7,19 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Fitzcarraldo Editions
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
In Not to Read, Alejandro Zambra outlines his own particular theory of reading that also offers a kind of blurry self-portrait, or literary autobiography. Whether writing about Natalia Ginzburg, typewriters and computers, Paul Léautaud, or how to be silent in German, his essays function as a laboratory for his novels, a testing ground for ideas, readings and style. Not to Read also presents an alternative pantheon of Latin American literature – Zambra would rather talk about Nicanor Parra than Pablo Neruda, Mario Levrero than Gabriel García Márquez. His voice is that of a trusted friend telling you about a book or an author he's excited about, how he reads, and why he writes. A standard-bearer of his generation in Chile, with Not to Read Alejandro Zambra confirms he is one of the most engaging writers of our time.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Ähnliche
‘There is no writer like Alejandro Zambra, no one as bold, as subtle, as funny.’
— Daniel Alarcón, author of At Night We Walk In Circles
‘When I read Zambra I feel like someone’s shooting fireworks inside my head. His prose is as compact as a grain of gunpowder, but its allusions and ramifications branch out and illuminate even the most remote corners of our minds.’
— Valeria Luiselli, author of The Story of My Teeth
‘Falling in love with Zambra’s literature is a fascinating road to travel. Imaginative and original, he is a master of short forms; I adore his devastating audacity.’
— Enrique Vila-Matas, author of The Illogic of Kassel
Praise for My Documents
‘This dynamite collection of stories has it all – Chile and Belgium, exile and homecomings, Pinochet and Simon and Garfunkel – but what I love most about the tales is their strangeness, their intelligence, and their splendid honesty.’
— Junot Díaz, New Yorker
‘My Documents represents a new form. When I think about Alejandro Zambra, I feel happy for the future of fiction.’
— Adam Thirlwell, author of Lurid and Cute
‘If you are going to read Alejandro Zambra, which you should, don’t just read My Documents, read everything he’s done.’
— Chris Power, Guardian
‘His books are like a phone call in the middle of the night from an old friend, and afterward, I missed the charming and funny voice on the other end, with its strange and beautiful stories.’
— Nicole Krauss, author of Forest Dark
NOT TO READ
ALEJANDRO ZAMBRA
Translated and edited by
MEGAN McDOWELL
CONTENTS
Foreword
When I was twenty years old, I worked at a bookstore. One of my co-workers was Ukrainian, but oddly enough she recommended an Argentine book to me: Hopscotch, by Julio Cortázar. I read that book and loved it. Looking back, I think it moved something in me that eventually led me to learn Spanish and start translating. But a more immediate consequence of my obsession with that book was that I read many others – Cortázar name-drops a lot, and I picked up those names and read them. I read Céline because of him, and René Crevel, Raymond Queneau, Carson McCullers, I found books on Mondrian and Vieira da Silva. I wanted to better understand the things Cortázar’s characters thought about, so I tried to read the books they mentioned. I thought of the literary references in Hopscotch as recommendations from Cortázar himself, and some of those books came to be fundamental in my reading life.
There’s another recommendation that has been very important for me. In 2007, after starting a Masters in translation, I visited Chile with the goal of finding a project to work on. I asked many people – booksellers, editors, writers – to tell me who the interesting younger writers in Chile were. I heard a lot of names, but everyone coincided on one: Alejandro Zambra. I came home with a lot of books, but yes, Zambra was the one I wanted to work with; that was the start of a literary relationship and friendship that is one of my most treasured.
Not to Read is ‘a gem’ of a book because it consists largely of recommendations from one of my favourite authors. There are many books mentioned here that I hadn’t heard of before and that I’ve picked up while working on Not to Read; it has also made me go back to authors I haven’t thought about in a long time, like Juan Carlos Onetti or Macedonio Fernández. It’s true that some of the writers mentioned here have not been translated into English1, or have appeared only rarely. But you don’t have to be familiar with the books discussed here in order to enjoy reading – Zambra’s voice is that of a trusted friend telling you about a book he’s excited about, and why. The fact that this friend is also one of the most interesting authors working today makes this peek into his reading life all the more fascinating.
1 Disclaimer: In quoting the works discussed here, I have used existing English translations when I could get my hands on them. If there is no English translation or if Google Books was not forthcoming, I’ve translated from the Spanish.
