Lucile Article

8/12/2019 Lucile Article

1/26


2/26

Gestures fAuthorship:ying oTelltheTruthn ElenaPoniatowska'sHasta no verte esusmioLucilleKerr

How do we read a text that lies? How do we read a textthat,somehow,persuades us to believewhat tsays, thoughwe suspectthatit doesn't reallytell the whole truth?Documentaryfiction-and especially the Spanish American novela testimonial-raisesthese familiar uestions.' Though they re questionsthatmaywelloccur to us as we read anywork of fiction, hey re also questionswe may be likelyto disregard. However, the novela testimonialwould push us to reconsider these queries, and to see themperhaps as meaningful rather than as marginal issues toward

1A fewwords about terminology. am usingthephrasedocumentaryictions thegeneral term to encompass all those texts thatpurportto function s documentsconcerningthe social, political,or historicalrealitiestheytake as theirreferents,and which do so in ways thathave been read as literary. am using the morespecificnovela estimonialr itsEnglish equivalent partlybecause Poniatowska den-tifiesher text n those terms see below) and partlybecause it is the phrase mostwidelyused in Spanish toclassify variety f texts hatfall nto the "testimonial" r"documentary" ategory.Various discussions of the looselydefined genrewouldimplicitlyr explicitlyddress the matter fgenericterminology,utthe end resulthas yet to clarifyor normalize the vocabulary.Different erms mean differentthingsto different eaders; different exts elicit different abels fromdifferentquarters: nEnglish, omparetheuses of"documentary iction"Foley),"documen-tarynarrative" Foster), "documentarynovel" (Barnet translatedby Bundy andSanti,Foley,Gonzalez Echevarria 110-23]), "testimonial iterature"Foster),"testi-monial narrative" Beverley),"testimonialnovel" (Beverley); in Spanish, "novela-testimonio"Barnet),"narrativa e testimonio"Gonzalez Echevarria 110-23],"no-vela testimonial"Beverley), testimonio"Beverley).The case of Poniatowska's extis exemplarybut not representative f all the texts that would fashionpersonaltestimonyntoa form fwritinghatgetstaken as moreor lessliterary.ndeed, thematter of classification estsas much (if not more) withcriticalresponse as withauthorial ntention.MLN, 106, (1991): 370-394 ? 1991 byThe JohnsHopkins University ress

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:49:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/26

M L N 371which our vision mightyetbe turned. Moreover, in raisingthequestionof how texts ell thetruthor not),this urrent ncontem-porary Spanish American iterature eads us to look once again atthe figureof the author,whose criticalposition is revitalizedasmuch as eroded bythenovelatestimonial.Though this documentary trend has established its distancefromtextsthoughtto be typicalof Spanish American new narra-tive,the novela testimoniallso reveals that it has some surprisingaffinitieswith the seeminglymore literary ocus of much boomand post-boomfiction, nd withthe kind of speculationthat suchwriting as raised about traditional iterary onventions nd char-acters.2 n particular, he testimonial ovel seems to make itdiffi-cult, fnot mpossible, otalkabout theauthor as either n originalor privileged figure.Yet, it also reaffirmshe importanceof theauthor's role, as it redefinesthat role by resituating he author'sresponsibilitiess at once both investigativend editorial,textualand testimonial.To talk about the testimonialnovel,and the activity r identityof itsauthors, s to talkabout a variety f testimonies hatwouldaimtoestablish uch a text's ruth. hat testimonysgivennotonlywithin he novel itselfbut also around itand in its borders. How-ever, we are also aware that, inasmuch as the novela testimonialseemsto testifyothe truth f what ttells hrough he anguage ofliterature, good many questionsmaybe raised about how such atextmaybecome accepted (or not) as truthful,nd about how thefigureof the author associatedwith tmaycome to exercise anyauthority t all.Elena Poniatowska'sHasta no verte esusmioaddresses this kindof question notonly throughwhatits authorsaysabout and doeswiththe documentarymaterialsthat comprise the text. Its nar-rator-protagonist lso problematizes uch matters unwittingly,tseems) within the narrative tself.Poniatowska'snovel may wellserve as an instructive xample of how the route to a verifiablereferent r to demonstrableveracity apparentlyplottedoutbythetestimonialnovel) is also a reflexiveroute that turnsour readingaway from as much as toward so-called reality.3 t also suggests

2Beverleywould counterpose "testimonio"to existing iteraryforms such as"new"narrative,whileFosterwould establish he (mainlyformal)pointsofcontactbetweenthem.3 I aim to emphasizehow a particularnovela estimonialan be read not simply ntermsof itsreferent ut as a textthat, nadvertentlyr not,reflectsupon its own



4/26

372 LUCILLE KERR

ways nwhichthefigureof the author associatedwith uch a workbecomes visible whilealso appearingto efface tself) s a figure frenewedauthority.That documentaryor testimonialnovels are inherently uplic-itous, n thewaythatnarrative iteratures itself lwaysdouble ordivided,maywellbe evident. That such textsmaysomehowtakenote oftheirown discursiveduplicityin a sense,oftheirown lies)is perhaps less noticeable.4Hasta no verte esusmio mplicitlyaisesthematter f its own doubled and divided status, tsown propen-sity o lie in order to tell the truth, s forcefullys it seems to by-pass such self-recognitionhroughthe testimonial arrative t un-folds. Indeed, this work openly introduces the question of thetruthpreciselyat those momentswhen it insistently aises thespecterof the lie.5 t tellsus a numberofthings bout the kind oftextor the kind of author that seems to have to lie, as itwere,totell the truth-that is,about a text uch as a novela estimonialr anauthorsuch as Poniatowska.Like other works thatutilize the testimony f a single subjectwho may come to represent a group of similarly ituated indi-viduals,Poniatowska'snovel is narrated n the first erson bythecharacterwhose lifestory t tells.6As readers familiarwith hetextwill recall, that narrator-protagonists one Jesusa Palancares, astatus s testimonial iterature. n that Poniatowska's extvirtually emands such adouble reading itwould establish tsproximity o, as well as distancefrom, extscustomarily onsidered to be reflexive or more properly iterary. or two ratherdifferent iews on the literary tatus of testimonialfictionor its relation to thetradition of literature more generally,see Beverley, and Gonzalez Echevarria(110-123). See also Foley'sconsiderationof the documentarynovel for a comple-mentary iscussion.4With thesecomments, nd othersbelow, am thinking lso of Said's discussionof the duplicity, he "molestations f authority,"nherent n all narrativefiction,and especially n the role of the author 83-100).5The generalquestionof the truth-value f worksthoughtof as eithertestimo-nial or documentarymaybe takenup in differentways, nd indeed has been con-sideredbya numberofcriticsn different orums. ee, forexample,Barnet,Caval-lari, Foster,Gonzalez Echevarria 110-23), and Prada Oropeza, on Spanish Amer-icanwriting,nd Foley,on European and Afro-Americanmodels.6 If we were to acceptGonzalez Echevarria'sdescription f the twotrends n theCuban documentarynovel (the "epic" trend and the "account of themarginalwit-ness") as representative f the dominant forms fthenovela estimonialoregener-ally,Poniatowska's textcould be grouped with the second of those trends-"thepetite istoire,sortof culturalhistory ealingwith verydayife nd folk raditions"(116), presentedbythe protagonist's wn narration.Cf. Kiddle's categorization fthe testimonial ovel in Mexico and Hasta noverteJesismiowithin t 85), and Feal'sdiscussionof some testimonial ovelsas ethnobiography.



