Programmer Isp 1.2.0.48 45db

the otherness of a national symbol in "CONDORS not bury EVERY DAY" OF GUSTAVO ALVAREZ Gardeazabal

Inflammatory Breast Cancer Beginning Symptoms

Literary criticism as knowledge. Notes for a reconceptualization

This text, published in the Journal 72-73 of the Arms and Letters at UANL, is a deepening of ideas in my earlier texts. I am grateful to Victor Barrera Enderle invitation to publish in what was his last issue as a director. Victor Arms and Letters made a magazine of great intellectual stature and his departure, beyond the potential achievements of his successors, is a loss to the culture in Mexico. Few editors and critics have succeeded in creating a flight review of Arms and Letters, a journal that, while being Monterrey, opted for a broad view of culture subject to intelligence rather than political interests and cliques that populate the State and regional publications in Mexico. That's almost heroic and directed by Victor numbers remain in the archives of the Mexican culture as a testament to intellectual integrity and quality critical to the height of the great intellectual areas of literature in Mexico. Victor Good luck in your future intellectual adventures and good luck to the new editors in the challenge to live up to such a distinguished predecessor.

In its participation in the Second National Young Writers, held in Monterrey in August 2010, Jezreel Salazar remembered the audience the idea of \u200b\u200bOctavio Paz about the lack of criticism in Mexico, focusing on his assumption that Mexico had no Enlightenment, and therefore lacked a "critical age." Such statements are fairly common in the history of Mexican literature: suffice it to remember Jorge Cuesta, who spoke of a "stunted intellectual milieu" [1] . The "absence" or "absence" of literary criticism in Mexico, however, is not a description of facts, but a favorite ideologema sectors of Mexican literature in search of becoming a hegemonic (the complaint, in addition to costs and Paz, also emerged as Aguilar Camin authors to establish linkages or crack in the first issue of the defunct Revuelta), or authors who simply are not subject to it. In a 1990 article, Jorge Ruffinelli diagnosed with this disease with certainty because the absence of criticism is a "favorite subject [of intellectuals] when it comes to assessing their cultural assets," but concludes assuming the absence of a "critical tradition", echoing the ideas Peace [2] . The problem, I think, comes from certain misunderstandings about literary criticism, resulting in a general definition of unfair. You can identify some elements of that definition. First, Mexico is often confused with the critical review of developments, which, although it belongs to the practice, is a minor part, temporary and low intellectual density. If we also consider that in Mexico the reviews are usually blank or space for young writers, or platforms for attack or legitimacy of certain cultural groups, or passed as written texts for or as paid work, it is not wise or possible support that literary criticism is reduced to them. The second problem is the identification of literary criticism to the trial. This idea comes mainly from certain models that have been privileged as archetypes of the critic Edmund Wilson, Saint-Beuve, Harold Bloom, George Steiner, Cyril Connolly. Or, to put it more clearly, in Mexico is used to model critical exercise the office as alpha males, whose intelligence is undoubtedly an exercise that always ends in print. They are also copied to average figures, while Bloom is the author of a monumental book on Shakespeare, or highly complex Steiner volumes on various fields of literature, in Mexico are sold as books of literary criticism and collections of review articles. Certainly, these books are enjoyable and intelligent moments, I myself am a fan of Arbitrary Mexican literature Adolfo Castanon or shots at the concert Christopher Domínguez. However, this model is too often a critical narcissistic self-reflective and that speaks volumes about the critical and little about the text.

These two definitions leave out entire regions critical year in Mexico, made invisible by the smoke built by both the myth of absence as the monumental figures of the most visible critics in Mexico. The truth is that more professional level, there are a number of literary critics working in academia, in magazines, newspapers, abroad and in many areas. And I certainly come to mind several interesting books of criticism published in the last three or four years The rule of neomemoria (Almadía, 2007) by Heriberto Yepez, within the philosophical essay, The new City of Ladies (UNAM, 2010) by Eve Gil, in the field of study, gender and blog, Reform novel and nation Alejandro Cortazar (BUAP, 2009) at the Academy in English, or The Stridentist Movement in Mexico Elissa Rashkin (Lexington Books, 2009) in the English academy. The point here is that the lack of criticism not only belies a simple search in the publishers' catalogs, but clearly shows an attempt by any criticism. Having in Mexican history a number of important critical act as writers (from Cuesta and Reyes, Peace through and Garcia Ponce, according to Sergio Pitol, Carlos Fuentes and Ines Arredondo and reaching Rosa Beltrán, Yepez and Gil), is usually done under the critical is not a creator, leaving aside a significant amount of authority lies in academia or journalism. This position is absurd, because a critic-writer often speaks in his critique of their own creative issues, giving priority to self-reflection at the expense of reflection on the texts. This has produced wonders of Mexican critics (hard to question the bill Pitol tests on Compton-Burnett Burron or family) but has made a very precarious to critical understood as knowledge and knowledge from and about literature. Return to this idea at a time.

past, it is necessary to bring to the table other impasse in the understanding of literary criticism in Mexico: the grid. Mexico being a country with a generous amount of government handouts, literary criticism is devalued in a vehicle needed to strengthen curricula and projects of the authors. Thus, a bad review or exclusion may cost a Fonca scholarship, while the "literary power" there appears to be gaseous but all fight is an endless source of false controversy. Foolish enough to remember the stir caused by Critical Dictionary of Mexican literature 1955-2005 (FCE 2008) by Christopher Domínguez Michael. Anyone who has read Michael Dominguez knows that his criticism is fed in part of the challenge and that the face to choose such a title for what is essentially an unedited compilation of his reviews, is deliberate. However, what we saw was a series of authors criticizing without rhyme or reason to the book, not by their arguments, but for the "exclusive" to the criticism of Michael Dominguez, which essentially means that, much as they hate, they want be validated by him and resented not being included. Although the book does not merit much discussion of substance (it is rather superficial texts), the book became more prominent Mexican critics grilloso through discussion that followed. Instead, it is regrettable that books published by university presses, backed by years of research and work go unnoticed.