The literary panorama portrayed here is a Latin America that is not the one English-language readers are used to. Boom writers are conspicuous in their absence, for the most part, and when they do appear it is often as a counterpoint – Vargas Llosa, for example, is the embodiment of a kind of smug ‘professional writer’ Zambra distrusts. Alejandro would rather talk about Nicanor Parra than Pablo Neruda, Mario Levrero than Gabriel Garcia Márquez. Bolaño is here, but it’s his poems that get the longest look, not the stories and novels he’s most famous for. Julio Ramón Ribeyro, perhaps the writer who comes with Alejandro’s most effusive recommendation, is also referred to as a ‘second-class citizen of the boom’ who didn’t fulfil European readers’ expectations of Latin American writers – no magic, no local colour, no bombast.
And if many of the writers mentioned herein can be thought of as ‘second-string’ (which is not to say second rate), there is also a decided focus on ‘secondary’ forms. Many essays focus on diaries, letters, and hybrid novel/journals. One comes away with the decided impression that Zambra doesn’t have much use for traditional conceptions of genre, which anyone who has read Multiple Choice already knows. In fact, one can read Not to Read as a sort of inverse of Zambra’s fiction. We can see Alejandro’s early criticism as a kind of laboratory for his novels; we learn what he was reading and the questions he was thinking about, his concerns as he was writing Bonsai and The Private Lives of Trees and Ways of Going Home. For example, Zambra’s first mention of a bonsai was in a short piece on Adolfo Couve in 2003. Zambra’s readers will recognize scenes and phrases here that appear later in his fiction, but most important and compelling is the way of thinking about literary practice that Zambra enacts here – the book is a kind of ‘How to Read’ that comes before the ‘How to Write’.
The original version of Not to Read was No Leer, published in Chile by Ediciones UDP in 2010. Zambra wrote book reviews from 2002 to 2004 (gaining a reputation for being somewhat savage), and from then on wrote regularly about books in the Chilean press. The original idea of No Leer was to collect those pieces, which, written as they were for the newspaper format, tended to be short and pointed. Since that first publication, revised and expanded editions have been published in Argentina, and Spain. That’s to say, this book has had a long life and many incarnations, of which this English version is only the most recent. It includes additions and subtractions to the nucleus of the original book, and the essays concentrated in the end of the book tend to be more recent; some are published here for the first time. They display a writer who has not only found his voice and made a name, but one who has consolidated his way of reading into an entertaining declaration of principles.
Not to Read, then, is a kind of literary autobiography, and as such, the first person abounds. But just as frequently as Zambra writes ‘I’, he writes ‘we’. The first person plural is where he feels most comfortable, and maybe that’s appropriate for a writer who has come to be the standard bearer of his generation in Chile: that of the ‘children of dictatorship’, that of ‘secondary characters’. ‘I belong and I want to belong,’ says Alejandro Zambra, and it’s the honest declaration of a mature writer who has spent many solitary hours reading, who has read and loved many solitary writers. But for Alejandro literature is not a solitary practice; as he says more than once, we write to multiply ourselves, and this book is moved by an individual’s search for a voice and by a collective spirit.
Megan McDowell, February 2018
I
OBLIGATORY READINGS
I still remember the day when the teacher turned to the chalkboard and wrote the words test, next, Friday, Madame, Bovary, Gustave, Flaubert, French. With each word the silence grew, and by the end the only sound was the sad squeaking of the chalk. By that point we had already read long novels, almost as long as Madame Bovary, but this time the deadline was impossible: barely a week to get through a four-hundred-page book. We were starting to get used to those surprises, though: we had just entered the National Institute, we were twelve or thirteen years old, and we knew that from then on, all the books would be long.
That’s how they taught us to read: by beating it into us. I feel sure that those teachers didn’t want to inspire enthusiasm for books, but rather to deter us from them, to put us off books forever. They didn’t waste their spit extolling the joys of reading, perhaps because they had lost that joy or had never really felt it. Supposedly they were good teachers, but back then being good meant little more than knowing the textbook.
As Nicanor Parra might say, ‘our teachers drove us nuts / with their pointless questions’. But we soon learned their tricks, or developed ones of our own. On all the tests, for example, there was a section of character identification, and it included nothing but secondary characters: the more secondary the character, the more likely we would be asked about them. We resigned ourselves to memorizing the names, though with the pleasure of guaranteed points.
There was a certain beauty in the act, because back then that’s exactly what we were: secondary characters, hundreds of children who crisscrossed the city lugging denim backpacks. The neighbours would feel their weight and always make the same joke: ‘What are you carrying in there, rocks?’ Downtown Santiago received us with tear gas bombs, but we weren’t carrying rocks, we were carrying bricks by Baldor or Villee or Flaubert.
