Polifonía

106

TheLostWorld:VargasLlosaintheAndesGINASHERIFF,NORWICHUNIVERSITY

nJanuary1983,amidstthereignofterrorprovokedbydailyinsurgentandcounter-insurgentviolenceinPeru,villagersfromtheAndeantownofUchuraccayabductedandmurderedeightPeruvianjournalists.Thejournalists

hadstoppedbrieflyinUchuraccayontheirwaytothevillageofHuaychaotoinvestigatereportsthatlocalresidentshadkilledsevenmembersoftheShiningPathterroristgroup.ButtheirtriptoHuaychaowastragicallycutshort:inUchuraccay,theywereattackedwithsticks,stonesandaxes,theirbodiesweremutilatedandburned,andtheywereburiedinpairs,face-down,inshallowmakeshiftgravesoutsideofthevillage.WhenPresidentFernandoBelaúndeTerryheardtheUchuraccaystory,heassembledacommissiontoinvestigatetheeventsandtoattempttoexplainthisapparentlyunprovokedviolence.

NovelistMarioVargasLlosawasaskedtoheadtheComisióninvestigativa,workingalongsidelawyers,linguistsandanthropologiststoproducethedetailedInformesobreUchuraccay.Inthisdocument,theCommissionconcludesthatthevillagersofUchuraccaymistookthejournalistsformembersofShiningPathandthattheyweredefendingthemselvesfromwhattheybelievedtobeimminentviolence(VargasLlosaetal15).TheyalsodescribedtheUchuraccaymassacreasasymptomofthegreaterproblemofpoliticalviolenceinPeruthathadbeenmountingsincetheearly1970s.VargasLlosa’sconcernabouttheeventsatUchuraccaydidnotendwiththepublicationoftheCommission’sreport.Inhisownwords,VargasLlosaexplainsthathisexperiencesinlife“dejanunsedimentoqueaparecemástarde,avecesdemaneraimprevisible,enloqueunoescribe”(VargasLlosa,Contraviento153-4).ThissedimentoisevidentinthethreenovelshepublishedinthetenyearsaftertheUchuraccayinvestigation,HistoriadeMayta(1984),¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?(1986),andLitumaenlosAndes(1993),allofwhichexpresstheauthor’smountingconcernsabouttheviolenceheinvestigatedinhighlandPeru.

EachofthesenovelsdealswithadifferentaspectofVargasLlosa’semergingconcernsaboutPeruvianhistoryandculture,allofwhichcanbetracedbacktohisparticipationintheinvestigationatUchuraccay.Hepresentsthreemainconcerns:Peruvians’distrustofauthorityandinstitutionsasadisruptiveforceinthepursuitofjustice;theirhistoryofviolentrevolutionasanobstacletoprogressand

I

Polifonía

107

development;andtheircollectivistsocialvaluesasisolationistanddetrimentaltoopenculturalexchange.HeplacesthesecriticismsinthecontextoftheterrorandchaoswroughtbyShiningPath,thePeruvianarmedforces,andindigenoushighlandcommunitiesliketheonebasedinUchuraccay.ByreadingHistoriadeMayta,¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?,andLitumaenlosAndesaverylooseliterarytrilogyforVargasLlosaintheaftermathoftheUchuraccaymassacre,wecanbegintounderstandbothhispoliticalandliterarymovementsinthesubsequentyears.

CriticssuchasMishaKokotovicandRoyC.BolandhavenotedtheconnectionbetweenVargasLlosa’sfictionandhispersonalandpoliticalexperiencesduringthe1980sand1990s.Whatislackinginthisbodyofcriticism,however,isananalysisofthesethreenovelstogether,asaprogressiveassessmentofMarioVargasLlosa’sexperiencesinUchuraccay,andwithinthecontextofhismoregeneralconcernsaboutrevolutionaryviolenceinPeru.Thisarticleisdesignedtorelatehisthreenovelsfromthistimeperiodtoalargerpoliticalproject,andtoexaminehisuseofpopularliterarygenresasamethodofimposinghisneoliberalvaluesonindigenousPeruvians.Readersarechallengedtosetasidetheirreactionstohiswidelypublicizedpoliticalopinionsandconsidertheexperiencesthatinspiredthem,aswellasthecriticaldialogueheestablishesbetweenhisrolesasauthorandpublicfigure.

AWriter’sDemons:WhenthePoliticalisPersonal

ThechoicetousetheUchuraccaycaseinhisfictionisnotunheardofforMarioVargasLlosa,asheisknownbothforusingpersonalexperiencesasinspirationforhiswritingandfortransforminghistoricaleventsintofiction.Yetevenhismosthistorically-basednovelsliberallyinfusethehistoricalwiththesubjective,allowingtheauthoravehicleforintensepersonalengagementwiththepast.VargasLlosafreelyaddsandsubtractsfromthehistoricalrecordforthesakeofhisstory.InhisessayLaverdaddelasmentiras,heexplainsthatheconsidersliteratureandhistorytwosidesofthesamecoin:

¿Quédiferenciahay,entonces,entreunaficciónyunreportajeperiodísticoounlibrodehistoria?¿Noestáncompuestosellosdepalabras?¿Noencarcelanacasoeneltiempoartificialdelrelatoesetorrentesinriberas,eltiemporeal?Larespuestaes:setratadesistemasopuestosdeaproximaciónaloreal.Entantoquelanovelaserebelaytransgredelavida,aquellosgénerosnopuedendejardesersussiervos.(VargasLlosa,Verdad6)

Polifonía

108

VargasLlosa’sintentionistounmasktheboundarybetweenhistoryandfictionasarbitraryandunnecessary,andhisliteraryworkgainscriticalstrengthfromtheintentionaltransgressionofthatboundaryanditseffectonreaders.

MyreadingofVargasLlosa’sliterarywork,andinparticularthethreenovelsdealingwiththeUchuraccaymassacre,employsLindaHutcheon’sconceptofhistoriographicmetafictionasatheoreticalframework.Asadevicemostcommontopostmodernfictionwriting,historiographicmetafictionmixeshistoricalandfictiverepresentationsofthepastinawaythatself-consciouslycallsintoquestionthefactualbasisofhistoricalnarrative.HutcheonusesVargasLlosa’sTheWaroftheEndoftheWorldasaprimeexampleofthisdeviceinliterature,explaininghowtheauthorusesparodytoshow“howtraditionalnarrativemodels—bothhistoriographicalandfictional—thatarebasedonEuropeanmodelsofcontinuouschronologyandcause-and-effectrelationsareutterlyinadequatetothetaskofnarratingthehistoryoftheNewWorld”(Politics50).InAPoeticsofPostmodernism,shepositsthat“tore-writeortore-presentthepastinfictionandinhistoryis[…]toopenituptothepresent,topreventitfrombeingconclusiveandteleological”(110).VargasLlosa’snovelsopenuptothepresentanumberofeventsinrecentPeruvianhistoryinordertoforegroundtheconsequencesthatthepastcanhaveonthepresentandthefutureofhiscountry.

Inhis2010NobelPrizespeech,VargasLlosacasthimselfasadefenderofliberaldemocracy,anideologythatsupports,inhiswords,“everythingthathasbeentakingusoutofasavagelife”(np).Theracialtingetothisstatementhasnotgoneunnoticedbythepublic:theauthorhasbeencriticizedforhisrefusaltosupportPeruvianindigenousgroups,whosewayoflifewouldcertainlynotsurviveVargasLlosa’svisionofmodernizationandglobalizationinthecountry.AlsogalvanizingarehisunwaveringsupportforfreemarketcapitalismandverypubliccriticismsofsocialistregimesinLatinAmericaandaroundtheworld.Thisarticlewillbegintotracethedevelopmentofthisphilosophythroughhisfiction,offeringacrucialperspectiveonVargasLlosa’spoliticsandhisrelationshipwithPeru.

