2666 está ficando como submundo do don dellilo, livro que sempre começo e nunca termino.
as mil e uma citações de outros autores, que nem sempre se sabe se são ou não autores, falta arcabouço literário para ler o livro...será, ou paciencia para chegar ao fim.
havera um fim- onde está o ponto de interrogação neste netbook
neste momento, me deparo com um texto do new yorker, do book bench, sobre a velocidade da leitura de 2666:
NATIONAL READING “2666” MONTH: DAY TWO
Posted by Ligaya Mishan
em outro post, há uma questão sobre o que um romance significaria, mais do que um enigma como parece ser o caso dos críticos, o romance para Bolaño estaria mais ligado ao prazer. O autor brinca com a sua própria imagem:
Meanwhile, James Showalter, who threw down the gauntlet in our previous post with the question “What does this novel mean?,” elaborates:
Bolaño is all too aware of himself, which makes parts of this novel very funny. I’ll let someone else call it ironic because, among other things, I think he was having fun with the reader who takes literature seriously, and not just writing a heavy tome full of semiotic clues. He jokes with us. He laughs at us.Pages 119-123 (hardcover edition) are an example. The European critics have descended on Santa Teresa and meet with Professor Amalfitano. They wonder why Archimboldi would come to Mexico. Amalfitano launches into a long, rambling meditation on literature in Mexico and intellectuals and power. It is a speech that is full of images, the central one being a stage in front of a mine with “stage machinery” that “hides the real shape of the opening from the gaze of the audience” and “only the spectators who are closest to the stage, right up againt the orchestra pit, can see the shape of something behind the dense veil of camouflage, not the real shape, but at any rate it’s the shape of something.” Amalfitano’s speech continues with “roars coming from the opening of the mine and the intellectuals [who] keep misinterpreting them,” intellectuals whose “best words are borrowings that they hear spoken by the spectators in the front row.” He ends his thoughts with these words: “And so on until the end.” The European critics are confused and one tells Amalfitano that he doesn’t understand. Amalfitano replies: “Really I’ve just been talking nonsense.”How true. And so much of 2666 seems to be just that, nonsense that we invest with our own beliefs. And so on until the end.
And then there’s the refreshingly hardboiled attitude of Josh Lagle:
It’s a damn fine mystery (all kinds of mysteries, really), just don’t go in expecting answers.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2009/01/national-readin-1.html#ixzz1A1omLAWF