The Incredible Roberto Bolaño

luka

Well-known member
what did you lot like about 2666? i just finshed it and thought it was a bit shit. seemed pointless and incoherent. my attention really flagged when it got to the crimes section. very boring having to read endless repetitive aaccounts of rape/murders. savage detectives is much better.
 

grizzleb

Well-known member
what did you lot like about 2666? i just finshed it and thought it was a bit shit. seemed pointless and incoherent. my attention really flagged when it got to the crimes section. very boring having to read endless repetitive aaccounts of rape/murders. savage detectives is much better.

Every section apart from the bit about the murders I thought was pretty readable. The bit about the murders is meant to be 'boring'. It's about relentless murder and death, and I suppose the exploitation of poor people (women) if I extend it. The bit about fate and the first section I thought were really enjoyable. There's a surfeit of literary techniques going on, listing jokes, listing the number of words in a telephone conversation, tangents inside tangents inside tangents. The boxing match that is built up for 100 pages and finished in 1/2. The daft ending of the first section which is transparent in its account of female desire. The bit about the crimes that isn't just dead bodies is actually a really good detective story, the brutal descriptions of prison violence that act as a shocking (?) contrast/marker to the tiring, depressing descriptions of dead bodies. I especially like the speech made by the black panther. There's loads of stuff going on. It's totally different to savage detectives.
 

luka

Well-known member
it was readable, it must have been, because i read it. i suppose its just not my sort of book. not reallly into literary japes, all that postmodern stuff.
 

BareBones

wheezy
yeah i know what you mean luka, i find 'literary japes' a bit tiresome if they're just being clever for the sake of it. but i find bolano's writing very genuine. that bit about the murders in 2666 was my favourite part of the book for sure. i just loved the forensic detail of it all, found it very hypnotic and incredibly sad. I think he writes very simply most of the time, it's not overly arch or postmodern imo. i'm no critic though...
 

bruno

est malade
what did you lot like about 2666? i just finshed it and thought it was a bit shit. seemed pointless and incoherent. my attention really flagged when it got to the crimes section. very boring having to read endless repetitive aaccounts of rape/murders. savage detectives is much better.
agree completely with this, i enjoyed savage detectives but left 2666 somewhere in the murder sequence, i did not see the point in finishing it. i was thinking of following with nocturno de chile, which intrigues me through the callejas/townley reference, but i suffered a decline in bolaño interest and instead bought klaus kinski's i need love, a work of genius.
 

luka

Well-known member
i felt quite self-conscious reading it one the bus cos i was worried someone was going to have a peek at what i was reading and think 'YOU SICK FUCKER!' DO YOU GET OFF ON THIS?'
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I've just started the second part of 2666. Generally liking it so far, it's weird though. In a way I think you could call it a sort of 'conceptual' magic realism, because while it's not full of impossible or unexplained events like you find in typical MR, characters often say or think or do things that make you say to yourself, "Hang on, no-one would ever say/think/do that in real life". It's not just that it's weird, it's more that it's the wrong kind of weird. I don't mean that in a derogotory way, it makes the prose unsettling and keeps your attention superbly. The dream sequences remind of Murakami, maybe.

In fact 'unsettling' is exactly it, it seems almost latent or pregnant with a kind of vague but profound horror. And I haven't even got to the bit about the terrible crimes yet. Sometimes it's less of a horror and more a yearning sadness, a disconnect.

As for 'literary japes'...hmm, I can see why someone might say that. (Edit: you're right BB, not so many 'japes' as such - 'flourishes', maybe? Doesn't bother me, I like prose like that when it's done well.) A couple of passages have reminded me almost of Pynchon but without the humour. Having said that, there's one bit in the first part where this character just talks meaningless bollocks for about a page and a half, then when he's finished the character he's talking to says "I'm afraid I didn't follow a word of that" and the first guy says "Really I've just been talking nonsense", which made me laugh.
 
Last edited:

BareBones

wheezy
otm with your descriptions there, tea, especially the bit about it being "pregnant with a kind of vague but profound horror". a very unsettling but highly addictive book. i predict that by the end you'll be in love with it. anyway i don't think it's *that* full of 'literary japes'... it's hardly calvino!
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Christ, but his descriptions of Ciudad Juarez ('Santa Teresa') are bleak. Reminds me of:

William Burroughs said:
America is not a young land; it is old and dirty and evil, before the settlers, before the Indians. The evil is there, waiting.
 

faustus

Well-known member
I'm reading my first Bolaño, "The Third Reich". It's from 1989, and not what I was expecting at all. From reading this thread and other places I was imagining lots of violence, strange style, lots of stuff about writing and being a writer/ poet. But it's pretty realistic and straightforward.

