Cortázar: On Critics and Interpretation

Inti: Revista de literatura hispánica
Volume 1 | Number 43
Article 13
1996
Cortázar: On Critics and Interpretation
Isabel Alvarez Borland
Citas recomendadas
Borland, Isabel Alvarez (Primavera-Otoño 1996) "Cortázar: On Critics and Interpretation," Inti:
Revista de literatura hispánica: No. 43, Article 13.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/inti/vol1/iss43/13
This Estudio is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Providence. It has been accepted for inclusion in Inti: Revista de
literatura hispánica by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Providence. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
CORTAZAR: ON CRITICS A N D I N T E R P R E T A T I O N
Isabel Alvarez Borland
College of the Holy Cross
En algún lugar debe haber un basural
donde
están
amontonadas
las
explicaciones. Una sola cosa inquieta en
este justo panorama: lo que pueda ocurrir
el día en que alguien consiga explicar
también el basural.
Julio Cortázar, Un tal Lucas 66.
Cortázar's
writing overtly challenges and invites the reader to participate
in the act of creation, engaging h i m / h e r to consider the creative act f r o m
multiple perspectives. H e has explicitly dealt with his poetics in " A p u n t e s para
u n a p o é t i c a " (1945), and with a theory of the short story in Ultimo R o u n d
(1969). Starting with Rayuela (1963), a great portion of his fiction has been
self-consciously dedicated to exploring the aesthetics of the creative act. Given
his interest in the subject, a question is raised by the fact that while his essays
and fiction on the creative process defend and praise the craft and role of the
artist, his portrait of literary critics as characters or as subjects of his essays has
displayed an intense suspicion regarding the critic's role vis-a-vis the work of art.
T h e present study concerns specific stories and essays by Cortázar in
w h i c h the literary critic functions as the m a i n character. Central to our goal
would b e to explore h o w , in these fictions, Cortázar establishes a dialogue with
the reader through which h e addresses the subject of interpretation. In order to
identify a subtext c o m m o n to the stories as well as the essays, two questions
m u s t b e directed to these narratives: 1) W h a t is the role of the protagonist/critic
in providing the reader with a particular perspective of the critical act? 2) H o w
does the critical language employed by these protagonists/critics d i f f e r f r o m
the familiar language of fiction, and what are the implications of these
differences? By answering these questions through a careful study of the
158
INTI N °
43-44
narratives' fictional processes, w e will be concerned with identifying not only
the critic as a literary character, but also with exploring Cortázar's awareness
of the dynamics of literary interpretation 1 .
" E l perseguidor" has received considerable attention f r o m scholars as
Cortázar's testament on the subject of jazz 2 . Narrated in the first person of a
critic n a m e d Bruno, the story takes place in the world of music, o f f e r i n g u s an
account of a talented j a z z m a n ' s last years, his drug and alcohol dependency, his
self-destructive impulses and, finally, the beauty and p o w e r of his music.
T h e story is an autobiographical account t of Bruno, a critic who is writing
a biography o n j a z z m a n Johnny Carter. B r u n o ' s view of himself and his
profession dominate the story since it is through this critic's perspective that all
other events are presented to the reader. As the story opens, the reader is
presented with a sordid scene at J o h n n y ' s apartment: Johnny lies in bed, sick
f r o m his drug habit and desolate because h e h a s lost his saxophone. Bruno, the
artist's " f r i e n d , " is there to promise another saxophone and perhaps additional
m o n e y . T h e roles are clearly delineated in this first scene: Johnny will be the
exploited genius of j a z z while Bruno will be the provider as well as the parasite,
the "selfless" critic who follows Johnny around in order to exploit his talents.
T h e story is chronologically told, its language straightforward, its motives
and themes rather transparent. However, soon the reader realizes the deceptive
character of this narrative, f o r in this story the narrator and the reader reach
different conclusions about the portrait of Johnny Carter as drawn by his critic/
pursuer, Bruno. The gap caused by the narratorial unreliability of Bruno's first
person, allows the reader to detect inconsistencies in Bruno's portrait of the artist.
T h e r e are several aspects in the telling of " E l perseguidor" that allow the
critical reader to look at this account as the story of the d y n a m i c s of exchange
b e t w e e n critic and artist, b e t w e e n p u r s u e r and creator. M o r e o v e r , " E l
perseguidor" dramatizes the critical act f r o m multiple perspectives: the critic's
view and exercise of his profession; the critic's portrait of the artist; and finally,
the artist's view of the critic.
