What do the wonderful minds of /lit/ make of the postmodern structure in Bolaño's "2666"? Any interesting insights on the novel? I'd love to hear some feedback; I really enjoyed the novel. Furthermore, is Bolaño's "The Savage Detectives" worth the read. I've also heard good things about Julio Cortázar's "Hopscotch" (Rayuela). Has anyone read, can critique, or recommend this novel? TL;DR South American /lit/ thread.
Every part was supposed to be a different novel. There is some argument that Bolano only wanted this to ensure a stabler life for his kids, but not much evidence outside of what his wife says.
I read it and am now on savage detectives which is also very good but feels less encompassing. It also mentions an author called J G Arcimboldi in savage detectives a couple of times but its calling him french as well so i guess hes just an earlier prototype char for the author in 2666. But im only about 300 pages in anyway.
>Its structure was creative editing done by his wife disregarding his instructions to publish the books separately.
>Every part was supposed to be a different novel
This doesn't explain anything. How would it affect the book's structure when compiled in a single 'omnibus' edition? 2666 contains 5 chapters, and Bolaño planned it as a 5-volume series... Each chapter has it's own very specific scope and colour. It would be hard to insert portions of each chapter into other ones.
At any rate, the book does feel kind of edited. I don't know how to put it, but my impression was that it was too even. Each chapter concentrates just the right amount of Bolaño's tone for horror with just enough exposition...
It's the kind of questions that drove me mad for weeks after reading 2666. Maybe he got so good at writing he could meme and cliché himself? Or were his friends and family so conscious of the Bolaño style they figured it would be the best tribute? Is it an accident?
>Is he obsessed with Nazis?
A little. I think his curiosity is rather inevitable. How could the country that brought us such a great literature also bring up such an ignorant leader like Hitler?
>Is this common for Latin American people?
Not really. Argentina, Brazil and Chile are the rare few places were you could find such interest, and it has a lot to do with the large amount of German colonies and nazi emigrants that came here.
It's a year (2666 AD) spoken in a figurative way...
>The meaning of the title, 2666, is typically elusive; even Bolaño's friends did not know the reasons for it. Larry Rohter, writing for The New York Times, notes that Bolaño apparently ascribed an apocalyptic quality to the number. Henry Hitchings noted that "the novel's cryptic title is one of its many grim jokes" and may be a reference to the biblical exodus from Egypt, supposedly 2,666 years after God created the earth. The number does not appear in the book, though it does in some of Bolaño's other books—in Amulet, a Mexico City road looks like "a cemetery in the year 2666", and The Savage Detectives contains another, approximate reference: "And Cesárea said something about days to come....and the teacher, to change the subject, asked her what times she meant and when they would be. And Cesárea named a date, sometime around the year 2600. Two thousand six hundred and something".
I often wonder about the title. Is it a reference or what? Considering the kind of silly punny humor Bolaño liked (just read Cesárea's poems) maybe "2666" means 2x666, i.e., two devils, or two beasts. Maybe there are 2 killers in 2666? Or two beasts are the powers at play? Idk.
It's also probable that the depicted cemetery of the year 2666, grim with no hope, could perfectly be the natural product of the kind of shithole Mexico is shown as in "2666" the book.
bullshit. You can tell it's his book and it was mostly finished. maybe one last part left that he didnt write. It feels complete, and his style is the culmination of his past work Ice Rink, Literatura, and Detectives formed this, not just his wife.
For the parts to have been individual novels or volumes, it seems to me as though they would have needed to have been heavily edited or reworked. As a contained, complete piece, few of the pieces really work (for example, The Part About the Crimes would have been written off as obscene, pointless and self-indulgent), and really it's both their relation to, and part of, the whole that makes each section work. One of the most impressive things about the whole work, I find, is how each part seems so irrelevant and disjointed at first, but by the end sort of fall into place.