phá ra trong những tiểu thuyết, truyện ngắn kể về một miền đất giả
tưởng Yoknapatawpha County.
*
Khi
dịch Phu
Nhân ở Somerset, Gấu sống thời gian mỗi cuối tuần lên gặp
em BHD
đi nghỉ hè ở Đà Lạt, và nhớ luôn,
cuốn tiểu thuyết Faulkner thủ trong túi, đọc lai rai suốt quãng đường
mấy trăm cây
số Sài Gòn – Đà Lạt, 'vô tình' để lọt cái cảnh ngồi bên BHD trên chiếc
tắc xi già
leo không nổi con dốc, cứ lên tới đỉnh là lại tụt xuống, và, nhân đó,
nhớ...
Camus: ‘Phải tưởng tượng Sisyphus hạnh
phúc’.
Miss
Trask đâu có thì giờ để
làm công tác xã hội với những người lối xóm. Hay để ngồi lê đôi mách về
giá cả
cuộc sống thường nhật, bữa này thịt cá hơi bị mắc, hay không làm sao
kiếm được
một bó rau muống, hay ca cẩm về đám trẻ bây giờ mất dậy quá, "anh anh
tôi
tôi" với cả bậc tiên chỉ! Bởi vì mỗi phút của cuộc đời của cô thì đều
được
tập trung cao độ về những đam mê bất khả: búng tay một cái là dúm tro
than kia
biến mất, và Bông Hồng Đen lại xuất hiện, trước cặp mắt mừng rỡ đến
phát khùng
phát điên lên được của anh cu Gấu!
Làm sao đám người “mưa đêm
tỉnh lẻ” lại có thể đem đến cho Miss Trask, những ngôi nhà đỉnh gió hú,
những
cánh rừng ma, những rừng thông Đà Lạt, và chiếc tắc xi già, nặng nhọc
leo lên
đến đầu con dốc, là hết hơi , bèn từ từ lùi xuống: Phải tưởng tượng Cu
Gấu hạnh phúc [Tưởng tượng gì nữa, khi có BHD ngồi kế bên!]
*
Sinh
tại Arequipa,
miền nam Peru,
1936, những tác phẩm đầu tay của VL đậm đà hương vị, và những bất công
của quê
nhà của ông. “La Ciudad y los Perros”, cái tít tiếng Anh “The Time of
the
Hero”, thực không đúng với nó, là một giả tưởng dựa trên quãng đời
chẳng sung sướng
gì của tác giả, khi còn là thanh niên, theo học tại một trường quân sự
ở Lima. Thường
xuyên hiện diện trong tác phẩm của ông, là những tình cảm rắm rối,
nhiều khi trái
ngược nhau, về quê hương Peru của ông, nhưng đề tài và nhân vật của ông
ngày càng
trở thành phổ cập. Còn một đề tài trở đi trở lại hoài trong tác phẩm
của ông, là
sự truy tìm [điều, chủ nghĩa] không tưởng, và những hậu quả thường
xuyên là tai
hại của nó, về chính trị, cho đời sống riêng tư của từng cá nhân, và
được ông
khai triển bằng những đường hướng khác nhau, ở trong những cuốn như
“The War of
the End of the World”, “The Real Life of Alejandro Mayta” và “The Way
to
Paradise”, một nghiên cứu, nhìn từ đối điểm, những cuộc sống của họa sĩ
Paul
Gauguin, và người bà mang hai dòng máu Pháp-Peru của ông, Flora
Tristán, một nhà
nữ quyền thời kỳ đầu của phong trào này.
*
Wellsprings, Suối
Nguồn, tập
tiểu luận mới nhất, 2008 của VL, gồm đa
số những bài đã từng in ấn, về một số tác giả, tác phẩm ảnh hưởng nhiều
tới ông,
hoặc những đề tài mà ông thực sự quan tâm: 1. Bốn thế kỷ Don Quixote.
