The text critically analyzes Javier Cercas's speech on "misunderstandings of modernity," arguing that these are not misunderstandings but rather distinct issues. It challenges Cercas's assertions about the role of writers, the nature of literature, and its relationship with truth and society, proposing alternative perspectives rooted in a broader understanding of intellectual and artistic creation.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
It is not the first time that it has occurred in history and it will not be the last. I am referring to an event
that is very revealing of historical changes and this event is frequently the next.
There are moments in history there are periods in history in which the Most of the
intelligent people are not in the institutions that are part of the State. This happens especially
at the end of the Renaissance and especially at the end of the 10th century when the
most intelligent people are not at the Service of the State, who do they serve for whom? they work
and what they do This is a question we should ask ourselves more often than the usual one because
I insist when the most intelligent people do not work for the institutionally
recognized civilization in the organizations of the most important political figures who are the figures
of the State the state figures the state as a political configuration for whom these
people work because these people do not knows very well who they work for but we
can often notice or we can affirm that they work in the name of ideas that are not at the
service of the ideas of the state and this is very dangerous it is very dangerous because it is a
warning sign by virtue of which relatively violent historical changes are coming, the
state is not only an institution that guarantees many things, the state is an institution that above
all guarantees the control of changes so that these changes, as far as possible, are not
violent, they are not revolutionary violent, but in our time it is observed that the
majority of people Those who work in state institutions do so in such a
way that what they say and what they interpret means losing sight of reality. We cannot speak to
serve the State while ignoring the reality in front of us. There are many people, many university students,
who are especially qualified and are forced to to abandon the institutions for
which they have been educated They are forced to leave these institutions without being able to work
in them and it turns out that this knowledge, knowledge and experiences are located
outside of them and I am not referring exclusively to young people, people who have completed their
university studies and who are forced to not be able to work at the university or in
teaching centers in educational centers but also people who hasten the moment of
their retirement to flee from the state institutions that they have served for
even for decades because they are no longer comfortable In them I want to say with all
this that the official voice guides us and It leads us it makes us walk along paths that are divergent
Regarding the paths that reality walks and you will say to yourself And what is all
this homily about What is all this nonsense about because this nonsense is much more serious than it seems Because
this The story comes from four references to four topics that have to do with the four
parts or the four misunderstandings of modernity that constitute a manifesto that Javier Cercas
has presented in his entrance speech at the Spanish Academy at the Royal Spanish Academy
Javier fences grades His speech calls his speech on misunderstandings of modernity a
manifesto and points out four misunderstandings of modernity. We are going to refer to the content
of his speech. We are going to make a critical interpretation of the content of his speech, which I already said
has nothing to do with the person of About Javier Cercas, here we are talking about his ideas about
literature, not about the ideas of the person who obviously seems to us to be a person as
respectable as any other person and he is not the objective of my intervention, the objective
of my intervention is the objectified ideas. formally in his speech completely regardless
of whether he has presented them, which is the case, or whether another person has presented them, here
it is not a personal question what we are going to raise. Here we are going to talk about the ideas of literature
that he eh raises. In this eh In this text in this writing and then each person will be able to
judge what they deem appropriate mm we all know that honorary acceptance speeches for
admission to a certain academic community or whatever type always have words of
of memory and nostalgia to the people who have preceded them in office which is the case in
this case of Javier Marías and it is said fences says the author of this speech misunderstandings
of modernity says that hey Javier Marías was a committed writer well This does not mean anything
because committed writers We are all committed writers as
we are all committed to what we write therefore This is an expression that in reality
Although it is nostalgic for the concept of committed writer in all the