The problem of literary criticism in Mexico is not its absence or lack of tradition, an idea that insults the many who exercise the office with great respect and reading in relation to our ancestors. It is simple and pure ignorance Mexican legal class or not reads or reads criticism and prefers to ignore. Literary criticism of professional value, which is based on research and work, is antinomian a literary medium where intellectuals are time periods measured by annual applications for scholarship and stipend Fonca SNI, and the camera echoes that resonate with superficial opinions of the moment. As it is not easy to study for a doctorate, writing a dissertation, pass a competitive examination or write a book capable of overcoming the pitfalls of a rigorous editorial evaluation system, merit more attractive write reviews on the latest in a magazine Anagram (or blog), or write a series of academic essays on the subject for decades, and from critic called it.

All these problems come, as I hope to have shown up here a notion of literary criticism which tends to privilege the critic as speaker of views and joint last place of reading. This results in the devaluation of critical reading, as it is understood ultimately as a series of impressions untimely. Also, this notion of critical crosslink with fights resulting from an institutionalized system of literature such as Mexico, with several areas of power in dispute literary criticism is overshadowed by impostors productions whose ultimate goal is the promotion of the Friends, the destruction of enemies and the award of scholarships and prizes or maintenance of the monthly payment that supplements the meager academic salaries. These errors are supported by other pernicious ideology, literary criticism as a literary genre, which presents itself as an act of creation equivalent to a poem or a novel. Certainly, a reader of academic criticism, or critical dedicated to the critical issue, understands the limitations of this point: a text trying to give an account of a long line of critical readings or philological minutiae of a work can not and should favor the style of his work as an ultimate goal of intellectual inquiry. These texts are not read for that. At this point, the Mexican literary institutions do not help much, although there are several test awards, where style is part of the evaluation criteria, to my knowledge there is no national award for literary criticism and scholarship, the evaluation of the quality of research and intellectual level and contribution of the judgments and assumptions of the text, leaving any hint of prose.

recovery of literary criticism in Mexico being of more relevance to the literary and to society is only possible from a reconceptualization in order to overcome these impasses and understand the trade not only from a perspective that does justice to the best of existing production, but gives a deep reconnection with literary criticism public sphere. A couple of years ago I made a first attempt to discuss the category of literature, distinguishing between traditional notions of literary criticism (like literary criticism and as a critique written in the style of literature) for a broader notion that means "literary" as "from literature, arguing for a critical use instruments literature as a way of reading the world [3] . Thinking in this direction I believe we should dissociate the literary criticism of literature and its meaning as understood as a knowledge space which is fully in the knowledge space and rarely in the fields of art. Certainly not rule out that some forms of criticism have aesthetic value in themselves, but these are minority. By understanding the literary criticism as knowledge, is understood to-many and collective production, which exists in different ways to approach and work and conversation with several individuals and not a single critic who erected metonymically as the criticism itself. I agree with Heriberto Yepez, who, in his presentation of the National Meeting, defended the notion of a critical "with adjectives", which recognizes the difference between a "critical market areas" (which means the review of books and trade promotion) and other areas such as "academic criticism" (based on research and without the categorical imperative of aesthetic style.)

I discuss the nomination of criticism as knowledge is not new, but comes from a long history of practice of literary criticism who have used literature as a privileged angle of approach to the spirit of the times. They are legendary, such as the magnificent works of Walter Benjamin on Baudelaire, recently collected in the volume The Writer of Modern Life (Belknap Press, 2006), where the poetry on the flâneur was the basic foundation of the theory sophisticated about the experience of inhabiting the sensorium of capitalism. Comes to mind also the work of Edward Said, whose notion of worldliness (worldliness in imperfect English translation) suggests the inextricable relationship between the letter and a broad conception of the world [4] . Mexico is practically the only Latin American country whose intellectual tradition does not raise this ratio steadily. In Brazil there are figures such as Roberto Schwarz, who read the inconsistencies of the liberal legacy from the writings of Machado de Assis [5] , while in Argentina Beatriz Sarlo was one of the most brilliant readings (and Most read) of the tension between national tradition and cosmopolitanism in a landmark book about Borges [6] . The Latin American version of this criticism comes from an essential transformation of literary criticism in the region. In its modern version, the Latin American literary criticism has its foundational points in Mexico, both in the works of Alfonso Reyes, who proposed the neo-Kantian notion of "trial" of overcoming criticism as "print" and "exegesis" that dominated in time, as in the Dominican Pedro Henríquez Ureña in the country who coined the idea of \u200b\u200bseeking "our speech." This project gained unusual strength following the Cuban Revolution, from which Marxist critics such as Roberto Fernandez Retamar began to rethink the idea of \u200b\u200bliterary criticism as an activity that exceeds the pure exegesis, tying it to the task of creating a continental consciousness that goes beyond the colonial status of the region. This reaches its apotheosis in the length and breadth of the continent, as Carlos Rincón called "The actual change in the notion of literature" [7] , in the late seventies, with the work of major figures, such as Angel Rama and Antonio Cornejo Polar, which dramatically redefined the relationship between literature and society in the continent.

This paradigm was passed completely ignored in Mexico. After Reyes, literary criticism in Mexico tended rather to supplement and literary magazine, giving prevalence impressionist critics as Jose Luis Martinez and Emmanuel Carballo, setting aside historical studies and research on regions of specialists. Also, the emergence of the figure of Octavio Paz was crucial at this time, since the process of literary criticism, social guidance in the rest of the continent coincided with the emergence of Return group, which advocated a notion of literature posvanguardista itself and for itself. Suffice it to recall that while in the broader context of Latin America were written jobs like Rubén Darío and Modernism Angel Rama or literature and society in Latin America. Modernism Françoise Perus [8] , in which the relationship is debated issue of Latin American poetry with pop cultural contradictions of capitalism, the book's most critical impact in Mexico of the decade, Children limo [9] , understood to modernity from a narrow and idiosyncratic notion of modernity, poetry as a conflict and dialectic of subjectivities. Not without some irony might say that shows the difference between traditions where literary criticism is practiced primarily by critics and those in which poets and novelists supplant them as producers of the trade. Of course, there were major attempts to establish a broader critique: recall the very important and still valid Escalante Evodio book on Revueltas, which resulted in an outpouring of Antonio Alatorre in Back where Escalante scholar accused of "foreign-influenced" and contaminating the study of literature with "jargon" [10] .

