Julio Cortázar

[superunknown]

There is a great tradition of literature in South America, but the only two South American writers who are well-known by non-Spanish speakers are Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Borges (and even Borges isn't very popular outside of the Spanish language). However, though there are many great Latin American writers such as Mario Vargas Llosa, Ernesto Sabato, Jorge Amado, Carlos Fuentes, and more, I think none is more deserving of the same recognition that is given to Garcia Marquez and Borges as Julio Cortázar. Cortazar mostly wrote short stories, although he wrote three novels, the most notable of which is Rayuela (Hopscotch), a literary experiment containing 155 short chapters that can be read two ways: first it can be read normally from chaptters 1-56, and then starts the hopscotching around:you start on chapter 70, then you go to 1, then 93, then 63, etc. He is my favorite short story writer. His stories are often surrealist and make use of the magical realism that is typical of much Latin American literature, but his style of writing is completely his own and very different from everyone else, and he spent most his life in Paris and was there during the intellectual movement of the 60s, so his writing is not entirely Latin American. His best short story collections are "Las armas secretas," "Final del juego," "Todos los fuegos el fuego," and "Historias de cronopios y de famas," although I don't think they've been published as such in English, though there is one compilation of his short stories in English readily availiable called "Blow-Up and Other Stories" (although I've heard from people who've read it that the translation is subpar and doesn't do justice to Cortazar's fantastic use of language).

My favorite short stories of his are "The Pursuer" (a story about a fictional character based on the legendary saxophonist Charlie Parker), "The Continuity of Parks," "Blow-Up" (originally called "Las babas del diablo" (The Drool of the Devil), it inspired Antonioni's film of the name of the English translation), and "The Night Face Up," though really all of his stuff is great. I conclude this with the words of the great Chilean poet Pablo Neruda:

"Anyone who doesn't read Cortázar is doomed. Not to read him is a serious invisible disease which in time can have terrible consequences. Something similar to a man who has never tasted peaches. He would quietly become sadder, noticeably paler and, probably, little by little, he would lose his hair. I don't want those things to happen to me, and so I greedily devour all the fabrications, myths, contradictions, and mortal games of the great Julio Cortázar."

[stlukesguild]

There is a great tradition of literature in South America, but the only two South American writers who are well-known by non-Spanish speakers are Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Borges (and even Borges isn't very popular outside of the Spanish language).

SLG- I don't neccessarily agree that South American (or Latin-American) literature in general is grossly underrated or unknown (although the lack of responses to this post may argue to the contrary). Nor would I agree that the great J.L. Borges is not very popular outside of the Spanish-speaking world. Surely Labyrinths must be one of the best-selling foreign-language books in print... and for time now. Upon visiting my local Borders book store I have come across at least 8 or 10 different volumes of work by Borges (Labyrinths, The Aleph, Dream Tigers, Other Inquisitions, Collected Fictions, Collected Non-Fictions, Collected Poetry, etc...) I will agree that Borges is probably underrated as a poet, but that is in part due to his fame as a writer of brilliant short fictions, as well as due to the fact that there are very few modern/contemporary foreign-language poets who are probably afforded the respect they are due. How many Americans are aware that Pasternak was a brilliant poet... not merely the writer of the novel, Doctor Zhivago? How many have read the poetry of Hermann Hesse? On the other hand, most any time I browse through the above-mentioned Borders, I have come across numerous volumes of poetry by Pablo Neruda as well as Octavio Paz. Of course I may just be an exception; I have several shelves of Spanish and Hispanic literature: Cervantes, Antonio Machado, Juan Jiminez, Vincente Aliexandre, Frederico Garcia Lorca, Rafael Alberti, Alejo Carpentier, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes, Homero Aridis, Luis Cernuda, Joachim Maria Machado de Assis.

But I digress. We were talking Cortazar, and Julio Cortazar is certainly worthy of a far greater renown than he currently holds. I have yet to have read Hopscotch, but it is indeed on my list of "must reads". I am familiar with Cortazar through his short stories... I have two volumes (in translation, of course). You are indeed correct in stating that his works often contain elements of the surreal or magic realism common to many Latin-American writers... and yet... his work is uniquely his own. Of course, such might apply to most of the best of these writers. By the way... what do you think of Augusto Monterroso... another favorite of mine, albeit based upon my reading of a rather limited body of work?

[Heteronym]

I'm ambivalent about Julio Cortázar; I had to put down Hopscotch, but I've fared better with his collections of short-stories. Cronopios and Famas is very whimsical and full of linguistic games. Of his short-stories, my favourite is "La Autopista del Sur," about a massive traffic jam that lasts for days, leading the people stranded in the middle of the cars to start developing communities, to forager for food and to defend their possessions from others. It's like he creates a small world within the world. The way he starts from a realistic premise and just lets his imagination run wild with it, is one of Córtazar's best qualities.

But I feel more respect than love for his work. I need to take in small doses.

He has, however, many translations in English. If he remains unknown, it's certainly not because his work is difficult to find.

[WyattGwyon]

I've read Hopscotch, but only in the front to back format. I enjoyed it but remember thinking it pretentious. This is the one I read first. I was inspired by a student who addressed me as Gregorovius. When I asked where the name came from I was pointed to Hopscotch. Perhaps I'll read it again with the alternative order. The Winners was a really strange allegorical novel I also enjoyed. Some of his short stories impressed me more than the novels. It's been years, but I read one collection with the story "Axolotl" in it—I forget the name of the collection.

[Arrowni]

Cortazar merits a little bit of discussion because he's one of the short story masters in spanish right besides Borges, but somehow the fact that they are both argentine and proficent short-story writers has devalued Cortazar's inherent creativity and originality, which tends to be much more accessible to the "common mortal" that Borges's. Actually, the very fact of being forced to discuss about Borges when talking about Cortazar is a little, sad, but it comes mainly from the fact Borges is probably the best writer in spanish ever. I wouldn't say Borges is unknown, but Cortazar definitively is under the international radar.

Cortazar still has many merits and is way more interesting that the rest of the "Boom" gang, I'd certainly put him around García Marquez in terms of great production, but his technique is more "advanced", and much more rich -more styles, more genres-. One issue with him, is that he could be considered a french writer, since he spent an important amount of time in Europe and never quite connected with his national tradition. This is kind of something he has in common with the writers of the Boom, which barring García Marquez got their sights in Europe quite early, and their fame was aimed to succeed at Europe. That's yet another advantage that Borges had: He was unapologeticly argentine.

People should read Cortazar, specially his short stories, he's one of the masters of one of the richest short story traditions in the world. Suspend your belief for a moment, forget about the laberynths and mirrors in Borges books and stare for a while at his short story productions, its a gold mine, and in my opinion, it has the potential of being more influential that Hopscotch. Cortazar's short stories were his main productions, the novels came late and while very interesting, they won't give him more fame by themselves.

[Heteronym]

I find Borges easier to read, actually. Borges wrote in an old-fashioned, sober register, and clearly wanted to delight the reader. Cortázar was far more interested in pushing the envelope, innovating, playing with the form. I think Borges just wanted to tell good fantastic stories, like his favourite writers - Chesterton, Wells, Doyle, Poe, Kipling, etc. - had done before him.

[JCamilo]

Neither are easily accessible. Cortazar is quite a writer for writer like Borges... I think Hopscotch is the most ambitious, and worst work that he made. Excessive, interesting, well writen... but so much a "Lets play joyce game, because Borges hate it".

But in language, Borges's spanish is the revolutionary spanish of the world. No comparassion to Cortazar.

[Heteronym]

Well, I'm not going to argue about degrees of accessability, but I never found Borges difficult at all. He writes in a simple, direct way; his stories are filled with literary allusions, but nothing that scares a reader. More importantly, they're mystery, crime, fantasy stories full of suspense. Borges was a great storyteller, a talent I think Cortázar lacked.

Cortázar perhaps was a writer's writer, but I always saw Borges as a reader's writer: he wrote for people who love literature, who delight in finding a reference to a book they've read before, who want to expand their reading. Borges was an ambassador of books.

[JCamilo]

How come? Borges layers of references are not just for any reader - he jumps easily from obvious Dante references on Aleph, to Walt Whitman and Neruda and in the end, it is all a H.G.Wells story. His literal sense is easy, but what tells his concepts like Pierre Menard... It is not just having read, it is knowing quite well about it, in a world-wide sense. Or tales about concepts which you must build with other stories that he wrote, and this with his constant mythical creation, able to lure even the closest friend...

The lack of popularity of Borges, despite his undeniable textual clarity, is the evidence that his references, sucession of references, are not acessible to all.

[Heteronym]

But by what do you judge the popularity of Borges?

[JCamilo]

Judge no, but Borges is and never was a very popular writer. He is more a cult, than anything else.

[Arrowni]

Borges is an excellent writer, but he's from a school of thought in which the reader has to get involved in the story to "get the joke". People who don't understand Borges's aproach, think that he's trying to show some trascendant reality, instead of illustrating the illusions of language; they think of him from a philosophy stand-point, which begin with concepts that the regular reader ends up hating and is stubbornly convinced against them before he even finds out Borges is not playing that game. He's hardly popular as a writer.

In Borges's cosmogony readership is more important than writership, however this is not what most readers think to begin with, so his approach comes as a shock. I never needed literary knowledge to enjoy Borges, because I enjoy the beauty of his texts. Does everyone read texts to see their beauty or elegance? I think nay, I think that's exactly why Borges will never be a popular writer.

[Arrowni]

Neither are easily accessible. Cortazar is quite a writer for writer like Borges... I think Hopscotch is the most ambitious, and worst work that he made.


Have you read 62? I admit I like it more than Hopscotch, but I would like to hear your opinion about it.

[JCamilo]

Nope, not yet. The ties with rayuella dont bring me close of it, not like his criticism and short stories does.

[ralfyman]

Borzoi has a very good two-volume anthology, but it's been out of print. There are also other anthologies and series of books given in various online bookstores.

[McUser]

Hopscotch Question,

Hello, i recently became very fond of reading the books and short stories of Julio Cortazar. I'm currently reading Rayuela (Hopscotch) translated into german and came across something very puzzling. In chapter 34 the text is displaced, meaning that it makes sense to read line 1, then 3, then 5 and so on, while line 2, 4, 6, 8 make sense too. Reading 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 makes no sense for just this whole chapter. Now i wonder if this is a mistake in the german edition or if it's the same in the english and/or spanish editions.

Any clues???

Thanks in advance,
BB

[WyattGwyon]

Hopscotch Question,

Hello, i recently became very fond of reading the books and short stories of Julio Cortazar. I'm currently reading Rayuela (Hopscotch) translated into german and came across something very puzzling. In chapter 34 the text is displaced, meaning that it makes sense to read line 1, then 3, then 5 and so on, while line 2, 4, 6, 8 make sense too. Reading 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 makes no sense for just this whole chapter. Now i wonder if this is a mistake in the german edition or if it's the same in the english and/or spanish editions.

Any clues???

Thanks in advance,
BB

This is intentional. My English translation is the same, so one must assume the Spanish edition is as well. Interesting issues for the typesetters, no?

[JCamilo]

Rayuela is an experiment by Cortazar. You can read it in many different combinations and pages or lines orders.

[McUser]

Yep, interesting issues ..... and i would expect at least a note about it by the publisher, or maybe in the foreword.

[cortázarreader]

Hey guys,

recently, i read Cortázars short stories of "Bestiario". What do you think of this collection of short stories? Do you think that it's symbolic for Cortazars writing?