PDA

View Full Version : Book, Carlos Fuentes, foreign press reports



Leviathan
10-03-2004, 05:40 AM
Several months ago, I read a short novel called "Aura" by Mexican author Carlos Fuentes. "Aura" is set in modern-day Mexico and is about evil, magic, and nightmare. It's the kind of story that Borges might have written after reading "The Turn of the Screw." I enjoyed it, so when I saw an article about Fuentes and his latest book on the BBC web site, it caught my eye.

Fuentes doesn't like our Iraq policy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_3707000/3707448.stm .

If you're looking for a high-class horror read, I recommend "Aura."

I like to read some foreign press accounts now and then. The foreign press reports significant stories that are never discussed in the US, and I think it can be instructive to read what people in other countries think about us and our actions.

AS

Fair_Play
10-03-2004, 08:55 AM
<font color="blue"> Babel Fish Translation Follows: </font color>

To his 76 years, he finishes publishing his book Against Bush, an article compilation on the president of the United States.

In London - where it lives six months on the year and writes good part of his works finishes appearing the edition in English of In This I create (This I believe), a luck of personal dictionary.

Juan Carlos Perez Salazar, of the BBC, talked with him on policy and Literature.

His last book published in English, "This I believe", "In this I create", is a species of personal dictionary. Its last book in Spanish is titled "Against Bush". If there were including the Bush word in his personal dictionary, what had written?

Just like I put in the book Against Bush. My radical opposition to that president and the government who presides over.

Why?

Because I believe that his is a dangerous government, who puts in La Paz danger of the world, the principles of the multilateralism, of the diplomacy, he establishes however the unilateralism, the preventive war, with the results that we are seeing: a war based on the lie.

The argument of which there were arms of massive destruction in Iraq, because it is that there were none and I believe that <font color="red"> the intelligence services knew perfectly that they did not exist. </font color> Or they lay, something also burdens.

That is that went to a war by lie. And soon the argument by the one changed to fall down to Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqian town is in a plan of violent resistance of the North American occupation. And that one does not leave! Or one leaves with the tail between the legs

But if one is to knock down tyrants, who follows? Mugabe, Kadaffi, the Koreans, the Burmen? If the United States is going away to dedicate to be to gendar to me of the world, dedicated to knock down tyrants, it is not going it to do with them, because the others do not have petroleum. And this if he had it.

What they did not calculate is that a country can hate a as abominable tyrant as Saddam Hussein, but to hate still more occupation forces.

The Iraqian town is in a plan of violent resistance of the North American occupation. And that one does not leave! Or one leaves with the tail between the legs and the result of dead and the thousands disrepute del government of Bush and the internal rebellion of the States United against the amount of deads, the violence and inepcia of an occupation that never was thought, that it was never glided and that has been in the disaster which we are seeing.

A Colombian analyst said that the fear as it bases of the internal policy and the war against badly as it bases of the foreign policy is a return to a premodern world, to a world without Renaissance and Illustration to attack a premodern enemy... The enemies end up looking like, no?

If, there are two fundamentalisms face to face. We could speak of an Islamic fundamentalism and one Christian, who is the one that professes Bush.

Recently somebody shouted to him in a meeting: "god bless you" and it answered "I am already blessed". He feels chosen by God, very serious that, no?

I hope that Bush is defeated, last night I heard the debate between Kerry and Bush and feel that Kerry won clearly, appeared like the statesman, the calm man, the knowledgeable man.

Even the man who knows to speak English, that he knows to pronounce a complete sentence, thing that Bush cannot.

The polls also give as winning of the debate senator Kerry . Think that it has the possibility of prevailing with the atmosphere in which this electoral campaign is being developed, in that seems to predominate the fear and not the ideas?

I believe that the fear is a ghost and the ghosts dissipate by day. When it leaves the sun the reason, when one sees what it is happening in Iraq, then the fear must dissipate and the reason must prevail.

That is that yes creates possible that Kerry wins

Its more recent novel is Instinct of Ines.
Today I am convinced that Kerry is going to win. One week ago it did not believe it, today I create after seeing it the debate. And they still have two debates to go.