60s from the 1960s it doesn't really say anything Cervantes is a committed writer Venceslau
Fernández Flores is a committed writer José María Pemán is a committed writer and
any writer is a committed writer with what he writes from Adolfo Hitler when
he writes my struggle to the author of the songs of mal de horor Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz Teresa de
Jesús Juan de la Cruz López de Vega That is to say, we are all evidently committed writers. In other words,
this does not particularly distinguish any of them from others, yes. We would make a history of committed writers
versus those who are not. This last list of non-committed writers
would be totally empty. Eh, I mean that each one has their commitments. Even if these commitments
are different from each other. Yes, of course, because the writer is committed. With what, then each one with an
ideology with a religion with a philosophy often almost no one is committed to
literature they usually commit literature to religions and philosophies but they are not usually
very committed to literature if they are rather committed to ideologies through
which They serve their different interests But let's leave it alone. This usually happens. I insist that
writers frequently appropriate the term committed as if a
construction worker were no more committed than they were to the construction or to having
to raise a family or as if a composer musical or a piano player
was not also committed to all the elements that are part of them, that is to say that
it seems that the writers have made commitment their own and exclusive virtue when
absolutely all of us are committed in the same way that an allergist is committed to his patients
an engineer with bridges or the roads oo or the aircrafts that he builds and absolutely
all So that is to say that commitment is not something exclusive to the writer but we are going to get into the
ideas that he raises in his speech in these four misunderstandings of modernity
I quote about he says of a time to this point and at least in the field of literature we debate
on four misunderstandings well when we are going to see these misunderstandings in reality in my opinion they are not
misunderstandings they are simply four issues another question is that some people interpret or
understand these issues in a different way than the way Cercas raises them, but of course, Cercas's statement
seems to implicitly suggest that others misunderstand these issues because they do not
understand them as he understands them. Of course, we cannot start from an implicature of this nature
because then anyone who interprets What we say differently from
how we say it or present it, we can consider that he misinterprets it, then of course
H I would not understand these four topics that he refers to as four misunderstandings
but simply as four topics that he understands in a way and other people understand
differently That is to say, he would not talk about misunderstanding but simply about four themes, four themes of
modernity that each person can understand in an inevitably different way. Of course,
he considers them misunderstandings and explains in some way why the first of these themes
that he describes as misunderstanding. It would be the one that refers to the writer who takes refuge in his
ivory tower. The writer who takes refuge in his ivory tower and fences holds the idea that
this idea is not true that the writer is not always someone who takes refuge in his tower
. Ivory but the writer goes down into the mud fights in the trench etcetera etcetera well
but we must not confuse Miguel Hernández with Juan Ramón Jiménez there are two
completely different things, these attitudes, many writers have fought in the bar
of life and have been muddied to the core. Quevedo was undoubtedly imprisoned in San Marcos
de León for confronting the power of the Duke of Olivares. But there are other writers who even
recently have praised the attitudes of Such or which political leaders
have even disparaged a sonnet by Miguel Hernández, considering it sadly stale, then
Of course, if it turns out that literature is always a Rebellion, it is always an act of Rebellion against
power gives the impression that literature lacks powers, not that the one who executes an act of
Rebellion against power is someone who wields literature as an instrument like a battering ram
against power and naturally he does not do it from a null set of powers or from a
null set of faculties or powers but does so from one power against another power therefore not
making invisible from which literature takes as a lever a fulcrum or point of support Because
literature does not confront a power from nothing confronts a power from another power,
that is, the writer is never an innocent being; literature is incompatible with human innocence;
therefore, let us not consider that the writer is an author; Adam is a child who confronts
power as if prometheus to give fire to human beings stealing it from the gods
because that's not exactly what the movie is like, then of course hey he says he says fences I am incapable of mentioning the
name of a single Spanish writer from the First Row who in the last two centuries was