Thus eventually prevail in Mexico conservative criticism that understands literature as something that must be preserved in the world, rather than think in and is exercised from authoritative, authoritarian figures can, inter things, to decide what constitutes a criticism of what does not. Certainly if one reads the traditions of criticism advocated by Alatorre of this controversy, it is surprising to a contemporary reader, in the eighties, while in others it was reinvented by the critical interventions that fought for social relevance of the critique, Mexico defended themselves as role models philologists conservative strain as Amado Alonso and Raimundo Lida. Although nobody in their right mind would quote these figures as role models for our days, the conservative impulse that seeks to isolate the literature of the world remains a platform for the definition of criticism in Mexico. If you follow the blog of Christopher Domínguez [11] , one can find at the entrance of June 2, a discarding of legal city [12] as "a good paper, the term implying not only that the book does not pass either an article, but something only academic interest to gringos who are not fortunate enough to exercise the "trial." However, this perspective, short-sighted in my opinion, speaks volumes about the critical world that exercised someone like Michael Dominguez, who bases his rejection of the Book of Discipline on ideological issues that he considers outdated, ignoring the conceptual value of the text. However, as we were taught more experienced readers, as the Roman de la Campa, the Book of Discipline is the critical foundation of the relationship between literary originality (even that avant-garde) and power, a book that dramatically challenges the simplistic idea that resists the power of aesthetics [13] . Michael Dominguez, I, Rama reads as it does, as an heir to the Marxist aesthetic of great intellectual value in the eighties but inevitably passed precisely because the "lettered city" dissected by Rama is more alive than anywhere else in Mexico. Living in the value system inherited by Paz and his contemporaries, step out of the liberal legal culture conducted the Uruguayan critic is unreadable in Mexico.

The idea of \u200b\u200bcriticism as knowledge is an attempt to reverse the narrow notion of criticism born of this blind spot, set in Mexico since the seventies, trying to reestablish a criticism that takes its place in the polis as a central partner in the democratic dialogue. If you do not go further than what Reyes called "the urgency of the hour", one could see that literature has much to say about one of the most poignant issues of national literary life, the drug trade. One of the main shortcomings of our public understanding of this system lies in its government and media representation as a problem strictly criminological (groups living outside the law and the need to reach this utopia called "rule of law") and economic (a multimillion-dollar traffic amounts purchasing power exceeds the State and society). However, what makes the drug an unprecedented depths problem is its broad social and cultural penetration from the eighties satanic cults that inspired the semiotics of battle of the signs to the articulation of the social myth of the long line drug trafficker of cultural heroes and villains in the narcocorrido. In this context, the literature has produced some of the most lucid interpretations of this phenomenon without lucidity, from the deconstruction of culture in Jobs narcocorridista kingdom [14] Yuri Herrera to exploration subject's middle class seduced by this parallel world Perra Brava [15] Orfa Alarcón. What there is still critical to translate these insights in a speech accessible to civil society to integrate these languages \u200b\u200bto our social understanding of the problem.

Literary criticism as knowledge also means reducing its size not strictly professionalized, journalism and academia. Indeed, much of literary criticism takes place in areas where some readers paid the exercise as part of a steady job. However, as all know, criticism exists in the areas of daily life as well: a teacher is critical when designing a plan of readings, is when a student resists his teacher and proposed alternative wording, when a reader selects a book about another and when a bookseller recommends a novel to an eavesdropper. Knowledge, as Foucault teaches us not only exists as a heritage of those who set out, but has a microphysics that overlaps with the social fabric, even in basic ways. So the critics, who must rethink itself in this broad sense, as in the precarious microphysics which can exist in a country with alarming levels of illiteracy, we still have a society where media plurality of the letter, from periodic to Twitter, offers a map and unexplored potential for intervention by the critics. If criticism truly emerge as knowledge, the public dimensions of its exercise can overcome the self-referential practice.

The first step to achieve something is the disappearance of the literary supplement. This genre appeared in Mexico in the mid-twentieth century, iconic publications such as Culture in Mexico , product literature in the process of institutionalization, which itself was a reflection of essence to sustain its existence as a practice autonomously. However, today this is the idea that must be resisted, as the autonomy of literature is, at best, a luxury that only a fraction reduced to its possible manifestations and waived relevance other social media such as movies or the Internet, begin to phagocytose. Do not think you have to defend literature as a "superior" knowledge, but I think essential to defend their specific cognitive and epistemological: the gradual withdrawal of public space is an alarming possibility in a society whose self-reflection is always problematic. The current literary supplement represents the worst vices of Mexican culture. It provincialism still giving rise to the native regardless of their cultural value (such as those in which only need a section dedicated to the poets of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in the generation of the nineties), to its apparent antithesis, disguised as arrogant dilettantism cosmopolitanism (How many times must we could smoke the ruminations of a genius on that dark and Austro-Hungarian author mediocre that he alone (because they are usually men) knows and nobody cares?) to cheap polemic (like calling a survey criticism in Mexico without inviting almost no critic, to blister up for themselves) and text does not say anything, but it exists because someone needs to charge a fee receipt. The supplement is a tacit admission of the irrelevance of literature, that to have a place in journalism needs a ghettoized and self-referral section in the newspaper over the weekend that culturati (understood, as defined by the Urban dictionary, as those who think they know everything but actually know nothing) and read others throw away. So I think that a recovery of literary criticism in Mexico of its status as knowledge must necessarily involve the disappearance of the supplement. So, literary criticism can rethink its role in journalism.