ItishisuniquepoliticalandliterarypositionthatmakesVargasLlosa’snovelsparticularlyworthyofinterpretation,especiallyinthecontextofpostmodernliteratureandpostcolonialpoliticsinLatinAmerica.Whilemuchpostmodernliteraturecanbereadasacritiqueofpoweranddominationinandofwesternsocieties,LindaHutcheonarguesthatthiscritiqueisboundup“withitsowncomplicitywithpoweranddomination”(Politics4).Shegoesontore-framepostmodernismasa“paradoxicalpostmodernismofcomplicityandcritique,of

Polifonía

109

reflexivityandhistoricity,thatatonceinscribesandsubvertstheconventionsandideologiesofthedominantculturalandsocialforcesofthetwentieth-centurywesternworld”(11).HistoriadeMayta,¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?,andLitumaenlosAndesembodytheliteraryandpoliticalparadoxthatHutcheonpresents.Justashisnarrativegenre-bendingcallsasortofnostalgicattentiontotheconventionsthathepresumestosubvert,VargasLlosaemploystherhetoricofpoliticalliberationtoexpresshisdesiretoreinstallmodelsofwesterndominationanddevelopment.

VargasLlosa’snovelsalsoexploretheideologicalcomplexityandparadoxofthedetectivegenre.Fromitsearlydays,ideologywasinscribedinthenarrativearcofdetectivefiction:thestorywasthatof“[d]isorderbeingbroughtintoorder,orderfallingbackintodisorder;irrationalityupsettingrationality,rationalityrestoredafterirrationalupheavals”(Mandel44).Thisorderandrationalityreferred,ofcourse,totheinterventionofthepoliceoraprivatedetective,andtotheimpositionofjustice,formalorinformal.Asaproductof19th-centuryinnovationsinthoughtsuchasempiricismandratiocination,andthedevelopmentofnewscienceslikesociology,psychologyandforensicmedicine,detectivefictionreflectsarenewedbeliefinthepowerofknowledgetoresolveproblemsandcuresocialillslikecrime.

InTheNovelandthePolice,D.A.Millerpointsoutthatdetectivefictiononlyamplifiesthethemeofsurveillancethatisalreadyheavilypresentinthenovelisticgenreitself.UsingexamplesfromBalzac,Dickens,Trollopeandothers,heexplainsthatfromtheinceptionofthenovel,“omniscientnarrationassumesafullypanopticviewoftheworlditplacesundersurveillance.Nothingworthknowingescapesitsnotation,anditscompleteknowledgeincludestheknowledgethatitisalwaysright”(23).Thedetectivegenre,then,highlightstheroleofsurveillanceineverydaylife,especiallyinthenarrativerepresentationoftheprivatelivesofthecharacters.Theworkofthedetectivefindsitsparallelinthatofthenovel,inwhicheveryactisobservedandinscribed,andthe“facts”oftheplotarelaidoutandorganizedforthereader.

Yetwhiletheactofdetectionistemporary,andceasesoncethecrimehasbeensolved,novelisticsurveillanceisperpetual,andthepowertopresentthe“facts”ofthecase(thatis,theplot)isalwaysinthehandsofthenarrator,whocontrolstherepresentationofthestory.Millerultimatelycomparestheconstantsurveillanceofthenoveltothenearlyimperceptiblesocialstructuresthatserveasaprioriformsofcontrolandpunishmentwithinsociety.Assuch,detectivefictionbecomes“aparableofthemodernpolicingpowerthatcomestorelylessonspectaculardisplaysof

Polifonía

110

repressiveforcethanonintangiblenetworksofproductivediscipline”(51).ThisideologicalframeworkandrelianceonliterarysurveillancearealternatelyemployedandsubvertedinVargasLlosa’sthreedetectivenovels,simultaneouslyquestioningtheunderpinningsofthegenreandfulfillingthem.

HistoriadeMaytaandtheSeedsofRevolution

Publishedin1984,HistoriadeMaytaisthefirstnovelthatVargasLlosareleasedaftertheinvestigationintoUchuraccayandthefirstiterationofhisgrowingobsessionwithviolenceandrevolutioninPeru.ThenovelislooselybasedonanobscuremomentintheearlyhistoryofleftistinsurrectioninPeru:aprisonbreakandsubsequentbankrobberythattookplaceinthecityofJaujainMay1962.FranciscoGuillermoVallejosVidal,amilitaryofficer,stoleweaponsfromthelocalpolicestationandhelpedVicenteMaytaMercadoescapefromthecityjail.Thetwomenwereinvolvedinabankrobberyanddeadlyshootoutwiththepolice(Kristal140).InHistoriadeMayta,VargasLlosachangesthedateofeventsto1958,andallowsoneoftheleftistinsurrectionists,AlejandroMayta,tosurvivetheshootoutinordertotellhisstory.Finally,thenovelissetagainstthebackdropofanapocalypticpresent-dayPeru,whichisbeinginvadedbyCubanandBoliviantroopsthatwanttoestablishtheSocialistRepublicofPeru.VargasLlosapresentsthisscenarioastheinevitableconsequenceoftheviolenceunleashedbyMaytaandhiscomradesintheJaujarevolutionaryinsurrectionof1958.

InHistoriadeMayta,themirroringofpastandfutureisacentralissue.TheauthorexplainsinaninterviewthatalthoughhefirstreadabouttheJaujainsurrectionin1962,hedidnotfeeltheimpulsetowritethisnoveluntil1982,“cuandoenelPerúcomenzabanlossíntomasdeloquehoyendíaeslaviolenciapolítica...quehatomadounascaracterísticasqueamínomeparecíanposibles”(Salazar2).JustasVargasLlosafeltthathewaslivinginanimpossiblepresent,inhisnovelheexaggeratedthosepresentrealitiesinordertocraftadystopianfutureforPeru.Inthisnovel,itwasnothisgoaltoreproducehistoricaleventsfaithfully,butrathertoexploitthoseeventswithinhisalternate,fictionaluniverse.Hisnarratorrepeatedlyassuresothersthathisstoryisnothistorybutfiction:“Enunanovelasiemprehaymásmentirasqueverdades,unanovelanoesnuncaunahistoriafiel.Estainvestigación,esasentrevistas,noeranparacontarloquepasórealmenteenJauja,sino,másbien,paramentirsabiendosobrequémentía”(VargasLlosa,Mayta320).ThehistoricaleventsdonotdetermineMayta’sstorylineanymorethantheydictatethestorybeingwrittenbythisfictionalnarrator.

Polifonía

111

Thelate1950swasatimeofrevolutionaryincubation,asAbimaelGuzmánbeganteachingamilitantMaoistdoctrinethatwouldbecomethepoliticalmanifestoofShiningPath(Degregori34).BoththeideologyandactivitiesofShiningPathareclearlyreflectedinVargasLlosa’sdepictionofAlejandroMaytaandhiscomradesastheyplantheirarmedrevolutionaryinsurrection.WithHistoriadeMayta,theauthorcreatesafictionalizedbiographyofShiningPath,therevolutionarygroupthatfiguredheavilyinhisinvestigationatUchuraccayandwouldbecomesynonymouswithviolenceandterrorinPeru.

HistoriadeMaytaemployssomebasicconventionsofthedetectivenovel,placingthenovelistintheroleofinvestigatorwhomustreconstructhistoryinordertowritefiction.YettheeventsoftheJaujarobberyaredifficulttopindownbecausenearlyallofthewitnessesandparticipantshaveconflictingstories.MarioVargasLlosanotesthatinhisownresearchintotherealeventsatJauja,thepeoplewhoheinterviewedoftenattemptedtochangethepast“tojustifywhattheyhaddone,sometimestotakerevengeonadversaries[...]tojustifythepresent,tojustifywhattheywere,tojustifytheirevolution”(VargasLlosa,Writer’sReality151).Likewise,inHistoriadeMayta,manyofthecollaboratorstrytotakecreditfortheideaoftherebellion,butnonetakeresponsibilityforitsfailure.

Thenarratoralsoattemptstocomparedifferingperspectivesanddeclareasingleversionofthetruth;hefails,however,generatingmorequestionsthananswers.Forexample,amongthemostintriguingunsolvedmysteriesarethecircumstancessurroundingVallejos’sdeath.Afterinterviewingnearlyeverylivingwitness,thenarratorconcludesthat

estepuntodelahistoria[...]tampocoseaclarará.Nicuántasbalasrecibió:nosehizoautopsiayelpartededefunciónnolomenciona.Lostestigosdansobreestolasversionesmásantojadizas:desdeunabalaenlanucahastauncuerpocomouncolador.(VargasLlosa,Mayta300)

AlsounsolvedisthemysteryofthewhereaboutsofthecashstolenfromtheJaujabank:while“Laabundanciadementirasenturbiaelasunto,”thenarratorfinallydecidesthatthebankemployeesprobablyover-reportedtheamountofmoneythatwasstolen,presumablytoappropriatesomeofthebank’sholdingsforthemselves(303).Thehostofunansweredquestionscallsintoquestionthepowerofinvestigation,especiallyinrelationtoactsoflarge-scaleterror.