5/26

M L N 373Mexicanwomanwho wasraisedinpoverty,ivedthrough nd tookpart n theMexican revolution, nd survived o old age by ivinglife whose patternswe mayregard as somewhat iterary. hat is,theautobiographical ale she tells omprisesepisodicemploymentsand adventureswe maybe temptedto read in terms f (or even ashaving originatedfrom)an established iterary radition-that ofthepicaresque.7Though theremaywellbe pointsto be made about such literaryresemblances,Ponaitowska'snovel also purportsto be somethingelse. In fact,the author's testimony bout the text'sproductionmoves in two directions.On the one hand, Poniatowska has em-phasized the literary ims and techniques employed to produceHasta noverteJesus io.She has explained summarily ow thetextwas composed, how she suppressed or selected,combinedor cut,materialsfromJesusa's testimony,o as to construct novelatesti-monial. But she has also insistedthatJesusa (her "native infor-mant") and her storyare stillthe "real thing."8As Poniatowskareveals the techniques by which she transformedthe materialgathereddirectly rom hepersonshe calls "Jesusa," hroughtaperecordings nd notes,and as she talks about her own relationtothe woman presentedas a textualfigure, he reaffirms he exis-tence of an objectiverealitybeyond the discourse thatgives hertext nd itsprotagonist heappearance of truth see "JesusaPalan-cares" and "Testimonios").Poniatowska's revelations about the novel's composition thus

Poniatowska's haracter s read fromdifferentngles as a representative igurebyDavis (225-26), Fernandez Olmos (70 and 72), Lemaitre (135), and by Ponia-towskaherself "JesusaPalancares" 11 and "Testimonios"159). On the otherhand,Franco reads her story s unique rather hanrepresentative,nd thus as unassimil-able or incomparableto othersuch testimoniesPlottingWomen 78). See also Po-niatowska's onversationswithMendez-Faith 57).7On the novel's resemblance to the picaresque,see Jaen and Tatum; on itsdif-ferencesfrom hatmodel, see Beverley 15-17).8However,Poniatowskaemphasizesthedifference etweenhertext nd a socialscience or journalism project,for whichsimilartechniquesmay be utilized. Shesays: "Para escribirel libro de la Jesusa utilic6un procedimientoperiodistico: aentrevista. os afos antes,trabajedurantemes ymedio con el antrop6logonorte-americano Oscar Lewis,autorde Los hijosdeSdnchez otros ibros,Lewis me pidi6que lo ayudara a 'editar'PedroMartinez,a vida de uncampesinoeTepoztldn.... Este[sic]experienciasinduda ha de haberme marcadoal escribirHastanoverteJesus io.Sin embargo,como no soy antrop6loga, a mia puede considerarseuna novela testi-monial y no un documento antropologicoy sociol6gico" "JesusaPalancares" 10).See also her conversationwith M6ndez-Faith 56-57); cf.Kushigian's proposal forclassifyinghenovel in termsof other iterary enres.



6/26

374 LUCILLE KERR

provide some ground fortalkingabout the author's "artistic"n-tentions nd the text's literary" ualities.9But,giventhe attentionpaid toJesusa as an empiricalentity, s a person with whom theauthor developed a personal relationship see especially"JesusaPalancares"), Poniatowska'scommentsalso aim to bear witness othe materialreality hat nformsJesusa's story nd Poniatowska'spresentationof it. Therefore, as the author's confessions insistupon the novel's origins n historical nd biographicalfact, n so-cial and culturalhistory,n the life,memory, nd discourse of itsown narrator-protagonist,e are remindedof thistext'sproblem-atical genericaffinities nd of the unstable boundaries of theno-vela testimonial ore generally.'0Such authorialcommentswouldseem to complicateas much as clarify ow one might dentifyheoriginsof Poniatowska's ext, nd theywould also seemtoraise thequestion of whether the author's activity an be considered at alloriginal.One mightthereforeargue that,althoughJesusa's narrationand the autobiographyfashionedthrough tmaywell seem to beassimilableto an established,familiar iterary radition uch as thepicaresque, the author's statements oncerningthe text'sgenesisnonetheless insistthat,on the contrary,Jesusa ought not to betaken only as a textual effect.That is,Jesusa's narrative, houghshaped byPoniatowska, ughtnot to be read as a lie. What we aresupposed to read in Hasta noverteJesus io, hen, s essentially hetruth,notmerely verisimilar iction."lMoreover,we are directed

9 Indeed, thefollowing tatement ythe author would also suggestthat the textought in some wayto be read as a literary roduction: "Utilice as anecdotas, lasideas ymuchos de losmodismosdeJesusaPalancaresperono podria afirmar ue elrelato es una transcripci6n irectade su vida porque ella misma o rechazaria. Matea los personajesque me sobraban,eliminecuanta sesi6nespiritualista ude, elabor6donde me pareci6 necesario,pode, cosi, remende, invente" "JesusaPalancares"10). Lagos-Pope emphasizes precisely uch literary ctivities s the verystrategiesthatenable the author to presentthe text as if it were an authenticdocumentary.For other discussionsof the nterplay fliterary echniqueand factualmaterial, eeFernandez Olmos (70-71), Kiddle (84-85), and Kushigian 667).10See Foley (25-41) on thequestionofgenericbordersofdocumentary iction.1 The discussion assumes distinctions mong the real, the true, and the veri-similar,as proposed by Kristeva 211-16). The first erm refers to what we callmaterialor objectivereality,which s self-evidentnd entails no discursivemedia-tion. The second ("thetrue") and the third "theverisimilar"),n the otherhand,refer to typesof discourse,and discursive ffects. he true is a discoursethatre-sembles thereal. The discourseof thetrueproducesan appearance ofreality, ut tis itselfnot the real. The verisimilars a discoursethatresembles nother discourse(that s,the trueor the discourseof thetrue),which s thediscoursethat resemblesthe real. The verisimilars therefore t a second remove from the real, which t



