First of all, sorry for being late to the party. I'm just thankful my co-host Steph was punctual in posting her thoughts. I actually finished Part 2 the first few hours of July but had internet problems so, here I am, three days late.
After being stunned (as in: confused and bewildered) after reading this, it will be futile to organize my thoughts around it. This post will be a testament to my befuddled, but awed, mind. I'll leave the coherence to the rest of you.
The things that stood out for me:
Madness. Lola's poet. Lola herself. Possibly Amalfitano? (Madness is contagious, thought Amalfitano. . .)
Books. Lola's books by her poet. Dieste's geometry book. Kilapán's O'Higgins book. The young pharmacist taking on "the perfect exercises of the great masters" rather than their "great, imperfect, torrential works."
Geometry. Dieste. Duchamp. The diagrams with the lot of mostly-unfamiliar names that make no sense to me.
Telepathy. Ah, my favourite point. Remember Lola, looking out to her beloved poet?
Clinging to the fence, she imagined that she was establishing telepathic contact with the poet.
It made me laugh! And yet, moving on deeper into the story, I realized telepathy was, in fact, being explored, or, more accurately, being touched upon, quite generously. Through Lola and her poet. Amalfitano and the voice he hears (madness or telepathy?). Dieste's geometry book and Duchamp's idea of exposing it to the elements. The Auracanians. O'Higgins.
I didn't think I could love 2666 more than I did the first part. Obviously, I was wrong. I loved this second part as much as. Mostly because, while we do not seem to be progressing along a straight line, the sense of what is to come is looming more largely. (Although I felt much lighter with this second part because there were no creepy dreams, except the one with Boris Yeltsin which was actually not at all creepy, in my opinion.) Also, I'm still in awe of the writing.
The things I need to ask myself (or you):
Why the coincidence between O'Higgins's mother's name and Amalfitano's mother's name?
To whom does the voice talking to Amalfitano belong?
Will there be more about the Araucanians? I do hope so, although I doubt it. I'm intrigued.
I connected with Amalfitano better than I did with any of the four critics. What about you?
What do you make of Lola?
The Santa Teresa murders are there, but not there. What do all these things brimming around them mean?
I'm a little scared for Rosa, actually.
I'm sorry that I'm not much help. I've been in a rush to post that this came out so carelessly and without much thought. I'll try to do better in the next part. I may have caught a whiff of the madness here. Now I had better publish this post (before I start making any sense) and get some rest (it's 5:50 AM). And then later I'll drop by and read all your posts. Please let me know if I've missed yours so I can add a link to your post.
P. S. After going around reading your posts, I want to say how wonderful this is, reading along with all of you. I was completely at a loss in articulating what I felt about this section of the book, but you helped me gain insight. It was a blast browsing through your thoughts (including the comments), picking up very different ideas one from another. You might have sensed, while I didn't feel lost while reading, I did feel lost in trying to make sense of it all. I'm loving the book, and enjoying the perks of having similar and contrasting views. Looking very much forward to Part 3.
14 comments:
I connected with Amalfitano better than the other critics too. He is the only one I can actually picture at the moment - the others just blur together.
I don't get any sense of doom from this part. Other than the fact I know it happens from reading other reviews I wouldn't have a clue! I had never thought to be scared for Rosa, but now you mention it it would make perfect sense for her to be in trouble.
You've created lots to think about - thank you!
It hadn't even occurred to me to wonder if the voice Amalfitano was hearing was madness or telepathy. That's a good point!
I'm actually not sure what to make of Lola. I think she was just restless - at least, that's how I would have interpreted her behavior normally, but nothing's really normal in 2666. I think her mad poet was another version of the mad painter in Part 1.
Also: I finished Haruki Murakami's The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle several days ago and it reminded me strongly of 2666. The same grand scale, the sense of unease, the surrealism, and even the brutal and spontaneous act of violence committed by the protagonist.
I think you picked up on a LOT of things I missed! I am definitely in the minority, it would appear, in liking this part less, but that's why I'm so glad we're doing this read-along. It's been really helpful to read what everyone else has taken away from this section.
I didn't spend much time thinking about the telepathy issue, but you're right that it does seem to keep coming up. I wonder if Amalfitano is hearing someone else's voice or if he's on the brink of madness... if it's the latter, I wonder what might be in store for him (madness & violence seem to be linked in this novel).
And even though I didn't *get* the geometery book, I liked the symbol of him hanging it up outside. It was so quirky, I found it charming!
I think one of my biggest problems with this section is that I really wanted to know more about Lola and her story, but I felt it was truncated. Was there something important in the fact she winds up with AIDS? What about her son... So many un-answered questions!
Thanks again for hosting with me! You and all the others keep me motivated to keep reading!
I definitely think Amalfitano is painted more sympathetically than the critics of the first part. Despite the obvious darkness of the atmosphere there, I really enjoyed spending time in his head - which in turn makes his apparent disintegration more disturbing to me.
Lola's story seemed a lot more traditional to me than Amalfitano's - she's kind of the archetypal footloose wanderer character, the Dean Moriarty if you will - objects of desire who can't be pinned down, and end in tragedy because they can't suppress their restlessness long enough to nurture themselves or their human relationships. It's interesting that some people seemed to like her section of the story much better than Amalfitano's, while my reaction was totally the opposite. I wasn't exactly bored by the Lola section (I don't think I could be bored by Bolaño's prose), but I recognized it as another version of something I'd read many times before, whereas I was totally surprised and delighted by the parts about the geometry book and the gonzo take on Chilean history. I'm really glad we're doing this read-along; I'm benefiting from everyone else's perspective!
