Julio Cortázar acerca del realismo y lo fantástico

Summary

In this thought-provoking conversation, the speaker reflects on their creative process and their unique perspective on reality, blending fantasy and the real world. They discuss how their literary work often bridges the gap between fantastical elements and ordinary life, drawing from personal experiences, dreams, and the irrational. The speaker also delves into their discomfort with intellectual essays, preferring to express their ideas through fiction, where abstract concepts can merge with everyday reality. They also touch on the multiple interpretations of their work, showcasing the depth and complexity of their storytelling.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker values the intuitive nature of their writing over intellectual arguments, preferring to express ideas through writing rather than through formal essays or debates.
• 😀 They find joy in the pure intelligence of others but feel disconnected from it, unable to engage in intellectual debates effectively.
• 😀 The speaker believes that their true way of connecting with readers is through visions and intuitive glimpses rather than logical reasoning or ideas.
• 😀 They acknowledge the deep intersection between literature and current geopolitical events, yet they express discomfort when asked to write directly about political ideologies or philosophies.
• 😀 The speaker is most comfortable with irrational and fantastical writing, feeling a natural connection with the fantastic and surreal, which often interweaves with their concept of reality.
• 😀 The notion of the 'fantastic' in literature is something the speaker experiences as being indistinguishable from the real world. They view the two as often blending together.
• 😀 The speaker shares an early memory of encountering the word 'fantastic' when a peer rejected a book as 'too fantastic,' highlighting how their personal concept of the fantastic was different from the general understanding.
• 😀 The fantastic for the speaker is a natural part of their world, and they experience it without protest, contrasting with others who rationalize or dismiss such experiences.
• 😀 The short story 'Casa tomada' ('Taken House') was inspired by a nightmare the speaker had, reflecting an eerie, undefined fear of something approaching them, which was later translated into a fantastic narrative.
• 😀 While interpretations like viewing 'Casa tomada' as an allegory for political situations may be valid, the speaker emphasizes that their personal interpretation was rooted in the dreamlike experience, not a political one.

Q & A

What does the speaker mean by the difference between fantasy and reality in their works?

The speaker explains that their concept of fantasy and reality is intertwined. For them, the fantastic is not separated from the real but rather is part of it, with both concepts often overlapping in their stories. The fantastic is sometimes seen as the hidden face of reality, and at other times, it can be the face of reality itself.

Why does the speaker feel uncomfortable with intellectual discourse or writing essays?

The speaker mentions that they are not an intellectual in the traditional sense and feel more at ease working with irrational or emotional content rather than intellectual ideas. They find themselves more comfortable expressing themselves through poetry or stories, where they believe their ideas can be conveyed more naturally than through formal essays.

What is the significance of the speaker's approach to the process of writing?

The speaker describes their writing process as one that comes from intuition and vision rather than strict intellectual reasoning. They compare it to windows opening, providing a direct connection to readers through these impressions, rather than through abstract reasoning or logical arguments.

How does the speaker feel about their readers' interpretation of their works?

The speaker is fascinated by the multiple interpretations that readers bring to their works, acknowledging that each reader may interpret a story differently. They mention being surprised by the different ways their works are read, which is an exciting discovery as it shows the richness and openness of their writing.

What is the underlying theme of the short story 'Casa Tomada' according to the speaker?

The speaker clarifies that 'Casa Tomada' was not intended as an allegory for Peronism or the political situation in Argentina. Instead, the story came from a personal nightmare the author had, which involved a vague, threatening force that pushed the protagonist out of their home. While political interpretations may exist, the author sees it as a personal and psychological experience rather than a political statement.

What does the speaker reveal about their personal connection to the story 'Casa Tomada'?

The speaker reveals that 'Casa Tomada' was inspired by a nightmare they had, where they were slowly driven out of a house by an undefinable threat. This sense of unexplainable fear is what drove them to write the story, emphasizing how personal, irrational experiences can fuel their work.

How does the speaker view the concept of intellectuality in relation to their work?

The speaker acknowledges that while they are not comfortable engaging in intellectual debates or writing intellectual essays, they do recognize the importance of intellectual engagement in the world. However, their writing is more focused on personal intuition and the exploration of irrational aspects of life, rather than academic or formal intellectual exercises.

What does the speaker mean by 'pure intelligence' in the context of their conversation?

The speaker refers to 'pure intelligence' as the ability to think logically and create complex arguments, associations, and consequences, as seen in intellectuals. They express admiration for this ability but acknowledge that they themselves lack such intellectual prowess. Their writing, however, emerges from different, more instinctive and irrational paths.

How does the speaker feel about writing on political or social issues?

The speaker recognizes that literature and politics are increasingly intertwined and that their works often touch on these themes. However, they feel more comfortable engaging with irrational or emotional content rather than writing direct political essays. They suggest that their works may touch on political themes but are not explicitly designed as political commentary.

What is the speaker's attitude towards the classification of works into genres like 'realism' or 'surrealism'?

The speaker seems to be critical of rigid genre classifications such as realism and surrealism, suggesting that their works do not strictly adhere to one or the other. They express a preference for a more fluid understanding of reality, where fantastic elements coexist with realistic ones, making the boundaries between the two less distinct.