7/26


8/26

376 LUCILLE KERRIf we readJesusa'swordsas no morethan a preliminary evelationofcharacter hroughtheidiosyncracies fdiscourse,thequotationbecomes a predictivedisclosureof the attitude,personality, ndmode of expression that will individualize the protagonistthroughout he text. But ifwe read her epigraphstatementn re-lationto the text thatfollows t,thequotation highlights he text'sstatus as a novelatestimonial,hich ts narrativebodymightother-wiseseem toconceal. It also beginsto raise thequestionof truthna rathertellingfashion.Jesusa'scomments etup an oddly "literary"tatement bout therelationbetweenthe textwe will read and the tale she willbe seento have narrated, fnotentirelyuthored.For itpositsher absenceas an inevitable ndingforthedialogue betweenthe invisible butnecessarily udible) author and theprotagonist, etweenthe docu-mentaryresearcherand the native informant. t prefiguresthedisappearance of the character whose responsibility or the textmaycome to be regarded as equal to, ifnot greaterthan,that ofthe author whose name can also be read as authorizingthat ofJesusa. Moreover,her statementprefigures he precariousplace-ment of her own author-interlocutor,hose aims she would chal-lengebut whoseauthorityhe would certifyntheact ofsaying orappearing to be permitted o say) anything t all.Jesusa'sepigraphstatement lso implicatesPoniatowska n a vir-tual dialogue about telling ies. This dialogue runsthroughout hetestimonialnovel and also seems to spill over into the author'sstatementsbout it.13Jesusa's ntermittentnsistence n the dea oftellingthe truth,whichshe repeatedlyopposes to thatof tellinglies,draws attention o the questionof how something oldmightother,thoughnotall,quotationsthat ppear in thispiece also appear in the novel'stext, ometimeswith ome variation e.g., compare her commentson Villa or Car-ranza in the novel [95-96, 136-37; cited below in notes 21 and 22] with those in"JesusaPalancares"6). Such variations f course raisequestionsabout how to iden-tifyheoriginalwordsofJesusa: are they he words cited n thenovel,but somehowcopied incorrectly ythe author ater n herexplanatory tatements?r are they hewordsthat ppear in Poniatowska's omments, eturned otheiroriginal tate fterhavingbeen alteredbythe authorfor nclusion n the novel?or are both nstancesof citation but alterationsofJesusa's originalwords,recorded accuratelybyma-chine or remembered and written p eitheradequatelyor inadequately bythe au-thor?13 That the narration,whichappears as Jesusa's monologue, is situated within(and apparently ccasionedby)a dialogue exchange isonlyrevealedintermittently,whenJesusaaddressesan interlocutor, homPoniatowska,nher statements bouttheir nterview essions,would identifys herself; ee, e.g., 171, 173, 271, 313.



9/26


10/26


11/26

M L N 379thatJesusa-the-narrator ould presentherself s telling hetruth.But as we considerher own "theories" bout the truth nd how itgetstold,and also whatPoniatowskatellsus thatJesusa (orJose-fina)has said about thenovel,we maycome to readJesusa'snarra-tive not as unquestionablytrue but, rather,as convincingly eri-similar, s a persuasive ie.Jesusa'snotionsabout telling hetruthgo something ikethis. fone witnesses n event, fone is presentto reality, ne knowsandmaywellpresent or not) thetruth bout it.17 et,thetruth sonlyevidentto the one who tells t,to the subjectwho can verify hatthe true is truepreciselybecause itadequatelyresemblesthe real.Throughout thetext,Jesusamakes a good manycomments boutthe inherently ncertainstatusof truthfor storiestold byothers,and which cannotbe verifiedbyher own experience.These com-ments arise equally from her confrontationswitheveryday xpla-nations of eventsor people's actionsas from her encounterwithpopular sayingsor beliefs. ndeed, rumors,popular stories,polit-ical or cultural myths, s well as personal reportsof particularevents,all become objects forher skeptical, nd oftencorrective,criticism.

For instance,about a rumored familial ntrigue i.e., that herbrother was forced to marryhis wife because his mother-in-lawwas Jesusa's father's over), she says: "Quien sabe si seria ciertoporque eso no lo vi ..." (56); about the explanation of herbrother's death provided by presumed witnesses,she declares:"Todo eso me lo contarona mi,ahora quien sabe cual sera la meraverdad" (62); and, about the popular beliefthatearthquakesareactuallythe movementsof a large animal withinthe earth, shesays: "Eso cuentan, pero no me haga caso, vayase a saber laverdad" (39; forotherexamples,see also 46, 73, 100, 124-25,164).in which achsubjectwouldbecome tsownself-validatingeller f truth nd inwhich hediscoursefthetruewould lsoseemtovalidatetself. he listener rreader f such discourseouldthereforeaveonly skepticalelation otruth,relationhatwould unfrom aint oubt ofull-blownenial. his spreciselyhatseems ohappen n the aseofJesusaherself,s notedhere.17A characteristicxample fJesusa's iew fthe nherentlyntruthfulims fgood many peakers,nd an instancef how hecontradictsnd correctsnforma-tion iven y thersofwhichmore xamplesrepresentedelow),s thefollowingresponseothingshe hasheard aidaboutChihuahua: Purasmentiras.a gentedeciaque en Chihuahua ohabia ristianosinopuros paches.... Los de allasoncomo os de aqui, o que pasa es que a la gente esgusta busar, ontarmentiras,platicar istancias hacerconfusiones,omasde arguendera. o nuncavi unapache" 95).



12/26

380 LUCILLE KERR

Jesusa repeatedly questions, if not entirelydiscredits, he dis-course, the narratives, f other subjects preciselybecause she, aslistener o theirtales, s not in a positionto verifyhatwhat s toldactually orrespondsto the real and that tis, therefore, rue. She(and, consequently, her narrative) is, from her perspective ofcourse, exempt from that udgment. No such skepticism urfaceswithinher own tale of what she claims to have experiencedor wit-nessed herself. In fact,as the text unfolds and Jesusa becomesmore familiar,her narrative ver more plausible, twould appearthatthoughothersmay ie she alwaystells the truth.18There is a particularly elling nstance n whichJesusa revealsdistinctions f thissort.And, because of itssuggestions bout howa lie maydisguiseitself, bout how thetelling f the effect f sucha disguise may figure he discursive r textualnatureofthetrue, tis also a significantmoment forthe novel as a whole.Jesusa's ac-count of her forays ntothe center of militaryctivity uringtheMexican revolution,disguised in men's clothing,draws a distinc-tion between an accurate testimony nd a suspect narrativeinrathersuggestive erms:

Casinoibanmujeresncampana; mime levaba edro herhusband]sinordendelgeneral spinosayC6rdoba;poreso mevestia e hombreparaque se hicieran e la vista orda.Metapaba a cabezacon elpalia-catey el sombrero. or lo regular, nas ibancomoyo,porque susmaridosasobligaban,traporque ehacian l hombre,ero amayoriade las mujeres e quedabanatrascon la impedimenta.oy raz6n devariaspartes orquesimehubiera uedadoen la estaci6n,lli no veonadanioigonada. La verdad, s bonito orque iquierano es cuento.Uno vio. 109-10)The effect fJesusa'sdisguise is to produce in those who see herthe acceptanceof her appearance as real. Yet, herdisguise,whichis at once a simulation she pretendsto be whatshe is not,a man)and a dissimulationshe pretendsnot to be what she is,a woman),has the effect fmakingherdisappear to those who would see heras she can-or oughtto-be seen. Disguised,Jesusa maybe takenfor thereal; however, he here reveals herself s at best buta veri-similar ppearance. That she can successfully isguiseherselfde-

18This truth, he assures us, has been recorded accurately n her memory, owhich her own testimonywould also appear to remaintransparently aithful. orexample,Jesusastates: yo tengoel defectode que todo lo que oigo se mequeda enel pensamiento, odo,ya mise me grab6aquello [a scenetowhich he has ust beenwitness]" 161).



