I started to write this in a comment on your post, Bribs, but it got too long so I'm moving up here.

Are Pelletier and Espinoza in love? No, you're just dumb. At least a bromance didn't occur to me, although there were a fair number of threesomes. I would sort of doubt that storyline because as far as I know we're done with these characters now so it would seem useless to hint at that idea if the author wasn't going to develop it more later, but maybe I'm wrong. I wonder why the author would quietly try to convey that message, though. I suppose you could argue that it objectifies Liz if she's just being used as an excuse or distraction for the men to cover or deny their secret sausage fest fantasies, but I think that's a looong stretch from the sitch in Santa Teresa and I don't really know what the point would be. Thoughts?

I'm glad you mentioned Guernica because that's exactly what was going through my head when I was reading your previous paragraph. My initial reaction is to say that whether or not the intentions of the author or painter are 100% pure or noble or even legitimate (ex. the author has visited Juarez), if the end result is positive than it's a good thing. But then you have to think what was the end result of Guernica? Of this book? I think it's often suggested and believed that awareness is so important when it comes to these sorts of things, but is it? How many people, after having been made aware of the atrocities in Juarez are going to do anything about it? I think often it serves as more of a kind of conspicuous humanitarianism - Oh my gosh, isn't it terrible what's going on in Juarez? Isn't that so sad? I think beyond myself and my own well-being, that really sucks.

And...? It doesn't change anything to say it's shitty, it just allows you to declare yourself a concerned global citizen. We chose this book because, what, we care? Enough to do something beyond take pleasure in reading it? I'm certainly not criticizing either of you, nor do I consider myself in any way apart from it, but I would say that an author capitalizing on such a theme is maybe not such a terrible thing, and I'm no one to judge a person for having questionable effectiveness while I'm sitting on my ass lapping up his work until it's time to go to the beach or the bar. Further, I don't think that in this case Bolaño had to be in Juarez in order to be well-informed about the issue, and I wonder if maybe Brit you are more inclined to think that in terms of journalism? In the end it is a fictional book and writers do research and fill in the missing parts with their own story. I think that's actually where the value of a fiction story comes in, particularly one that is based on reality. What readers and the public lack in terms of the Juarez homicides is not a factual report of the city and the situation - you can find that in the newspaper - but rather a deeper look or original perspective on it. I haven't made up my mind yet how successful 2666 was in doing that, but if it isn't I don't think it will be for failing to have visited the city himself.

I say all this with the utmost respect for you two as writers. I love reading your stuff and I've been a book whore my entire literate life. I do think, though, that maybe it's a mistake to expect literature to be all-noble or for authors to be perfectly representative (and equally subjugated?) as the populations they represent. At the end of the day we love books (or art, or writing, or whatever) because they bring us enormous pleasure, comfort, distraction, etc. If they can fulfill all those functions (or one), that's pretty damn good and maybe I need to get over myself if I also expect that something I do for entertainment should also be morally gratifying. I mean, hey, I'd never demand that of premarital sex, right?

What I'm trying to say is you two are both awesome writers and I know how much you love it. That's point enough so I better not be hearing any more about this not continuing business.

SPOILER ALERT, CAIT. Don't read this first paragraph until you finish part one, but I have an urgent question for Megan....

Were E & P in love with each other? I was confused about that. Am I just dumb? If that's how you interpreted it, can you show me where you got that? I did get that M & L wanted to bone each other at the end.

Okay, this part is for both of you now. I started part 4 today, "The Part about the Crimes," which focuses almost exclusively on the actual murders - whereas up until now, I think it's been more in the background of the other story lines. I have two conflicting thoughts about this section of the book:

1) I may need to break up my reading with some old episodes of Felicity because what's being described is so horrible. And possibly I will need to follow this book with a Jane Austen novel or something equally heartwarming.

2) Strangely enough, I don't always feel disturbed when I'm reading this part. I think this is because I'm just reading a novel about the murders, which removes me from the actual reality of it. But I also think it's because I like the writing. Whether you're a big fan of this book or not, 2666 is considered by many critics to be an important work of literature, so you could argue that the author created something beautiful from a horrific reality, which is... ironic? And leads me to a few questions:

Is a novel, or any piece of art, an appropriate response to real, scary, often terrible life? Is it wrong/good/noble/naive to create beauty from horror?

Megan, remember when we saw Picasso's Guernica in Madrid? And you said that Picasso hadn't actually been there, so we were talking about whether he had somehow exploited that event. Well, I read a review of 2666 and it turns out that while Bolaño was somewhat obsessed/completely disturbed by the murders in Ciudad Juarez, he never actually traveled to the city and met the victims' families or other people involved. Did Bolaño exploit the murdered women to make his art? Or is what he did a completely normal, acceptable, even beautiful response to a world that we just can't deal with sometimes?

I love to read books, and I like to write stories too, but sometimes when I sit down to do that, after everything I see and hear on the news, I wonder why I continue. What could I or anyone else say that would matter when a place like Ciudad Juarez is real. Those thoughts aren't enough to make me stop doing what I love, but I guess it does make me consider it. What do you guys think?

On Academia

Hello my dears - 

I know I've been lax in my blogging duties, but I fully intend to change my ways. I'm still fairly early on in the book, still in part one, but I had a stray thought I can quickly share on my lunch break.

I miss school...a little. I miss being an egghead and staying up late writing papers.  It's not enough for me to jump back into higher education (though yesterday I went to a grad school fair to shop around). But reading about people being passionate about some obscure German author and it bringing them together from different parts of the world made me yearn a little. Luckily I have you ladies who are inspiring me to read and think about what I'm reading, which hasn't been the case so much lately. Good books, but not a lot of analysis going on.