Polifonía

112

VargasLlosaendsHistoriadeMaytawithastrongpoliticalstatementaboutthedeepermeaningofrevolution—orlackthereof.Inthenovel’sclosingchapter,thenarratormeetsAlejandroMaytaanumberofyearsaftertherebellion.Throughthestoriestoldbyhisacquaintances,Maytahasbecomesomethingofamythicalcharacterforthenarrator.Thecontrastbetweenthemanandthemyth,however,isdisillusioning:

[AlejandroMayta]esunhombredestruidoporelsufrimientoyelrencor,quehaperdidoinclusolosrecuerdos.Alguien,ensuma,esencialmentedistintodelMaytademinovela,eseoptimistapertinaz,esehombredefe,queamalavidaapesardelhorrorylasmiseriasquehayenella.(338)

Maytahasbeensouredbyfailureandnolongerabletoarticulatetherevolutionaryidealsthatpromptedtheinsurrectioninthefirstplace.

Forsuchanimpulsivelyplannedactofrebellion,itsconsequenceswerebothprofoundandenduring.Atonepoint,Maytapauseshisinterviewtopuzzleover“lomisteriosaseimprevisiblesquesonlasramificacionesdelosacontecimientos,esacomplejísimaurdimbredecausasyefectos,reverberacionesyaccidentes,queeslahistoriahumana”(185).ThusbeginsVargasLlosa’sprojectionofthenascentrevolutionarymovementsofthelate1950sontotheabjectterrorofShiningPathterrorisminthe1980sand90s.

HistoriadeMaytaalsobeginstheprocessofpittingarationaldetectivefigureagainstanirrationalpopulace,onethatwillprogresssignificantlyinsubsequentnovels.Neartheendofthenovel,thenarratorconcludesthat“esimposiblesaberloquedeverassucede,losperuanosmienten,inventan,sueñan,serefugianenlailusión”(274).ThoughHistoriadeMayta’snarratorisPeruvianaswell,hedistanceshimselffromhiscompatriotsbothintellectuallyandspiritually.Inthisway,theauthorlaysthegroundworkforhissubsequentnovels,inwhichhewillcastdoubtonthecapacitytoevaluateobjectivelypoliticalandculturalrealities.

CynicismandSatirein¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?

Publishedtwoyearslaterin1986,¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?dealsmoredirectlywiththeeventsthatVargasLlosawitnessedinUchuraccayandbuildsonhisincreasinganxietyovertheissueofpoliticalviolenceinthePeruviancontext.¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?openstoadeadbodylateridentifiedasPalominoMolero,ayoungbolerosingerandrecentPeruviannavalrecruit.Readersviewthescene

Polifonía

113

throughtheeyesofthepoliceinvestigatorashefirstassessesMolero’sdeadandmutilatedbody:“teníalanarizylabocarajadas,coágulosdesangrereseca,moretonesydesgarrones,quemadurasdecigarrillo,y[…]tambiénhabíantratadodecaparlo,porqueloshuevoslecolgabanhastalaentrepierna”(5).

ThisvividfirstpassageinthenovelrecallsthemurderandmutilationofthejournalistsatUchuraccay.Indeed,MarioVargasLlosauses¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?tocontemplatesomeoftheobstaclesheencounteredduringhisinvestigation.AsRoyBolandnotes,inhisexperienceasaninvestigatorinUchuraccay,VargasLlosa“comprobóporcuentapropiaelcuestionamiento,larelativización,latergiversaciónalaque‘laverdad’sevesometidaporaquellosentesypersonasparaquienesellaesinconvenienteopeligrosa”(163).Thisnovelcanbereadontwoverydifferentlevels,dependingonthereader’sknowledgeoftheauthor’spersonalexperience.Thecasualreadercantakeitasanalmostfarcicaldetectivenovel;butthosefamiliarwiththeauthor’sbackgroundwilllikelyreaditasare-evaluationofVargasLlosa’sparticipationintheComisióninvestigativainUchuraccay.

AstheonlyCivilGuardofficersstationedinTalara,LieutenantSilvaandPrivateLitumamustinvestigateMolero’sdeathdespitestrongoppositionbyColonelMindreau,headofthenavalbase.WhentheymeetwiththeColoneltobegintheirinvestigation,heinformsLieutenantSilvathat“Missuperioreshanrecibidouninformedetalladoyestánsatisfechos.Ustedno,porlovisto.Bueno,esproblemasuyo.LagentedelaBaseestálimpiadepolvoypajaenesteasunto”(VargasLlosa,PalominoMolero36).TheColonelisnottheonlyobstacleintheinvestigation:itappearsthatnooneisreallyinterestedinthedeathofPalominoMoleroexceptfortheinvestigatorsandthevictim’smother.AsLitumacommentstoafriendearlyoninthenovel,“LaquenocooperaeslaAviación.Ycomoelflaquitoeraavionero,siellosnocooperan,quiéncarajovaacooperar”(10).Fromthebeginning,theoddsareagainstthetwodetectivesinthismurdercase.

Incontrasttothedeductivemethodthatisoftentheorganizingprincipleindetectivefiction,in¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?SilvaandLitumamaketheirtwomajordiscoveriesbystrokesofluck.First,theCivilGuardshappenuponaninebriatedLieutenantDufó.Inhisdrunkenstate,DufóletsslipthathehasinsideinformationaboutMolero’sdeath,tellingSilvaandLitumathatthesingerdied“Porquesemetióencorralajeno.Esascosassepagan”(69).Itisclear,then,thatdespiteColonelMindreau’sclaimstothecontrary,theNavywassomehowinvolvedinMolero’smurder.ThenextclueoffersitselfuptotheCivilGuardsintheformofa

Polifonía

114

briefnote:“APalominoMolero,losquelomataronlofueronasacardecasadeDoñaLupe,enAmotape.Ellasabeloquepasó.Pregúntenle”(90).Moreusefulandmoreserendipitousthanthefirst,thisclueleadstheinvestigatorstolearnthatMolero’smurderwascommittedbyLieutenantDufóonbehalfofColonelMindreau.

ThedetailsofthecrimearetoooutrageousfortheinvestigatorstoeverdeduceontheirownandarerevealedtotheminthevoluntaryconfessionsofAliciaandColonelMindreau.AliciainformsSilvaandLitumathatPalominoMolerowashersecretlover,andthatherfatherhadhimkilledinordertokeepthemapart.ShealsoclaimsthattheColonelforcedherintoanincestuousrelationshipwithhim.Subsequently,theColonelconfessestothecontractmurderbutnottotheincest,claimingthathisdaughtersuffersfrom“delusions”(156).Inafittingendingtosuchahastystoryline,ColonelMindreaukillshimselfandhisdaughter,thusclosingoffanyfurtherlinesofinvestigationforSilvaandLituma.

Onthesurface,theinvestigatorsseemtohavedonetheirjob,answeringthequestionpresentedinthetitleofthenovel.Inreality,theirsolutionisunconvincingandunverifiable.Forexample,thereisnowayforinvestigatorsorreaderstoconfirmthestoryofincesttoldbyAliciaMindreauorthatofherdelusionstoldbyherfather.EvenifitisevidentwhokilledPalominoMolero,itisnotclearwhoisreallyguiltyinthisnoveland,consequently,SilvaandLitumacannotservejustice.Itmaybeforthisreason,orfornoreasonatall,thatbothSilvaandLitumaaredemotedandtransferredtolessdesirablepositionsintheCivilGuard,inremoteandruralareasofPeru.Thesolutiontothemysteryisovershadowedbytheswathesofdoubtthatsurrounditandtheobviousdiscontentoftheinvestigators’superiors.