13/26

M L N 381

pends, however,as much on the willfulblindness of those whocould see her for what she is as on her own ability o disguisethetruth bout her appearance.We see that, n pretendingnot to see, or in turning blindeyeto, her,Jesusa'switnesses re themselves een as in some wayal-lowingher to disappear, along with her disguise. She would ap-pear as a veritablemanprecisely ybeingallowedtodisappear as adisguisedwoman.Jesusa thusmakes an equivocal appearance onthe field;this s a field we can of course read as both themilitaryspace intowhichshe appears to place herself nd the textual tageupon which she is presented. t is precisely hisappearance of re-semblingthe real thatgivesJesusa, as participant-witness,n ap-parentaccess to reality, nd that atermakes itpossibleforher toclaim that she is tellingthe truth.Her tellingof thattruth,how-ever,becomes subject to the distinctions he herselfproposes. Italso remainsopen to the udgment of other witnesses or readers)who might or mightnot) be able to turna blindeye eitherto herdiscourseor to her disguise.Indeed, the implicithierarchical elation betweenher own nar-rative nd whatshe calls cuento estson distinctions hatthe textofHasta noverteJesuisio lso renounces,and whichwe, like otherofher readers, might (or might not) be willing, or able, to see.Though Jesusa's story dvances mainlybyrecounting vents thatshe herselfappears to have seen and heard, it also incorporatespresentations f dialogue and descriptions f action in whichshehas neitherparticipatednor been present e.g.,Jesusa's recountingof the exchanges between her husband Pedro and Refugio, ayoung boy he once befriended [118-19], or her versionsof herancestors'history r immediatefamily's tory s imaginedbyheror recountedto her byher father 220-24]). Clearly,some of hernarrativedoes notqualifyto be takenas true.We can see, then,thatthe testoftruth hatJesusa mplicitly ro-poses forthe talesshe hears is a testthat herown text lso fails. fwe applytoJesusatheconditions ftruth he applies toothers,herstory merges as unverifiable, s anotherexample of the mentirasshe herselfridiculesthroughoutthe novel. Her implicit laim tothe authority o tell her story afterall, she was participant ndwitness hroughout) nd tocontradict hestories f othertellers, owhose tales she counterposes her own, is also a self-authorizingclaim. It is preciselythis simulationof authoritywhich becomesone of the necessaryfictions f the novel,whereinJesusa's story



14/26

382 LUCILLE KERRwould finally roduce a persuasive,verisimilar ffect ather hanacertifiable esemblanceto the real.We maybe led to acceptJesusa's narrative s generally, fnotcompletely, ruthful, recisely ecause itseemsso verisimilar. heeffect f verisimilitudewould here (and perhaps characteristicallyin the novelatestimonial)ave the effect f masking tself as doesJesusaherself n thepassage about her disguise,citedabove) so asto lead us to takethe text as a presentation f the truth.'9But, asthat effect ecomes visible, talso becomes possibleto see thatJe-susa's narrativeplaces us in theverypositionfromwhich,her owncommentsremindus, thepath to certainty,he route to truth, e-comes ever so problematical. Indeed, it is the very place fromwhichwe, ust likeJesusa, mightbe pushed to say,"vayasea saberla verdad."This undecidable situation, ne could well argue, is a situationthat obtains in the novela testimonialenerally. For the genre ispredicated upon the kind of lie, the typeof disguise, nherent nthe play of names and performanceof lyingor truthful iguresthatshape Poniatowska's ext.The testimonial ovel as such inevi-tably hifts ur focus betweenthe subjectsthat seem to frame ndthesubjects eemingly ramedby t. t also seemstomakeanysuchframing shifting, nstable ineof demarcationbetweenthe truthand the lie,between one kind of subjector discourse and another.Jesusa'sconcernwiththetruth mpliesa dialogue (ifnot an out-rightpolemic)about that ssue.As she focuseson thetopicshe alsocalls attention o the effects roduced byboth her own discourseand the textwe attribute o thenovel's author.Jesusa'sstatementsbringunder scrutiny he subjectspresumed to be responsibleforsuch statements' ntentional or unintentional)design. The ques-tion of truth s raised byJesusa thusimplicates he different ub-jects and sitesof authorshipthat seem to authorizethe textualordiscursiveactivity ut of which Hasta no verte esusmioarises topresent tstestimony.What is also particularly elling n the cited passage about Je-susa's battlefield ppearance is thatboth her access to and subse-quent recounting of events appear through a set of disguises,through devices of verisimilitude.These disguises allow her topresentanother face, a believable identity,which, n turn,allowsher both to see and to be seen, to tell and to be told in the novel.And, as we are wellaware, such a playof identitymaybe inherent

19On versimilitudes a maskingof itself, ee Todorov 83-84).



15/26

M L N 383in theapparenttruthfulnesshatthenovela estimonialeemsto dis-play,as well as in the authorialperformance hatsupports t. Po-niatowska'stestimonialnovel thus both disguisesand displays tsrelationto the real and the true. It makesvisible nd yetconcealsthe effects f verisimilitude hroughwhich the truth, s itwere,aboutJesusa's story eems to be eitherveiledor revealed.Jesusa's disguise as a man, as a figureof disguised difference,also figuresthe conditionsof possibility or such a display n Po-niatowska'snovel. Her self-presentations a disguised figure lsoimplicates heconditionsunderwhich eitherthe novel's authororitsnarrator-protagonists able to presentthestory r produce thetext we read. Thus, as she unwittingly iguresthe authorial du-plicity hatunderlies her appearance as a tellerof truths,Jesusamanages to disguise with verisimilareffectsthe very lie uponwhichthe telling nd writing f her storydepend. Indeed, as wehave alreadyseen,thoughHastanoverteJesus iowould seemtobea demonstration f thepossibilities orpresenting he truth boutJesusa (or aboutJosefina), t also gives testimony o the limitsofthe discoursethroughwhich such truthwould seem to appear.

Jesusa's nsistence n the matter ftruth ssumes,from notherperspective, that there exists an authoritativesubject fromorthroughwhich such truth an be emitted, r who mightattest othetruthfultatusof individualor wholestatements.We knowthatJesusa is empowered to speak by the author of the text n whichherstory ppears. However, ikeothertestimonial ovelnarrators,she performs s a self-authorizingubjectwithinher own narra-tion. Though her performance also depends on other figuresaround her,Jesusa's voice maynonethelessbe heard as indepen-dent and masterful.t resonatesas apparently dequate to the taleand the "truth" he would tell.Jesusa fashions herselfas a figure of more or less authoritywithinher narrativenotonly throughthewayshe is presentedastellingher life tory utalso throughherdepiction s a figurewhohas insistently hallenged, even while also having had to acceptand abide by,the authority f others.Jesusa becomes a figureofresistance as she presentsher correctivereadings of the publictales or privateopinions she is compelled to counter,and as sherepresentsherselfas an actor in events throughwhich she hascome to playa variety f unconventionalroles.20

20 Chevignyhas commentedon Jesusa's relationto authority55-56), Davis hastaken up Poniatowska's nterest n her as an exemplary"defiantwoman" (226),Lemaitrehas consideredher in the contextof patriarchal ociety 131-32).