Last Reads:

Around the World in 80 Days - Michael Palin. A delightful travel book by one of the Pythons. He retraces the journey in Verne's book, and though it's not deeply thought-provoking, he's very funny and smart and the anecdotes made me want to pick up and go somewhere I've never been. Excited to read his other travel books - one called Pole to Pole about going from one end of the earth to the other sounds really neat.

Game of Thrones - George R.R. Martin. I saw everyone and their mother is reading this on the T due to it being adapted for TV on HBO, and after a slow start I really got into it. Books like these are usually not my cup of tea, but the characters are really engaging and the drama grounded in power and family dynamics, vs some fantasy-type books that usually lose me with "world rules".

The Help - Kathryn Stockett. The reason I'm delayed on 2666 is an impending library deadline for this one. Very enjoyable. 

Succubus Blues - Richelle Mead. Perfect beach read. Succubus with a heart of gold. Not a lot of thought going on, but it's fun and silly.

Tonight I have a date with 2666 - will report back soon! I'm intrigued as to how German literature is going to transition into the murders of young women in Mexico. Skype-wise, I'm free after 6:00 or 7:00 EST, just let me know and I'll clear my night for book club!

Yours lagging-ly, but lovingly,

Caito

Imma turn this into a full post rather than a comment because the page looks lonely to me (ahem, Caitlin), and I want to add another photo of something precious.

In answer to your question, Bribs, it would seem to me that Bolaño's not letting us into the heads of the women - or not giving them a voice - is a continuation of their voicelessness concerning the homicides. Both in terms of media coverage and help from authority figures, the defense of these woman seems to consist of little more than hushing it up if not outright ignoring it. In the documentary I watched about it, the woman who was in charge of the police force that was supposed to address this problem said that people were exaggerating and that "1xx deaths wasn't that much anyway." Hmm. I know also that a number of arrests have been made of men who it turned out had no evidence against them, but like the women being killed they didn't really have any resources to defend themselves. It makes sense (in a cold-blooded way) for the authorities to deny the problem (hey, we didn't fuck up), or accuse defenseless people (hey, we fixed it and you can't prove otherwise). Never mind that the murders continued.

Anyway, back to the book. I don't particularly think that if that's what he's going for he chose a very great path. Might it not be better to give us a person right in the thick of it who we can really identify with? At this point (my point) aside from Rebeca, we have almost no Mexican characters. Why did the author make so many of his peeps non-Mexicans? Even our main character in Mexico so far is Amalfitano, who's Chilean. By the way Amalfitano is starting to bore me so he better get a move on. Do you have the page number of the different sections? Can you tell me them along with the full page count or your version? I can't skip ahead without pushing the one page forward button on my kindle.

I also wanted to tell you the epilogue story to that article you sent me about the blog. I asked Mono if he'd heard of the site and he got really upset. (Called you a pendejo, which is not complimentary, although he assumed the person he was referring to was another friend of ours here). He was not happy that I'd heard of the blog and assumed I must have heard it from this guy because he's in the Air Force too and apparently all the military people know about it but it's not so much of a civilian thing, at least in this part of the country and as far as he knows. Mono told me to "go to that site if you want to see what they did to my friends and what they would have eventually done to me if I hadn't left the narcotrafficking area of the military - but I hope you don't." Thought it was really interesting and kind of frightening to hear him have such a reaction to it, especially in contrast to the way the NY journalist was almost praising it. The other thing I was going to say is I visited the site (before I heard Mono's opinion), and the pictures of course were disturbing enough, but the write-ups were equally freaky. Just very cold and matter of fact, like reading a classified ad completely devoid of feeling. Pretty disgusting and it really made me stop and wonder what the hell we're doing. As in human beings, mucking it up-like. Really depressing. Quick, look at the puppy!

I'm thinking we need to figure out some sort of game plan for this, like a schedule and whatnot. What I thought was maybe we'd just put our working ideas up as we go along (particularly for a longer book like this), and then maybe also have a set time to "talk about our feelings" via chat. Also if someone starts a post that you care to add to or comment on, well, do so.

I just finished part one today and am a few pages into part two, and without giving anything away (if you're not there yet), I think it's rather interesting to look at the way Bolaño has chosen to portray his female characters in the book. I started off thinking I didn't really like Norton but then I realized we almost never see anything about her except as interpreted through the eyes of Espinoza or Pelletier. And yeah, these guys are in love with her so it should be somewhat favorable, but it is a pretty flat perspective and arguably has nothing to do with who she is on her own. I don't think we have too complete a picture of the other characters, either, but since we're with them more and hear more about their feelings regarding Liz and life in general, it seems almost as if it's their choice to withhold or only reveal certain aspects of their lives. I would also suggest that though their character development is slightly limited, that may be due to the fact that their lives in fact are fairly limited to their devotion to Archimboldi and someone else who they are deeply in love with and won't here be named in case you're not there yet. The book leaves me feeling as if there's more to Norton's story than is being expressed, and I don't much feel that's the case for the two doofuses who only care about the woman of their dreams and some dead German guy.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out where Bolaño is going with all this because I expected with a theme like the mass murders of women, the book would have some strong female characters - or at least ones that we don't hear about through the thoughts of the men who love them, which is the case not only of Norton but as well of a Mexican girl named Rebeca and Amalfitano's ex-wife and daughter (who to be fair I've only recently met and maybe I'll be eating my words a couple chapters on). This is not a run-on sentence at all.