completely indifferent to the destiny of his country does not It was certainly none of the great icons of
the Western literary avant-garde. Well, I am not going to discuss this inability, I am incapable of claiming
the name, I am not going to discuss this inability, but I am simply going to name two
Nobel Prize winners in literature, Juan Ramón Jiménez and Vicente Alexandre from here on you can think what
you want. I could even add Pedro Salinas who was not a Nobel Prize winner but
none of these central authors of modernity could have been, almost no author that I have
news about was inhibited by the reality that surrounded him. not Juan Ramón Jiménez fled Spain fleeing the
terrible civil war with a diplomatic passport issued by Azaña himself, well I won't say more
clearly, he adds fences, it's not that the writer or the artist or the scientist here are many
things together eh The writer is not the same as But the artist who the scientist
ignores his time and his peers is that he ASSUMES that the best thing he can do to be
useful to them is to focus on his work and at least temporarily isolate himself from his time and
his peers. It is about the essential paradox of artistic or scientific creation that consists of
closing oneself in order to open oneself wide. I call this swimming and putting away clothes, you call it what
anyone can call it. the essential paradox of artistic creation, that is, I isolate myself
temporarily, not like the stylite who lives like a hermit on the platform of a column or
like the pilgrim who decides to go on a pilgrimage eh years and leagues etc. and they can isolate themselves blessed is he
who can do it eh blessed is he who can live in isolation they can isolate themselves from
work they can isolate themselves from their peers until they do without them because each one will have an
answer to this question but considering that swimming and putting away clothes has as its elevated name
the essential paradox of artistic creation I think it's very good it seems fine to me very well, I
simply call this swimming and putting away clothes, you call it whatever you see fit to do it,
second misunderstanding, which for me is an issue, not a misunderstanding but an issue that consists of believing
that the protagonist of literature is the author, it may well be a misunderstanding for Roland Barthes
the protagonist of literature is not the author because the author has died for Michel Foucault
a year later the protagonist of literature is not the author because the author is a
social function that is, for one he was dead for the other It is a social function Now neither Golan Bgs nor
Foucault ever stopped signing with their first and last names each book they wrote and I don't know
Currently in the 21st century, nor in the century, any novelist, any poet who has not signed
any of his works and who has not signed a contract with the publisher that publishes them,
then it is clear to believe that the protagonist of literature is the author can be a
misunderstanding especially for those who do not know the structuralism of golan bags but apart from
that he warns fences this is false the protagonist of literature is the reader who is the one who
finishes the books well we could say that the protagonist of literature is the editor What is it
that makes its edition possible or what is it? Simply the transducer that makes possible the
critical dissemination of that book, whether for good or bad, we can say that the protagonist of
literature is the channel OR the medium, the context, depending on whether we follow the functions of
Jacobson's language, which he already did. public Aristotle in Rhetoric in the 4th century before our era but
how good the English discovered with Jacobson and how they knew who Aristotle was. Well,
they applauded Jacobson as if Jacobson had said something original when he already Aristotle had
said it approximately 25 centuries before. So of course we can consider that the protagonist of
literature because they are, I don't know, the air that we breathe, also not because without the air that we breathe
we could not write literature, we can consider that the protagonist of literature is any
of the Figures that are part of literature at any time in its itinerary, well, but
this in itself does not mean anything because if we do not explain what we mean,
we do not get out of any misunderstanding and adding the meaning of a text depends exclusively on
the non-transferable dialogue. unpredictable also that it is established between the reader and the text, so
for him the best thing that can happen to a literary work is that the community takes ownership of
it for a writer. Authentic immortality is anonymity, we could well say that for
an anonymous being. Authentic immortality is that they know it, that is, we can turn around
the phrase that always turns out to be more or less stimulating or funny. Of course, consider that
considering that the meaning of a text depends exclusively and exclusively on the
dialogue that is maintained between Him. reader and the and the text, then, is to fall into what is called theory
of literature, the fallacy of eacion-ista, that is, it is the fallacy that is established above