Theunconvincingconclusionof¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?hasdirectparallelswiththeoutcomeofVargasLlosa’sinvestigationinUchuraccay.LikeSilvaandLituma,themembersofhisComisióninvestigativahadadifficulttimereconstructingthecrimeindetail.Asisevidentbelow,LieutenantSilva’sconclusioninthenovelmirrorsthisstatementthatVargasLlosamakesinhisInformesobreUchuraccay:

“Pero,aunquealgunosdetallesesténtodavíaoscuros,creoquelastrespreguntasclavesestánresueltas.Quiéneslomataron.Cómolomataron.Porquélomataron.”(VargasLlosa,PalominoMolero153)

“LaComisióncreehaberesclarecidodeestemodoloesencialdelsuceso,aunquealgunosdetallesyaspectosdelatragediapermanezcanenlasombra.”(VargasLlosaetal39)

Polifonía

115

BothVargasLlosaandhisfictionalcounterpartfeeltheneedtoasserttheirauthorityasinvestigatorsandthelegitimacyoftheirconclusions,asinconclusiveastheymaybe.

Inthenovel,theresidentsofTalaraundermineboththeinvestigators’authorityandtheirconclusionsaboutthecase.Thetownspeoplehavetheirownapriorisuspects,agroupofpeopletheyrefertoaslospecesgordos,anunidentifiedgroupofpeoplethatwieldsabsolutepoweroverthetown,itspoliticsandthejusticesystem.Ashebeginstheinvestigation,Litumaisinformedthat“Sinodescubrenlosasesinos,todoelmundovaapensarquehanrecibidoplatitadelospecesgordos”(VargasLlosa,PalominoMolero49).Thepecesgordosareafigmentofthetownspeople’scollectiveimagination,butthatdoesnotkeepthemfrominterferingintheinvestigationwiththeirtheoriesorsecondguessingthedetectives’solutiontothemystery.

Oncetheyhavefinishedtheirinvestigation,SilvaandLitumafindthatnoonebelievestheirstory:“Nohayunsolotalareño,hombre,mujeroperro,quesetragueelcuentoése.Nielgallinazoqueestáahíselotraga”(176).Cuttingthroughtheinvestigators’“cortinadehumo”(177),thetownspeoplefabricatetheirowntheoriesonthedeathsofPalominoMolero,ColonelMindreauandhisdaughterAlicia.Theideasrangefromcontraband—MoleroandtheMindreauswereallkilledbecausetheyfoundoutaboutit—toatop-secretspymissiontoEcuadorheadedbytheColonel.

ThereisnothingthatSilvaorLitumacansaytochangethemindsofthetownspeople,especiallysincetherealsolutionisbarelymorebelievablethantheonestheyinvent.TheTalareños’versionofthestoryismorerealtothemthananyformoftruththattheinvestigatorscanoffer,especiallybecausetheprincipalculpritisnowdeadandcannotbebroughttojustice.Theywereunlikelytohaveacceptedanysolutionthatdidnotinvolvethepecesgordosinthefirstplace,pointingtoaculturallybasedskepticismofinstitutionsandpreferenceforlocalformsofjustice.Therefore,byprovidingasolutiontoMolero’smurderthatdoesnotinvolvethepecesgordos,SilvaandLitumahavealignedthemselveswiththosesameshadyandunidentifiedforcesinthemindsofthetownspeople.

VargasLlosa’sComisióninvestigativafacedsimilarpublicskepticisminresponsetotheirconclusionsabouttheUchuraccaymassacre.NotlongafterthepublicationoftheirInformesobreUchuraccay,atrialwasheldtodeterminethefateofsomeofthevillagersinvolvedinthejournalists’murder,butitwastheComisiónmemberswhowerereallyunderscrutiny.Thelocaljudgepresidingoverthecase,JudgeVentura

Polifonía

116

Huayhua,usedittovoicehistheoryaboutwhathappenedinUchuraccay.EnriqueMayersummarizesthejudge’sargumentasthefollowing:

[…]thejournalistshadbeenluredoutofAyacuchobymembersofShiningPath(somelivedintheHostalSantaRosa)underthepretextthattheywouldseesomethingveryimportant[…]Onceoutoftown,thejournaliststhenmettheguerrillaswhoshowedthem‘thissomething’thatwassotremendous,sofrightening,andsodamagingtothegovernmentthatthearmyhadnochoicebuttokillthejournalistsandthenfoistthebodiesandtheguiltontothecomunerosofUchuraccay.Had‘thissomething’cometolight,theBelaúndegovernmentwouldhavefailed.JudgeVenturaHuayhua[…]supposedthatitmusthavebeenthelatestandtechnicallymostadvancedmilitaryinstallationputthereunderU.S.auspices.(489)

Thejudge’stheorymirrorsthoseputforthbythetownspeopleofTalarain¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?However,fortheComisióntheaccusationswouldhaveamorenegativeeffectbecausethecasehadbecomesowellknownthroughoutthecountry.Infact,onceJudgeVenturapresentedhisalternativetheoryaboutthemurdersinUchuraccay,itbecameacceptableasapossibleversionofthestory.Inanessay,VargasLlosacitesa1983nationalpollinwhich21%ofPeruvianssaidthattheybelievedthatthegovernment,notthevillagersofUchuraccay,wasresponsibleforthemurders(Contraviento133).

¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?buildsontheissuesbroughtupinHistoriadeMayta,especiallyVargasLlosa’sconcernsaboutthefeasibilityofinvestigationinthePeruviannationalcontext.DrawingfromhisexperienceasaninvestigatorinUchuraccay,theauthordepictsacasethatseemsdoomedtofailureanddetectiveswhoseworkiscalledintoquestionateveryturn.EfraínKristalexplainsthatthenovelconveys“adeepsenseofirritationandbewildermentliketheoneVargasLlosamusthavefeltwhenhewaspersonallymalignedandslanderedbyjournalistsandacademics”(156)duringandafterhisinvestigationintoUchuraccay.AsinHistoriadeMayta,¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?endswithitsprotagonistsmiredinfrustration.Astheyattempttoprogressfrommysterytosolution—theverystructureofthetraditionaldetectivenarrative—thosearoundthemchallenge,contradict,anddeconstructtheveryideaofempiricalinvestigation.YetthesetwonovelsonlysetthestageforthemanifoldcritiqueofPeruvianculturetocomeinVargasLlosa’snextwork.

Polifonía

117

LitumaenlosAndes:aDecadeintheMaking

LitumaenlosAndesisoneofthefewVargasLlosanovelssetintheAndeanregionofPeru,andtheonethatdealsmostdirectlywiththeeventsinUchuraccay.CivilGuardCorporalLitumaandTomásCarreñoarestationedinNaccos,asmallvillageintheAndes,investigatingamissing-personscase.Threemen,CasimiroHuarcaya,DemetrioChanca,andPedroTinoco,havevanishedwithoutatrace.Theinvestigationintothemen’sdisappearanceisslowanddifficult,inlargepartduetothevillagers’mistrustofoutsiders.AlthoughTomásCarreñoisoriginallyfromthehighlandsandspeaksQuechua,LitumaisfromthecoastalcityofPiuraandhaslittleincommonwiththevillagersofNaccos.Throughouttheinvestigation,Litumafeelsforeignandstrange,askinghimselfatonepoint:

¿Seburlabandeél?Aratosleparecíaquedetrásdeesascarasinexpresivas,deesosmonosílabospronunciadoscondesgano,comohaciéndoleunfavor,deesosojitosopacos,desconfiados,losserruchossereíandesucondicióndecosteñoextraviadoenestaspunas,delaagitaciónqueaúnleproducíalaaltura,desuincapacidadpararesolverestoscasos.(VargasLlosa,Lituma37)

However,asuncomfortableasLitumafeelsinthecompanyofthevillagers,heismuchmoreconcernedaboutthepresenceofShiningPathinthesurroundingarea.TheguerillasrecentlykidnappedandmurderedvariousinnocentpeopleandLitumasuspectsthattheywereresponsibleforthedisappearancesofthethreemeninNaccos;healsoworriesthatheandTomáswillbetheirnextvictims.