Also, it is amazing. West Germans on a long, sunburned beach holiday in Catalunya. Odd, untranslated friendships with the natives. The narrator's obsession with wargames hanging in the background, recreating WW2 battles on a huge table in his hotel room. Danger and uncomfortableness hanging over everything. I'm only half way through, but already think this is going to be a significant author for me, gonna start working through his books in chronological order maybe, just for the hell of it.
 

faustus

Well-known member
I'm reading it in Spanish. Didn't realise it hadn't been translated yet. Actually despite the fact it was written more than twenty years ago seems like it was only published in Spain last year.
 

faustus

Well-known member
here are some interesting links about the book if anyone's interested:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/483411/wargames-literature-and-roberto-bolano -> see what wargamers think about the book.

http://thefanzine.com/articles/book...hird_reich_and_the_new_york's_latin_awakening -> about the bolaño publishing in the us especially.

http://theclinicsemanal.blogspot.com/2008/07/exclusivo-lautaro-el-hijo-rockero-de.html -> an interview with his son. in spanish unfortunately. among other interesting bits and bobs, bolaño hated the monks in age of empires - i know, they were crap, right? i could translate some of this if anyone cares.
 

grizzleb

Well-known member
here are some interesting links about the book if anyone's interested:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/483411/wargames-literature-and-roberto-bolano -> see what wargamers think about the book.

http://thefanzine.com/articles/book...hird_reich_and_the_new_york's_latin_awakening -> about the bolaño publishing in the us especially.

http://theclinicsemanal.blogspot.com/2008/07/exclusivo-lautaro-el-hijo-rockero-de.html -> an interview with his son. in spanish unfortunately. among other interesting bits and bobs, bolaño hated the monks in age of empires - i know, they were crap, right? i could translate some of this if anyone cares.

I'd like a translation if it isn't too much hassle. Obviously at your discretion re: the interesting bits or what have you...
 

faustus

Well-known member
I'd like a translation if it isn't too much hassle. Obviously at your discretion re: the interesting bits or what have you...

no, no hassle, it's good practice for me.

this is the section on war games, i'll PM you a bit more I've done because I don't want to fill up the whole thread.

.....

What things did you use to do together?

Let’s see… I can remember playing games in the shower with him when I was very little. Also I can see him stretched out on the sofa playing games, or taking a siesta and me waking him up, annoying him. When I was a bit older, 12 or 13, when I started to get into computer games, he got me into that really: we played together, argued over the games.

So what did you play? Board games or computer games?

Both, board games first of all though. We played with his friends, games that were all about the Second World War, violent ones. World War II was the thing he was most interested in, all the games related to the campaigns. He liked to go against history.

How do you mean?

There was a game where you were Hitler, you had to conquer Europe and beat off the Allies. He liked this game a lot, he played it a lot.

And he used to win?

(laughs) Don’t remember. But what sticks with me is that he used to change all the settings, the game couldn’t be completed, so he altered it, moved squares around, changed the data, added new endings – trying to follow as much as possible the feel of what really happened, if there had been planes or not, bombers, etc.

And computer games too.

Yeah, those were what I played with him first of all.

Age of Empires?

Yes, but the first one we played together was Civilisation. I remember the first two days were really hard, the stuff that should have taken twenty minutes took more than a whole day, it was tough. We were stuck, we didn’t know what to do. One night I went to sleep and he stayed at the computer, got my mum to stay with him and watch. He woke me up the next day and told me he’d managed to build a boat, and I didn’t believe it, I thought it was impossible to make boats. From then on we became experts in that game, and it turned out that making boats was one of the easiest parts.

And then you moved on to Age of Empires?

Yes, that was different, it was turn-based and in real time. He got really pissed off with one of the units you could use, he refused to put it up with it, it wasn’t plausible. That a monk could capture your units just by looking at it. He hated that, eventually he stopped playing the game.

Did you play against him? Who used to win?

Hmm, you couldn’t do that in Age of Empires, either he played or I did, we never played together. Also, there were ways of cheating he took advantage of, ugly ways of playing. And with the longer games, the World War II games that I liked, we played with him on one side and me on the other, we got tired of them though, either I won and he wouldn’t accept it, or he won and I wouldn’t. We didn’t know how to lose.

You got angry with each other?

I would go to my room and he would come after me. Or else he would go and I would say “why do you leave whenever I’m winning, come back.” That’s how it was. The last game I remember was a board game, a campaign. I was one side, he was the other. I don’t know… The first board game I played with him, he had been playing it for ten years, no exaggeration, actually more than that. You had to read the manual, and I was impatient, I said to him, come on, let’s play without reading all the instructions. We spent two days playing and I was beating him, I was going to win the next day, these are games that take ages, you have to leave them and come back to them. So eventually we come back to the table and he says, we’ve been playing it wrong, I read the manual and it should be such-and-such, and so he totally changed how the game worked and I lost. I stopped, I quit because it was ridiculous, I had been beating him, and now everything was upside-down, for example I had twenty units in one city and he had five, and with his new rules he beat me… I said, this is crazy, don’t tell me it’s not, and then I left. I said to him, you play with your rules and I’ll play with mine. We left it there.

Do you still like to play these games?

Yeah, those strategy games, I do.
 

slowtrain

Well-known member
Just finished 2666 last night. Very very good.

I'm not entirely sure that I was convinced by the part about Archimboldi. It was brilliant yeah, but I don't know if it fitted so well with the other four parts. Might just be because obviously it was in Europe not Mexico. The bit about how Archimboldi was essentially a Latin American writer was good though.
I don't know if I was entirely convinced by the Lotte and Klaus connection though.

I am actually really looking forward to rereading it though. I think it will be a lot more enlightening to read it knowing who is who and the relations between the characters.


that bit about the murders in 2666 was my favourite part of the book for sure. i just loved the forensic detail of it all, found it very hypnotic and incredibly sad.

Yes, I found this too. The thing that really struck me about the part about the crimes was the way that all the american brand names were woven in. It would be the long(ish) Mexican names and place names, but then it would be 'Reebok sneakers' or 'Berny & Westein Inc.'.

Very odd.

Actually it wasn't my favourite bit, I think that the first 'half' of the book was my favourite. The Critics, Amalfitano and Fate parts were my favourite.
 
Top