Madame Bovary was one of the few novels we had at my house, so I started reading that very same night, following the emergency method my father had taught me: read the first two pages and right away skip to the final two, and only then, once you know how the novel begins and ends, do you continue reading in order. ‘Even if you don’t finish, at least you know who the killer is,’ said my father, who apparently only ever read books about murders.
The truth is, I didn’t get much further in my reading. I liked to read, but Flaubert’s prose simply made me doze off. Luckily, the day before the test, I found a copy of the movie at a video store in Maipú. My mother tried to keep me from watching it, saying it wasn’t appropriate for a kid my age. I agreed, or rather I hoped it was true. I thought Madame Bovary sounded like porn; everything French sounded like porn to me. In that regard the movie was disappointing, but I watched it twice and covered sheets of legal paper with notes on both sides. I failed the test, though, and for a long time afterward I associated Madame Bovary with that red F, and with the name of the film’s director, which the teacher wrote with exclamation marks beside my bad grade: Vincente Minnelli!!
I never again trusted movie versions, and ever since then I have thought that the cinema lies and literature doesn’t (I have no way of demonstrating this, of course). I read Flaubert’s novel much later, and I tend to reread it every year, more or less when the first flu hits. There’s no mystery in changing tastes; these things happen in the life of any reader. But it’s a miracle that we survived those teachers, who did everything they could to show us that reading is the most boring thing in the world.
May 2009
BRING BACK CORTÁZAR
Sometimes I think the only thing we did in school was read Julio Cortázar. I remember taking tests on ‘The Night Face Up’ in each of my last three years of school, and countless were the times we read ‘Axolotl’ and ‘The Continuity of Parks’, two short stories that the teachers considered ideal for filling out an hour and a half of class. This is not a complaint, since we were happy reading Cortázar: we recited the characteristics of the fantasy genre with automatic joy, and we repeated in chorus that for Cortázar the short story wins by knock-out and the novel by points, and that there was a male reader and a female reader and all of that.
The tastes of my generation were shaped by Cortázar’s stories, and not even the Xeroxed tests could divest his literature of that air of permanent contemporaneity. I remember how at sixteen I convinced my dad to give me the six thousand pesos that Hopscotch cost, explaining that the book was ‘several books, but two in particular’, so that buying it was like buying two novels for three thousand pesos each, or even four books for fifteen hundred pesos each. I also remember the employee at the Atenea bookshop who, when I was looking for Around the Day in Eighty Worlds, explained to me patiently, over and over, that the book was called Around the World in Eighty Days, and that the author was Julio Verne and not Julio Cortázar.
Later, at university, Cortázar was the only writer who was undisputed. Dozens of wannabe Oliveiras and Magas milled about on the lawns at the University of Chile’s College of Philosophy, while some professors endeavoured to adopt Morelli’s speculative distance in their classes. Almost all seductions began with a pitiful rendition of Chapter 7 of Hopscotch (‘I touch your lips, with a finger I touch the edge of your mouth…’) which at that time was considered a stupendous text, and there were so many people speaking Gliglish (amalating the noeme, as they say) that it was hard to get a word in in Spanish.
I never liked the stories in Cronopios and Famas or A Certain Lucas: the fleeting, playful prose was lacking, I thought, in real humour. But on the other hand I don’t think anyone could deny the greatness of stories like ‘House Taken Over’, ‘We Love Glenda So Much’, ‘The Pursuer’, and another twenty or thirty of Cortázar’s stories. Hopscotch, meanwhile, is still an astonishing book, although it’s true that sometimes we’re astonished that it has astonished us, because it can often sound old-fashioned and overwrought. But still today, the novel is full of truly beautiful passages.
In a recent essay, the Argentine writer Fabián Casas recalls his first reading of Hopscotch (‘it was all cryptic, promising, wonderful’) and his later disappointment (‘the book started to seem naive, snobbish, and unbearable’). That is my generation’s experience: sooner rather than later we end up killing the father, even though he was a liberating and quite permissive dad. And it turns out that now we miss him, as Casas says at the end of his essay, in a happy, sentimental turn: ‘I want him to come back. I want us to have writers like him again: forthright, committed, beautiful, forever young, cultured, generous, loud-mouthed.’
I agree: bring back Cortázar. It’s a mysterious mechanism, the one that makes an admired writer become, suddenly, a dispensable legend. But literary fashions are almost never based on real readings or re-readings. Maybe now, when everyone drags his memory through the mud, we regret having denied him three times. Maybe we’re only just now ready to read Cortázar, to truly read him.
February 2009
IN PRAISE OF THE PHOTOCOPY
Essays by Roland Barthes marked with fluorescent highlighters; poems by Carlos de Rokha or Enrique Lihn stapled together; ring-bound or precariously fastened novels by Witold Gombrowicz or Clarice Lispector: it’s good to remember that we learned to read with these photocopies, which we waited for impatiently, smoking, on the other side of the copy-shop window. As citizens of a country where books are ridiculously expensive to buy and libraries are poorly equipped or non-existent, we got used to reading photocopies, and we even came to find it charming. In exchange for just a few pesos, some giant, tireless machines could bestow on us the literature we so desired. We read those warm bundles of paper and then stored them on shelves as if they were real books. Because that’s what they were to us: rare, beloved books. Important books.
I remember a classmate who photocopied War and Peace at a rate of thirty pages per week, and a friend who bought reams of light blue paper because, according to her, the printing came out better. The greatest bibliographic gem I have is a slipshod but lovingly made copy of La Nueva Novela [The New Novel], the inimitable book-object by Juan Luis Martínez that we tried to imitate anyway. My version is complete with a transparent inset, a Chilean flag insert, a page with Chinese characters intermingled in the text, and fishhooks stuck to the paper. Several of us collaborated on making it, regressing back to our days in carpentry class at school. The resulting table was pretty wobbly, but I’ll never forget what a good time we had in those weeks of scissors, fasteners, and photocopies.
In the second half of the nineties, some publishers started a campaign against photocopying books, and they used this disquieting slogan: ‘A book dies every time you photocopy one.’ We felt those campaigns as a kind of attack on us: they wanted to take away the only means we had to read what we really wanted to read. They said the photocopy was killing the book, but we knew that literature survived in those stained pages, just as it survives now on screens – because books are still scandalously expensive in Chile.
The discussion around digital books, incidentally, is at times overly elaborate: the defenders of conventional books appeal to romantic images of reading (to which I fully subscribe), and the electronic propagandist will insist on the comfort of carrying your library in your pocket, or the miracle of endlessly interlinking texts. But it’s not so much about habits as it is about costs. Can we really expect a student to spend twenty thousand pesos on a book? Isn’t it quite reasonable for them to just download it from the internet?
Today, many readers have first-rate virtual libraries, with no need to use a credit card or buy the latest gadget. It’s hard to be against this miracle. Editors, booksellers, distributors and authors unite occasionally to combat practices that ruin business, but books have become luxury items and absolutely nothing indicates that this will change. Especially in countries like Chile, where books are, and have been for too many years now, the domain of collectors.
I myself have become a collector over time, because I wouldn’t dare to live without my books. But in my case it’s something more like atavism, an anachronistic and slightly absurd inclination to sleep wrapped up in a library. I remember a friend who would always offer me a storage room for my books, because he couldn’t understand how I could forgo so much of my living space to hang those shelves that were, according to him, dangerous: ‘The next earthquake will hit and they’ll fall on top of you and you’ll die, all thanks to your encyclopaedias,’ he’d say, even though I’ve never owned encyclopaedias.
Nor have I been able to throw away the old ring-bound photocopies, even when I later got hold of the books in original editions. Now that photocopies are on the wane, I can’t help but feel a bit nostalgic, and I can’t bring myself to throw them out; every once in a while I still page through those fake books that once provoked a genuine and lasting wonder.
July 2009
LIBRARIES
I first saw my friend Álvaro’s library five years ago and it was disappointing, because it seemed to be filled with bad books. Back then he and I talked almost exclusively about books, and our conversations had the charm of the tentative, the incomplete. We didn’t need to go into much detail in order to understand each other: he would say that a book was good or that it was boring, and I felt sure his statement held an entire declaration of principles; we didn’t feel the need to elaborate on our opinions, we simply enjoyed the complicity.
That afternoon at his house, I felt uncomfortable. I’d expected to find his shelves filled with books that I loved too, or maybe with unknown names of surprising new authors, and instead I met only with familiar writers who interested me very little. In any case I didn’t really inspect the library, because that has always seemed like bad manners to me. It’s true, the fact that books are in living rooms authorizes us to look at them, but even so, I think the first time it’s better to glance out of the corner of the eye, prudently, without abusing any trust. I had brought Álvaro my second novel, which had just come out, as a gift, and I spent the whole visit tortured by the possibility that it would end up in bad company. But it stayed right there on the coffee table, as is fitting when it comes to new acquisitions.