Bruno, our narrator, lacks imagination both in his critical study of Johnny
(the pretext f o r telling his story) and in his account to us as readers. Early in
the story Bruno states: " S o y u n crítico de j a z z lo bastante sensible c o m o para
c o m p r e n d e r mis limitaciones" (92). For Bruno, a critic is no better than a
mercenary: "ese h o m b r e que solo p u e d e vivir de prestado d e las novedades y
las decisiones a j e n a s " (130). In fact, Bruno feels that his profession denies him
any possible transcendence and this realization fills him with bitterness.
It is precisely this negative self-image ("me siento como un hueco a su lado"
[120]) that translates into an account of Johnny which is tainted and colored by
Bruno's intense feelings of inferiority. The critic wants to convince the reader of
Johnny's unworthiness, of his decadent lifestyle, and of the lack of correspondence
between his genius and his personal merits. Moreover, Bruno goes to great lengths
to let the reader know that the genius of this artist was totally undeserved:
ISABEL ALVAREZ BORLAND
159
un pobre diablo de inteligencia apenas mediocre, dotado como tanto músico,
tanto ajedrecista y tanto poeta del don de crear cosas estupendas sin tener la
menor conciencia (a lo sumo orgullo de boxeador que se sabe fuerte) de las
dimensiones de su obra (148).
Bruno feels envy of Johnny Carter's creative genius. He situates himself and his
profession as unworthy when compared to the artist's endeavors: "el Johnny está al
principio de su saxo mientras yo vivo obligado a conformarme con el final" (92).
Based o n the plot's events, w e could assert that "El perseguidor" is simply
C o r t á z a r ' s bitter indictment against the figure of the critic, and against criticism
as an empty, meaningless, pursuit. However, if we look further, the negative
e x a m p l e of Bruno foregrounds key issues related to the exercise of a satisfactory
critical practice: the critic's right to b e c o m e the artist's author; the critic's
responsibility
to his readers' and the problematics between the critic and his
subject of study.
W h a t in fact is B r u n o ' s critical approach to J o h n n y ' s art? It is significant
that w e are n e v e r quite sure of what is actually written in B r u n o ' s book. If on
one instance, Bruno writes: " m e he impuesto mostrar las lineas esenciales
poniendo el acento en lo que verdaderamente cuenta, el arte incomparable de
J o h n n y " (124), later o n he contradicts himself: "Se m u y bien que el libro n o
dice la verdad sobre Johnny (tampoco miente) sino q u e se limita a la m ú s i c a de
J o h n n y " (140). T h e critical reader is forced to e x a m i n e gaps rather than
presences, omissions rather than assertions. The story's subject, J o h n n y ' s
portrait, is as elusive to the reader as is B r u n o ' s analysis of its merits.
At times Bruno dialogues with the reader and clearly admits that h e has
n o intention of letting him " r e a d " his critical text: " E s t e no es el m o m e n t o de
h a c e r crítica de jazz, y los interesados pueden leer mi libro sobre Johnny y el
n u e v o estilo" (102). Moreover, when Bruno feels that he is letting o n too m u c h
information regarding his critical text, he restrains himself f r o m such activity:
"Pero de todo esto h e hablado en mi libro" (111). B r u n o ' s reluctance to let the
reader appreciate his critical acumen is significant and could be indicative of
Cortázar's o w n suspicious view of the language of literary interpretation.
T h e absence or unavailability of the critic's text leads us to explore the
presence of a surrogate reader 3 w h o c o m m e n t s on the critical text unavailable
to us. T h e final j u d g m e n t on B r u n o ' s b o o k comes f r o m the artist Johnny, and
this h a s a terrifying effect o n Bruno f o r the latter fears public embarrassment.