I propose reinstating, as did the modernists, the literary critic the other sections of the newspaper, from which knowledge can be used as a way of thinking literary society. This I know the great chroniclers: see, for example in the work of JM Servin, freshly picked in City Confidential (Almadía, 2010), where you can see the role of the sensationalist and literary vision in understanding margins of society. I keep asking, in these times of free public literary criticism and journalism increasingly simplistic, what would happen if the policy section of critical essays appear literature on the issue of human rights from the literature or in the sports critic had suddenly recovered the long tradition of writing about football. Perhaps there has been a space for dialogue literature back to the society that surrounds it, where you can release the yoke that produce too strong literary institutions.

Here comes up another key issue, the readers. If literary criticism is a collective knowledge, and if it also carries readers from professionalized, is an essential task for those who are dedicated to craft a creative rethinking of reading education. In this department, Mexico is a fairly late. Part of the problem lies in the writing of literature. In countries like the United States and France, there is a literary spectrum that builds bridges between readers and authors such as JK Rowling Stieg Larsson and the "difficult literature, from books that appeal to imaginary identifiable from aesthetic processed but not pretentious . As I write these lines meet the novelist Jonathan Franzen nothing less than the cover of Time magazine of wide circulation in the United States, announcing an article on the problem of the great American novelist. While in Mexico there is nothing else like it in seriousness and penetration to the magazine, the equivalent would be John Villoro or Jorge Volpi on the cover of Weekly Goals or process because his latest novel has much more to say about the contemporary medium that gossip of the week. This is possible only in a country where literary culture exists in a comprehensive manner and in which authors like Jonathan Franzen produced a literature which, while being excellent, allowing the reader of John Grisham or Stephenie Meyer's venture into its pages . This reader, who lives reading as a continuum that evades the aesthetic hierarchies that are dedicated to literature, is the most neglected in Mexico. Out of writers such as the crack, which have always bet on the idea of \u200b\u200bhaving readers in Mexico is dominated by a writing that is either too self-referential to be readable (think of this pernicious literature called "feminine writing" and founded on a tedious yoísmo subjectivity disguised as poetry) or that is written for the award and scholarship along the lines of fashion. That script does not create readers because they are not needed: it exists in an echo chamber where the aesthetic pretension and contempt to the "reader of the street" support an intellectual mediocrity or as the law defines a personal obsession or holding aesthetics.

Literary criticism as knowing understands That as writer entitled writing as, reader entitled also literature being talked with posing an relationship. In countries with a lag radical between both rights, criticism whose function building bridges between both. Think this could achieve also proposals and practices. Eg one imagines a fellowship system Fonca where writers "youths" (and critics if someday Becan also) rather of go lose time with tutor were once month schools so talk students process be writer, or peripheral cultural and community centers to help people connect with the literature. Certainly in a country where an average of literature book costs 5 to 15 days of minimum wage, one can not expect everyone to be readers, but can be planted in a broader base of people access to knowledge of literature.

However, a major problem is that we do not even recognize the existing resources of literary criticism. One of the reasons for being critical of the myth of the absent third world lies in our desire to reject as hegemonic and exclusionary how successful we would like that to but we can not belong. The truth is that in Mexico we have some publications that regardless of our agreement or disagreement with their editorial lines are first rate. When I was in some literary events in Quito, I would invariably say the desire of many people of that country to have style magazines Letras Libres or Links , which, despite their controversial and political lines all possible critical editorial practices are publications read, well-edited, well produced and sustainable, something that nowadays is almost a feat. Also, a large number of public universities publish journals large bill. I can proudly say that either Harvard or Stanford, or Princeton produced literary magazines bill Review, the journal of the BUAP or Luvina , the U. G. If one takes the trouble to buy and read these magazines, together with several others ( Arms and Letters, Words and man, magazine University, Storm, Replicante ) along with emerging online magazines such as Super Pig Brother , the only possible conclusion is that there is not only literary criticism in Mexico, but, at times, is exceptional. Seen from this perspective, as it did recently in a text Evodio Escalante in which he defended criticism citing the large number of critical assets today [16] , criticism is not lacking a description of a state things. Rather, it points to the tremendous ignorance that the Mexican literary world has the best of himself and the way our peculiar cultural institutionalization tends to confuse the grid with the theory. If criticism is understood in its entirety, the very low intellectual level of controversy in Mexico would meet its political functions and the crowd of writers who cazabecas populate our literary landscape would be devoted to thinking.

One of the areas worst understood in literary criticism is the academy. The attack on the academy appears constantly in Mexican academic circles. Figures such as Enrique Krauze Gabriel Zaid or tend to defend their ideas of public intellectuals against the alleged stagnation of academic thinking. This ideology has its source in Mexico in the establishment of literary journals. As documented by John King in his magnificent book on Plural [17] , the rejection of the academy is establishing construction publishing projects of Octavio Paz, in part because many of the literary group members were not academic. Even the figures identified with the UNAM, as Alexander Rossi, intellectuals exercised a form of resisting the idea of \u200b\u200bacademic specialization. As a result, the academy is viewed with suspicion by the Mexican literary world. Indeed, the Academy carries some blame in this too. Mexico has a peculiarly inbred contrasting greatly with the circulation of ideas that characterizes the American university system. In Mexico, it is possible to study bachelors, masters and doctorate at the UNAM, being a professor at the UNAM, published in UNAM, debate at UNAM and UNAM retire and still be a viable and recognized academic career. This is due in part to the professorial recruitment system in Mexico, with few exceptions, is not based solely on merit evaluation, but also in the interests of groups and cronyism. However, an academic who does not go beyond the areas of your institution no instances of confrontation of ideas, something that is fundamental for the construction of knowledge. Also, the blind spot of the academy in Mexico is the growing number of critics and teachers who live in foreign academia. The United States has an impressive network of specialists in literature and Mexican culture, including teachers in most states of the union, and three national meetings a year and a couple of publications. Also, the European Academy has major Mexican literary critics in almost all countries of the continent, with particularly strong tradition in Spain, France and Germany. Although the work of foreign scholars appear suddenly to Mexico (thanks largely to publishing efforts such as those conducted intermittently by the Fondo de Cultura Economica, or rare instances of independent distribution), the fact is that very little of this production reaches country. This is unfortunate, since the wide circulation of ideas is one of the critical points where we could develop a more decisive, but this does not happen.