Two weeks later Álvaro invited me over again, and this time he showed me a very small room in his back yard, the study he shut himself into to read and write. I estimated there were some seventy or eighty books on the shelves, which of course were the ones that mattered most to my friend. I felt proud to see my few novels and even my old book of poetry taking up all of the letter ‘Z’. Later I discovered that there were books in other parts of the house, and that of all these places, the worst, literarily speaking, was the living room.
The books in the living room are supposed to represent you, I told him later, and his answer was marvellously vague: hhhmmmm. But later I realized he had thought long and hard about the matter. He was annoyed by the custom of putting books in the living room, but he didn’t have any more space available, and after trying out various solutions he had arrived at this one, which among other advantages was good for loans, because he had no problem lending out those books. The others, the ones in his little study or his bedroom, he didn’t want to share with anyone.
My friend still uses that system, which over time has gotten a fair bit more complex: as the tastes or moods of its owner change, a title can pass from the study to the bedroom, then from the bedroom to the living room, and finally from there to the street, because every once in a while he gets rid of a load of books. What seems strangest to me is that he differentiates even among the works of one author, so that someone’s novels could be in the study, their poems in the bedroom and their essays in the living room. I should clarify that this division is not by literary genre, as demonstrated by the fact that, with good reason, there are many novels by César Aira in the study, and others distributed throughout the house (but none in the living room).
This being the case, when I go to visit Álvaro I’m always invaded by a sense of fatalism, and I worry I’ve lost ground, that my days in the study are numbered. When I find I’m still alone in the letter ‘Z’, a great happiness washes over me. But it doesn’t last long, because then comes the fear that it’s all a sham, and the truth is that I can perfectly well imagine my friend hurriedly moving my books from one shelf to another every time I ring the doorbell.
May 2012
FOUR PEOPLE
How lonely is it to be a writer?
I am asked this by a friendly stranger, out of pure curiosity, after a reading. I answer hesitantly; I’m not sure of the answer. I think about the cliché of the writer locked in for long hours, struggling with his convictions and desires. I remember that fragment, so dramatic and also somehow comical, in which Kafka confesses the desire to shut himself away in a cellar with only a lamp and his writing materials: ‘Food would be brought and always put down far away from my room, outside the cellar’s outermost door. The walk to my food, in my dressing gown, through the vaulted cellars, would be my only exercise.’
When we write, we absent ourselves from the world, and sometimes entire days pass when we only go out to buy cigarettes or walk the dog (although in those cases it’s the dog who walks us). But I’m not so sure that writing is a solitary profession. At least for me, it has always had a collective aspect. From my early days I got used to sharing what I wrote, and I sincerely believe there is no better writing workshop than getting together with friends over a manuscript and a few beers. Friends who are willing to listen, make suggestions, disagree, cross things out; friends whose opinions sometimes unexpectedly and decisively change what we write.
We constructed our first books thanks to those drawn-out sessions, which were entertaining and also disturbing, because it wasn’t easy to accept that the poem written in transported solitude was starting to become a collective, somewhat foreign work. Nor was it pleasant to see others gloss right over a phrase or verse that we thought was important. There was a time when we got together almost daily to read, and I even remember one night when we gathered with the aim of translating some poems by Joan Brossa, even though none of us knew Catalan. How hard can it be? we said, armed with a 100-page dictionary, back when there was no internet or Google. The result was, naturally, disastrous and fun.
But I was talking about interlocutors, the ones who, according to Natalia Ginzburg, tend to be three or four people we trust in blindly and whose opinions matter most to us. In her case those four people were two girlfriends, a critic, and in particular her oldest son, with whom she had a strange routine. After listening to his mother’s stories, the son hurled insults and abuse at her. When she heard those insults, oddly, the author knew that the text was good.
Natalia Ginzburg’s opinion coincides with Ezra Pound’s famous poem: ‘I join these words for four people, / Some others may overhear them, / O world, I am sorry for you, / You do not know these four people.’ In my case the interlocutors are six or seven or maybe even more people. Now that I think about it, when I presented my new novel, I wanted to write a piece to thank the people who had read the manuscript, but the list was so long that I just gave a general greeting instead.
The literary world has a bad reputation, and there are people who believe that writers are always fighting and elbowing their way past each other. There is some of that. A lot, maybe. But it’s also a supportive world, a world where people give and take. I’m always impressed by how profoundly collective the work of a theatre or film director is, and sometimes I’m relieved to think that our job consists only of filling up pages in solitude. But I also never forget those generous readers whose opinions are ultimately, silently, affixed to the pages of a book.
September 2011