2. Những
giả tưởng của Borges. 3. Ortega y Gassett và Sự Sống Lại của một người
Tự do.
4. Sự thách đố của chủ nghĩa quốc gia. 5. Giả tưởng và Thực tại tại Mỹ
La Tinh.
6. Isaiah Berlin, người hùng của thời của chúng ta. 7. Cập nhật Karl
Popper.
TV sẽ
giới thiệu bài “Sự thách đố của
chủ nghĩa quốc gia”, vì cái chủ nghĩa quốc gia này, quả đúng là của mấy
anh VC
như Thái Dúi!
*
Gấu đọc VL, lần đầu tiên, là qua
bài viết Sự thực của những lời dối trá, đăng trên tờ Partisan
Review, và sau đó, tóm tắt, đăng trên Văn, của NXH.
Biết tới Amos Oz, và nhiều tác giả khác nữa, như Czeslaw Milosz,
Norman Manea...,
qua tờ báo khuynh tả này!
Coetzee, là qua tờ NYRB. Từ Coetzee, ra cả một lô những tác giả khác,
đa số, Mít chưa từng đọc!
Ngay cả Borges, cũng do GNV này lôi ra ánh sáng!
Linda Lê, cũng GNV giới thiệu, nhân đọc TLS điểm cuốn Vu Khống của
bà.
Chê!
Trong
Những Sắc Màu Khác, tập
tiểu luận, của Orhan Pamuk, có bài:
Mario Vargas Llosa và Văn học của Thế Giới
Thứ Ba.
TV sẽ dịch, trong những kỳ tới.
Liệu có
thứ kêu là văn chương
Thế Giới Thứ Ba? Liệu có thể sắp xếp cho ra, establish – mà không sợ
biến thành
trò tầm phào, hay nâng bi miệt vườn, đặc sản, parochialism - những đức
tính, đạo
hạnh cơ bản của những xứ sở mà chúng ta gọi là Thế Giới Thứ Ba?
The Nobel
Prize in Literature
2010
Mario Vargas
Llosa và Văn học của Thế Giới
Thứ Ba.
Orhan Pamuk
Liệu có
thứ kêu là văn chương
Thế Giới Thứ Ba? Liệu có thể sắp xếp cho ra, establish – mà không sợ
biến thành
trò tầm phào, hay nâng bi miệt vườn, đặc sản, parochialism - những đức
tính, đạo
hạnh cơ bản của những xứ sở mà chúng ta gọi là Thế Giới Thứ Ba?
Landscape
of violence
From the TLS of June 21, 1996
Orhan Pamuk
Is
there such a thing as Third World
literature? Is it possible, without being
parochial and vulgar, to distinguish the essential features of the
literatures
of Third World countries? At best, as
employed
in the writings of Edward Said, the concept has helped to illuminate
the
multiplicity and diversity of the off-centre literatures, their
non-Westernness, the idea of nationalism. At worst, elaborations on the
concept
of Third World literature, such as
national
allegories, are ways of politely evading the complexity and richness of
whole
continents of literatures. Borges began writing his short stories and
essays in
the Argentina of
the 1930s,
a Third World country by any
standards, but
his central place in world literature today is indisputable.
Yet there is a peculiar way
of writing fiction in such countries, which is marked less by the
writer's
off-centre location than by his awareness of it, and Mario Vargas
Llosa's work
is a good example. What characterizes this kind of fiction is not the
presence
of off-centre problems - say, the social location of a "peripheral"
country (although the social problems of Peru are everywhere in
abundance in
Vargas Llosa's fiction) - but the writer's way of relating himself to a
real or
imaginary centre of creativity where the main problems of his art are
posed.
What is crucial here is the writer's acceptance of his exile from where
the
history of his art is made. This is not necessarily a geographical
exile (as in
the case of Vargas Llosa, who spent most of his creative life not in
his Peru but in Europe,
at the centre of Western civilization), may sometimes be self-imposed
and often
relieves the author from the "anxiety of influence".