This last point is connected to the poor distribution architecture that supports the editorial in Mexico. Much of the best criticism written in Mexico editorials published in state funds and provincial universities. A reader interested in the debate over Jorge Cuesta, for example, has to make a real archaeological find in editions of the Veracruz Institute of Culture and the Universidad Veracruzana some of the most important. Certainly the state publishing houses have restrictions laws, as the inability to produce invoices, to achieve a wide distribution. However, since we are still far from having a library with all the style of Amazon, you need a distribution effort, which would allow, for example, creating a virtual library to keep books in stock funds continued. The closing of the Casa Juan Pablos, the only place in Mexico where he got several of these books, has further complicated matters.

Beyond diffusion, the academy is misunderstood and its role in mapping knowledge. The academy is a laboratory, which freedom of faculty, at least in its ideal manifestation, allows free experimentation of ideas and concepts. Not all knowledge produced in the academy should go to extra-academic world. In academia, it is legitimate to study little-known works, or explore exotic ideas that may lead to dead ends. However, the recognition of many works also from academic knowledge. Rolena Adorno's work in the eighties was because the review of Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala [18] , who had been historically overshadowed by the Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, while understanding Primero has been enlarged decisively by the bold hypothesis Rosa Navarro Durán, who has attributed its authorship to the humanist Alfonso de Valdés [19] . It is precisely the ability to debate ideas in a community of constant conversation, in which hypotheses are developed and accepted or rejected, allowing substantial progress in knowledge and the literary. So when they leave the public intellectuals autoasumidos to devalue the work of the academy, they do so based on a fallacy. The reason why a considerable amount of academic research is discussed only in small circles is because only in passing the filter over time an idea is developed enough to carry weight in the public space. If you think medical research goes something similar. A drug to hit the market is the result of a lot of research and analysis that only specialists in pharmacology know, many of which reach an impasse. However, without such research there would be no drug and no one would say that the medical academy no good because 90% of treatments and medicines studied never see the light. It is precisely this range of failure condition of possibility of solid knowledge. Thus academic literary criticism, which is buried in libraries, theories and academic journals, explores a wide range of materials and ideas, to produce studies and issues that will ultimately change society's ideas. Books like Orientalism Said, who transformed the understanding of the representation of colonized societies far beyond the academy, is the result of decades of exploration interacademy from those experts who unearthed rare orientalist works of nineteenth-century files to work theorists Foucault and his followers. This type of book would not exist without the academy: reject is used to legitimize ideologema intellectual superficiality and to deny social relevance to the monumental research project which takes place every day.

in Mexico The future challenge lies in the articulation of existing criticism, which are several that can be bright and occur in several areas, namely in a broad and fluid you can, as a starting point, circular more clearly in the spaces. This implies, of course, that all literary critics children overcome their prejudices about each other's work and is sure to reify individual critic, since I, as a training area of \u200b\u200bcriticism. The literary critic is to a full partner in a broad conversation and any dialogue on the critical emphasis should be on the conversation and not a particularly talkative. It is also true that we must overcome the notion, advanced by the writers 'young' that the work of the critic is to "support" the production. Literary criticism as well understood as a simple comment and publicity, is too simple and too sad and misses entire oceans of knowledge. The critic should not promote writers because it is, nor should it impose a "duty to write." The work of the literary critic is to take the pulse of the literature and the world and understand the ways in which the first is a knowledge of the latter. I think from this perspective there is a knowledge and cultural power that are lost in the labyrinth of everyday cultural institutions. However, as we see the country's right to cut cultural budgets and global attack technocracies university humanities departments (as in Britain, where departments have already closed historic cultural studies such as Birmingham) , and while we see a group of literatis exercise real power from the literature, we have clear reminders of the threat both literature and culture pose to those who try to erase it, as the material force of literature, which should work for something else to do for those who will be the next award. I do not know whether the literature has the potential to change the world, to speak to power or to challenge it, but I choose to think so, even in the tone of the old slogan of the French 68: let's be realistic, demand the impossible. What I do is clear is that while literature is assaulted every day by the power and while his name continues to be invoked for the construction of mafias and interests, we have a clear indicator that depressing but at its core is a force corresponding critical to recognize and rescue. In one of his thesis on the history, Benjamin notes: "On the last spark of hope is a gift that is only found in that story that is imbued with this: the dead are not safe from the enemy if he wins. And this enemy has not ceased to be victorious ". Something similar could be said of the critic: the critic can only find in the literature that knowledge potential to help us make sense of such knowledge can rescue world. Talk about a nonexistent critic instead of fighting for the existence of the critical sink into the mediocrity of the cultural scene in time to maintain fidelity to the thought is a way to strengthen the enemy. And this enemy, as it has constantly taught the erosion of culture and country, the daily violence and ignorance oppressive, has not ceased to be victorious.

---

[1] Jorge Cuesta. Works. Vol 1. Mexico, Ediciones del Tightrope, 1994. P. 171.

[2] Jorge Ruffinelli. "The literary criticism in Mexico. Absences, projects and disputes. " Journal of Latin American literary criticism 33, 1990. P. 154.

[3] "Thinking about literature. Notes for literary criticism in Mexico. " Inland 154 (October-November 2008) 70-5.

[4] See Edward W. Said. The World, the Text and the Critic , Harvard University Press, 1983.

[5] See Roberto Schwarz, Um mestre na periphery do capitalism. Machado de Assis , Livraria Duas Cidades, 1990.