ThedirectreferencestoShiningPathinthenovelforegroundtheconflictiverelationshipbetweentherevolutionariesandhighlandPeruviansinthe1980sand90s.Whilenominallyworkingforthegoodofruralpeasantsagainstlandownersandothermembersofthebourgeoisie,thegroupwashighlyauthoritarianandrarelytookintoconsiderationtheneedsorrequestsofthosetheyclaimedtorepresent.SomecommunitiesalsofelttheeconomicstingofSendero’spresence:aspartoftheirpoliticalstrategy,thegroupprohibitedallformsofcapitalism,includinganymarketortradeactivitiesinruralareas,whichweresomeofthefewformsofincomeformanyruralhighlanders.InhisInforme,VargasLlosanotesthatthevillagersinUchuraccay“acusaronantelaComisión,enrepetidasoportunidades,alosterroristasderobarlessusalimentosysusanimales.Estofuemotivodechoquesyfricciones”(29).Formany,theauthoritarianandviolentmethodsofShiningPathwerefarfromanimprovementintheireconomicsituationorintheirdailylives.

Polifonía

118

LitumaenlosAndesdepictsveryvividlythetenseatmospherethatShiningPathcreatedwithintheAndeanregionsofPeruduringthe1980sandearly90s.MuchofthenovelisdedicatedtoexamplesofSendero’sbrutal,terrifyingandseeminglyrandomviolence.Theywouldattackanyindividualorgroupthatcouldbeconstruedasrepresentingcapitalistideologyor,morevaguely,anyonewhodidnotperceptiblytaketheirsideintheir“People’sWar.”Inthenovel,Senderomembersslaughteraherdofvicuñasinanaturereserveinordertosendamessagetotheirowners.Onememberexplains:“Éstaesunareservadelenemigo…Unareservaqueinventóenimperialismo…Paraquesuscientíficoslasestudien,paraquesusturistaslestomenfotos”(VargasLlosa,Lituma56-7).Thegroupalsokillsateamofscientistsfortheirsupposedlyimperialistwork,disregardingthefactthattheirresearchisfocusedonthepreservationofnaturalareasintheAndesandwouldimprovethelivesofmanyhighlandPeruvians.AfterspeakingtomembersofSendero,oneofthescientistslaments,“Oyen,peronoescuchanniquierenenterarsedeloqueselesdice…Parecendeotroplaneta”(119).Asitispresentedinthenovel,Sendero’sideologyisbothvagueandunforgiving:theguerrillaattacksseemalmostrandom,linkedonlythroughtheirperceivedrelationshipwithcapitalistsociety.Theyalienatepositiveinfluencessuchasscience,culture,conservationandlawenforcement.Thewell-meaningbutmisguidedrevolutionariesofHistoriadeMaytabecome,inthisnovel,fearsomenationalterroristswithlittletonohumandimension.

AsmenacingasShiningPathmaybeinLitumaenlosAndes,thedetectiveslearnthatthegroupwasnotresponsibleforthethreedisappearancesinNaccos,butratherthatthemenwerekilledandtheirbodiesdisposedofbyothervillagers,asasacrificialofferingtotheapus,orindigenousgodsoftheAndes.Ironically,thisimprobablesolutionispresentedtothedetectivesatthebeginningofthenovel.Adriana,thefortuneteller,hadprophesizedonevictim’sfate:“loibanasacrificarparaaplaceralosmalignosquetantosdañoscausanenlazona.Yquelohabíanescogidoaélporqueeraimpuro”(41).LitumamakesajokeofAdriana’sstory,parodyinghisownunbelievablereporttohissuperiors:“SacrificadodemaneraaúnnoidentificadaparaaplacarmalignosdelosAndes,punto.Escritoenlaslíneasdesumano,dicetestigo,punto.Casocerrado,punto.Atentamente,JefedePuesto,punto.CaboLituma,punto”(46).Lituma’ssaracasmillustratestheconflictbetweenthePeruvianpolice’snarrowworldviewandlocalindigenouspractices.

ThesolutiontothismysteryisdeeplyunsettlingforLituma.Ashedidin¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?,thedetectiveattemptstosolvethecase,buttheentireprocessofdetectionturnsouttobemeaninglessbecausethesolutionisonethathe

Polifonía

119

couldneverhavededucedonhisown.ItisonlythroughhisconversationswithAdriana,aswellashismoreconceptualdiscussionswiththescientistPaulStirmsson,thatLitumaisabletorecognizewhathashappenedinNaccos.Despitehisstrongdesiretosolvethecaseindependently,heultimatelyhastoaccepttheexplanationgiventohimbyothers.Histraditionaldeductiveskillsandlogicarealiabilityinthiscase.Unfortunatelyforhim,Litumaisaclassic-styledetectivetrappedinananti-detectivenovel.

Whiletheirrationalcharacterofthevillagers’actionsinLitumawouldseemthestuffoffiction,thistoofounditsinspirationinVargasLlosa’sreal-lifeinvestigation.InspiteofthefactthatPresidentBelaúndeenvisionedtheComisióninvestigativaasanobjectivefact-findingmission,theinvestigatorsfoundwaystoinserttheirownconjecturesandopinionsintotheInforme.OneofthemorestartlingexamplesoftheComisión’ssubjectiveevaluationsisitscommentaryonthereligiousnatureoftheburialsofthejournalists.Itsconclusionthatthejournalists’burialswereritualisticincharacter,orpossiblybasedonsomekindofmagicalreligiousbeliefs,isbasedonconjectureandlittletonoanthropologicalscholarship.InthefollowingexcerptfromtheInforme,IhaveitalicizedthephrasesthathighlighttheimprecisionoftheComisión’sconclusions,aswellasitsshallowbasisforjudgment:

LosantropólogosqueasesoranalaComisiónhanencontradociertosindicios,porlascaracterísticasdelasheridassufridasporlasvíctimasylamaneracomoéstasfueronenterradas,deuncrimenque,alavezquepolítico-social,pudoencerrarmaticesmágico-religiosos…Deotrolado,casitodosloscadáverespresentanhuellasdehabersidoespecialmentemaltratadosenlabocayenlosojos.Estambiéncreenciaextendida,enelmundoandino,quelavíctimasacrificadadebeserprivadadelosojos,paraquenopuedareconocerasusvictimariosydelalenguaparaquenopuedahablarydelatarlos,yquesustobillosdebenserfracturadosparaquenopuedaretornaramolestaraquienesledieronmuerte.Laslesionesdeloscadáveresdescritasporlaautopsiaapuntanaunaciertacoincidenciaconestascreencias.”(37-8)

ThissectionillustrateswhatKimberlyTheidondescribesas“ethnicabsolutism,”ortheessentialistviewofculturaldifference.Inparticular,thevaguewordingandanthropologicalgeneralizationssuggesttheprevalenceofconjectureandwildimaginationoverfact.

However,whiletheComisióncanonlygosofarastovaguelypointoutthepossibilityofancientreligiousbeliefsasamotivefortheUchuraccaymurders,

Polifonía

120

VargasLlosahasmorefreedomtoassertthisideainLitumaenlosAndes.Whiletherearemanyquestionsaboutthecharacterofthejournalists’murderinUchuraccay,thereisnodoubtingthattheNaccosmurdersareaformofritualisticsacrifice.Inthenovel,VargasLlosaemphasizestheimportanceofritualsacrificeandmagico-religiousbeliefstothepointofmakingthemfundamentaltotheNaccosmurders.

Inthenovel,themurdersfalloutsideofanylogical,rationalparadigmthatisfamiliartothedetective.IntheAndes,Litumafindshimselfinaworldlostintime,stillsteepedinancestralbeliefsandsuperstitionsthataresodeep-seatedthatnoteventheConquestcoulderadicatethem:“Cuandollegaronlosespañolesydestruyeronlosídolosylashuacasybautizaronalosindiosyprohibieronloscultospaganos,creyeronqueesasidolatríasseacabarían.Lociertoesque,entreveradasconlosritoscristianos,siguenvigentes”(VargasLlosa,Lituma174).ForVargasLlosa,Naccosispreciselythe“savagelife”thathementionsinhisNobelPrizespeech.

Yetdespitetheauthor’sreductiveviewofhighlandlifeandpractices,heacknowledgesthewaysinwhichtheseeventsdidnotdevelopsuigeneris.Thevillagers’emphasisonancientreligiouspracticesinLitumaenlosAndesisrootedonacollectivefearofeconomiccollapseandthedestructionofawayoflife.NaccosenduredoneeconomicdisasterwhentheSantaRitamineclosed,leavingmanyvillagerswithoutwork.Thenationalhighwayhasbecomethevillage’sneweconomiclifeline,butthroughoutthenovelthevillagerscontinuetofearthattheywilllosetheirjobsandtheirlivelihoodsonceagain.Thegeneralatmosphere,then,isoneofdesperationandlackofcontroloverthefuture.Insuchaprecariouseconomicsituation,theworkerswilldojustaboutanythinginthenameofself-preservation;inthiscase,theyturntoapre-modernformofviolence.