Johnny, as a reader of B r u n o ' s text, clearly sees the critic's desire f o r facile and
opportunistic criticism. A s expected, Johnny accuses Bruno of creating a false
portrait of h i m : " B r u n o el j a z z no es solamente música, yo no soy solamente
J o h n n y Carter" (142). Johnny b e c o m e s the first reader of B r u n o ' s critical
interpretation and underscores the critic's dishonest approach and lack of
scruples (143). In addition, the j a z z m a n ' s j u d g m e n t on B r u n o ' s work has
additional significance f o r it introduces in the story the possibility of an
alternative approach to the creative work:
160
INTI N °
43-44
Faltan cosas, Bruno — dice Johnny —. Tu estás mucho más enterado que yo,
pero me parece que faltan cosas... El compañero Bruno anota en su libreta
todo lo que uno dice, salvo las cosas importantes. Nunca creí que pudieras
equivocarte tanto. (143)
J o h n n y ' s reproaches to Bruno suggest a holistic approximation to the work of
art, one that considers the artist's h u m a n concerns as well as his craft: "Pero
Bruno.... de lo que te has olvidado es de mí.... D e mí, Bruno, de m í " (141). T h e
events in this story question the critic's right to b e c o m e the artist's author, but
m o r e importantly, these events underline the basic differences between the
language of criticism and the language of art.
T h e questions posed by "El perseguidor" could perhaps be clarified in the
context of a second story on the subject of critics and their practice: " L o s pasos
en las huellas" published in 1974 as part of the collection Octaedro4. This story
presents manipulation and selection of critical evidence as dangerous temptations
f o r the critic in the practice of his profession. Fraga, an u n k n o w n critic, decides
to write a study o n R o m e r o , a well-known poet w h o had enjoyed an unexplained
reputation in his country both before and after his death. It is F r a g a ' s intention
to u n c o v e r the obscure reasons f o r the p o e t ' s impact and popularity: "padecía
de la falta de una crítica sistemática y hasta de una iconografía satisfactoria" (25).
In " L o s pasos", F r a g a ' s research is traced chronologically: the initial
stage of gathering data, and the "inventive" stage in which F r a g a manipulates
his facts in order to p r o d u c e a version that would guarantee success: " g a n a r
simultaneamente el respeto del m u n d o académico y el entusiasmo del h o m b r e
de la calle" (29). F r a g a ' s critical approach to R o m e r o is biographical, a task
w h i c h m a k e s him a chronicler/detective of R o m e r o ' s life. A f t e r s o m e m o n t h s
of research, Fraga succeeds in his venture: his n e w interpretation radically
changes the canon o n the popular author and b e c o m e s "el tema del m o m e n t o . "
However, things do not go as Fraga had expected. Once accepted b y his
peers and by the public at large, Fraga finds himself unable to continue his
farce. O v e r c o m e by "un desasosiego inexplicable" he is unable to e n j o y his
n e w l y f o u n d success. H e recognizes and admits to the reader that his version
had not explored the subject sufficiently; that he had stopped researching when
h e found suitable evidence; and finally, that he had neglected evidence which
would h a v e considerably altered his now " c o m m e r c i a l " interpretation on
R o m e r o : " O h sí, lo sabía, vaya a saber c o m o pero lo sabía y escribí el libro
sabiéndolo y quizá también los lectores lo saben, y todo es u n a inmensa mentira
en la que estamos metidos hasta el ú l t i m o " (40).
A second visit to his original source, Raquel M a r q u e z , c o n f i r m s what
F r a g a already k n e w : he had neglected to include significant evidence that
would have changed the reception of his best seller. Plagued by remorse and
conscious of the disastrous results such relations would have f o r his reputation
as a critic, Fraga decides to reveal his hoax to the public. T h e r e is an ironic twist
at the end of the story w h e n Fraga realizes the commercial value of his ' s e c o n d '
ISABEL ALVAREZ BORLAND
161
interpretation of R o m e r o . D r i v e n b y his ambition and desire to preserve his
image, o u r critic is again ready to misuse his latest and m o r e honest interpretation:
"... la cancelación del premio, la negativa de la cancillería a c o n f i r m a r su
propuesta, p o d í a n convertirse e n noticias que lo lanzarían al m u n d o internacional
de las g r a n d e s tiradas y las t r a d u c c i o n e s " (46). T h e c r i t i c ' s repentance o n l y
serves to sink h i m d e e p e r into the lie he w a s trying to correct.