[6] See Beatriz Sarlo. Borges, a Writer on the Edge , Ariel, 1995.

[7] The current shift in the notion of literature and other studies of Latin American critical theory and , Instituto Colombiano de Cultura.

[8] See Angel Rama, Rubén Darío and Modernism. Socio-economic circumstances of American art. Library of the Universidad Central de Venezuela, 1970 and Françoise Perus Literature and Society in Latin America. Modernism, Casa de las Americas, 1976.

[9] Octavio Paz, the slime Children of romance to the forefront , Seix Barral, 1974.

[10] See Evodio Escalante, José Revueltas, a literature moridor side, Era, 1979. The controversy is recorded in Ruffinelli, op , 165-8.

[11] Based in website Letras Libres.

[12] Angel Rama, The city counsel, Ediciones del Norte, 1984.

[13] Roman de la Campa, Latin Americanism , University of Minnesota Press, 1999. P. 74.

[14] Yuri Herrera, Jobs kingdom, Conaculta / Tierra Adentro, 200

[15 ] Orpah Alarcón, Perra brava , Planeta, 2010.

[16] Evodio Escalante. "On the literary criticism in Mexico." of Millennium Maze . May 15, 2010. http://impreso.milenio.com/node/8767725

[17] See John King, The Role of Mexico's Plural in Latin American Literary and Political Culture. From Tlatelolco to the Philanthropic Ogre. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

[18] Rolena Adorno. Guaman Poma. Writing and Resistance in Colonial Peru. University of Texas Press, 1986.

[19] Rosa Navarro Durán. Alfonso de Valdés, author of Lazarillo de Tormes, Gredos, 2003.

30 D0xycycline Hyc Acne

A DEEP DARK BLACK FOR "BLOOD RED SCARLET" CHARLES A. LIGHT MUSIC

Robert Graves claims that Eros hatched the world, was the first of the gods, because without him none of the others have been born, as well the eternal struggle with Thanatos is essential for the balance of the world. Well, in the story of Carlos Gamboa, in his book, Imperfect Dream evidenced dual coexistence among these gods.

this author's book brings ibaguereño 23 stories, among them leads to short story. The variety of themes are a passageway to the shelves of our library, but in the end, the purpose Imperfect Dream is to reflect on dark labyrinths of the human, which actually makes look away.

The story begins with a dogmatic Catholic, despite his wounds, their pains and care , can not leave the religious reading, the truths that determine their job in the world. He knows his game to paradise can be close and " then wrote a note to John Eskin giving relevant instructions: Take charge of the office " (p. 37). No longer practical religious activity because disease.

From then changes the narrator. It takes a girl to describe the appearance of this dogmatic, his thinking and his features, " your arms touching the ground and his feet like two old trees twins" (p. 38). Despite the surreal in the images, and perhaps therefore women venturing into a plot to obtain a means of finding their wishes.

Eroticism is always attacked by religious institutions as Eros is the best way to have a separation was crazy with the art to have a freedom of spirit for them and humanity. In this sense, the dogmatic betrays its principles and approaches to research carnal and lascivious. The woman finds it "... the last time she dared to come to my house was to investigate the behavior of prostitutes "(p. 38).

The story is set in the middle of speeches to Catholics and the young the language used by him, reveals the human-divine union; word and language of God through man. But, as women, speech is an essential goal: persuasion and defilement. "That day says she had a premonition of being faced with a personified god "(p. 38). And the story is taking its scarlet, intensity, and she, after a tap on the forehead by El Salvador, loses consciousness and wakes up in a room ends of the enclosure.

The story begins to become carnal, erotic and comes to reinvent human values, so that women become the sacrificial lamb of God, and consecrated by his word sent. As she says, "At the conclusion of the sermon his hands made their way between my legs and my breasts were rapidly floating in the air with the smell of incense ." (P. 40). The speech is getting purpose and incestuous smell, the smell of lust, the diverse nature of the human condition, moving your endless pleasure doing multiply our feelings and awaken the unknown.

occult references in the character, something evil, demonized by the lusts of men in their priestly doctrine . would be a dark morality becomes the dogmatic carnal fun.

Finally scarlet red blood catch a symbolism of purity (Virginity of the young) and the blanket of dogmatic authority, salvation, where the image is a chance encounter that reveals and brings us, finally, of ourselves, "Calc my sandals and join the sofa I saw a trickle of blood ... "(p.40).

LUIS FERNANDO ABELLO

Book Details: Carlos Arturo Bobadilla GAMBOA "Imperfect Dream", Universidad del Tolima, Colombia, 2009

I Catcher Console 2009

Try the canon. Evodio poetic criticism Escalante

This is the paper I presented at the Congress of Contemporary Mexican Literature in El Paso, Texas, on March 5, 2011.