And in addition it lacks an encounter that is very going to be amused: vice-president (Dick) Cheney and the candidate (John) Edwards. Because Cheney is to rotweiller. He is a man who cannot measure his hatred.

And he is a man with a frightful past. Watch you: aside from his association with the Halliburton company during ten years, it is necessary to remember that he was a man who in the American congress voted in favor of the prison of Nelson Mandela and voted so that the apartheid in South Africa stayed.

A man of that political and moral category does not deserve to be vice-president of the United States.

After the Bush debate he said that it had been strange to him that they had not asked him for Latin America because had plans to extend democracy there.

One has not found out that Latin America is a democratic continent? Perhaps how it goes to extend the democracy in a continent, where with the exception of the regime of I castrate in Cuba, all the others we can say that in greater or smaller degree they are democratic regimes?

It is a truely despicable imperialistic paternalism. I did not know it, but it infuriates me to know it .

Following with Latin America, how it sees the supposed political turn that one is occurring towards the left in Latin America, it thinks that it comprises of a process or is something simply conjunctural?

Watch is a species of modulation of the triumph of the democracy in Latin America. Most of the countries is democratic, is impatience with the democracy.

They say: very well, we have democratic governments, freedom of expression, of association, but to what hours we eat? Where this the health? Where it is the ceiling?

it is necessary to accelerate the social programs of the democracy, I I believe that in that sense the Latin American left has a great paper that to play

Those social necessities, that they have come to associate with the democracy, are what we must prevent that they are associated with the authoritarian regimes.

For that reason it is necessary to accelerate the social programs of the democracy, I I believe that in that sense the Latin American left has a great paper that to play, to maintain within institutional, political channels pacific, a much more fast way towards that: the ceiling, the school, the bread.

Think that the Latin American left learned of which it happened in the last decades?

I believe yes that. We are not going to return to the montoneros. Unless the right is so stupid that it gives back to the left to the mount and to the guerrilla. That can also happen.

It is a continent that continues very being divided politically, because it puts in the same coat of the left to Lula and Chávez. There is no a homogenous development.

No, no, nor it can have it. The left must be by differentiated definition. We already had a monolithic left, that was called estalinismo. Why we want that?

We very want a diversified left that it takes care of local problems mainly. The problems of Venezuela are not those of Argentina, nor those of Argentina those of Brazil.

We must have native movements of left with a local base that takes care of local problems.

The program of the left is not to make general and apocalyptic theories. It is to take care of the real and concrete problems.

Let us follow with Latin America, but we enter the literary subject already. You have described to the writers of the boom like the grandparents of the new literary generations...

Ayayayay...

... How it sees those new generations?

I see them very well. On the one hand, after the grandpas who we are all, there is the generation of "you would búmeran" in which I believe that there are excellent writers, are too many to mention them.

But there is a very important fact: that there are very many women writers in the generation that follows ours.

There is a blossoming of Literature, of the narration, that resists much with which said to the Peruvian critic Luis Alberto Sanchez in 1930: "Latin America, novel without novelists"

And to that generation of you would búmeran follows the generation that in Mexico is called the one of crack, where are Padilla, Volpi, Cristina Creek Heron, with a splendid novel "Nobody will see me cry".

Then what there is it is a blossoming of Literature, of the narration, that resists much with which said to the Peruvian critic Luis Alberto Sanchez in 1930: "Latin America, novel without novelists".

Today we have the novelists, there is a continuity, one has settled down a stable, strong, deep tradition narrative, in which the tradition and the creation go united.

You are a little like the founding fathers of the modern novel in Latin America, which are the main differences between you and the authors of now, people like Jorge Volpi or Roberto Bolaño?

We came a little from a novelístico literary desert... although no, he was not so desert when there was a Onetti, Carpentier and Asturias.

But more than nothing we depended on the poetry, of the language. What she has never failed in Latin America from Sister Juana Ines de la Cruz, is the poetic capacity. We have had great poets all along.

I believe that a great influence on the boom was Vallejo, Neruda, the great poets of Latin America, because they maintained the language alive. They gave a great language us on which to operate.

Now, in century XIX if there is a great Hispano-American novelístico desert, nonBrazilian, because if there is a great novelist who is Machado de Assis.

What is writing now?