T h e r e a d e r ' s reception of the events in this story is the result of the
distorted a c c o u n t s of three individuals. First, w e witness R o m e r o ' s o w n
m a n i p u l a t i o n of his p o e m s in order to create an i m a g e f o r himself. N e x t , w e
h a v e the selection of the letters given to Fraga by R a q u e l M a r q u e z revealing her
o w n desire to withhold events w h i c h w o u l d p r o d u c e a n e w version of R o m e r o .
Finally, w e h a v e F r a g a ' s k n o w i n g acceptance of R a q u e l M a r q u e z ' practical
evidence because it suits his o w n commercial version. T h u s F r a g a ' s interpretation
of the artist changes with each n e w telling, and with each reason for telling i t
A g a i n s t a b i o g r a p h y ' s mirroring capability, its implicit p r o m i s e of
f a i t h f u l representation, Cortázar clearly senses its potential f o r distortion and
inescapable otherness, its a u t o n o m y as object. T h u s the subtle interactions of
the o b j e c t ' s b i o g r a p h y and the subject portrayed (in both J o h n n y C a r t e r ' s and
R o m e r o ' s lives) contribute and speak f o r the p r o b l e m a t i c s of identity of the
specific critic and of critics in general. In b o t h these stories, the critics s e e m
to b e h a m p e r e d b y their o w n subjectivity, and also by their o w n desire to m a k e
their o b j e c t of study b e like t h e m . In the c a s e of the critic Fraga, this
m a n i p u l a t i o n of e v i d e n c e is closely associated with an imposition of his o w n
life into the life of the subject h e is creating. This is d o n e v e r y e f f e c t i v e l y as
the o m n i s c i e n t narrator d r a w s intentional parallels b e t w e e n the critic and the
artist's life: " L a s afinidades entre R o m e r o y yo, nuestra c o m ú n p r e f e r e n c i a p o r
ciertos v a l o r e s estéticos y poéticos, eso que v u e l v e fatal la elección del t e m a p o r
parte d e biógrafo, n o m e hará incurrir m á s de u n a vez e n una a u t o b i o g r a f í a
d i s i m u l a d a ? " (28).
B o t h F r a g a and B r u n o m a n i p u l a t e e v i d e n c e in order to p r o d u c e a sellable,
c o m m e r c i a l interpretation of their artists. In "El p e r s e g u i d o r , " the artist is alive
and b e c o m e s a critical reader of B r u n o ' s text, while in " L o s p a s o s " Fraga has
total and u n c h e c k e d f r e e d o m to f o r g e w h a t e v e r i m a g e of R o m e r o is m o s t
suitable to h i m . T h e p r e s e n c e of J o h n n y Carter as a surrogate reader in " E l
p e r s e g u i d o r " , ensures o u r negative reaction to the c r i t i c ' s u n f a i r behavior. O n
the o t h e r h a n d , in " L o s p a s o s , " F r a g a ' s self-censorship reveals r e m o r s e f o r his
dishonest critical practice. In both stories the question of authorship of a critical
treatise is a serious one for it involves the risk of dishonesty and deviousness.
While "El perseguidor" and "Los pasos en las huellas" have given us afictional
depiction of failed critics, Cortázar's short essays have sometimes approached the
subject ironically once again depicting critics in a negative light. T w o fitting
examples are his essays: "Noticias de los Funes"(1969) and " T e x t u r o l o g í a s " (1979).
In "Noticias de los F u n e s " Cortázar c o m m u n i c a t e s the s a m e derogatory
attitude t o w a r d s the labor of the critic that w e had witnessed in his fictions:
162
INTI N °
43-44
... un tal Julian Garavito de la revista Europe viene y escribe pero entonces usted
y el hilo secreto que va uniendo sus cuentos.... La crítica es como Periquita y hace
lo que puede, pero eso de que ahora se dedique a la costura conmigo prueba lo que
va de cualquier realidad a cualquier interpretación. (120)
T h i s essay is of interest b e c a u s e o u r author attempts to a n s w e r a c r i t i c ' s
interpretation of h i s o w n w o r k . In G a r a v i t o ' s 5 particular case, C o r t á z a r is
surprised b e c a u s e this critic m a n a g e s to find unity in w h a t C o r t á z a r v i e w e d as
a totally h a p h a z a r d collection of short stories (120). Curiously, C o r t á z a r is n o t
totally censorious of this critics. T h e essay c o n c l u d e s b y t h a n k i n g G a r a v i t o f o r
h a v i n g " i l l u m i n a t e d " C o r t á z a r ' s creative w o r k : " s i n ironía a l g u n a le d o y las
gracias a Julian Garavito, tejedor al lado d e la l u z " (121).