In this kind of fiction, the
problems of originality do not engage the author in an obsessive
dialogue with
a father-figure or a precursor, because he realizes that the freshness
of his
subject-matter, the novelty of his geographical location, and even the
new readership
that he is addressing, will grant him an authenticity.
In one of the early pieces in
Making Waves, Vargas Llosa reviews Simone de Beauvoir's novel Les
Belles
Images. He congratulates her for writing an excellent novel and for not
being
overshadowed by the authors of the "nouveau roman" who were
fashionable at the time, whom he finds increasingly weak. The greatest
merit of
Simone de Beauvoir's novel, according to the young Vargas Llosa, is "to
have made use of" the forms and expressive modes of Robbe-Grillet,
Nathalie Sarraute, Butor and Beckett for her own purposes, which were
quite
different from theirs.
This notion of
"using" other authors' philo-sophies and techniques surfaces in an
essay on Sartre. Vargas Llosa in his later years found Sartre's fiction
to be
humourless and lacking in mystery, his essays clear but politically
confusing,
and his art dated and unoriginal. He regrets having been so much
influenced and
even confused by him in his Marxist youth. His dis-illusionment, Vargas
Llosa tells
us, occurred in the summer of 1964, when in a notorious interview in Le
Monde,
Sartre, comparing literature to a child dying of hunger in a Third
World
country, implied that writing fiction is a luxury that can only be
permitted
with good conscience in prosperous and just societies. Yet Sartre's
rational
reasoning and his conviction that literature could never be a game,
Vargas
Llosa admits, were "useful", for they helped him to organize his
life; they were a valuable guide to the labyrinth of culture and
politics. This
seemingly rational approach to inspiration, to the usefulness of other
authors'
inventions, and the constant awareness of being off-centre mark a
certain
naivety (a quality Vargas Llosa says Sartre lacks) and vitality which
are felt
not only in his early essays and book reviews, but other
auto-biographical
pieces in Making Waves as well.
Making Waves is a collection
of essays and reviews, chronicling Vargas Llosa's heartfelt involvement
in the
literary and political events of the past thirty years. The book is
extremely
readable and Vargas Llosa is always engaging, whether the subject is
his son's
involvement with Rastafarians, the political profile of Nicaragua at the hands of the Marxist
Sandinistas in 1985, or the World Cup in Spain in 1982. His literary
heroes
include Camus, whom he confesses he read dispassionately in his youth
because
of Sartre's strong influence; only years later, after a terrorist
attack in Lima,
did he read Camus's
essay on violence in history, The Rebel, and realized that he preferred
him to
Sartre. His praise for Sartre's essays, that they go straight to "the
essential point", is also true for most of the essays in Making Waves.
Sartre is a problematic
character, perhaps even a father-figure for Vargas Llosa. John Dos
Passos, whom
Sartre so much admired and was influenced by, is dear to him as well,
for more
or less the same reasons: his lack of sentimentality and invention of
narrative
techniques. Vargas Llosa himself later used these techniques in his
novels (as
Sartre did). Doris Lessing's Golden Notebook is praised as a good
example of a
"committed" novel in the "Sartrean definition" of the term;
that is, a book "rooted in the debates, myths and violence of its
time". Of all the writers Vargas Llosa is genuinely interested in and
wrote about - including Joyce, Hemingway, and Bataille - Faulkner is
the one he
has the highest praise for and admits to being heavily influenced by.
Most of
his comments on the formal in-genuity of Faulkner's novels, in an essay
on Sanctuary,
are relevant to his own novels as well. In fact, Vargas Llosa's
observation
that in Sanctuary the scenes are juxtaposed, rather than dissolving
into each
other, is even truer of his own fiction. This technique also appears in
his new
novel, Death in the Andes, which is
crammed
with voices, stories and comments, the continuity of which is
ruthlessly
broken.
