June 28, 2009 § Leave a comment
Finished long ago: The Savage Detectives.
Reading now: The Empire of Ice Cream, by Jeffrey Ford.
Reading next: Only Revolutions, by Mark Z. Danielewski.
Okay, then: after an extraordinarily busy month (without going into too many details, we now have a dachshund and a fence, and I’ve now presented my first paper publicly among special-collections-library-folk), it is high time to catch up on my reading. (One of the great frustrations of busy times is not having enough time to concentrate on reading; there’s such relief in finding an hour to just read at night.)
A couple of weeks after finishing it, I am amazed at my reaction to The Savage Detectives. It was a book I was often bored or exasperated with, and yet almost instantly after finishing it and skimming through it to capture my thoughts about it, I felt affectionate towards it, and kept finding sections I did enjoy, until now, when I find myself very glad to have read it, still interested in it, and wanting to read 2666 and Amulet, maybe as soon as next year.
I think this is partly an effect of the sandwich structure of the book, with its short, punchy, “diary” sections acting as the bread around a huge, sloppy, Dagwood-style filling of 20 years’ worth of interview, oral history, monologue, and, presumably, savage detection. The immediacy and directness of the sandwich-sections pull you in and validate the effort of sifting the mass of detail and story and history in the filling.
But enough sandwich metaphors. Perhaps this is only interesting to me, but I think another aspect of my reaction is that it’s very similar to my reaction to pretty much anything I write myself: everything is tedious and trite and horrible as I’m writing, but once I get a chance to reflect and revise I find it’s not nearly so bad, and actually seems that it was quite a bit of fun to write. What is it about this book that makes you feel like you’re part of its creation — that it’s writing itself as you read it?
Anyway, that’s how I’m feeling about the book now. Here’s one of the mysteries I’ve been entertaining myself with: who are the “savage detectives” of the title? Bolaño is, apparently, often quite cryptic with his titles: I’m told there’s nothing about the number or year “2666” in 2666 (although I think it must have some connection to Cesárea’s prophecy about events “sometime around the year 2600. Two thousand six hundred and something”, very near the end of this book).
Nevertheless, it’s such a fantastic, multivalent title (Los Detectives Salvajes in the original) that I’m inclined to explore its meaning. Here are the savage detectives I see in the book — how they’re detectives, and how they’re savage:
- The visceral realists. In the first section, the group seems to be the title’s obvious referent: I think you can see “visceral realist” as a rephrasing of the title, since “visceral” can mean “not intellectual” or “dealing with crude or elemental emotions” (M-W Collegiate, 11th ed.), and both detectives and realists think of themselves as seeking “the truth,” the real state of affairs. And, indeed, there’s a real sense of exploring the world, and living as a form of detection in (from the US perspective, and ironically/satirically from the Latin American perspective) “savage”/”primitive” Mexico. But we see them doing little actual “detection” of any but an experiental/metaphysical sort, though they are savage/visceral enough, except for:
- Ulises Lima and Arturo Belano, with the help of Juan García Madero, who go in search, from Mexico City to the Sonora Desert, of Cesárea Tinajero and the 1930s visceral realists of Mexico. This is certainly a more straightforward kind of detection, as they ask questions, follow leads, investigate libraries and archives, stumble across leads. There’s also an element of “savagery” in their lack of any social niceties, funds, or apparent clue about what they’re doing.
- The nameless interlocutor(s) of the middle section. The section borrows the form of a detective’s notes or audiotapes, each “chapter” beginning with the name, place, and date of the speaker. You would be tempted to say that this is merely a fictional convenience, a way for the author to get out of the way of the many voices he’s presenting — except that there are times when someone has clearly asked a question to which the speaker is responding, pulling us out of the narrative to wonder what the circumstances are under which the speaker is telling their story. I wondered, throughout the second section, why the stories were being told: are we to see it as the real-life Bolaño (or fictional Belano) interrogating his fictional creations? As some obscure academic trying to write the history of the “visceral realists”? Is it an actual detective or group of detectives, trying to figure out what’s happened to Lima, Belano, Madero, or solve some related mystery? (The third section does lend some credence to this theory, although it’s impossible to think the thread would be followed for 20 years by a professional.) At any rate, there’s some savage detection going on in this second section, but it’s impossible to say by whom.
- Us, the readers. Reading and writing are forms of savage detection: we work through the narrative, trying to piece together the story, the style, the meaning, the purpose, the theory of the book. We do so in a kind of primitive state (I felt especially savage in this book, knowing so little about Mexican and Latin American poetry; surely this was unintentional, but it worked), working from incomplete knowledge about the book, its author, its relation to reality. Somehow, at the end of our investigation, we tell ourselves a story about what happened, and what it meant.
- Everyone, and especially everyone in this book. There’s so much travel, so much coupling and recoupling, so much about struggling to find a way to live, a place to live, a way to be in the world: everyone begins to seem a savage detective, steps away from disaster, toeing that hard-boiled line between chaos and order.
So it’s a brilliant title: it works at all the levels of the book’s meaning, and it really resonates long after you’ve read it.
February 5, 2008 § 1 Comment
Now reading: Invisible Man.
I’m always grateful to find examples of excellent transitional paragraphs, because I have such a hard time with them myself. I heard Richard Ford speak a few days ago, and he shared this brilliantly obvious idea: writers write to have the chance to write–that is, they need to get to write some scene, confrontation, idea, or whatever, and they’re basically hoping to get to that point without completely losing either their readers or their train of thought. Those little paragraphs of moving from one room to another, of scenery-setting and blocking: I always find myself frustrated, and sometimes paralyzed, by those details keeping you from the big payoff.
Anyway, here’s an absolutely brilliant paragraph in which Ellison not only gracefully sets the scene and builds tension (you’ll have to take my word for that part), but also manages to reinforce themes he’s been quietly developing throughout the first hundred pages of the work:
A co-ed sat at a graceful table stacked with magazines. Before a great window stood a large aquarium containing colored stones and a small replica of a feudal castle surrounded by goldfish that seemed to remain motionless despite the fluttering of their lacy fins, a momentary motionful suspension of time.
“A momentary motionful suspension of time”! Ellison’s circling around time’s tricks and illusions, and I hope I can keep up and write about what I think he’s saying about time later. But for now, I’m just happy to appreciate that meaningful throwaway scene of goldfish, unmoving despite all their movement.