I really enjoyed reading this book by Bolano this week. One of my favourite genres is historical fiction, so this book was right up my alley. I also thought this book moved at a much colder pace than the other readings this term. The other books read with more passion, colour, and flowery language than Bolano so after the readings thus far, this book felt as if I was reading a noir spy thriller that I imagined was in black and white. Another thing that set this book apart from others we read this semester was that it came across as very impersonal. For example, the character of Carl Wieber was very distant and never truly known. The no-name narrator also mirrored this. It was interesting because it gave the effect as if we know everything and nothing of the characters at the same time.
The character of Carl Wieber was also a stark contrast from the kinds of figures that I imagined to be part of revolutionary challenge or thought. Thinking back to one of the first weeks with the book The Underdogs, the revolutionary depiction of the characters in that novel showed much more opinionated and bloody fervour, whereas Wieber remained a cryptic, mysterious, character who only communicated from the distance in the sky. Even the chapters where he commits murders are written as a cold and emotionless means to an end. This really got me thinking about the questions posed in a previous class: when is a revolution not a revolution? Now I don't know if the historical references in this book would classify as a revolution, but writings about the transition of political power left me questioning. In my group when posed the question about revolution, a few of us mentioned violence and large gatherings of an uprising as vital parts of a revolution, however, this book made me think about the role that art and individuality plays in revolutionary thought, process, and action. From the reading, it seemed like Wieber had arguably more effect on the public through his sky art than through the killings.
Now to tie into what the lecture was asking on whether or not this could be considered art. To me, it could. My first initial thought was that no, it was an advertisement or simply a message, but then I tried to come up with a definition of what art even is. To me, art is something that people create to express their own emotions and stir up emotions in others. By that definition, I would say this book was a very contrasting read on the typical revolutionary thought by removing the level of violence and showing the public's affliction through art.
Question for the class: Do you think art should be the primary medium of ensuing cultural change? Would you say that the message in the book agrees or disagrees with your opinion?