Set in remote and isolated
corners of the Andes, in decaying and desolate communities, empty
valleys,
mines, mountain roads, Death in the Andes
tells the story of a series of disappearances, most of them possibly
murders.
The logic behind these killings is investigated by a corporal, Lituma,
whose
name will not be unfamiliar to the followers of Vargas Llosa's fiction,
and his
companion, a member of the Guardia Civil, Tomas Carreno. They
interrogate
people, wander around the country, tell each other stories of their
love
affairs and are constantly on the alert for an ambush by Maoist
guerrillas. The
people they meet, juxtaposed with the stories they tell, form a
panoramic and
realistic picture of rural Peru
today, its misery and pain.
The suspects are members of
Shining Path, Peru's
Maoist guerrilla movement, and a strange local couple who are running a
cantina
and are seen performing ceremonies reminiscent of ancient Inca rituals.
The
description of the illogical brutality of various political murders by
Shining
Path, and the growing possibility that the murders may be related to
some kind
of Inca-inspired sacrificial rituals, produce an atmo-sphere of dark
irrationalism, enhanced by the violent Andes
landscape. Death is everywhere in this book, and its presence is felt
more than
the poverty, the guerrilla war, the nature and the hopelessness of Peru.
It is as if Vargas Llosa the
modernist had lost his optimism, and, like a truly postmodern
anthropologist,
decided to pay attention to Peru's
irrationalism, its violence, its pre-enlightenment values and rituals.
Myths,
ancestral gods, mountain spirits, demons, satan and witches are
mentioned
everywhere in the book, perhaps more than their presence in the story
warrants.
"But of course, we make a mistake when we try to understand these
killings
with our minds", says one character. "They have no rational
explanation."
The texture of Death in the Andes is
immune to the irrationalism it describes.
Plotting a detective novel, a genre based on the celebration of
Cartesian
rationalism, together with the ir-rational atmosphere that hints at the
hidden
roots of brutality - these two contradictory objects do not help to
produce a
new form. This is, after all, a typical Vargas Llosa book; although
occasionally complex, it is always controlled, and its voices are well
orchestrated; the beauty and the strength of the novel is based on its
tight
and well organized composition.
While there is a strong
intention to by-pass the worn-out modernistic as- sumptions about
"Third
World" countries in Death in the Andes,
this is not a post-modern novel as , say, Gravity's Rainbow is. The
image of
"the other" as an irrational being, and all the other elements that
are usually associated with this kind of reasoning - magic, rituals,
strange
landscapes and brutality - abound in the book. Yet one does not read it
as a
novel illustrating vulgar generalizations about "the other", but as a
playful, often funny, realistic text that derives strength from its
being a
reliable chronicle of the real events that take place in everyday life
in Peru.
The
capture of a small town by the guerrillas and the trials that follow,
or a
melo-dramatic love-affair between a prostitute and a soldier, have the
plausibility of a convincing reportage. The Peru of Death in the Andes is a country "no one can understand", a
place where everyone complains about his miserable salary and the
stupidity of
risking one's neck for it. Although he has always been experimental,
Vargas
Llosa is one of the most realistic of the Latin American writers.
The main character, Corporal
Lituma, appears, Balzac/Faulkner fashion, in other Vargas Llosa novels.
He was
a major figure in Who Killed Palomino Molero?, which is also partly a
detective
novel, had two lives in The Green House, the novel named after a
brothel, the
establishment he remembers in Death in the Andes, and was an imaginary
character who terrorized the underworld of El Callao in a soap opera,
in Aunt
Julia and the Scriptwriter.
