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.