all in the school of Constance with Hans Robert Jauss, considering that there is a text and that the reader
constructs that text. text this is pure Lutheran applied to literary interpretation and not in vain the
theory of reception is German in 1967 in Constance because what it is is a rehabilitation
of Lutheranism for literary interpretation we take a reality for granted and that Reality
is reconstructed by the reader's consciousness, no longer by the holy spirit that inspires uterus in the meaning
of the text, but simply by an idealism in the reader's consciousness that constructs, through a
dialogue, a dialogue between who and what dialogue is the protagonist of the text. If that is a reality that
It can only be revived by a reader after an author has objectified it. This is self-deception. In
short, but well, in this fallacy, theist adequacy places the protagonism of literature close,
well. It is the same as if we said that the protagonism is in the author was what
had been said before the author's poetics centered the center worth the redundancy of gravity of the
literary interpretation in the figure of the author with the structuralism this is destroyed and
a very theoretical displacement occurs Certainly towards the aesthetics of reception that incurs
the fallacy of adequacy, structuralism had incurred the theoretical fallacy, and
naturally postulating the magical nihilism of the death of the author, that is, the author is dead,
proclaims in terms of Magical nihilism goan bxs and fences basically perhaps determined by
his training in literary studies he has remained in the adequationist fallacy of the aesthetics of
reception But he is probably not aware of the adequationist fallacy it is a
reinterpretation that we do very later and this is an error, not that it is an error
It is the result of the author's training, as any author has his training and as in
many years, anyone will be able to say about what we say today that we have been, let's say, Victims
of a certain era of a certain interpretation, well, but it is good that someone
tells us. Be warned about this because if we don't spend our entire lives believing that the protagonists of
literature, we are the authors or we are the readers, well, they are just phrases, we can say that the
protagonist of literature is spring or it is garlic soup, it is the wild birds well
the protagonist of literature is literature is neither the author nor The reader is literature
itself because the driving force of literature is Ultimately the material from which literature
is constructed and the materials that construct literature are the author the literary work The
reader and the interpreter or transducer Those are the terms that ontologically constitute
literature and those are its reference protagonists, we cannot reduce the protagonism
to a single Element of the terms no and they will say well that is your opinion well the opinion is one
of the forms of ignorance that is not my opinion That It is my theory of literature, they are
two different things. If you move in the world of opinions, then enjoy them.
Third misunderstanding, which for me is simply the third issue because it is not
a misunderstanding. Here you warn fences that HM, popular literature is not properly the
literature that he likes because he prefers the popularity of literature rather than
popular literature. Well, this is a play on words that in itself does not mean much. Here naturally lies
the imperative of Ortega Gassette from The Selected Minority and naturally fences in this context
speak a forum of supposedly select minorities eh And of course, before the
supposedly select minorities we must mark distances from popular literature if later at another
time we speak before a more popular audience, then we mark distances from the elites
And we emphasize the importance that Popular literature has all that is already given by the context,
that is to say, the meaning of a text is given by the context and therefore the rhetoric of a text is
also given by the context. He says that he is not exactly in favor of popular literature. which
means that it can be inexact in favor of popular literature, naturally
, but popular literature does not care at all whether I or the Most Holy Mary are close, no, not
in favor of popular literature, that is something that literature will be very sensitive to and
everything you want will be It doesn't matter at all. That is to say that the fact that someone says
I am for or against the literature of Ramón de Campoamor of
Quevedo's Jarchas del Busquen or Lazarillo de Tormes is that Quevedo's Jarchas al Buscan al Lazarillo de
Tormes is completely indifferent to this. This is a declaration of principles before third parties
before listeners but it is not going anywhere. He warns fences in this context that the public
does not exist, the only thing that exists are the specific readers, each of whom is different
. This is the same as saying that there is no ocean, that there are drops of water together and that each drop of
water is different. But that together they constitute something else that does not exist, which is called the ocean.