It is never spoken of which one is becoming because the baby is frustrated. It is spoken of which already it was published, the others it is necessary to keep it more or less discreetly.

But it continues insisting on the fiction?


Its last book is titled Against Bush.
Sure clear. I have several things in preparation. I can speak of one, because I have it very advanced, which it is my novel on Carlos Pizarro Leon Go'mez, the guerrilla of the Colombian M-19.

I already have almost list, I am next going to Colombia to speak again with the family, with friends of Pizarro to find out to me more things.

Why it interested the figure to him of Carlos Pizarro?

The destiny of this man interested much to me who is typically the guerrilla arisen from the bourgeoisie and the jesuita school.

In addition son to military father

Military father and masterful mother. Educated by the jesuitas just as Bolivar, Buñuel and Fidel I castrate - the jesuitas are great seed plots of revolutionaries by the sight and that, by great idealismo is sent to the guerrilla until account occurs of which already it is penetrated by the drug trafficking, and that narcoguerrilla takes it to resign to the arms and to decide on the political way, which even costs the life to him.

For my it is a novel already written beforehand. Now, I have found his ways him literary to put a little to him imagination to the subject.

Finally, Carlos Sources, in a world like which you were describing in the beginning, which is the paper of the art and the writing?

To maintain the imagination and the language. Without imagination and language, a society does not prosper, does not work. We must know how to use the words, we must know how to imagine the things.

Why when a totalitarian government arrives at the power, first that does he is to silence to the writers? Because he does not want an imagination and a language different from those from the power.

The writer deprives of authority, by his same nature, to the power. The democratic power tolerates it, the dictatorial one no. And there it is already the function clearly of the writer: to create imagination, to create language, to enrich the freedom of the society.

Leviathan
10-03-2004, 10:17 AM
The passage that interests you is translated badly. A more accurate translation would be:

"The argument that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq--well, it turns out that there weren't any, and I believe that the intelligence services knew perfectly well that they didn't exist. Or that they lied, something equally serious." (Original text: El argumento de que había armas de destrucción masiva en Irak, pues resulta que no las había y creo que los servicios de inteligencia sabían perfectamente que no existían. O mintieron, algo igualmente grave.)

Fuentes seems unconvinced that we invaded Iraq to protect ourselves and the world against Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. What a nut, huh?

AS

Fair_Play
10-03-2004, 11:08 AM
Leviathan - my spanish is enough to get one in trouble!
The Babelfish did come purty close..

[ QUOTE ]
Fuentes seems unconvinced that we invaded Iraq to protect ourselves and the world against Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. What a nut, huh? ** <hr /></blockquote>

**To believe that the entire free world's intelligence communities were in lockstep with a lie, that they did not actually see Iraq as a potential threat..

Of course, we very may well have invaded Iraq because of 'transference': Bush needed a target to retaliate against. Two birds with one stone.. a handy target we could defeat <font color="blue">'easily' </font color> in revenge for 9/11, and at the same time avenge the botched attempt on his daddy's life.. as for the intelligence agencies.. is there a Kaballah hidden agenda, of 'Bonesmen', Bush Kerry taking turns at the direction of the Illuminati? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

now, that is clear vision (world intelligence agencies 'in cahoots') beyond which my eyes do not penetrate. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Best Regards,

Fair Play

Qtec
10-03-2004, 12:44 PM
Do you think for one minute that the US would have invaded Iraq if Saddam had access to nuclear weapons?

The truth is, The US was in a rush bcause they knew Saddam was an easy opponent and resistance was futile. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Why do you think the Iraqi army disappeared? Maybe because they couldnt win?


[ QUOTE ]
To believe that the entire free world's intelligence communities were in lockstep with a lie, <hr /></blockquote>

This isnt true either. This falacy that GW uses,"He saw the same intelligence that I did". The evidence presented to Kerry and all the other Senators was the "case for the prosecution", not the whole story. The evidence that contradicted the case'for',was never shown.
The conclusion draw was NEVER objective.

Q

Fair_Play
10-03-2004, 01:49 PM
Q, I <font color="blue"> think </font color> we have the same opinion on this one??

All the best,

Fair Play

<font color="red"> Nuke 'em until they glow, then hunt them down at night! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif