Showing posts with label Mexico. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mexico. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Carlos Fuentes, 1928-2012

Fuentes, standing in front of the Aztec Sun Calendar at the National Museum of Anthropology, Mexico City. Image found here.

Carlos Fuentes died today in his home town of Mexico City. He was 83. Here is a brief obituary in today's Los Angeles Times. His passing means that of that generation of Latin American writers of the "Boom" years of the '60s and '70s, only Colombia's Gabriel García Márquez and Peru's Mario Vargas Llosa are still alive.

Fuentes' work was very important to me early on in my intellectual life, such as it has been, and in my understanding of Mexico's history and how that history has shaped its people. Long ago, I posted a little something about his novel The Death of Artemio Cruz, how back in college it served as my introduction to both Mexico City before my first trip there and, later, via my preparing some notes for students who had been assigned it, something like the work that professors do before teaching something. A few years later, I found myself in Mexico City in a bookstore, staring at brand-spanking new copies of his novel Cristóbal Nonato (translated as Christopher Unborn and bought it without even looking inside the covers. I'd just finished reading García Márquez's Love in the Time of Cholera in Spanish; how hard could this one be? Well: If I'd known that novel was his own Mexican amalgamation of Tristram Shandy and Finnegans Wake . . . Still, struggling through that novel, my three dictionaries often stymied by its slang and invented Spanish, remains one of my favorite reading experiences.

It's safe to say that only Octavio Paz rivaled Fuentes' status as the preeminent man of letters of 20th-century Mexico. More than a novelist, Fuentes was also an accomplished essayist, and even served his country as a diplomat. Like Paz, his subject was Mexico, almost always; he once told me after a reading (in response to my asking about Faulkner's influence on his work), and has also mentioned elsewhere, that Balzac's attempt to document all of French society via his novels was a major source of inspiration for him (Fuentes). But whereas Paz returned in his work, again and again, to Mexico's indigenous civilizations and the Encounter with Spain in his efforts to understand the Mexican psyche, Fuentes looked more to Europe--it was, after all, Europeans who came up with that brilliant, ambiguous term "New World"**--and to Mexico's vexed history (political, economic, cultural) with the United States, and found political inspiration in both the New Deal and (like most every Latin American intellectual, at least for a while, in the Cuban Revolution. Compared to writers like Bolaño, and given Mexico's and Latin America's contemporary promise and problems, Fuentes' (and Paz's) humanist-laden late modernism/post-modernism (despite the tumult of events, he keeps returning to the Americas' intellectual foundations) can seem a bit quaint at times. But don't assume quaintness is tantamount to irrelevancy. One could do worse, still, than prepare for a trip to Mexico City by reading Artemio Cruz along with your Fodors.

_________________

**(Wednesday, May 16) Fuentes says somewhere (I couldn't find it last night) that the New World "was doomed to Utopia by the Old World"--that is, he argues, the New World, because it had in a sense always already existed in the imagination of Europeans (whose writing is filled with various Never-Never Lands), has never had a chance to imagine itself . . . until, he argues, García Márquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude begins that process.

I was lucky enough to hear and briefly talk to Fuentes three times back in the '80s and '90s. The first time was in San Antonio in '83 or '84, while I was still in college; Trinity University had hosted a public reading the night before (which I attended; he read "Borges in Action," which I mentioned here a while back), and the next day was a Q&A intended for Trinity folks but which I snuck into anyway. That was the time I asked him about Faulkner's influence on his work (Artemio Cruz seems, in some ways, a latter-day Thomas Sutpen); he said that while Balzac was more important to him personally, Faulkner was important for all Latin American writers, and he signed my copy of Artemio Cruz with "To the ghost of William Faulkner." The second time was again in San Antonio when I was working on my master's. I forget the exact occasion for his being there, but he read the opening chapter of Christopher Unborn. At the book-signing afterward, I told him that I'd read Christopher Unborn in Spanish, and he looked at me with a sort of sad, pitying, "you foolish little man" look (about which he was absolutely right). The third time was at Rice, which I conveniently happened to be attending at the time. This time, he was giving a lecture on U.S.-Latin American relations. At the Q&A afterward, I told him that this was my third time to have heard him speak; without hesitation, he said, "Yes--I remember you."

Read More...

Thursday, July 30, 2009

John B. assaulted in Uruapan!!: A reminiscence

The central plaza of Uruapan, Michoacán. Every city of any size in Mexico has a place that looks very much like this. Click on image to enlarge. Image found here.

Most of you have no doubt read or heard, in general terms, about Mexico's war--what else to call it, when the army has been summoned to assist the police and over 10,000 people have died along the way?--against the drug cartels that started shortly after Felipe Calderón became the President in 2006. I admit to not following the stories obsessively: it's frankly depressing to read the stories--the cities where this violence is occurring might as well be a list of the cities I've visited and loved and, in the case of Durango, lived in, and knowing that, narcocorridos aside, the vast, vast majority of Mexicans despise the cartels . . . and, for that matter, can't be too thrilled by all the government's methods during this time, either. When the Mrs. and I were in Mexico City last fall, we saw some signs of all this: the security around the Supreme Court building (scores of soldiers, concrete barricades, one very narrow entrance into the building) makes most federal buildings in this country look unsecured by comparison.

From the Associated Press this morning:

In one of the boldest offensives against the government, 18 federal agents were killed earlier this month in a series of attacks in western Mexico blamed on La Familia drug cartel. Authorities say La Familia was retaliating for the arrest of one of its top members.

The federal government responded by sending 5,500 federal police, soldiers and navy personnel to western Michoacan state and stepping up its offensive against La Familia, which has turned to large-scale methampthetamine production.

On Wednesday, police announced the capture of six more suspected La Familia members, including a man accused of being a chief financial operator.

The arrests came a day after soldiers seized almost a half-ton of crystal methamphetamine in raids on two drug rural laboratories in Michoacan. Authorities have raided at least 40 drug labs in Michoacan this year, including 19 in the last 10 days.
These raids have been occurring around the city of Uruapan, a place more happily known for growing some of the best avocados you'll ever have the pleasure of eating. Reading this story, though, I was reminded that, yes, I was assaulted in Uruapan on my one and only visit there, back in 1991.

The details are below the fold, to spare the squeamish and/or uninterested.

After returning to the States from my two years in Durango, I stayed in touch with David, a fellow from Virginia with whom I taught, and together we made a couple of two-week trips to Mexico in the first half of the '90s. The first one, we started in Mexico City and went to Morelia, Uruapan, Pátzcuaro and Querétaro (all among the very oldest cities in the country) before returning to Mexico City. We went to Uruapan mostly out of curiosity and its reputation for avocados but otherwise had no idea what to expect. But the climate in that part of Mexico makes it the sort of place you don't mind lingering in, no matter what the city itself might be like (imagine Hawaii, but landlocked, year-round).

We got off the bus and walked the short distance to the plaza, found a cheap hotel and checked in, then began to wander about the plaza. As it turned out, there was a fair going on that weekend we were there, and so the plaza had vendors of fruits and vegetables, photographers who for a price would take pictures of you wearing a sombrero and sitting astride a stuffed donkey, a miniature "train" that made a circle around the plaza, etc. Lots and lots of color that, in the clear high-altitude light, made David, a skilled photographer, a happy camper.

Now: here's where the squeamish might want to just skip down to the next paragraph. David and I couldn't believe our good fortune at arriving in town when something was going on that would attract people to the downtown area. We did note that people were watching us very closely--we got the feeling that not many turistas found their way there--but it wasn't unfriendly staring. We'd just stopped by and taken some pictures of a middle-aged woman with two enormous washtubs filled well above the edge with cascarones (confetti-filled egg shells) dyed fuchsia, blue, green, you name it, and we were on our way to the next vendor when it happened. I felt something hit me in the back of the head fairly hard, and little pieces of something sharp went down my shirt, and at the same time I could hear laughter from several places. David and I turned around, and we saw that same woman a little ways away from us, looking at us with an enormous grin on her face. It was in that instant that I realized that this woman had hit me with, yes, a cascarón.

I looked at David and started laughing as well and said, "I think we've been welcomed."

And on it went. A little later that day, someone told me that my billfold was sticking out of my back pocket and that I should be careful, that there were lots of thieves in town. That night, David and I went to the fairgrounds; when we noted that no one was riding the bumper-cars and I told him that I'd never been in a bumper-car before, David bought us tickets and we got in. Instantly, seemingly from nowhere, dozens of people appeared, many of whom--not just kids, but dads with their kids, too--lined up to buy tickets as well, and we all had a pretty good time playing demolition derby. We stayed another day and then moved on to Pátzcuaro; but I have to day that, as beautiful a city as Morelia is, and as pleasant as Pátzcuaro and Querétaro also were, those two days in Uruapan were my favorites from the trip and among the very fondest memories I have out of all my visits to Mexico.

The title of this post, I hope those who've read this far understand, isn't intended to make light of the horrific violence occurring in Uruapan. On the contrary: it's precisely because of what happened to me and my friend there that that violence seems all the more horrific than it would otherwise.

Read More...

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

"Who painted it?"

[Edited for clarity so that no one would understand me to be saying that all of the image has been painted on the cloth]

Oops.

In fairness: no one denies that some of the things seen on the relic in the basilica have been painted. But instances such as this lead me to reflect on two things: 1) that one person's "common knowledge" is not necessarily another's; and/but 2) one's religion or lack thereof aside, the centrality of the Virgin of Guadalupe to Mexican history and culture--and, by extension, hispanic American history and culture--is such that the briefing book of any diplomat visiting Mexico should contain at least a cursory mention of her. Especially if a visit to the basilica is on said diplomat's itinerary. There's also 3) that, surely, my nation's diplomats are not the only ones who occasionally blunder in such ways

Ah, well. It's also useful (if embarrassing) to be reminded that diplomatic faux pas will occur no matter whose administration is in power.

EDIT: Speaking of weird moments in diplomacy . . . Miss Universe blogs about her visit to Guantánamo. On second thought, "surreal" may be more appropriate than "weird." (Hat-tip: Talking Points Memo)

Read More...

Friday, December 12, 2008

Felíz día del santo!

View of the Basilica of the Virgin of Guadalupe, Mexico City, October 2008. Click to enlarge. Image taken by the Mrs.

Today is the feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe, a day I have written about before. The Wikipedia article on the Virgin is a good place to start for those who would like an introduction to the story of her appearances to Juan Diego and, on this day in 1531, the miracle of her image's appearance on Juan Diego's ayate (something like a man's rebozo), now on display in the basilica.

As readers of this blog know, recently I have written some posts here and elsewhere on the Virgin and how she is depicted in art of the colonial era, and what all that might suggest about her place in the history and culture of the Americas. Below are links to those posts, should anyone be interested.

A look at a painting. Not primarily about the Virgin of Guadalupe, but this post makes some observations about the practice of syncretism as, at least in part, a response to the rapidly-growing mixed-race population in New Spain.

The Virgin of Guadalupe and "The New World" as oxymoron. A look at three allegorized paintings of the Virgin and what they suggest about her image (in all its senses) as beyond the final control of either the Church or the people who venerate her.

A brief adventure in New World iconography. In which I try to explain why a beaver, of all things, appears in a frieze depicting the Virgin's appearance to Juan Diego.

Read More...

Saturday, October 25, 2008

"The Virgin of Guadalupe, and 'The New World' as Oxymoron"

Anonymous, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, Patrona de la Nueva España. 18th century. Museo de la Basílica de Guadalupe, Mexico City. Image found here.

Some of my official work while in Mexico City is beginning to bear a little preliminary fruit. Over at Domestic Issue, I've just posted something on the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe--specifically, its centrality to Mexican and, by extension, Hispanic identity, that was inspired by this--a painting we encountered completely by accident--and a couple of other paintings you'll see at that post. It's long and wonky, and it's less-than-smooth in places, but it's headed in a direction I feel good about.

Read More...

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

16 de Septiembre

Detail of El grito ["shout"] de Dolores (1960-61) by Juan O'Gorman. Mural at the Museo Nacional de Historia, Castillo de Chapultepec, Mexico City. Miguel Hidalgo is the figure in black in the foreground. Image found here.

In case you have been casting about today for a semi-legitimate reason to drink a (good) Mexican beer, you could do worse than this: This is the 198th Mexican Independence Day, commemorating that early morning on this date in 1810 when, in his church in Dolores (now Dolores de Hidalgo), Guanajuato, Father Miguel Hidalgo took down a banner of the Virgen de la Guadalupe from his church and used it as his flag to lead his parishioners, mostly mestizos and Indians, in revolt against Spain. So, in terms of equivalency to dates in our nation's history, it would be something like celebrating the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord as our Independence Day.

In every public square in Mexico at midnight, the people gather to hear the city's mayor or, if it's a state capital, the governor stand at a balcony to re-enact the "Grito" Hidalgo used to lead his army to fight. The YouTube below is of last year's Grito in Mexico City, with President Calderón leading the Grito. The narration is in Spanish but it is, visually, mostly self-explanatory. Two brief notes, though. The color guard you see at the beginning represents the Niños héroes ("boy heroes"), the legendary young cadets who, rather than surrender to the U.S. army as it stormed Chapultepec during the Mexican War ("From the halls of Montezuma . . ."), wrapped themselves in a Mexican flag and jumped off a cliff to their death. The second comment is that the square you see is the Zócalo, which, I was once told, is the third-largest public square in the world; when full (and it probably was last night), it can hold well over 200,000 people.



Third note: Mexicans love their fireworks.

The other reason today is noteworthy is that a month from now will be the first full day in Mexico City for the Mrs. and me. I'm going there to do some picture-taking for sabbatical work, and she will have her first substantive experience in a foreign country (a couple of hours in Nuevo Laredo do not count, she figures). How fortunate for both of us that many of the things I want to get pictures of just happen to be at places that first-time visitors should visit . . . or are on their way to said places. While there, we'll also have the pleasure of meeting René, a long-time friend of this blog and the writer of Teoría del Caos, and we have a day trip to Cuernavaca planned as well.

What's that term . . . ? Oh, yes: "working vacation."

There was a time when I didn't like that term so much.

Read More...

Saturday, August 23, 2008

A look at a painting

Anon., El hallazgo de la Virgen de los Remedios ("The Finding of the Virgin of Remedies"). 18th century. Pinacoteca de la Profesa, Mexico City. Image found here.

In the course of Googling about for sabbatical-related material yesterday, I ran across this fascinating painting. What initially struck me was the kneeling figure in the foreground, who looks as though he could have been painted by El Greco, in combination with that marvelous maguey plant that looks like one of Mexico's other great 20th-century muralists--say, Siquieros or Orozco--had painted it. Also, I was struck by the woodenness of the Virgen in comparison to the strong sense that the maguey is actually waving about (something magueys can't and don't do, by the way). So, the painting held--and still holds--my attention at a purely aesthetic level. Given my research interests, its combination of au courant Spanish art sensibilities with a sensibility that, whatever else it is, is certainly not Spanish, certainly makes it a painting worth seeking out for my upcoming trip to Mexico City in October.

This being a painting on a religious subject, though, this painting is performing work at another level--one, by the way, that initially I was completely ignorant of. So, I did a bit more research into the story of the Virgen de los Remedios, and what I have so far found out makes this painting even more intriguing.

The picture you see here is of the sanctuary dedicated to the Virgen, located in Cholula, which is near Puebla (Image found here; my source for most of what follows is from this document (pdf, in Spanish)). The promontory it sits on is actually a pyramid, said to be the largest in the Americas. When Cortés passed through Cholula on his way to Tenochtitlan (the location of present-day Mexico City) in 1519, he placed a succession of crosses on the summit of the pyramid, but they kept being destroyed by lightning. After the defeat of the Aztecs in 1521, monks of the Franciscan order built a church there, which was replaced by this one that was finished in 1666. Almost all that structure was destroyed in an earthquake in 1864, the church was rebuilt shortly after.

As to the Virgin herself, she is a statue of the Virgin Mary that, according to legend, accompanied Cortés on his two expeditions to Tenochtitlan; on the infamous Noche Triste (Night of Sorrows), in which the Aztecs drove out and very nearly destroyed Cortés' army on June 30, 1520, some of the men who survived attributed this to their intercessions to the Virgin. So, then, the Virgen de los Remedios quickly became the saint of choice for soldiers preparing to enter battle. One way to think of the placement of the sanctuary at Cholula is as a symbol not only of the Church over paganism but of Spain over the Aztec: the 16th-century cultural equivalent of standing over your opponent as he lies defeated on the ground.

Why does all this matter? Well, whatever you may think of their motives for doing so, Spain was very much in earnest that as many Indians as possible be converted to Christianity; but to ask Indians to venerate the saint to whom some attributed their defeat created what we would say today was "bad optics." But the concern here was not just for the Indians' sensibilities. As a monk of the time named Flores put it, "The desire to turn the image of Our Lady of the Remedies into a symbol of the conquistador's power is something muttered about disapprovingly, for some are of the opinion that this will spoil 'the Mexican fruit,' born of the Spaniard and the native. On their behalf [A lo autóctono], they would like to remove everything Spanish from Our Lady--not so much for the Indians' sake as for the work of the Church [lo cristiano]." It's fascinating to learn that, even so early in the colonial era, there was concern that mestizos might perceive themselves as defeat incarnate--a theme that still resonates in Mexican culture--and that at least some in the Church were proactive in doing what they could to prevent that from happening.

Knowing that the image--not the statue, but the meaning--of the Virgen de los Remedios was contested and, in the end, softened so as to deemphasize her associations with the Conquest make this painting all the more interesting. As noted above, the Virgen was brought here by Cortés's men and not "found," as the title of the painting states. I've not found a story describing her being found, but the painting, it seems, depicts the core scene from that story. In any event, such a story would aid in softening her image: the strong suggestion would be that she is not foreign but is of this land. Moreover, such a story would echo that of the Virgen de Guadalupe, who appeared to a recently-converted Indian on the Cerro de Tepayac in what is now north-central Mexico City in 1531, and the painting bears some similarities to the image of Guadalupe.

One could argue--and it has been, I assure you--that such gestures by monks, as well as the Church's general openness to syncretism, were self-serving: the Spanish church and state were in their essence one and the same, that conversion to the one also required the new convert to submit to the Crown as well. But as Serge Gruzinski argues in his compelling book, The Mestizo Mind, to read the early decades of the colonial era in only that way is too simplistic. In those early decades, everyone was in survival mode, and out of that dynamic emerged, piecemeal and contingent upon local circumstance, a people and culture that had not existed before:

Latin America's mestizo phenomenon must . . . be viewed simultaneously as an effort to recompose a crumbling universe and a tendency to make local adjustments to the new frameworks imposed by the conquerors. The two trends cannot be dissociated. Neither is independent of the profoundly perturbed environment described above. (63)
Innocuous though it appears to be, this painting and the narrative it depicts are examples of what Gruzinski describes here.

More to come. In the meantime, if you've read this far you may be interested in this post over at Domestic Issue.

Read More...

Thursday, May 29, 2008

In search of La Malinche





From top: 1) La Malinche Between Cortés and the Indians, 1519; 2) José Clemente Orozco, Cortés and Malinche, 1926; 3) Antonio Ruíz, El sueño de la Malinche (The Dream of Malinche), 1939. All images are from Domestic Issue.

It's difficult to think of a more unifying image in Mexican culture than that of the Virgen de Guadalupe. It's difficult to think of a more contentious one than that of Cortés' translator and mistress and bearer of his son, La Malinche (also known as Doña Marina, Malintzin and, in Laura Esquivel's 2006 novel Malinche, Malinalli--I'll explain the reason for that in a bit). The three accompanying images here bear out the Mexicans' cultural schizophrenia regarding how to think of this person who is so central to their history: each of these images, to the exclusion of neither of the other ones, is fundamentally correct in its depiction of La Malinche. Esquivel (whose best-known novel in this country is Like Water for Chocolate), sums up well the prevailing image and the alternate one that she and other Mexican writers (mostly female, I gather) are working on articulating, in this excerpt from an interview in the magazine Críticas:

In the collective subconscious, Malinche plays the role of the mother and Cortés the father, and if we think that she was a traitor and a whore and that he was a thief and an assassin, what does that make us? I think that it is important to change our perception of the Conquest. We must stop seeing ourselves as “victims” of the Spanish. The process of the conquest was painful, yes, but it was also the basis of a wonderful cross breeding. It was the encounter of two worlds, of two belief systems. The Aztec Empire gave up to an idea, not to a group of soldiers. Their reverence of the Spanish and the way they gave up their empire are proofs of how certain they were that the Spanish were returning gods coming from eternity to reclaim their land and people. The Aztecs must have felt a lot of guilt and fear of punishment for having betrayed the spiritual heritage of the Toltecs, and these feelings influenced the outcome of the Conquest. Similarly, the idea we have about our past affects our self-esteem. How can we ever be good if our parents were so evil? This is the type of thinking that we must change. It is important to revise history, to see it with different eyes and, hopefully, discover that the blood in our veins is the blood of all bloods; that our skin contains all colors; that our eyes contain all glances; that in Mexico, for the first time, the history of Europe, Asia, Africa, and America came together. If we saw things this way, wouldn’t we feel proud of our past?
For many reasons, I'd prefer not to wade too deeply into this passage, the reasons being implicit in the passage itself: no matter how she is read, La Malinche ends up being understood as a synecdoche of the Mexican people. To begin to talk about the historical figure is, inevitably, to begin either to psychoanalyze a people and their culture or to project onto them through her. As with so much else I have found myself telling other people when talking about Mexico, we in the United States have no comparable figure.