16/26

384 LUCILLE KERR

Jesusa'sopinionsand actions seem to situateher as everat oddswith, nd all too oftenopenlycritical f,some ofthemajorinstitu-tions and political or popular mythsof Mexican culture (thefamily, he military, he church; the Mexican revolution and itsheroes). Rather visibleare her vehementattackson some of thestrategies nd end resultsof therevolution, nd on the legendarystatusachieved by some of itsleaders.Jesusa's counterstatementsto and criticisms f the storiesthat have come to stand for thetruthabout Mexico's well-knownmilitary nd political figurespresenther as a subject engaged in a virtualpolemicwithpopulardiscourse,and thuspotentiallywith the text of history. hey alsoreveal how she authorsfor herself role as a purveyorof truths,and especiallyas an authority n the history nd myths hat,ac-cordingto her testimony, ave been fabricated ut of lies.If her general characterizations f the injustices nd inefficacyof the revolution are aimed as much as its participants s at itsoverall results e.g., 94, 126, 134, 137),herrevelations f thetruth,as itwere, about its leaders take aim at the fabricators f untruestories, nd at theirfabrications,whichseem to have passed fromthetextofpopular discourseto thatofofficialhistory. he aims tocorrect s wellas to criticize helegends and lies that,havingbeentold and retold,have been propagated as fact.Though Jesusa'sdenunciationof the tellingof untruths bout well-known igures,or her criticism f the disguisingof the facts about certain nci-dents,mustfinally e read as havinga questionablerelationto thereal (i.e., as statementswhose truth-value annot be determined,thoughtheyhave a convincing, ecause verisimilar,ppearance inher narrative), heyhave a certainforcewithin henovel'stext. tmaywellbe the forcefulness fJesusa's convictions, he certaintyher voice projects butwhich some of her confessionsnonethelessdisprove),thatprovidesthegroundfromwhichherappearance asan authoritative igure rises.For example, her revelations about Villa, the revolutionaryleader for whomshe confesses particularhatred "Yo si a algunoodio mas, es a Villa" [95]), are pronounced also as invectivesagainstuntruth. n fact,Jesusa's truths re as often as not but thecontradictions o lies. InJesusa'sdiscoursethe truth s proposed asthe negationof a lie, and not onlyas an assertionof a truth.Shepresentsher version of the truth o as to debunk and displace thementirashroughwhichtheglorified, ut false, mage of Villa, forexample, is perpetuated.And her counterstatementsake aim not



17/26

M L N 385

onlyat falsifiedfigures e.g., Villa) but also at those who tell thelegendary ies-that is,at the falsifiersfthe"truths" hatJesusa scompelled to contradict.21 hose who falsify o so not only bytellinguntruthsbut also by simplyfailingto tell all that could betold.Moreover,Jesusa insists hatthe falsificationf thetruth an befound even in newspaper and radio reports-precisely in thoseformsof discoursethat would appear to presentand preservethetruth for modern culture.22 They are, we mightalso note, theveryforms f discoursewithwhichPoniatowskahas workedso ex-tensively,nd thusJesusa's-or Josefina's-expressed distrust fand disappointmentwith the author,alreadynoted above, wouldseem a logical extensionof the statementswithin henovel.) In agood manyofher negativeassertionsregarding uch falsification,however,Jesusa doesn't actually offera statementthat can betaken as a completeand truthful ccount (i.e., as a discoursethatcould be taken as correspondingto the real). She merelymakesdeclarationsof her own doubtsor beliefs e.g., 96).Nonetheless,Jesusa alwaysseems to speak as an authority.Buther voice has no real groundto standon exceptthevirtualground

21Jesusa's invective gainstVilla is triggeredby an announcementof plans tohonor his name: "Oi que lo iban a poner en letrasde oro en un templo. iPues losque lo van a poner seran tan bandidos como el o tan cerrados Tampoco los creicuando sali6 en el radio que tenia su mujer y sus hijas, puras mentiraspues que.4Cual familia?Eso no se los creo yo ni porque me arrastrende lengua.... Esenunca tuvomujer.El se agarraba a la que mas muchacha,se la llevaba, a traiay yaque se aburria de ella la aventabay agarrabaotra.Ahora es cuando le resultadizqueuna 'senora esposa,' ydizque hijos y que hijas. jMentira Esas son purasvanagloriasque quieren achacarle para hacerlo pasar por lo que nunca fue. iFue un bandidosin alma que les orden6 a sushombresque cada quien se agarraraa su mujeryse laarrastrara Yo de los guerrilleros l que mas aborrezco es a Villa. Ese no tuvomama. Ese Villa era un mecoque se reiadel mundoytodaviaso oyensus risotadas"(95-96).22 Her skepticism bout what s toldon theradio, as evidenced bywhat she saystheyhave not chosen to tell,showsup in the following omments:"[Carranza] seapoder6 de la mayorparte del oro que habia dejado PorfirioDiaz en el Palacio.Hiza [sic]cajas ycajas de barrasde oro yplatayse las llev6.Adelantede la Villa,enSanta Clara, los obregonistas e volaron el tren, e quitaron el dinero y lo persi-guieron y 1e cay6 en la ratonera,alli en su rancho por Tlazcalaquiensabe....Nomas que eso tampocolo dicen por el radio. Anuncian lo que les parece pero noaclaran las cosas como son. No dicen que el Barbas de Chivo [Carranca] siempreandaba de escape, siemprede huida .. ." (137). Her distrust f newspapersarisesfrom n instance n which newsreport ontradictswhat she herselfhas seen at thescene of her friendSara's death: " . . . cuando hablan los peri6dicos,no les creoporque en aquella 6poca dijeronque Sara Camacho habia muertoen la Comisariaen las primeras uracionesyson mentiras, orque la sacamosmuerta de debajo deltren" 260).



18/26

386 LUCILLE KERRshe, as self-appointed rbiterof truth, onstructs or herselffromher own acknowledgedpositionof marginality. esusa is a figureof counter-authority,nd, like that of a good manyother testimo-nial subjects,her voice comes frombelow,as itwere,to overturnsome of the stories boutwhich,her narrationwould propose,it sprecisely hemarginal ubjectwhoknows, nd can thustell,who islyingand who is tellingthe truth.And though,as we have seen,her discourse would have to be characterizedas capable of pro-ducing an effectof verisimilitude ather than of truth,Jesusa'snarrative ucceeds nonetheless n concealingtheshaky upportsofits narrator's and perhaps also itsauthor's)authoritative,estimo-nial performance.This voice frombelow would not onlygive anotherversion ofthings. t would also upend therelations fauthoritywithinwhichits subject seems to be situated.Jesusa's verbal or physicalchal-lenges, her ideological or inspirationalpositions,may well seemunconventional, s well as idiosyncratic,erhapsbecause her mar-ginal status as a woman on the lowerrungsof the socioeconomicorder would seem to provideherwithno place of authority romwhichto speak. ButJesusa's authoritative ppearance derivesnotonly from her pronouncementsabout lyingor tellingthe truthwithinher narration. t also emergesfromthe narrative n which,as a character, he assumespositionsor playsrolesofauthority,rresistsyieldingto the power of others. In fact,Jesusa often chal-lenges paternal or spousal privilege e.g., 52-53, 83-84, 99, 109);she makes many self-authorizingdeclarations of independence(e.g., 152-53,267); she assumes variousroles of domesticor mili-taryresponsibilitynd power (e.g., 48-49, 129-30, 174-75, 213,288): such are the gestures, the attitudes and actions, throughwhichJesusa becomes the most visible, if not the most viable,figureof testimonial uthorityn Hasta no verte esusmio.Jesusa's story,whichsurfacesfromthemarginsof social, polit-ical,and culturalhistory,s also a story boutbeing marginal.Suchis the situation characteristic f manyof the figureswho wouldspeak in thenovela estimonialenerally.23ndeed, theauthority fthe subject n such a text derivesprecisely though paradoxically)from the denial of his or her authority lsewhere. This figureofmarginality,hen,becomes a figure f textual s wellas testimonialauthority,much like the authorialfigurethatalso authorizesJe-23For related commentson marginalitynd thetestimonio,ee Beverley.