Well, that is, the public does not exist. Tell the publishers that the public does not exist to see
To whom do the publishers sell the books? Of course, the public does not exist. What there is are readers. It's
like saying no, the human body does not exist. What there is is flesh and bones more or less together, glued
and articulated. No, this is a metaphor that must be explained clearly. very forced way to
make it readable so it is not that this is a misunderstanding it is that it is a misunderstanding
of the way in which it is presented eh In reality and warns a real writer only writes
what he carries in his gut which in a certain sense you have no choice but write Well
what we carry in our guts are a kind of stomach intestines of viscera etcetera etcetera
of course We must go beyond the literality of the metaphors of course here the entrails do not refer to
what is literally endearing not that it is from a fetus in the organism of a one of one of a
living being pregnant until Well, I insist on the guts or the ways what a real writer
writes What are the writers of lies What are the writers of lies because
Of course if we talk about real writers We have to talk about writers of lies What are the writers
of lies lie, a real writer only writes what is in his gut, he cannot write
what is not in his gut, let's see. He can't write what an
alien has in his gut, it's just that they are phrases that don't really mean much, eh, they are phrases metaphorical and
and what you have no choice but to write Yes, but that does not mean that it is worth it That is to say,
the most endearing literature is not necessarily the most valuable, it is that literature requires something
more than guts, it requires, above all, intelligence, at least to In the short term, there are good books that
sell a lot and good books that sell little, just as there are bad books that sell a lot
and bad books that sell little well. This is a tongue twister. The sky is bricked.
Who will unbrick it? bricklayer to unblock it, good bricklayer, it will be
true that we have done it very well, well here the same thing, of course, this does not mean anything. This is not a
misunderstanding, this is a topic, a cliché, a literary motive plus that of popular literature. Tell
ló de vega that Popular literature is not something particularly valuable. Tell
the authors of the jarchas that popular literature is not something particularly
valuable. Tell everyone. Tell everyone. the golden century that popular literature is not something
particularly valuable of course here we are In the Heat of Ortega we are looking at Ortega y Gasset
the the the author of the rebellion of the masses the author of the contempt of the people and praise of
elected minorities well each one You can follow what you deem appropriate, eh, warn fences,
I'm not in favor of popular literature, as if popular literature cared about this, I insist
that I'm in favor of the popularity of literature, well, it's a game, it's a nice play on
words and What is the popularity of literature? What is the popularity of literature? Because
literature being popular without the people is going to be a bit difficult, not because in short,
those who have made Oscar Wild famous, for example, have been the popular readers. It has been the people
because his people, those of the elite, put them in jail for homosexuality. I mean
, be very careful with the elites, be very careful with the elites because the one who made
López de Vega Popular was the people who made Oscar White Popular. It was the people because theirs were the
elites They put him in jail for being homosexual So be very careful not to agree too much with
the people eh Because the people can make mistakes many times but they have the strength that the
elites make use of because the strength of the elites is the strength of the people So be
very careful because the strength of literature is the strength of the people even if it is not the one who
understands it best even if it is not the one who understands it best always but do not forget this eh Whoever put
Oscar Wild in jail was his own, no the people precisely So much Be careful not to be in
favor of popular literature, each one will have their ideas, note closely the reasons that I believe unequivocally
in its capital importance and in the determining role that literature can and should play in the
future of individuals and communities. Yes, and the Mediterranean diet also,
of course, literature and the Mediterranean diet play an important role in the future of individuals and
communities. This is not exclusive to literature, obviously
, and it points to a fourth misunderstanding. Cercas points out a fourth misunderstanding that for me is a fourth
issue and talks about the usefulness of literature. He clearly says that it is true that the usefulness of
literature or art in general is based on a paradox. This paradox lies in the fact that
literature is useful. as long as it does not set out to be good This is not a paradox
this is a play on words more like it is a play on words the ars gratia artis that
Kant basically establishes in his critique of judgment is one of the most unproductive works that have been written
never about the interpretation of art, that is, it is the product of German idealism,
it is releasing the ghosts of Pandora's Box of German idealism. The debate on the usefulness of
literature arises above all in the Enlightenment and is the great problem that we inherited from So
it is an invention of Anglo-Saxon culture towards which intellectuals like Cercas
and many others maintain enormous admiration, that is, they are intellectuals absolutely seduced
by the Enlightenment because they have been unable to find in the Spanish Baroque the rationalism
that underlies most of the discourse of modernity that they have replaced from the
very opaque and very obtuse vision of the European and European Enlightenment Kant basically proposes that
the arts are useless they are really useless they do not provoke they do not lead to they do not generate they do not offer
any usefulness because The usefulness is above all in the technological development of the sciences
and the arts. They are simply useless decorative entities that can only live in museums.