ThevillagebarkeeperDionisioandhiswifeAdrianatakeadvantageofthevillagers’feelingsofhelplessnessanddespair,promisingtosolvealltheirproblemsandtomaintaintheirwayoflife.Adrianaassumestheroleofleaderandadvisortothevillagers,tellingthemwhattheyneedtodoinordertotakecontroloftheirlivesagain:

Ustedesnotienenquepagarnadaanadieporvivirinsegurosymiedososyserlasruinasqueson.Esosedadebalde.Separarálacarreteraysequedaránsintrabajo,llegaránlosterrucosyharánunacarnicería,caeráelhuaycoynosborraráatodosdelmapa.Losmalignossaldrándelasmontañasa

Polifonía

121

celebrarlobailandouncachaparidedespedidaalavidayhabrátantoscóndoresrevoloteandoquequedaráelcielotapado.Amenosque…(272-3)

Adriana’sspeechtrailsoffinthisway,referringobliquelytothemurderandsacrificeofthethreemen.Adrianamakestheconsequencesofinactionverycleartoheraudience,takingadvantageoftheirfearofunemployment,stagnation,starvationanddeath.Bydrasticallylimitingthevillagers’optionsforsurvivalintheirownminds,shegivesthemnochoicebuttotakepartintheviolence.

Adriana’sroleinthecrimeiscomplex.Ontheonehand,sheinstigatedthekillingsandconvincedthevillagerstocommitacrimetheyotherwisemaynothaveconsideredorevenimagined.Ontheotherhand,sheherselfdidnotcommitmurder.Sheprovidedtheimpetus,butitwasthecollectivegroupthatcommittedtheactsofviolence.Inhisstudyofscapegoatrituals,RenéGirardexplainsthatthiskindofviolenceisimpossiblewithout

[...]aneminentlymanipulablemasstobeusedbythemanipulatorsfortheirevilpurposes,peoplewhowillallowthemselvestobetrappedinthepersecutors’representationofpersecution,peoplecapableofbeliefwherethescapegoatisconcerned.(40)

Tocarryoutthisactofviolence,AdriananeedsthevillagersofNaccosasmuchastheyneedher.ToLituma’sdismay,itisobvioustohimthatthevillagerscarriedoutthesemurdersunderduressandthatnoindividualactormaybeheldresponsible,notevenAdriana.

AReimaginedBacchanal

RunningalongsidethethemeofAndeanmythologyareVargasLlosa’sthinly-veiledreferencestoGreekmyth,especiallythoserelatingtoAdrianaandherhusband,Dionisio.Earlierinherlife,Adrianahelpedherthen-boyfriendTimoteotokillapishtaco1thathadbeenterrorizingtheirvillageandkillingyoungwomen;subsequently,sheandTimoteomovedtoNaccos,whereTimoteodesertedAdrianaandshemetDionisio.InthecorrespondingGreekmyth,AriadnehelpsTheseustokilltheMinotaur,amonsterthatdemandedregularsacrificesofyoungmenandwomen.AfterkillingtheMinotaur,AriadneandTheseusmovetoNaxos,wherehe

1ApishtacoisamythicalmonsterthatattacksAndeanIndianstorobthemoftheirfatinordertomakechurchbells,lubricateindustrialmachinery,orevenpaydownPeru’slargeforeigndebt.

Polifonía

122

abandonsAriadneandshemeetsDionysus.IntheadventuresofAdrianaandTimoteo,thepishtacotakestheplaceoftheMinotaur,placingthisancientGreekmythsquarelywithinaPeruvianculturalcontext.

SomecriticshavecensuredMarioVargasLlosa’sjuxtapositionofGreekmythandAndeansocietyinthisnovelasanotherexpressionofanti-indigenoussentiment.MishaKokotovicarguesthattheauthor’sallusiontoGreekmyth“drawsasharpcontrastbetweenthebarbarismovercomebytheWest,andthatwhichstillprevailsintheAndes”(161).WhileKokotovicmakesafairpointwithinthecontextofhisreadingofthenovel,myviewofthesignificanceofthereferencestoGreekmythologydifferssomewhat.VargasLlosa’sreferencesarenottoGreekmythologyingeneral,butmorespecificallytoEuripides’stragedyTheBacchae.Thesereferencesestablishthenovel’sessentialtension,thatofthestrugglebetweentheorderimposedbythenationalgovernmentandthelawlessnessofthepeopleofNaccos.

TheBacchaetellsthestoryoftheGreekgodDionysius’spunishmentofhismortalcousin,KingPentheus,forrefusingtoworshiphimasadeity.TheplayfocusesontheantagonisticrelationshipbetweenDionysusandPentheus,asthelatterattemptstostaunchthepoweroftheDionysiancult.VargasLlosaborrowsthematicallyfromTheBacchaetocreatethecharacterofDionisiowho,likeDionysius,hasareputationinthehighlandsforspreadingmoraldegradationandsocialdisorderwhereverhegoes:“másquepatróndeunputarralambulante.Sí,sí,clarísimo.Pero¿quémás?¿Demonio?¿Ángel?¿Dios?”(VargasLlosa,Lituma244).Dionisiolivesuptohisname,embodyingdivineanddiabolicalqualities,andshowinghimselfcapableofbringingentirevillagesintohisritualbacchanal.

InTheBacchae,Dionysius’scultsuddenlyturnsonPentheusandkillshim,tearinghisbodytopieces.Inmuchthesameway,thevillagersofNaccosabruptlydecidetokillPedro,CasimiroandDemetrio,menwhohavecommittednocrimeagainstthem.RenéGirardhighlightsthespontaneousandhistrionicnatureofthiskindofcollectiveviolence:

Itwouldnothavebeenacaseofpremeditatedassassination.Everythingsuggestsacrowdwhoseintentionswereinitiallypacific;adisorganizedmobthatforunknownreasons…cametoahighpitchofmasshysteria.Thecrowdfinallyhurleditselfononeindividual;eventhoughhehadnoparticularqualificationsforthisrole,heservedtopolarizeallthefears,anxieties,andhostilitiesofthecrowd.Hisviolentdeathprovidedthenecessaryoutletforthemassanguish,andrestoredpeace.(140)

Polifonía

123

Fromthisdescription,thedistinctionsbetweenindividualityandcollectivitybecomestartlinglyclear.Separately,thevillagersmayhavebeenpacificandincapableofmurder,butasagrouptheyallowthecollectiveneedstoconsumeindividualreason.

ThecentralthemeofTheBacchaeisthestruggleforpoweroverthepeopleofThebes.AsheirtotheThebanthrone,Pentheusmustviewtheworldinpoliticalterms.Dionysusonlyseeksmoremembersofhisspiritualcommunityandhasnoneedforthepoliticsofthemortalworld.PentheususesallofhispowertoridthetownofDionysusandhisfollowers,frominterrogationtoarresttothreatsofmurder.However,Dionysuscannotbedissuadedandintheend,DionysusandhisbacchaeriseupandkillPentheus.FriedrichNietzschedescribestheabsoluteandterrifyingpoweroftheDionysianforceinTheBirthofTragedy:

IstheDionysianentitledtoexistatall?ShoulditnotbeforciblyeradicatedfromHellenicsoil?Certainly,thepoettellsus,ifonlythatwerepossible:butthegodDionysusistoopowerful:hismostintelligentopponent—suchasPentheusintheBacchae—isunsuspectinglycaughtinhisspellandsubsequentlyplungestohisdoomunderitsinfluence.(68)

ThestrugglebetweenDionysusandPentheus,andthethreatitposestosociety,isplayedoutinLitumaenlosAndes,withthevillagersofNaccosplayingthebacchaeandLitumaasPentheus.Astherepresentativeofstate-sanctionedjustice,LitumausesreasonandlawinhisstruggleagainstDionisio,butisdefeated.Headmitsthislossintheformofregret:“Mearrepientodehabermeentercadotantoensaberloquelespasóaésos.Mejormequedabasospechando”(VargasLlosa,Lituma312).ThisreactionillustratesNietzsche’sdescriptionof“thetremendoushorrorwhichgripsmanwhenhesuddenlyloseshiswayamongthecognitiveformsofthephenomenalworld,astheprincipleofreasoninanyofitsformsappearstobreakdown”(22).Inabroadersense,LitumaenlosAndesisnotjustaboutafailedmurderinvestigation:thestrugglebetweenLitumaandDionisio,liketheonebetweenPentheusandDionysus,isVargasLlosa’stakeontheuniversalconflictbetweenorderandlawlessness.