19/26

M L N 387susa's performance n the novel. ButJesusa, the textualization fthepersoncalled "Josefina,"s a figure hatremainssubjectto theauthorizinggesturesof anotherfigure i.e., theauthor),whosepo-sition she supplants as she givesher testimony.And, thoughthefigureof the novel's author maywell recede behind the textofJesusa's narrative,Poniatowska yet emerges as an authoritative(and properly uthorial)figure round it.24We could wellspeak about Hasta noverteJesus io s theworkofnot one but of two authors-as a "compositely uthored work"(Franco, PlottingWomen178),25 nasmuch as the novela testimonialputs into question the activity f its named author (in this casePoniatowska)as an activity f originalauthorship that s, the au-thordoes notherself riginate r foundthestory old nhernovel,and therefore,n someway, snot an author or auctor).26ut,sincethereadingof Poniatowska's estimonial ovelis,perforce, iedupwiththe reading of other of the author's textsaround it (that s,authorial documents or testimonies), er positionas authoritativefigure as much as her appearance as author of the text) s reas-sertedbythe differentestimonies hat re incorporated nto, nd/or are attachedto,her novel.Oddly,authors of testimonial ovelsseem to be called upon, ei-therby private necessity r public demand, to give further esti-mony bout thematerials hathave shaped thetexts hatbear theirnames,texts hatpresumably ella self-evidentruth.27ymoreorless revealing the process by which the documentarymaterialshave been copied, compiled,edited, and arranged,Poniatowska's

24We mightalso note that the original source of the novel's discourse-thefigurewe would referto as "Josefina"-is but anotherdisplaced figure,dislodgedas she is to a marginal, f not altogether nvisible,position byJesusa (the textualfigure) and Poniatowska (the author), both of whom cover her up while alsocreating space for her story.25Cf. Franco's reading,whichbypassesexplicitly he problematichierarchy fauthority rom which the figuresof Poniatowska,Jesusa,and also Josefina,mayconfrontone another eitherwithinthe textof the novel or among the fabricoftestimonies f which thenovel as such is but one document.26On theconcepts nherent n thetermauctor,ee, forexample,Chenu, Minnisand Arendt 91-141).27Such documentary tatementsmaysurface n materials ppended to thebodyof thetestimonial ext n theformof a prologue or introductionsee, for nstance,Miguel BarnetBiografia e un cimarr6n1967]) or RigobertaMench6 and ElizabethBurgos,Me IlamoRigobertaMenchu .. [1985] or Alicia Partnoy,TheLittle chool[1986]), or in essays, nterviews,ormal tatementsthis s the case forHastanoverteJesismio)or theoreticalproposals (see Barnet's "La novela testimonio")publishedseparately.



20/26

388 LUCILLE KERRstatements o a number of things.They redirect ttention o theauthoras a person engaged inan activityhat sboth more and lessthan thatof a "traditional" uthor.They establishPoniatowska s asecondary and editorial figure,as an author who would speakthroughthevoice of another.Yet, giventhat she also confessestobeing responsibleforthe novel's overallcomposition nd even forthe invention f some of itsdiscursivefeatures,her testimonylsoseems to establishher role as originator,n additionto confirmingherstatus s textual uthority.Moreover,Poniatowska's tatementsremind us of thetestimonial ovel's and also itsauthor's)respon-sibility o try o tell the truth.For the author's apparentlyextra-literary estimony,s much as (or perhaps more than) the novelitself, ims to authenticatewhat s told,principally ytellingmoreabout where its stories nd subjectscome from.That the authorspeaksat all about theorigins f hisor her workmight n itself e taken as evidence that uchexplanationsare nec-essary: tmightbe taken as proofthat omeone else needs tospeakor thatsomething lse needs to be said about what otherwise p-pears to stand truthfullyn itsown. Indeed, Poniatowska's tate-ments about the novel appear as a necessarysupplementto thetestimonyfferedby tsmaintext,which lso spillsbeyond tsorig-inal borders as some of itspassages are repeated in her auxiliarycomments.Yet, the statusof thisauthorial testimonymaybe asequivocal as that of the text whose truth twould appear to reas-sert;thepositionof thisauthormaybe as problematical s thatofthenarratorwhose tale she supports.The one and theotherkindof testimony-the one projected nthevoice of theauthor,theotherpronouncedbythe voice of herinterlocutor-would suggestthat the truth-value f each is to betaken as readily perceivable.Yet each would also reveal that thetruth f the one maybe visibleonlyfromthetellingof the other.This reciprocalauthorization f testimonies akesPoniatowska, smuchas theapparently elf-sufficientesusa,from seeminglyn-visibleand secondarypositionto a positionof discursiveprivilegeand textual uthority.n fact, he twofiguresmaybe seen in com-petitionwith one another,a competitionfrom around which thefigureof the author also emergeswithrenewed,ratherthan re-duced, vigor.Poniatowskaspeaks about the originsof Hasta noverte esusmioas a virtualresponse to the queries thatmightbe posed by herreadersand as a directreply o thequestionsthathave been put by



21/26

M L N 389her interviewers.28 er testimonybout the process bywhich shecame to write the novel supplies the facts regarding her en-counterswithJesusa (orJosefina)and thegeneral techniquesshedeployed to compose the work.29Her testimony an be read notonlyas a virtual esponseto thetextof the novel tself, utalso as away of replying nd payinghomage to the subject in whom heropportunityfor authorship originates,and throughwhose dis-course she herself lso speaks. In fact,her testimonys cast n con-fessional erms. he emphasizesherpersonaldebttothe woman towhose life her novel is meant to bear witness nd withwhomsheclaims tohave identifiedherself; he describesthepersonal experi-ences as well as authorial decisionsthat nformedthe productionof itstestimonial ale.30Poniatowska'sdiscourse purportsto tellus the truth bout thetruthapparently told to her by her informant.Yet that it per-suades us of its adequacy to such a truth s due as much, if notmore,to its adherence to theconventions f authorialexplanationor testimonys to itspresumed resemblanceto the real. Like thestory oldbyJesusa,the confessions f Poniatowskawould presentthemselvesunder the guise of the truepreciselybecause theyareconstitutedby a discoursewhose verisimilar ppearance is suffi-ciently ffective o persuade us of itsown authoritynd veracity.31