Jackie.. The first part seemed more dark to me, too, and again, it's mostly about the eerie dreams and the lurking, shadowy evil. What I get out of this second part, though, is the nearness of the murders (Rosa being in Santa Teresa) and the breaking down of Amalfitano's nerves. What exactly is he afraid of?
E.L. Fay.. You're right about that, nothing is normal in 2666. But is anything really normal in the real world? Isn't truth stranger than fiction? I still wonder how Lola's part in the story will come together in the end. I'm trying to figure out how she could be a stepping stone to understanding Amalfitano's role in the book.
I've flagged your Wind-Up Bird Chronicle review, by the way, and will get back to it after I've read the book. I've only read Kafka on the Shore, and that's another one I still haven't figured out till now.
Steph.. I agree! So many unanswered questions. I can't stop asking more. I think I am waiting for Richard or Emily to answer them for me, lol. I'm also still wondering about Lola, and hoping to find the connection between her story and Amalfitano's. Other than the fact that they were husband and wife, there really is nothing that pulls them together, the way I see it now. What was the author's point in placing her story there?
I do understand why you would like Part 1 better than this. In a sense, I like them both for different reasons. Part 1 had a more telling storyline. But Part 2 is more of an examining of the inner mind.
Thanks for doing this with me, too. I don't know what I'd do without all of you, seriously. This is a book needing to be read with someone else!
Emily.. I, too, liked Amalfitano's section better than Lola's section. I just think Lola may hold answers to Amalfitano's character. I like how you compare Lola with Dean Moriarty. And, true, I've read characters like her in the past, but never an Amalfitano. He is quite unique, indeed.
I'm still trying to figure out if it is disintegration that I see in Amalfitano. Is he becoming madder by the day in Santa Teresa? Or is he on to something that will be revealed finally, later? I guess I know the answer to that one. No answers, probably. Just more loose threads.
Claire: Ah, I see what you're saying re: Lola and Amalfitano. Thought provoking! Personally, it definitely altered my view of him to hear her story, and to see how he interacted with her during her brief return. Her behavior, and the fact that he's obviously still emotionally invested in her, puts him in yet another liminal state. You couldn't say he's really married, but neither is he single, and it's not as if the relationship ended so conclusively as it would have if they had just fought a lot & ended up divorced. Even after her death he's kind of left hanging, because she's already been gone for so long that hearing she's died probably doesn't make that much tangible difference in his daily life. It all sets him up as struggling with this tendency toward being the passive party, even before he makes the big move - presumably to break decisively with his old life - to Santa Teresa. Which maybe sheds a bit more light on why finding the geometry book bothers him so much. If the move to Santa Teresa was supposed to assert his active role in determining his own fate, and then suddenly he finds one more proof that he's not in control, I can understand why he might overreact.
What a wonderful review! I love the bullet points and the questions and what about those Araucanians? There are so many references to the history of Chile in this section, bits and pieces of Bolano's life.
I think I have to go back and read the part about Lola again. I felt she created confusion and heartbreak for Amalfitano and for Rosa, though we don't know much about her and may never know.
As for Murakami, I have yet to read anything by him. I tried "Wind-up Bird Chronicles" and had a difficult time with it. I guess I'll have to try again. Maybe a read-along?
Ooh EL Fay! Another great connection between 2666 and the Wind Up Bird Chronicle. I'm going to have to read that one again after I finish this one.
And Emily: Dean Moriarty comparison FTW. Seriously, what would I do without you guys. All these references/connections/comparisons are AWESOME. I definitely see a lot of On the Road here. I wonder if Bolano read it, or intended it?
I talked about the indifference to the murders that we find in the story as a technique. When they finally do become central to the story, I have a feeling its going to hit our characters in an astronomical way.
It's a real workout for my brain to try to say anything constructive on this part. I didn't care much for Lola's story - she seemed always waiting for something (which is maybe the point), and I was impatient for the story to get on. I'm also not really sure what purpose Lola's story serves. Although, she kind of appropriates the poet from Amalfitano - she'd created an elaborate fantasy out of Amalfitano having first given her one of his books.
Claire,
I loved this review of yours, in particular the points you raise about telepathy and the voice that Amalfitano hears. Not to go too far off the telepathic deep end or anything, but Bolaño has another book called Amuleto where the key character at one point believes she is visited by a guardian angel in her dreams. Like Amalfitano, she hears voices in her head. Unlike Amalfitano, she is moved to offer a series of bizarre predictions on the fate of various 20th century authors, which she then discusses with the guardian angel/voice in her head. Example: "Virginia Woolf will be reincarnated as an Argentinean narrator in the year 2076. Louis Ferdinand Céline will enter Purgatory in the year 2094. Paul Eluard will become a mass-audience poet in the year 2101." [These quotes are on p. 134 of the Spanish edition of the novel.] On its own, this is an odd but incredibly striking passage that makes you wonder whether the character I've mentioned is mad, dead or dying, or perhaps an as yet unknown visionary. Shades of Amalfitano? I'll let you decide! However, as part of the greater body of Bolaño's work and the way in which literature itself is a sort of telepathic cosmos of its own (rather than just a series of works with only tangential connections to one another), it's interesting to see the repetition of themes and symbols that can be found in various of Bolaño's novels. All of which is a prologue to saying that I think you're quite right to ask the kinds of questions you're asking. P.S. I almost forgot to mention it, but Amuleto also has a reference to the number 2666. Will have to save that one for a rainy day!
Finally finished, I feel like I can jump into the pool of comments. I really like what you did here with the questions and bulleted points. How else can we make sense of so much without taking it apart piece by piece, theme by theme, image by image? And the telepathy is as interesting to me as it is to you. Language not accessible to all. Just like the novel. Just like the scholarly scripting so easy to mock in the critics. Can't wait to keep reading (and maybe even show up on time this month).
Post a Comment