" T e x t u r o l o g í a s , " o n the other h a n d , e f f e c t i v e l y d e m e a n s the l a b o r of the
critic b y dramatizing the futility of a critical language. T h e essay r e p r o d u c e s
fictitious quotes f r o m six critical interpretations of a poet n a m e d L o b i z ó n .
E a c h critic appears as a critic of the previous critic, e a c h successive essay
o u t d o i n g the n e x t in its pedantry and obscurity, forgetting its m a i n c o n c e r n
w h i c h should h a v e b e e n the artist's w o r k . T h e c r i t i c ' s quotes, w h i c h m a k e u p
the m a i n b o d y of the essay, are f o l l o w e d b y C o r t á z a r ' s o w n ironic closing
sentence: ¿ Q u é agregar a esta d e s l u m b r a n t e absolutización d e lo c o n t i n g e n t e ? " .
In ' T e x t u r o l o g í a s , " w e find a telling instance of the m i s u s e of the l a n g u a g e of
interpretation.
C o r t á z a r ' s o w n b i o g r a p h y tells us that h e h i m s e l f started as a critic and
as a teacher of literature 6 . As a student h e labored o v e r the w o r k of K e a t s and
P o e , translated their w o r k , and w r o t e critical treatises o n t h e m . In fact s o m e of
C o r t á z a r ' s writings o n these t w o authors h a v e b e e n identified by critics as
essential in the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of C o r t á z a r ' s poetics and his v i e w o n w h a t
constitutes artistic creativity. " P a r a llegar a L e z a m a L i m a , " C o r t á z a r ' s essay
o n L e z a m a ' s Paradiso, provides an excellent opportunity to e x a m i n e C o r t á z a r ' s
o w n a p p r o a c h to the creative w o r k of others.
T h e essay begins b y discussing biographical facts about L e z a m a s u c h as
his lack of familiarity with foreign languages, and his relatively u n k n o w n status
in E u r o p e . A s the essay progresses, it b e c o m e s o b v i o u s to the reader that
C o r t á z a r ' s m e t h o d of analysis consists of quoting extensively f r o m the original.
F e w o p i n i o n s are formulated by C o r t á z a r o n Paradiso and w h e n they d o appear,
they tend to b e subjective and e m u l a t o r y of L e z a m a ' s o w n style (72). C o r t á z a r
s e e m s c o n t a m i n a t e d with L e z a m a ' s style and uses n o u n s and t e r m s w h i c h
w o u l d b e recognized as l e z a m i a n o s . H e r e Cortázar reaches the s a m e u n i o n
w i t h his text that h e h a d prescribed as essential f o r creators in " A p u n t e s para
u n a p o é t i c a " . C o r t á z a r u r g e s the reader to c o m e into direct contact with
Paradiso, f o r only b y establishing a c o m m u n i o n with the artistic text it will b e
p o s s i b l e f o r any reader to grasp L e z a m a ' s poetic i m a g e r y and the p o w e r of his
prose. Fittingly, C o r t á z a r c o n c l u d e s this essay with a h u m b l e a s s e s s m e n t of his
critical practice as h e labels his o w n criticism as " u n p o b r e r e s u m e n d e u n libro
ISABEL ALVAREZ BORLAND
163
que n o los tolera." A s a critic, Cortázar feels awed by the p o w e r of L e z a m a ' s
artistry. T h e critic, displaced by the artist, is forced to summarize rather than
to interpret.
C o r t á z a r ' s non-fictional writings on the subject of the artist seem to
suggest that critics and creators should adhere to the same professional criteria.
In his classic essay o n creativity, "Apuntes para una poética," Cortázar
discusses the qualities needed to create literature: faith, intuition, and a belief
b y the artist that he will b e possessed by the art h e is creating. T h e critic, like
the artist, must be able to j o i n in and c o m m u n i c a t e intuitively with the text: " Y o
creo q u e u n gran crítico y un gran creador están absolutamente e n el m i s m o
nivel" (Apuntes, 130). Cortázar's insistence on the c o m m u n i o n b e t w e e n the
artist and his object, is of great relevance to our consideration of the a u t h o r ' s
stance o n critics since it allows us to understand Cortázar's suspicion and lack
of trust in the language of criticism.