Conclusion:VargasLlosaonthe“other”Peru

Inmanyways,VargasLlosacastshimselfasadescendantofD.F.Sarmiento,andtherecanbenoquestioningtheinfluenceofthelatter’s1845essayFacundoon

Polifonía

124

VargasLlosa’spoliticsandwork.2Sarmiento’sassessmentofnineteenth-centuryLatinAmerica’sculturalmaladieshelpedlockmuchoftheregioninanimaginedstrugglebetweencivilizaciónybarbarie,abinaryoppositionthathasbecomecentraltotheLatinAmericanconsciousness.LikeSarmiento,VargasLlosaportrayshisnationalcultureasthreatenedbyanatavisticandinvasivesortofbarbarismthatcouldonlybeconqueredthroughadedicatedpushtowardsmodernity.Anddespitethemyriaddifferencesinthepoliticallandscapeof19thcenturyArgentinaand21stcenturyPeru,theconceptofmodernitylooksquitesimilarforthesetwo:abreakwiththeindigenouspast,greaterinfluenceofinstitutionsandnationalgovernment,andstrongertiestoEuropeandtheUnitedStates,geographicalspacesthatarerepresentativeofcivilizationandprogress.

VargasLlosa’sworkalsoowesmuchtoSarmientoinliteraryterms.AsinFacundo,theintertextualityinVargasLlosa’sworkisdirectedatanaudienceofhisfellowintellectualsandreaderswhowouldrecognizehisreferencesandpointsofcomparison.JustasSarmientoreachedwelloutsideofArgentinatowardstheMiddleAgesandtheOrienttomakeclearhispointaboutthisnationalculture,VargasLlosadeploys19thcenturythinkersandGreekmythologyinhiswork,employingthevocabularyandimagerymostreadilyavailabletotheintellectualeliteofLatinAmerica.Attimes,suchashis1990articleinHarper’smagazine,theechoesofSarmientoareevident:“Itistragictodestroywhatisstillliving,stilladrivingculturalpossibility,evenifitisarchaic;butIamafraidweshallhavetomakeachoice”(VargasLlosa,“QuestionsofConquest”53).HegoesontoarguethatwhileindigenousPeruvianslivewithintheirclosedsocietiesinthegeographicallyisolatedAndeanregions,theywillneverachievethisgoalofintegration:

ItisonlywhentheymovetothecitiesthattheyhavetheopportunitytominglewiththeotherPeru.Thepricetheymustpayforintegrationishigh—renunciationoftheirculture,theirlanguage,theirbeliefs,theirtraditionsandcustoms,andtheadoptionofthecultureoftheirancientmasters.(52)

Hedefinesintegrationinabsoluteterms,astherejectionofonecultureandtheadoptionofanother,withlittlescopeforcompromise.

OnecentralaspectofVargasLlosa’sconceptofprogressandmodernizationinPeruisthevalueoftheindividualabovethatofthecollective.Heestablishesabinarytopittheindividual,asthesourceofrationalandintelligentthought,againstthe2DeborahCohn,FranciscoLasarteandMishaKokotovichavealldrawnconvincingparallelsbetweenVargasLlosa’spoliticalprojectforPeruandSarmiento’sdefinitionsofcivilizaciónandbarbarie.

Polifonía

125

collective,asruledbypassionsandeasilymanipulated.TheexcessiverelianceoncollectivityisthesourceofmanyofPeru’sproblems,evencontributingtothedownfalloftheIncaEmpire:

ThoseIndianswholetthemselvesbeknifedorblownupintopiecesthatsomberafternooninCajamarcaSquarelackedtheabilitytomaketheirowndecisionseitherwiththesanctionofauthorityorindeedagainstitandwereincapableoftakingindividualinitiative,ofactingwithacertaindegreeofindependenceaccordingtothechangingcircumstances.(49)

HequestionstheethicsofcollectivitybynotingthatwithintheIncaempire,“theindividualcouldnotmorallyquestionthesocialorganismofwhichhewasapart,becauseheexistedonlyasanintegralatomofthatorganismandbecauseforhimthedictatesofthestatecouldnotbeseparatedfrommorality”(51).HepointstowhatheseesasamoraldeficiencyinIncaculturebecause,incontrastwithmodernandWesternizedcultures,theIncasdidnotconceiveofindividualthoughtordissent.ForVargasLlosa,thisistheoriginofclosed,insular,hierarchicalcommunitiesandinstitutionsinPeruand,byextension,theoriginoftheviolencethathasafflictedthecountryforsolong.

ThisbeliefintheinherentvalueofindividualismisapparentinallthreeofVargasLlosa’sdetectivenovels.InHistoriadeMayta,thefailureoftheJaujainsurrectioniscausedbytherevolutionaries’concernforallegianceattheexpenseofindependentthought.In¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?,itisthePeruvianNavythatdisplaysthegroupmentalityandpassionforobediencethatissoantitheticaltoVargasLlosa’sworldview.Itformsaclosedcommunitythatshunsoutsidersandoutsideintervention,creatingobstaclestotheinvestigativeprocess.Thenavalofficersin¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?clearlyconsiderthemselvesabovethelaw,eveninthecaseofthebrutalmurderofPalominoMolero.InLitumaenlosAndes,VargasLlosaregardsclosedcommunitiesasvulnerabletomanipulationbystrongandpersuasiveleaders.AfterthemurderswerecommittedinNaccos,onevillagernotesthattheentiresituation“fueunagranengañifa,[DionisioyAdriana]nosmetieroneldedoasugusto”(310),emphasizingtheevent’snegativeeffectsontheparticipantsofthemurderousactsaswellasthevictims.

MarioVargasLlosa’sfaithintheprincipleofindividualismmayalsobehisreasonforusingthedetectivenovel.Hecapitalizesontheconventionalideologyassociatedwithdetectivefictiontoreinforcehisprioritizationofindividualismandwesternconceptsofrationalityandprogress.However,thesenovelsofferthispolitical

Polifonía

126

perspectiveonaslightlymoresubtlelevelthanhisessaysfromthesameperiod,providingmorequestionsthananswersforreaders.Asdetectivestories,theyarebuiltonthepracticeofinvestigatingandre-evaluatingfactsandsourcesofinformation,andtheyaidtheauthorinhisconstantprobingofthecurrentissuesinPeruvianpolitics,economyandculture.ToreturntoLindaHutcheon’sdescriptionofhistoriographicmetafiction,therewritingofthepastwithinthecontextoffictioncanbeawaytoopenthatpasttothepresent,andcanpromptreaderstore-evaluatewhattheybelievetheyknowaboutthatpast.Atthesametime,thesenovelsfrustratereaderexpectationsbydisruptingtheprogressionfrommysterytosolution.Fordifferingreasonsinallthreenovels,thecasesremainopen,unsolvedorunresolvedinsomeway;theguiltypartiesgounpunished,justiceisnotservedandnoonecanbesatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofthedetectivework.

InSarmiento’s1845essayaboutthestrugglebetweencivilizationandbarbarisminruralArgentina,hepresentedtheneedforcivilization(definedgenerallyasEuropeancultural,economicandpoliticalsystems)tocombatanddecimatethebarbarousnativepopulation.InHistoriadeMayta,¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?andLitumaenlosAndes,MarioVargasLlosapresentsasimilarstrugglebetweenacivilpoliceforceandtransgressorswhobreakcivillawsandmoralcodes.However,theforcesofcivilizationdonotnecessarilywinoutinthesethreenovels.AshelearnedinhisinvestigationintothemassacreatUchuraccay,whentwounyieldingvaluesystemsclash,bothsideslose.InHistoriadeMayta,thenarratorneverwriteshisstorybecausehewillneverfullyunderstandthetragedyofJaujaoritseffectonAlejandroMayta.In¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?,boththeguiltyandtheinnocentarepunished,andmanyoftheirsecretswillgowiththemtotheirgraves.InLitumaenlosAndes,likeinUchuraccay,theonlyjusticeservedispoetic,asthemurdererscometoregrettheiractionsandareindirectlypunishedwiththelossoftheircommunityandtheirlivelihoods.