Basically, from here on, the possibility of scientifically studying
all aesthetic material in general is denied. Literary in particular, culture then begins to
supplant literature until today we reach the absolute supplanting of
literary studies by cultural studies. Then the concept of culture in the modern sense is generated,
while culture is the invention. of the peoples who lack
literature and it is considered that literature begins to be useful exclusively when it is put
at the service of an ideology of a religion or a philosophy to make that religion, that
ideology or that philosophy shine with a light that is its own of literature then from
here it begins to enhance the reading of Calderón as a Catholic at the service of
the Catholic religion, the reading of certain literary works as promoters or fuel
of certain ideologies and social realism arises, socialist realism or In our time,
any literary trends or orientations placed at the service of Tales or
what ideologies from ecocriticism to ecological literature, whatever you want. To call it, that is
to say, a Universal prostitution of what literature is is carried out by putting it in the bed
of the latest ideology of the latest religion or the latest philosophy. of which we speak in order to
make sophistry or money in eaa that utility to that concept of utility has reduced since the
Enlightenment the world in which we live the concept of literature something that was totally inconceivable
within the Greco-Latin literary tradition prior to the to the to the Enlightenment uh European
and Europeanist and anti-Spanish basically completely anti-baroque that goes so far as to suppress
or prohibit Calderón's sacramental autos and that goes so far as to consider that Don Quixote
of abellaneda is eh more valuable than Cervantes' Don Quixote that was that is the enlightened reason
In short but fences warns fences warns the writer ASSUMES in carrying out his task
a great responsibility the responsibility of telling the truth I already find it very funny
When someone invoke the truth people invoke the truth as if they knew it as if they had
a confidential relationship with the truth or as if they met the truth every day to have
coffee or eat together and the truth is declared to him and he says look this is like this and I speak with you
but not with others and of course but who is the writer to declare the truth What
privileged relationship does any writer have to declare the truth of the truth a writer does not know more than
I do about the truth a plumber does not know more that I, a pianist does not know more about the truth than I, about
the truth, no one knows more than another In short, unless he has studied it scientifically
categorial people and has contrasted it with others who have also studied it and even so we will see
if between the two among the three or among the 3,000 come to some agreement with the truth. I
find it very funny that attitude of postulating a privileged relationship with the truth. It is as if the
pastry chefs' guild says the pastry chef has a great responsibility, which is to make cakes of
of truth and which are the false ones, of course, the artisans are the real ones and the non-artisans
are the false ones, of course, this self-attribution of I have a relationship with the truth and the others
do not, because it is the most curious and surprising, it is very funny because This is a
professional declaration of narcissism exclusive to writers and intellectuals, but if
the truth knew you, it would run because you would completely scare it. In other words, any
human being in front of the truth is a mite trying to jump, so it makes me very angry. funny What
the writer says is the responsibility of telling the truth, that anyone will say about himself,
the plumber will say it, the pastry chef will say it, the priest will say it, the hairdresser will say it, the
university professor will say it, the professor of theory of literature and literature will say it. Compared anyone will say it
But that means absolutely nothing and continues not the truth of history or
science or journalism but a universal moral truth well this is already the Supreme truth but
let's see This is the truth of the priests the moral truth is the truth of priest is the
truth of the member of a church is the truth of the member of a political party is the truth
of the member of a philosophical representative This is not the truth of literature the truth of
literature is precisely the truth of the one who discusses the truth of the power we do not speak
precisely that literature is Rebellion we do not speak precisely that literature
is the confrontation with a certain power we do not notice that it is precisely to expose
a development of freedom So how can we say that the responsibility of a writer is