The treatment of this
down-to-earth figure, who does his best to serve in the army without
any
fanaticism, has a reasonable degree of honesty, strong instinct to
survive and
a cynical sense of humour, is very sympathetic. Vargas Llosa, who
studied in a
military high school in Peru, is at his best when writing about
military life,
as in the rivalry and competition of young cadets of The Time of the
Hero or
(at his most humorous) in Captain Pantoja and the Special Service, a
satire of
bureaucracy and sex in the army. He is brilliant when he pays attention
to the
nuances of male friendships, the fragile moments of macho
sensibilities, tough
guys who hopelessly fall in love with whores, the right moment for a
vulgar
joke to end male senti-mentality that goes too far.
His cynicism can be extremely
funny, yet it is never pointless. From his earlier novels, it is
obvious that
Vargas Llosa prefers wise realists and cynical moderates to radical
utopians
and fanatics. Here, the good guys are soldiers, while there is no
attempt to
understand the psychology of the Shining Path guerrillas, who are
represented
as purely illogical and almost absurdly evil.
This is not of course
entirely unrelated to Vargas Llosa's own political change, well
chronicled in
Making Waves, from a young modernist Marxist enchanted by the Cuban
revolution
to a mature, self-conscious liberal, who in the early 1990s, counted
himself as
one of "the only two writers in the world who admire Margaret Thatcher
and
detest Fidel Castro", and who scolded Guenter Grass for saying in early
1980s that Latin American countries should follow "the example of
Cuba". After reading the account of the Shining Path guerrillas in
Death
in the Andes, it is striking to come
across,
in one of the early articles, a touching and tender homage to a Marxist
guerrilla, a friend who had died in 1965, "in an engagement with the
Peruvian army". Do guerrillas cease to be human after our youth ends,
or
is it only because after a certain age we rarely have friends among the
guerrillas? The charm of Vargas Llosa's writing and the vitality of his
convictions are so engaging that one may tend to sympathize, if not
with all of
his political views, at least with his boyishly heartfelt way of
relating to
them.
"What does it mean to be
a writer in Peru?"
he asks in Making Waves, in an article on the early death of Sebasti n
Salazar
Bondy, one of the country's most successful authors. It is easy to
identify
with the fury of young Vargas Llosa, who says that every Peruvian
writer is
defeated in the end, not only because there are no readers and
publishers in
Peru, but because writers who resist and try to find ways of protecting
themselves
against "the poverty, the ignorance or the hostility of the
environment" are treated as lunatics, destined either for an unreal
existence or exile. His youthful hatred of the Peruvian bourgeoisie,
who he
said were "more stupid than the rest" and did not read books, his
complaint that "Peruvian contributions" to world literature were
scarce and poor, his dream of going to live in Europe, and the hunger
he felt
for non-Peruvian literature, are signs that beneath the singular voice
of
Vargas Llosa there is a painful awareness of being off-centre.
Source
Note:
Bản in trong “Những sắc
màu khác”, có hơi khác bản này.
The Nobel
Prize in Literature
2010
Mario Vargas
Llosa và Văn học của Thế Giới
Thứ Ba.
Orhan Pamuk
Liệu có
thứ kêu là văn chương
Thế Giới Thứ Ba? Liệu có thể sắp xếp cho ra, establish – mà không sợ
biến thành
trò tầm phào, hay nâng bi miệt vườn, đặc sản, parochialism - những đức
tính, đạo
hạnh cơ bản của những xứ sở mà chúng ta gọi là Thế Giới Thứ Ba?
Nobel winner Mario
Vargas Llosa finds perfect protagonist in Roger Casement
Literature
and Exile
Văn chương và Lưu vong
Every time that a Latin
American writer resident in Paris
is interviewed, one question invariably crops up: 'Why do you live
outside your
country?' This is not simple curiosity; in the majority of cases, the
question
conceals either fear or a reproach. For some, the physical exile of a
writer is
literally dangerous, because the lack of direct contact with the way of
being
or the way of speaking (which is almost the same thing) of the people
of his
own country can impoverish his language and weaken or falsify his
vision of
reality. For others, the matter has an ethical significance: to choose
exile is
immoral, a betrayal of the fatherland. In countries whose cultural life
is
limited or nonexistent, the writer - they think - should stay and fight
for the
development of intellectual and artistic activities to raise the
spiritual
level of the environment. If instead of doing so, he prefers to go
abroad, then
he is branded an egotist, an irresponsible person or a coward (or all
three at
once).