YetMarioVargasLlosaisnotaloneinhisviewoftheindigenouspeopleoftheAndes;theregionhasbeenripeformisinterpretationbyauthorsandartistswhotakeasimilarviewoftheirworldasprimitiveandbackward.ThisviewishighlyevidentinClaudiaLlosa’s2006filmMadeinusa,whichtakesplaceduringHolyWeekintheAndeanhighlandsandfocusesontherelationshipbetweentheyoungfemaletitlecharacterandaLimeñovisitornamed,unsurprisingly,Salvador.JuliAKrollpointsouttheculturalfantasyportrayedinthefilm,thatillustratesan“enduringtendencytoshowindigenousreligiouspracticesasfetishistic,evenanimisticindo-Catholicism,followingthecolonial-erastereotypecharacterizingindigenouspeoples’behaviorasocio–embriaguez–idolatría”(114).Itappearsthatevenaswe

Polifonía

127

moveintothetwenty-firstcentury,oneofthegreatestthreatstothecultureoftheAndeanpeoplecomesnotfromtheprimitivenatureoftheirownsocietybutfromcriticalanddestructivemisinterpretationofitfromtheirfellowPeruvians.

AsoneofthemostsignificantandpolemicalfiguresinPeruvianliteratureandpolitics,VargasLlosahasreceivedintensecriticalattentionevenbeforewinningtheNobelPrizeforLiteraturein2010.Unfortunately,itisnovelssuchasLaciudadylosperrosandLaguerradelfindelmundothatinterestmostreviewersandcritics,whileHistoriadeMayta,¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?andLitumaenlosAndesremainrelativelyoverlookedinhisliteraryoeuvre,evendescribedbyonecriticas“minor,moreorlessthrow-awayworks”(Larsen176).YetbyviewingthesethreenovelsinprogressionandasacriticalandliteraryresponsetotheeventsatUchuraccay,asIhavedoneinthisarticle,wecaptureauniqueimageoftherelationshipbetweentheauthorandhiswork.ThecatharticprocessofwritingallowedVargasLlosatoexplorehisresponsestotheUchuraccaymassacre,hisparticipationinachallenginginvestigation,andtheintensepublicscrutinyhefacedasaconsequence;theendresultisaseriesofnovelsthatcrystalizetheneoliberalplatformthatfueledhisfailedbidforthePeruvianpresidencyin1990.Theexperienceseemstohaveleftastrongimpression,alongwithhisfailedbidforthepresidencyofPeru,andVargasLlosasubsequentlydistancedhimselfsomewhatfromtheminutiaeofPeruvianpoliticsinbothhisactionsandwriting.Inthetwenty-firstcentury,hehasembracedSpainashisnewphysicalandspiritualhomeland,enteringintoPeruvianpoliticsonlytocritiqueorendorsecandidates.Hiswritingfromthelate1990stothepresentistheworkofaliterarynomad,travelingfromtheDominicanRepublictoIrelandtoFrenchPolynesia,andengagingpoliticalissuessuchasdictatorshipandnationalisminabroaderandmoretheoreticalsense.OnemightarguethatsincethepublicationofLitumaenlosAndes,VargasLlosa’sviewofPeruviansocietyandpoliticsshifts:likehistitularcharacter,heislookinginfromtheoutside.

ReadingthesethreenovelsoutsideoftheirrelationshiptotheeventsatUchuraccay,onemightfindthemlackinginsubstance.Toreadthemincontextandasaprogressivegroup,however,allowsreadersandcriticstotakeintoaccountthecomplexrelationshipbetweenrealityandfiction.Inhis2010NobelPrizelecture,theauthorreiteratesoneofhiscommonthemes,thatawritermustlieinordertotellthetruth:“Theliesofliteraturebecometruthsthroughus,thereaderstransformed,infectedwithlongingsand,throughthefaultoffiction,permanentlyquestioningamediocrereality”(“InPraise”).HistoriadeMayta,¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?,andLitumaenlosAndesfulfillthisliterarymission,transforming

Polifonía

128

readersintowitnessesonbehalfoftheauthorandillustratingforthemthatalie,afictionalaccountisoftenthemostdirectpathtowardsfindingthetruth.

Bibliography

Boland,RoyC."Demoniosylectores:génesisyreescriturade¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?"Antípodas:JournalofHispanicStudiesoftheUniversityofAuckland1(1988):161-82.Print.

Cohn,DeborahN."Regresoalabarbarie":IntertextualParadigmsforPeru'sDescentintoChaosinLitumaenlosAndes."LatinAmericanLiteraryReview28.55(2000):27-45.Print.

Degregori,CarlosIván."ReturntothePast."TheShiningPathofPerú.Ed.DavidScottPalmer.NewYork:St.Martin'sPress,1992.33-44.Print.

Girard,René.ViolenceandtheSacred.Trans.PatrickGregory.London:Continuum,2005.Print.

Hutcheon,Linda.APoeticsofPostmodernism.NewYork:Routledge,1988.Print.

--------.ThePoliticsofPostmodernism.NewYork:Routledge,1989.Print.

Kokotovic,Misha."VargasLlosaintheAndes:TheRacialDiscourseofNeoliberalism."Confluencia14.2(2000):156-67.Print.

Kristal,Efraín.TemptationoftheWord:TheNovelsofMarioVargasLlosa.Nashville:VanderbiltUniversityPress,1998.Print.

Kroll,JuliA.“Betweenthe‘sacred’andthe‘profane’:CulturalfantasyinMadeinusabyClaudiaLlosa.”Chasqui38.2(2009):113-125.Print.

Larsen,Neil.“MarioVargasLlosa:TheRealistasNeo-liberal.”JournalofLatinAmericanCulturalStudies:Travesía9.2(2000):155-179.Print.

Lasarte,Francisco."MarioVargasLlosaenellaberinto:mitoymodernizaciónenLitumaenlosAndes."Reescrituras.Ed.Nagle,LuzRodríguez-CarranzaandMarilene.Amsterdam:Rodopi,2004.97-113.Print.

Mandel,Ernest.DelightfulMurder:ASocialHistoryoftheCrimeStory.London:PlutoPress,1984.Print.

Polifonía

129

Mayer,Enrique."PeruinDeepTrouble:MarioVargasLlosa's"InquestintheAndes"Reexamined."CulturalAnthropology6.4(1991):466-504.Print.

Miller,D.A.TheNovelandthePolice.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1988.Print.

Nietzsche,Friedrich.TheBirthofTragedy.Trans.DouglasSmith.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2000.Print.

Salazar,Jorge."HistoriadeMayta:LanuevanoveladeMarioVargasLlosa."CaretasNovember19(1984).Print.

Theidon,Kimberly.“‘Howwelearnedtokillourbrother’?Memory,Morality,andReconciliationinPeru.”Bulletindel’Institutefrançaisd’étudesandines29.3(2000):539-554.Print.

VargasLlosa,Mario.AWriter'sReality.Syracuse:SyracuseUniversityPress,1991.Print.

---.Contravientoymarea(1964-1988).Vol.III.Barcelona:SeixBarral,1990.Print.

---.HistoriadeMayta.Bibliotecabreve.1aed.Barcelona:SeixBarral,1984.Print.

---.“InPraiseofLiteratureandReading.”Nobelprize.org.NobelMediaAB2014.Web.15Sep2014.<http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2010/vargas_llosa-lecture_en.html>

---.LitumaenlosAndes.Barcelona:Planeta,1993.Print.

---."QuestionsofConquest:WhatColumbusWrought,andWhatHeDidNot."Harper'sDecember1990:45-53.Print.

---.¿QuiénmatóaPalominoMolero?Barcelona:SeixBarral,1986.Print.

---.Laverdaddelasmentiras.Madrid:Alfagura,2002.Print.

VargasLlosa,Mario,AbrahamGuzmánFigueroa,andMarioCastroArenas.InformedelacomisióninvestigadoradelossucesosdeUchuraccay.Lima:EditoraPeru,1983.Print.