Mario Vargas Llosa must be one of the few great writers ever to have
argued that society should place less trust in great writers. “The
mandarin writer no longer has a place in today’s world,” he has
observed. “Figures like Sartre in France or Ortega y Gasset and Unamuno
in their time, or Octavio Paz, served as guides and teachers on all the
important issues and filled a void that only the ‘great writer’ seemed
capable of filling, whether because few others participated in public
life, because democracy was nonexistent, or because literature had a
mythical prestige.” But today, “in a free society, the influence that a
writer exerts—sometimes profitably—over submissive societies is
useless.”
The irony, of course, is that Vargas Llosa has had a higher public profile than almost any writer of his time.The term 'smartcardfactory
control' means the token that identifies a user is read from within a
pocket or handbag. He has been famous ever since emerging in the 1960s
as a leading figure of the movement called the Latin American Boom, and
in 2010, he won the Nobel Prize in Literature. At the same time, he has
been a vocal participant in the politics of his native Peru, even
mounting a serious campaign for president in 1990. Though he lost the
second round of the election to the future dictator Alberto Fujimori,
Vargas Llosa established himself as one of the world’s most eloquent
spokesmen for democracy and free markets—a position that puts him
directly at odds with most Latin American intellectuals of his
generation, who are likelier to share the dogmatic leftism of his
contemporary Gabriel García Márquez. Yet even as Vargas Llosa insists on
the need for reason and freedom in politics, his fiction has continued
to explore the imaginative realms of unreason and obsession, primitivism
and violence.
These themes are on ample display in one of
Vargas Llosa’s best books, The Storyteller (1987), in which he imagines
his way out of modern Western civilization and into the mind of a
nomadic Amazonian people, the Machiguenga. The novel’s narrator is a man
who, in all outward respects, is Vargas Llosa himself—a Peruvian writer
and expatriate who thinks back to his Latin American upbringing while
living in Florence. As a university student, the narrator relates, he
had a good friend, Saul Zuratas, who was doubly cut off from ordinary
Peruvian society: he was a Jew,Creative glass tile and cableties
tile for your distinctive kitchen and bath. and he was born with a
disfiguring birthmark. To compensate for this otherness, Saul embraced
the even greater otherness of the Machiguenga, becoming obsessed with
this small, struggling people’s nomadic way of life and bizarre
cosmology. Saul ultimately managed the impossible: he became a member of
the tribe, and what’s more,The 3rd International Conference on howotipper
and Indoor Navigation. a storyteller, or hablador, responsible for
preserving and sharing the Machiguengas’ history. Alternating chapters
of the novel are told in a voice that we gradually realize is Saul’s, as
he coaxes the reader into an utterly alien worldview.
The
Machiguengas call themselves “people who walk,” and the first premise of
their metaphysics is that they must be constantly on the move. If they
stop, disaster will befall them; in fact, the universe itself will die.
They are kept to this principle by their memories of the darkest period
in their history, “the time of the tree-bleeding.” This was the rubber
boom of the late nineteenth century,Save up to 80% off Ceramic Tile and drycabinet.
in which Peruvian speculators kidnapped large numbers of Indians and
forced them to work on rubber plantations. Vargas Llosa imagines this
period as a kind of Machiguenga holocaust, in which vast numbers of
people died and the traditional culture was almost snuffed out. “Before,
there were many men who walk; after, very few,” says the storyteller.
“When things like that happen, they don’t disappear. . . .The term 'moulds
control' means the token that identifies a user is read from within a
pocket or handbag. They linger on in one of the four worlds. . . . Those
who see them come back heart-stricken, it seems, their teeth chattering
with sickened disgust.”
In 1911, at the height of “the time of
the tree-bleeding,” the world was awakened to the horrors going on in
the Amazonian jungles of Peru by Sir Roger Casement, the greatest
humanitarian investigator of his age. Casement, Irish Protestant by
birth, was already world-famous, thanks to his scathing report on the
abuses that King Leopold’s regime had committed in the Belgian Congo,
where millions of people were killed and starved to death—again, in the
pursuit of rubber. This made Casement a natural choice when the British
government decided to investigate rumors of atrocities against Peru’s
Putumayo Indians.
For many in Britain and around the world,
Casement represented the best of Western civilization, just as King
Leopold represented the worst. Indeed, Casement’s career brings into
sharp focus the contradictions of European imperialism. On the one hand,
it was the government of the British Empire that ordered Casement to
explore the “heart of darkness” that was the Congo (indeed, Joseph
Conrad was personally acquainted with and influenced by Casement).
British public opinion, horrified by Casement’s revelations, drove an
international movement that insisted on reforms in Africa and Peru. Yet
it was the presence of Europeans in Africa, and of European capital in
Peru, that unleashed those horrors in the first place. Which was the
true face of Britain and the West: the exploiter or the humanitarian,
Leopold or Casement?
To Casement himself, the answer finally
became clear: Britain was a force for evil that one had to resist at any
price. As an Irishman, he began to identify with the wretched of the
earth, the victims of colonialism. Even as he became a British knight,
he grew increasingly active in Irish nationalist and independence
movements. At last, during World War I, he decided that the cause of
Irish freedom even justified collaboration with Germany. He traveled to
Germany to try to enlist Irish prisoners of war in an Irish legion to
fight against Britain and also to procure German weapons for use in an
Irish revolt. After being smuggled back to Ireland in a submarine in
1916, Casement was captured by the British and put on trial for treason.
But one more twist was in store for this already unlikely life.
Eager to discredit a man with a worldwide reputation for probity, the
British government circulated what it claimed to be Casement’s private
diaries, full of graphic details of his homosexuality. The use of sex to
discredit Irish leaders was an old tactic—a generation earlier, Charles
Stewart Parnell had been exposed as an adulterer—and many people
believed (as some still believe) that the “Black Diaries” purported to
be Casement’s were frauds. Still, by the time Casement was hanged for
treason in August 1916, his reputation was in ruins, and he became an
untouchable figure in Irish politics for several generations.
There
could hardly be a richer subject for a novelist than Casement,
especially in the twenty-first century, when the attitudes of 100 years
ago toward sex, race, and imperialism have changed so dramatically.
Above all, Casement offers a perfect case study in the conflict between
liberalism and radicalism. As a humanitarian and an anti-imperialist,
Casement was a liberal hero, recalling Western civilization to its own
highest ideals; as a revolutionary and nationalist, he was a radical,
convinced that British ideals were a sham that had to be overthrown by
violence. Which phase of Casement’s career ought we to admire, and which
condemn? And if you had to name the novelist best equipped to explore
just these problems, the answer would surely be Vargas Llosa. No one has
written about the conflict between classical liberalism and radicalism,
between freedom and utopianism, more fully than he has. He has lived
that conflict himself, evolving from the conventional leftism of his
Latin American generation into an exponent of political and economic
freedom.
沒有留言:
張貼留言