In a key essay on C o r t á z a r ' s poetics, Sara Castro Klaren describes the
significant i n f l u e n c e of p h e n o m e n o l o g y — specifically Merleau P o n t y ' s
writings — on Julio Cortázar's stance of the subject of artistic creation. Castro
Klaren specifies t w o m a i n postulates as defining Cortázar's poetics. T h e first
is the p o e t ' s " p o r o u s " or open condition to the w o r l d ' s experiences. T h e
second, addresses the relationship between the artist and the object of his
creation, "the poet thirsting for being, m a n a g e s to fuse his anxious being to the
ontological qualities of the contemplated o b j e c t " (141).
By juxtaposing the critic's and the artist's use of language in the fictional
pieces w e h a v e studied, Cortázar explores the limits of critical language to
portray the truth. If a good critic should be at the same level as the artist, then
it follows that a critic should be able to achieve the same fusion with his subject
(the artist) as the artist achieves with his (the w o r k of art). Yet, is this a realistic
goal f o r any critic? F o r Cortázar, a basic difference b e t w e e n the language of
the artist and the language of the critic lies in their respective premises. T h e
artist's truth does n o t depend on the facts, it has a f r e e d o m which is not available
to the literary critic. Cortázar's fictional pieces on critics and his o w n essays on
the creative act seem to support this view.
In an interview with Evelyn Picon Garfield, published five years before
his death, Cortázar spoke briefly about the language of fiction versus the
language of criticism:
La crítica a veces se llama una especie de creación de segundo grado, de
segunda etapa, es decir que el cuentista escribe partiendo de una especie de
nada y el crítico crea partiendo de una cosa que ya está hecha.... A mí me
gustaría ser una especie de síntesis de las dos cosas aunque fuera un día: solo
un día de mi vida me gustaría ser a la vez un creador y un crítico. (19)
T h e passage is significant because it underlines o n c e again Cortázar's dualistic
feelings towards the critical act. It also explains what to Cortázar is the critic's
164
INTI N °
43-44
d i l e m m a "a veces hay una especie de corte con la vida, con los impulsos vitales"
(16). In t h e w o r d s of B r u n o , a c r i t i c ' s l a b o r c o n s i s t s of " s a n c i o n a r
c o m p a r a t i v a m e n t e , "that is, to sanction comparatively always h o p i n g to arrive
at a definitive reading of the w o r k of art. Bruno, Fraga, Garavito, and L o b i z o n
dramatize the problematics of interpretation by creating critical fictions w h i c h
h a v e as their futile objective rational and definitive interpretations.
NOTES
1 Catherine Belsey's Critical Practice as well as Stein Haugom Olsen's The Structure
of Literary Understanding are pertinent and influential to my own reading of Cortázar's
views on literary interpretation.
2 Critics have shown considerable interest in "El perseguidor" and I have included
in my bibliography articles on this story which have appeared in the last ten years.
Pertinent to my own reading are the following pieces which look at the aesthetics of this
story: Roberto González-Echevarria, "Los reyes: Cortázar's Mythology of Writing";
Lanin Gyurko, "Quest and Betrayal in Cortázar's El perseguidor"; Noe Jitrik, "Crítica
satélite y trabajo crítico en El perseguidor"; Amalia Lazarte-Dishman, "Otro enfoque
a "El perseguidor"; Maria Lima, "El perseguidor" una segunda lectura"; Antonio
Skármeta, "Trampas al perseguidor"; and Saul Sosnowski, "Pursuers." None of the
above articles have traced the figure of the fictional critic to Cortázar's other texts on
critics.
3
Although Iser's work on reader response is seminal for the kind of reading I'm
doing here, more specific studies on embedded readers and writers within fictional texts
have influenced my investigation. See specific studies by: S. Daniels, Prince, and,
Shor.
4
In contrast to the great number of articles written on "El perseguidor", Cortázar's
"Los pasos en las huellas" has received little attention. One exception is Lanin
Gyurko's "Artist and Critic as Self and Double" (1982). Gyurko's perspective differs
from mine considerably.
5
As it turns out, this critic was not 'invented' by Cortázar. See: Julián Garavito's
"Julio Cortázar: Gites."