to say the moral truth and what is the moral truth who has the authority to impose to others a
moral truth, I ask who has it. Well, in the old days, the priest and that is why an
illustration was made to free the human being from the force of the moral truth of a group
of individuals who want that is to attack the against the first edition of the Constitution of the
United States of American Democracy in principle there is no moral truth above
the other moral truths and we say this in the name of the Enlightenment of course it is that now
now it turns out that we have fled from the cures after the French Revolution for enthrone
writers on the altar of literature Now it turns out that Juan Ramón Jiménez is going to be
a Caesar of morals, a clear man. The truth of history requires studying history if
the truth of history can be found scientifically. The same thing happens with the different
scientific branches the truth of medicine or that of journalism but it turns out that we put
the truth of literature before all these truths but if literature is a fiction literature
is exempt from truth literature does not tell truths literature exposes
fictions literature is not verifiable but what concept of fiction is there and on the other hand it warns perhaps
before anything else literature is an invitation and at the same time a way to live
more in a richer way well this is called longevity No we don't have to turning to the most complex and most intense literature
is also a way to take control of everything, completely, of one's own existence.
Well, let's hope it's not Jena's, too, or at least the best instrument I know
to try. Well, there are many instruments, I don't know which ones. will know or not nor do I get into
this topic but of course eh and anyway When someone postulates that they have a privileged relationship with
the truth, I am very concerned about this type of people, I would not even name here a sophist
like Borges who says that there are people who speak with the confidence of someone The doubt is unknown to me, the
people who talk about you to the truth are at least friendly to me, the people who talk
about you to the truth and who say I am a friend of the truth more than I am of Plato, as if they knew
the truth or as if they would have known Plato seems likeable to me, they really seem very
likeable to me, and to conclude, because the thing doesn't go any further, I quote if literature takes
itself seriously, if the writer is faithful to his obsessions, his obsessions are also
faithful psychopaths eh, that is, there is no such thing and they will tell me, well, the writers
are psychopaths too, if you don't know what they are saying, you have never had a psychopath in front of you,
if the writer is faithful to his obsessions and demands himself the maximum and he is not afraid and he risks
going to the bottom of the unknown to find the new, that is,
here, in addition to being the truth, it turns out that the writers are brave.
Yes, here everyone thinks they are Miguel. Hernandez But to be Miguel Hernández you have
to be very much a man and you have to be very brave eh You have to be very brave to be a Miguel
Hernández there we could remember that verse about you were born a crow and I presumed Paloma you could say
to many writers don't come close eh be careful You have to respect it, respectable, it is not the
case with fences, much less here we are talking about ideas, we are not talking about the person, be very
careful not to confuse one thing with another. As a contemporary of flover and
Wild wrote bodeler And then literature can not only be pleasure and entertainment and joy and
exaltation, which is the first thing it should be. No, I don't believe that literature should be the first thing,
pleasure, entertainment, joy and exaltation. Literature, the first thing it should be, is a
challenge to human intelligence and a challenge to the pressure of human freedom that is what
literature should be and that is the idea of literature that intellectuals often
not only do not respect but mock and manipulate precisely because they prefer money to
freedom because they prefer to be the thuriferary and they are supported by a powerful person rather than being
interpreters of reality and creators of literary works eh And he also says that literature
should be consolation and purification and knowledge and self-knowledge this is already mysticism this
Ecstasy this was already stated by Teresa of Jesús y Juan of the cross long before the
21st century arrived of course nearby one wonders is there something more useful than that there is something more useful than that one
wonders Cerca yes there is keep quiet keep quiet when you have nothing intelligent to say
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