The writers' replies to this
inevitable question are often very varied:
I live away from my country
because I find the cultural milieu in Paris,
London or Rome
more stimulating; or because distance gives me a more coherent and
faithful
perspective on my reality than being immersed in it; or simply because
I want
to (I'm talking here about literary, not political, exiles). In fact
all of
these replies can be summed up in one: because I write better in exile.
Better
in this case should be understood in psychological and not aesthetic
terms: it
means with 'more tranquility' or 'greater conviction'; no one will ever
know if
what is written in exile is of better quality than what would have been
written
in one's own country. In answer to the fear that physical isolation
from one's
reality might prejudice one's work in the long run, the writer of
fantasy might
argue that the reality his fictions describe travels the world with him
because
his two-headed heroes, his carnivorous roses and his glass cities,
emerge from
his fantasies and dreams, not from any observation of the outside
world. And he
might add that the lack of daily contact with the language of his
compatriots
does not alarm him at all; he aspires to express himself in a language
free of
local color, an abstract, even exotic, unmistakably personal language,
which
can be developed through reading.
The realist writer
must
resort to examples. If we take just the case of Peruvian literature, we
can
come up with a list of important books which describe the face and the
soul of
Peru faithfully and beautifully, written by men who had spent a number
of years
in exile, thirty in the case of El Inca Garcilaso's Comentarios
reales (Royal Commentaries) and at least twelve in the
case of Vallejo's Poemas humanos
(Human Poems). In both these examples - perhaps the most admirable in
the whole
of Peruvian literature - distance in time and space did not diminish or
disturb
the vision of a concrete reality which is transposed in essence into
that
chronicle and into those poems. In Latin American literature, the
examples are
even more numerous. Even if the literary value of Bello's
odes might be debatable, his botanical and zoological rigor is not in
question
and the flora and fauna that he rhymed from memory in London
correspond to those of America.
Sarmiento wrote his best essays on his country, Facundo
and Memorias de
provincia (Notes from the Provinces), far from Argentina.
No one doubts that the
work of Marti is profoundly national, although four-fifths of it was
written in
exile. And was the costumbrist realism of the final novels of Blest
Gana,
written several decades after his arrival in Paris,
no less faithful to Chilean reality than the books he wrote in Santiago?
This is simply a list
of
examples and the statistics in this case are there to give an
indication rather
than to present a rounded argument. Is it an indication that exile does
not
impair a writer's creativity and that physical absence from his home
does not
imply a loss, or a deterioration of the view of reality that his books
seek to
transmit? Any generalization on this theme risks drowning in absurdity.
Because
it would doubtless not be difficult to give numerous opposing examples
to show
how, in a great number of cases, when writers left their country, they
lost
their creativity or wrote books that deformed the world that they were
attempting to describe. To these counter-statistics - we are already in
the
realm of the absurd - one would have to reply with another type of
example which
would show the countless number of writers who, without ever having
touched
foreign soil, wrote mediocre or inexact books about their country. And
what
about the writers of proven talent who, without going into exile, wrote
works
that do not reflect the reality of their country? Jose Maria Eguren did
not
need to leave Peru
to
describe a world populated by Nordic fairies and mysteries (like the
Bolivian
Jaime Freyres, and Julian del Casal who, while living in Cuba, wrote mainly about France and Japan).
They did not go into exile
physically, but their literature can be called 'exile' literature for
the same
reason as the literature of the exiled Garcilaso or Vallejo can be
called
literature 'rooted in a context'.