28The most detailed of Poniatowska'sstatements bout Hasta no verte esusmiocan be found in "JesusaPalancares" and "Testimonios."Related, ifnot identical,material also appears in her conversations with Duran and Duran and withMendez-Faith.29 Her account of howJesusa came to her attention nd sparkedher interest salso a telling ne: "La conocien la carcel. ... laJesusa ba continuamente la carcel,pero no para visitar, ino porque caia presa, y yo la escuche hablar y la escuchetambienhablaren un lavadero en un edificiodel centroydije: '~Pero que mujeresesta?'Porque le hablaba a la otra avanderacon un gran vigory e decia: 'iQue tontaeres ...' y yo dije: '~Quien es esta mujer? Yo quiero conocerla, verla,oirla'. En-tonces e preguntea la porterad6nde viviayasi la fui a ver" ("Testimonios" 157).On the author's researchand composition echniques, ee also notes 8 and 9.30 Poniatowska'sdescription f herrelationshipwith Jesusa" she uses thatnameforJosefina n her own testimonies)s also a confessionof her self-discoverye.g.,thediscovery nd solidification f her Mexican identity) hroughthedevelopmentof theirspecial friendship nd her identificationwiththisextraordinarywoman("JesusaPalancares"9-11 and "Testimonios"158; interviewwithMendez-Faith57).On some of the textualconsequences of thiscomplexrelationbetweenauthorandprotagonist-informant,ee Kushigian 667-69 and 675); see also Chevigny54) andFernandez Olmos (72).31 If we read the author'stestimonys belongingto a classofwriting hat couldbe defined generically,we mightconsider it in terms of Todorov's, ratherthanKristeva's, iscussionofverisimilitude,nd specificallyn terms fhisdescription fgenericverisimilitude80-88). In doing so, however, t would be difficultf not



22/26

390 LUCILLE KERRThat Poniatowska'sstatementsmay tell us less (or even more)than thewholestorysperhaps, ike thetestimonyfJesusa,oflessconsequence forher authorial performancethan that she makesanystatement t all. Indeed, itmaywell be thattheconventions fproducing testimonial iteraturevirtually ictatethat the authormustassume additionalresponsibilitiesnd authority ortexts hatpurportto be based on, if not to tell exactly, he truth. n suchcases, it s theresponsibilityftheauthortosupplyadditional testi-mony, to provide supplementary and original statements thatwould further ertifyhe statusof a textwhose nature s also pre-

sumed to be self-evident. he responsibilities f the author of atestimonialnovel maythusappear at once to be both limited ndexcessive.They are the responsibilities f a figurewho seems tohave relinquishedhis or her role as authentic riginator utalso tohave retained or reassumed) considerableauthoritynd responsi-bility haracteristic f a more conventional uthor.Given the kinds of responsibilityubsumed by the activities ftheauthor ofa testimonial ovel,sucha text eems to bestowuponthatfigure responsibilities hatmightbe associatedwithverydif-ferent, houghrelated,figures.As a matter ffact, hefunction fthe author of testimonial ictionmaybe viewedprincipally s thatof a researcher, rganizer,or arrangerof personal testimonynd/or historicaldocuments-that is, as a gestor.32uch an identifica-impossibleto map the one theory ntirely nto the other,since Todorov virtuallydispenseswiththecategory f thereal,explainingsuchverisimilitudentirely s arelationofdiscourses.32Gestor iterallymeans "manager," "promoter,""administrator,"representa-tive," r "businessagent."Barnetproposes thisterm s a substitute orautorn "Lanovela testimonio," is seminaldiscussionof the novela-testimoniond manifesto fsorts about the aims,techniques, nd meaningof themoderngenre,of whichhisown Biografiade un cimmarr6niguresas a foundingtext.Barnet's terminologicalproposal,however, ppears as a slippage in terminology. hough he uses the wordwhen he defines the characteristicsf the genre, he does not focuson the termitself, ither to define it or contrast t withautoror to take up its theoretical rideological implications.Barnetmerely ntroduces hewordbyvirtueof using t nplace of the term tdisplaces. (The substitution egins in the sectionentitled Elfen6meno hist6rico" nd runs throughout herest of theessay.)Oddly, theessay's abridgedversion n Englishfailsto recognize-indeed, erases-this crucial terminological hiftwithinBarnet's discourse. Wherevergestor p-pears in theoriginal, he termdocumentaryovelists used in theEnglishtext; nd inone place the term author28) is reintroducedwherenot even the termgestorp-pears in Barnet's text 297). The slippagefromone tothe otherterm and perhapseven the translators' einsertion f the originalword into Barnet's text)maywellfigure he difficult elationbetweentheconceptsto whicheach mightgivea name.They may well be considered concepts thatinevitablymove towardsas much asawayfromone another n both thetheory nd practiceof the novela estimonial.



23/26

M L N 391tionwould appear to positionthe author as a secondaryand me-diatoryfigure, s a figureof considerablyreduced authority.33twould virtually ituate that figure in the position of a modernscriptor,ompilator,r editor. et, theadditional, nd apparently u-thoritative, ocuments or statements that is, the testimony) f-fered around the novelatestimonial,s well as the special kind ofresponsibilityttributable o thefigureof thegestor, ould also es-tablish uch a figure n a significant,nd essentially rivileged, o-sition-a positionwe mightbe temptedto identifywiththat of amodern auctor.

Indeed, the role of the testimonial uthor would fulfill he re-sponsibilities f both the one and the other figure.The gestor,tcould be argued, asserts as much as repeats the assertions ofothers, nd thus,accordingto one view,could be seen to do pre-ciselywhat an auctor s responsiblefordoing (see Minnis 100-1).The gestorwould himor herself ppear not as thepersonaloriginof the story o whichthe testimonialnovel testifies ut, rather, stheprofessional ompilerof the textof another,who is presentedas theoriginalsubjectof thetext's ssertions.However, t s also inthe natureof thegestor's ole to assertas well as repeat or reportthe apparent truthtold by another. Though assertionsmade bythe author-as-gestorround such a textmay appear as secondarystatements, heyalso have a crucial role to play: theyfunction sessential, criticalcomplements withoutwhich we mightnot bewilling o read the textas telling hetruth.The figureof thegestoronfoundsas muchas clarifies herela-tionsof textualauthority,nd perhaps even the rights f author-ship, thatwould appear to obtain in the novelatestimonial. hegestor, kind of auctor n disguise,is a figurethroughwhich theauthorgesturestowardtheauthority f anothersubjectwhilealsoconsolidatinghis or her own authorialposition.The confession fa secondarydiscursivefunctionbecomes a gesturethatfinally n-derwrites, s much as itmightfirst eem toundermine, heactivityand identity f the author. Though such gesturesmaywell pro-claimthedepersonalizationof authorialactivity,hey lso shift u-thority romone image or role of theauthor to another, nd backagain.34

33Bruce-Novoa's reading of Poniatowskafollows uch a characterization509);on generalrelatedpointscf.Beverley 17-18).34Such a depersonalization Barnet'sterm)entails, n a way,a repersonalization-a personalizationof thegestors anotherperson,as his interlocutor-informant,