I'll have more to say in a future post over at Domestic Issue on La Malinche as a historical and cultural figure--I have more reading and thinking to do before that post will be ready. I'm writing this post now because I'm approaching the end of Esquivel's novel, finding it aesthetically disappointing, and comparing it to the (to my eye) fascinating, very different depictions of La Malinche in the images you see here, and wondering what went wrong with her novel.

Almost every review of Malinche I've looked at today begins by saying something along the lines of, Anyone who attempts not only to novelize Malinche's life but to offer a re-imagining of her as an on the whole sympathetic figure is risking a great deal. That part is exactly right, as evidenced by Esquivel's words above. To the extent that I, as someone who deeply respects Mexican culture, have any say in this that ultimately matters, I'm more than sympathetic to Esquivel's intent. If anyone needs persuading of the potential healthiness of this, have a look sometime at "The Sons of La Malinche," the chapter of The Labyrinth of Solitude in which Octavio Paz discusses how La Malinche is something of an anti-cult among Mexicans, having led to a devaluing of the Mother in favor not of the Father but of the macho, the dominant-male. It's this depressing and unfortunately correct take on Mexican culture that Esquivel's novel is writing against. Her quarrel is not with Paz; both make clear in their respective way that the traditional cultural thinking about La Malinche is an ugly and even destructive self-victimizing.

All this material is also, you'd think, the ideal sort of raw stuff for a novelist intent on reassessing his/her culture: the unquestioned symbolic Mother of Mexico. So, then, what went wrong with Esquivel's novel? The bibliography that accompanies it is one indication that she has done her homework; one thing she recently uncovered is that some early sources give her protagonist the name "Malinalli," a Nahuatl word for a kind of grass. Something I learned from Esquivel's novel for which I'm grateful is that Malinche, the Nahuatl word for "chief" or "boss," was actually how the Aztecs addressed Cortés; Malinalli, because she served as his translator, was seen as something like Cortés's proxy: hence La Malinche. But maybe the research is indirectly to blame. According to Jay Parini's New York Times Book Review of Malinche, Esquivel's novelistic imagination is bound by the research she's conducted rather than informed by it. (Also, like me, Parini suspects a clunky translation.) But I personally find her choice of a 3rd-person omniscient narrator, along with the fact that many crucial events are narrated in retrospect, to be the problem. Too often, the sense I have of Esquivel's Malinalli is precisely that: it's her Malinalli we're reading and not the woman revealing herself through her thought and action. (I know, I know. But this novel isn't some sort of meta-fiction in which there's interaction between the author and her protagonists.) We almost never see her actually wrestling with her confusion, whether it be over why she was sold into slavery as a child or why she finds Cortés simultaneously so repellent and so attractive. When we do, it's at a remove: we're told about it and not shown. Moreover, Esquivel's narrator also lets us into Cortés's mind; personally, I'd have preferred that he remain as much a mystery to us as he does to Malinalli--especially given the novel's goal of revealing her in a new way to the reader. Nor do we see much beyond the platitude that words can heal or wound on Malinalli's vital role as Corté's translator. That may be because Esquivel, intent on depicting Malinalli as something like a bridge between Spanish and indigenous culture, wants as much as possible to avoid reminding her reader of just how instrumental her translating was to aiding Cortés's defeat of the Aztecs.

In short: for such a risky undertaking, Esquivel's Malinche is a very timid book. That could be, though, precisely because she knew it to be a risk. Anxious not to offend, her novel ends up not satisfying this reader, at least.

Read More...