The only thing we've proved
is that nothing can be proved in this area and that, therefore, in
literary
terms exile is not a problem in itself. It is an individual problem
which takes
on different characteristics with each writer and has different
results.
Physical contact with one's own rational reality means nothing from the
point
of view of the work; it determines neither a writer's themes, nor his
imagination nor the vitality of his language. Exactly the same is true
of
exile. Physical absence from a country is sometimes translated into
works that accurately
reflect that reality and at other times into works that distort
reality.
Whether or not a work is an evasion or a reflection of reality, just as
whether
or not it is good, has nothing to do with the geographical location of
its
author.
That still leaves the moral
criticism that some level at the writer who goes into exile. Surely the
writers
who desert their country show an indifference towards their own kind, a
lack of
solidarity with the dramas and people of that country? The question
contains a
confused and contemptuous idea of literature. A writer has no better
way of
serving his country than by writing with as much discipline and honesty
as he
can. A writer shows his discipline and honesty by placing his vocation
above
everything else and by organizing his life around his creative work.
Literature
is his first loyalty, his first responsibility, his primordial
obligation. If
he writes better in his country, he must stay there; if he writes
better in
exile, he must leave. It is possible that his absence might deprive his
society
of someone who might have been an effective journalist, teacher or
cultural
promoter, but it is equally possible that the journalist, teacher or
cultural
promoter is depriving society of a writer. It is not a question of
knowing
which is more important, more useful; a vocation (especially a
writer's) cannot
be decided in any authentic way by commercial, historical, social or
moral
criteria. It is possible that a young man who abandons literature to
dedicate
himself to teaching or fighting the revolution is ethically and
socially more
worthy of recognition than the other, the egotist, who only thinks
about
writing. But from the point of view of literature, a generous person is by no means
exemplary or, in any event, he sets a bad example because his nobility
and
heroism are also a betrayal. Those who demand that a writer behave in a
certain
way (something that they do not demand, for example, of a doctor or an
architect) are in effect expressing an essential doubt about the
usefulness of
his vocation. They judge the writer by his customs, his opinions or the
place
where he lives and not by the only thing by which he can be judged: his
books.
They tend to value these books according to the life the author leads
and it
should be the other way round. Deep down, they do not believe that
literature
can be useful and they hide, their skepticism by keeping a suspicious
(aesthetic, moral or political) watch on the writer's life. The only
way to clear
up these doubts would be by demonstrating that literature is worth
something.
The problem remains unresolved, however, since the usefulness of
literature,
although self-evident, is also unverifiable in practical terms.
MARIO
VARGAS LLOSA
London, January 1968
The
Nobel Prize in Literature 2010
Landscape
of Violence
Orhan Pamuk
Liệu
có thứ kêu là văn chương Thế Giới Thứ Ba? Liệu có thể sắp xếp cho ra,
establish
– mà không sợ biến thành trò tầm phào, hay nâng bi miệt vườn, đặc sản,
parochialism - những đức tính, đạo hạnh cơ bản của những xứ sở mà chúng
ta gọi
là Thế Giới Thứ Ba?
Literature
and Exile
Văn chương và Lưu vong
Note:
Bài viết trên giải thích, phần nào, thái độ của
một số độc giả Mít, đối với những nhà văn lưu vong, mà lại viết bằng 1
thứ
tiếng không phải tiếng Mít như Linda Lê.
Họ
khư khư ôm lấy chân lý, nhà văn Mít thì phải viết
bằng tiếng Mít, và dù sống ở đâu, thì cũng phải khư khư ôm lấy hình ảnh
quê
hương Mít!
Đây là tâm lý phát
sinh
từ chủ nghĩa quốc gia cực đoan, theo GNV. Khi được Nobel, Llosa
phát
biểu, Gấu nhớ đại khái, bây giờ tôi trở thành nhà văn của tất cả mọi
quốc gia
rồi!
|