24/26

392 LUCILLE KERRIf viewed as the gestor f Hasta no verte esusmio,then,Ponia-towska,much like the subjectwith whom she mightbe seen tocompete fortestimonial, nd consequently extual, uthorityi.e.,Jesusa orJosefina),would recoverher positionas an authoritativeauthor by, as it were, coming from behind the apparentlymoreoriginal figurewhose positionher authorialgestures lso support.Though Poniatowska'srole in and around Hasta no verte esusmio-that is, therole of a gestor-may figure critical reak betweenoriginalitynd authority,t also revealshow,in the novelatestimo-nial,theone finally ppears to inhere n and acquire newmeaning

throughtheother.The gestures of the gestor ecuperate the author's privilegedplace, ifnot also his or her marks of personality,which otherwisemightbe regarded as having disappeared. Poniatowska'sperfor-mance reminds us that her identitys a gestors an equivocal iden-tity, hat thegesturesof such a figuremove things n a number ofdirections t once. Poniatowska'stestimonialsher novel,her per-sonal testimony) ecover as much as rejectthegesturesof author-shipassociated with ther,perhapsmoretraditional, igures f theauthor. The figureof the gestor, hen,may well revitalize, n asomewhatalteredform, n authoritative igurepresumedto havedisappeared withthe "death" of the author.The gesturesof authorship nherent n Poniatowska'srolestakethe figureof the author to a place in which t seems to have ap-peared before and yet n whichwe seem to see itfor the first ime.The testimonialnovel thus gives testimony o the authority s-sumed bycontemporary igures f the authoras muchas itseemsto testify o that figure'sdemise. Hasta no verte esusmiowouldtherefore eemreadyto tell us a good deal more about itself,boutsome of the issues raised bythe genrewithwhich t is associated,and about the criticalfiguresthroughwhichwe read a variety ftexts-even when twould appear that, s a novela estimonial,thasalreadytold us everythinghere s to tell.UniversityfSouthern alifornia

whose personal experiencehe also appropriates:"Se produce tambi6nuna desper-sonalizaci6n; uno es el otro ya y s6lo asi podra pensar como 1l,hablar como el,sentirentrafiablemente os golpes de vida que le son transmitidos or el infor-mante,sentirlos omo suyos" Barnet 297).



25/26

M L N 393BIBLIOGRAPHYArendt,Hannah. Between ast and Future: Six Exercisesn PoliticalThought.NewYork: Viking,1961.Barnet,Miguel. "La novela testimonio. ocioliteratura."Uni6n6.4 (1969): 99-122.Rpt. inJaraand Vidal 280-302.. "The DocumentaryNovel." Trans. Paul Bundy and Enrico Mario Santi.Cuban Studies11.1 (1981): 19-32.Beverley, ohn."The Marginatthe Center: On TestimonioTestimonialNarrative)."Modern iction tudies 5.1 (1989): 11-28.Bruce-Novoa,Juan. "Elena Poniatowska: The FeministOriginsof Commitment."Womens tudies nternationalorum (1983): 509-16.Cavallari,Hector M. "Ficci6n, testimonios, epresentaci6n." araand Vidal 73-84.Chenu, M.-D. "Auctor,Actor,Autor."Bulletin u Cange3 (1927): 81-86.Chevigny,Bell Gale. "The Transformation f Privilege n the Workof Elena Po-niatowska."Latin Americaniteraryeview13 [26] (1985): 49-62.Davis, Lisa. "An Invitation to Understanding Among Poor Women of theAmericas: The ColorPurple and Hasta no verte esusmio." In ReinventingheAmericas: omparativetudies fLiteratureftheUnited tates ndSpanishAmerica.Ed. Bell Gale Chevigny nd Gari Laguardia. New York: CambridgeUP, 1986.224-41.Feal, RosemaryGeisdorfer. SpanishAmericanEthnobiographynd the Slave Nar-rative Tradition: Biografiade un cimarr6n nd Me IlamoRigobertaMenchu."Modern anguageStudies 0.1 (1990): 100-111.Fernandez Olmos, Margarita."El genero testimonial:Aproximacionesfeministas."Revista/ReviewnteramericanaSan Juan) 11.1 (1981): 69-75.Foley, Barbara. Tellingthe Truth:The Theorynd PracticeofDocumentaryiction.Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1986.Foster,David William. Latin AmericanDocumentaryNarrative." MLA 99 (1984):41-55.Franco,Jean. PlottingWomen:Gender nd RepresentationnMexico. New York: Co-lumbiaUP, 1989.Gonzalez Echevarria,Roberto. The Voiceof theMasters:Writingnd AuthoritynModern atinAmerican iterature. ustin:U of Texas P, 1985.Jaen, Didier T. "La neopicaresca en Mexico: Elena Poniatowskay Luis Zapata."Tinta 1 [5] (1987): 23-29.Jara,Rene and Hernan Vidal, eds. Testimonio iteratura. inneapolis: Institute ortheStudyof Ideologies and Literature,1986.Kiddle,MaryEllen. "The Novela TestimonialnContemporaryMexican Literature."Confluencia .1 (1985): 82-89.Kristeva,Julia.Semeotike:echerchesourunsemanalyse.aris: Seuil, 1969.Kushigian,JuliaA. "Transgresionde la autobiografiayelBildungsromannHasta noverteJesus io."Revista beroamericana3 [140] (1987): 667-77.Lagos-Pope, Maria Ines. "El testimonio reativode Hasta noverteJesus io."Revistaiberoamericana6 [150] (1990): 243-53.Lemaitre, Monique. "Jesusa Palancares y la dialectica de la emancipacion fe-menina."Hispamerica 0 [30] (1981): 131-35.Minnis,A.J.MedivalTheory fAuthorship.nd ed. Philadelphia: U of PennsylvaniaP, 1988.Poniatowska,Elena. Hasta noverteJesus io.Mexico City:Era, 1969.



26/26

394 LUCILLE KERR. "Hasta noverteJesus io:JesusaPalancares."Vuelta 4 (1978): 5-11."Entrevista on Elena Poniatowska." nterviewwithTeresa Mendez-Faith.

Inti 15 (1982): 54-60.. "Testimoniosde una escritora:Elena Poniatowska n Micr6fono" 1982). InLa sarten orel mango:encuentroe escritorasatinoamericanas.d. Patricia ElenaGonzalez and Eliana Ortega. Rio Piedras, P.R.: Ediciones Huracan, 1984.155-62.. "Elena Poniatowska:De periodista escritorade cuentosynovelas." Inter-view with Manuel Duran and Gloria Duran. Autorretratosespejos.Boston:Heinle & Heinle, 1988. 59-63.Prada Oropeza, Renato. "De lo testimoniall testimonio: otaspara un deslinde deldiscurso-testimonio."araand Vidal 7-21.Said, Edward W. Beginnings:ntentionnd Method.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UP,1975.Tatum,Charles. "Elena Poniatowska'sHasta noverte, esusmio Until See You,DearJesus]." n LatinAmericanWomenWriters:esterdayndToday.Ed. YvetteE. Millerand Charles M. Tatum. Pittsburgh: atin AmericanLiteraryReviewP, 1977.49-58.Todorov, Tzvetan. ThePoetics fProse.Trans. RichardHoward. Ithaca: CornellUP,1977.

Documents

Lucile Article