6
See Jaime Alazraki' s excellent overview of Cortázar's biography in his introduction
to Final Island.
W O R K S CITED
Alazraki, Jaime and Ivar lvask eds. Final Island. Oklahoma: WLT, 1971. (See essays
by Linda Aronne Amestoy; Jaime Alzraki; Sara Castro Klaren).
Belsey, Catherine. Critical Practice. London & New York: Methuen, 1980.
Carter, E-D. "La sombra del Perseguidor:
Textos Literarios 17 (1988-89): 64-110.
El doble en Rayuelo." Explicación de
Cortázar, Julio. "El perseguidor." Las armas secretas. Madrid: Alfaguara, 1982.
ISABEL A L V A R E Z B O R L A N D
165
. "Los pasos en las huellas." Octaedro.
Madrid: Alianza, 1971.
. "Del cuento breve y sus alrededores;" "Noticias de los Funes." Ultimo Round.
México: Siglo Veintiuno, 1969.
. "Situación de la novela." Cuadernos Americanos
4 (1950): 223.
. "Apuntes para una poética." Torre 7 (1945): 121-138.
. "Para llegar a Lezama Lima." La vuelta al día en ochenta mundos. México:
Siglo Veintinuno, 1967.
. "Texturologías." Un tal Lucas.
. Ultimo Round.
Madrid: Alfaguara, 1979.
México, Siglo Veintiuno, 1969.
Daniels, S. "Readers in Texts." PMLA 96
Fiddian, Robin. "Religious Symbolism
perseguidor." Revista Canadiense de Estudios
Garavito, Julian. "Julio Cortázar: Gites."
(1981): 848-63.
and the Ideological Critique in El
Hispánicos 2 (1985): 149-163.
Europe 473 (1968) 17-8.
González-Echevarría, Roberto. "Los Reyes: Cortázar's Mythology of Writing."
Voice of the Masters. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985.
Gyurko, Lanin. "Quest and Betrayal in Cortázar's El perseguidor." Hispanófila
31 (1988): 59-78.
. "Artist and Critic as Self and Double in Cortázar's Los pasos en las huellas."
Hispania 65 (1982): 352-64.
Hernandez, Ana. "Camaleonismo y vampirismo: La poética de Julio Cortázar."
Revista Iberoamericana 45 (1979): 475-92.
Hudde, Hinrich. "El negro fausto del jazz." In Lo lúdico y lo fantástico
de Cortázar. Madrid: Fundamentos, 1986, 37-47.
en la obra
Jimenez, Antonio. "El sensualismo y la otra realidad." Mester 19 (1990): 49-54.
Jitrik, Noe. "Critica satélite y trabajo crítico en "El perseguidor de Julio Cortázar."
Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 2 (1975): 337-368.
Iser, Wolfgang. "Interaction between Text and Reader." In The Reader in the Text.
Ed. Susan Suleiman and Inge Crossman. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
106-19.
Kadir, Djelal. "A Mythical Re-enactment: Cortázar's El perseguidor."
American Literary Review 2 (1973): 63-73.
Lazarte-Dishman. Amalia. "Otro enfoque a El perseguidor."
8(1990): 187-202.
Latin
Alba de América
Lima, Maria H. "El perseguidor: una segunda lectura." Discurso Literario 6: 1
(1988): 23-34.
166
INTI N °
Olsen, Stein Haugom. The Structure of Literary Understanding.
Cambridge University Press, 1978.
43-44
Cambridge:
Prince, Gerald. "Introduction a l'étude du narrataire." Poetique 14 (1973): 178196.
Shor, Naomi. "Fiction as Interpretation / Interpretation as Fiction." In The Reader
in the Text. Ed. Susan Suleiman and Inge Crossman. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1980. 165-83.
Picón-Garfield, Evelyn. Cortázar por Cortázar. México: Universidad Veracruzana,
1981.
Skarmeta, Antonio. "Trampas al Perseguidor." Mapocho 20 (1970): 33-44.
Soren-Triff, Eduardo. "Improvisación musical y discurso literario en Julio
Cortázar." Revista Iberoamericana 57 (1991): 657-63.
Sosnowski, Saul. "Pursuers." Books Abroad 3 (1976): 600-608.
Suleiman, Susan. The Reader in the Text. Princeton University Press, 1980.