In his provocative and inspiring book "Death of the Critic", the Irish critic Rónán McDonald notes that the loss of poetry in the public space lies in part in interstitial place in critical areas. On the one hand, accuses McDonald, academic criticism (and here perhaps think American critics of poetry of language as Charles Bernstein and Marjorie Perloff) tended to present poetry as esoteric and inaccessible, while generally favoring critical journalistic poetry surface and show the genre most of the remains of social prestige for the specific value of the texts. This assertion, in a book that celebrates the fall of the critical elite, and that raises the critical rescue "public", raised above all the professionalized reader's idea of \u200b\u200bpoetry as a translator between the usual self-referential space of poetic writing and a hearing to which the internal debates in the field of poetry you are irrelevant. Indeed, the self-referentiality of poetry is not uncommon in Mexico, where the echo chamber built from specialist publishers, state and national awards, scholarships FONCA and the positions of the poets themselves have one of the clearest examples of a poetic practice irrelevant beyond itself. If we take the argument seriously McDonald, criticism has an important role to play in breaking this impasse, because poetry can articulate towards relevant forms of social discourse. In these terms, I submit the following few ideas around which, in my opinion, is the most important poetry critic in Mexico, Evodio Escalante, whose work on the poetry of modernism and the art provides a role model the connection of gender with readers.
One of the core functions of the essay on poetry is the construction, repair and reconstruction of the literary canon. Although generally considered a static category, the fee is actually a tradition fixing fluid, always changing, where the text file that is to poetry is put into play by reading and criticism. In this operation, the critical test is essential because the performative nature of the essay genre allows the mobilization of critical categories and the selection of literary texts in a corpus of textual space that reconfigured. Evodio Escalante has been one of the main practitioners of this process in Mexico. His first major book, José Revueltas. A literature side dweller (1979) reestablished canonical place the author of The earthly days, to bring into play their critical reading frames dramatically exceeded the parameters established by the canonical consolidation impressionistic criticism of narrative, led by figures such as José Luis Martinez and Emmanuel Carballo. Although he was unjustly accused "foreign" to be perhaps the first critic to deploy the thesis of Deleuze and Guattari in Mexican writing, the truth is that Revueltas was only readable from a critical language that would deploy its exploration of space in excess of stridently tame parameters of "national literature." This type of operation is prevalent in the work of Escalante and clearly shows how the test can create languages \u200b\u200bthat give meaning to the literature regarding the fee established practices.
A significant example of this is raised Elevation and fall of estridentismo, published in 2002 by Ediciones Sin Nombre and Publishing balance. The book is an analysis of the movement three times strident and illustrates how the critical essay can reinvent language interpreter. Escalante begins with a thorough review and critique of the previous readings of the group, in which figures like Octavio Paz Monsivais and have "buried" the estridentistas. In doing so, Escalante demarcates the boundaries of the canon discourse and the way in which it has privileged the ideological and aesthetic contemporaries. The second part of the book builds reading language into the poetry of the shrill. When reading Urbe, the great Manuel Maples Arce poem, Escalante offers four theses:
a) the poet (archaic) constitutes poet (modern) in and by the catastrophe. The poet working the disaster to make a profit of eternity.
b) The modern poem is only possible if it manages to combine a multitude of flat space-time, similar to Cubism together on the multiplicity of these planes.
c) The shift from archaic to modern individual subject requires a sacrifice libidinal. The woman, romantic object par excellence, will be sacrificed in favor of a new subject, anonymous and multitudinous: the city. Collective, and is imposed on the individual.
d) The sacrifice, however, not amount to a disposal, the weight of the dead continue to weigh on the economy of the poem in the form of a resistance, a burden that sabotages the euphoric ideology of the text. (55)
cite this thesis in extenso because we glimpse the nature of canonical revision in this short but remarkable book. The central idea of \u200b\u200bEscalante is in the process of becoming modern poetic subject in Mexico, which, in the case of Maples Arce, occurs mainly in the constitution of the individual subject of the slaughter collective libidinal raised in the thesis three the catastrophe of archaic space in a thesis. An astute reader of the poetic tradition can be seen Mexican argument here as an outside Escalante raise the central trunk of Mexican poetry represented by certain Contemporary and Octavio Paz. The author's poetic voice as the Cuesta de Canto a God mineral, Gorostiza Death without end or the Peace Stone Blanco Sol, and even operate in the archaic record that places the poetic voice in the very origins of being and word, or in position, also archaic, fullness holistic (remember "filled me in my skin besieged by an elusive god drown me.") The radicalism of Maples Arce is in position the poetic subject in a space that has never operated inside the Mexican tradition. Also against libidinal fulfillment of poems as Piedra de Sol or erotic phantasmagoria Villaurrutia authors as the antipode estridentismo create a script that allows the poetic from the radical social, since the catastrophe of modernity and breaks with the primary space poetry.
The point here is that Escalante you first create a structure that allows you to read the full estridentismo both ideologically and aesthetically. In a sense, Escalante shows the limitations of the paradigm of "literature of strategy" proposed by Luis Mario Schneider to show that it has a space estridentismo poetic operation beyond the institutional debates twenty. The erasure of Stridentism central trunk of the literature is primarily due to the triumph of the poetic voice archaic as the center of poetic modernity in Mexico it became unreadable. To restore legibility through trial, Escalante allows not only a review of the Canon of shrill as evidenced by critical work possible by the Escalante, including books Silvia Pappe, Elissa Rashkin and Yanna Haddaty on the movement-but, More significantly, the compensation of a modern and political way of writing poetry in a literary tradition that, until today, build their legitimacy in the archaic and apolitical. Thus, intervention Escalante from the essay unfolds in three movements is central to the genre: first, the demarcation of borders inherited from the traditional language, the assessment of the limits of readability of this language in relation to the literary corpus and the construction of a new language that allows to map an alternate category canon. For my concerns, this operation revolves around the definition of archaic and modern in stark contrast to the modern notion of inherited poetic texts such as The Children of the limo.
One of the most important intervention is critical of Escalante in his book The lost art, published in 2003 by the UNAM. The book returns to the poetic, a little-known art which aimed late renewal of political poetry after purification and de-politicization of poetry implied by the triumph of contemporary canon. Escalante opens the book with a reflection on literary oblivion in which you can insert the work of a critic. I quote at length:
Between memory and oblivion is a third area in limbo, an area inhabited by ghosts that nobody acknowledges, and which often do not have the slightest idea. To enter all those entities limbo for some strange reason or circumstance never acquired a real presence. Existed but no one remembers them, were busy but unnoticed, raised his fist against the great totems and bigwigs of the time, but they dodged the blow with a masterful and turning left in a vacuum. Since been lost, lost in a fold of the history of culture at the same time the dark clothes with a balm, the subtracted from the view. The poetry is one of the ghosts (9)
In these lines, Escalante outlines one of the possible areas of intervention of the critic, perhaps one of the most important, what he calls the "fold of the history of culture", the "balm dark." The critical test, especially one based on work research, des-fold cultural history to conjure the ghosts of those defeated by the totems of the time and the overwhelming flight of the angel of history. Certainly one could argue that there is an aesthetic reason for the loss of a movement as the poetic, whose two founding members, Eduardo Lizalde and Marco Antonio Montes de Oca, abjured the time later. The critic of poetry, however, is always able to resist the taste category ultimately ideological and constructed as taught by Pierre Bourdieu on distinction. Poeticism aesthetic limitations are recognized by Escalante himself when he says, for example, the fact the poetic density of "Everything is Babel" by Eduardo Lizalde is lost in its own complexity, Jorge Cuesta hurdle that fought in "Song of a mineral God" from his use of a canonical verse, the lira. However, critical in the failure of a movement as the founding gesture poeticism that allows us to show the limits of that which prevailed in the canonical agon. Here we think, for example, the recovery of what Escalante called the "romantic impulse" of the work of Marco Antonio Montes de Oca: "Return their powers of imagination, preaching the return of the Adamic man, sing to the consummation and beauty, to protest against usury and lethal forces that prevent the birth of the real man, the message of a new social messianism can say in his desire to abolish the bonded chronological "(85). This momentum is remarkable, since the sublimation of man in space and primordial myth, the way of peace or Gorostiza, resulted in the erasure of history as barbaric in Mexican poetry. In contrast to the canonical tradition of the "archaic poet, the first Montes de Oca, a version of the modern poet than that of the estridentismo, where modernity is not given for admission to the crowd but by the struggle over time in both history dehumanizing. The point here is that the work of the critic is not only "rescue" the voice silenced, but to reveal a fold that problematizes cultural tradition decisively, as this notion of history and this conception of poetry as protest to "lethal forces that prevent the birth of the real man" have vanished in the air of a tradition passed from myth to language.
In a little-known but essential essay on literary criticism, Escalante produces one of the most productive theorizing on gender: Becoming one
the text is the condition of existence of the text. The setting of the text made by scholars belonging to the order of the concept, its alienation in reading, is the inevitable result of view. The criticism is not only becoming one of the work, in which case she is seen as unrecognizable, but sometimes an explanation of how it was possible this becoming another of the work in time (70).
This fine description of the work of criticism can be broken down precisely in relation to the study of critical essay about literature in general and poetry in particular. From questioning particularly Kantian notion of the trial and the communicability of the work, which explores Escalante in the preceding pages to the quote above, the critical operating in the mutability of the work against its historicity, compared to the old theory that the school's horizons Costanza called reception. However, the critical operating in a complex philosophical space where the hermeneutical task operates in conjunction with a phenomenological calling looking for the work itself and with an awareness of synchrony and diachrony, contemporaneity and tradition, operating in the historicity of the literary text. In these terms, the critical essay fixing tenses implicit in the phenomenological momentum irrevocable mobility with the hermeneutics and operates in the open space of the historical mobility compared to aesthetic. Or, to put it in the language of Marxism and the sociology of culture, literary criticism operates on the premise of "contingencies of value" to use the term of Barbara Herrnstein Smith, to discover not only the cultural meanings that exceed origin of the text, "becoming one", but also the conditions of possibility inward textual space for historical mutation. Perhaps the best example of this comes from the work itself Escalante. In the monumental book José Gorostiza, between redemption and catastrophe, the author's doctoral thesis published in 2001 by Juan Pablos Editor. According to Escalante says, this work, a detailed study of Gorostiza and, above all, endless death, arises from an attempt to connect the Mexican poet with certain Heideggerian thesis of poetry, but in the process of reading became another: an author heavily influenced by the dark philosophical musings Vasconcelos of aesthetics. Considering not only the role of Gorostiza in perpetuating archaic figure of the poet in the national canon, but the fetishization of cosmopolitanism as a mark inside the poetic craft in Mexico. Just to put a brief example, halfway through his book, Evodio notes that Gorostiza literary judgments expressed in his prose, so conveniently forgotten poets among his readers, the author Death without end, agree on the rejection of the followers of pure poetry. In this match, Escalante is the turning point in the aesthetics Vasconcelos contributing to the illumination of Death without End: Vasconcelos
The text, which emphasizes the rhythm-generating element, it concludes by postulating the transcendental orientation of poetry. Would, according to mystical speculation Vasconcelos, a momentous pace, like a seed planted a priori in the mind of man. This rate can only direct his steps so necessary to the beyond, "to the eternal" as an unequivocal expression of Vasconcelos. I think what is intended Gorostiza Muerte sin fin do is to give reality to this pace of speaking his master, who, by breaking the language, to destroy their own impassive integuments, and sprouted coated aesthetic form in the consciousness of the poet, can not direct their action but to the transcendent, to that which would be beyond the phenomenal world in which we are (149)
In Vasconcelos, Escalante is the key to break with decades of cliches about Gorostiza, demonstrating that its exploration of the transcendent no arises from a pre-existing beyond human but in the materiality of writing poetry in the rhythm of the composition Vasconcelos philosophy that becomes the material and inherent paradoxical way to the line of flight of transcendence. In this, break that Gorostiza suspended always in the aesthetics and speculation in the name of an author's strong commitment to the materiality of the text, lies an illustrative example of this becoming another possible criticism while browsing.
conclude these reflections with a last visit to another reflection of Escalante on criticism and essays, this time unexpectedly raised by a discussion about Nietzsche:
The test, I think, must be understood as a zone of resistance to progress technocratic thinking. Test is to resist the totalitarianism of the method is to create those gaps and those areas of darkness in the light of contemporary science embraced could not penetrate (241)
In these lines might read a post would close the debate on poetic criticism Escalante: an interpretive ethos where the rigor is not inconsistent with the freedom and where the strong interpretation of the critical work, even from the academia, is committed to resist technocratic totalitarianism of science and let me add, the canon and the literary establishment. In a tradition such as Mexico, which still exists a fundamental schism between an esoteric reading of poetry as validation of narrow aesthetic and an excess of formalism masquerading as science literature, this resistance is not only urgent, but perhaps the only possible interpretation survival.