The Latin American Literature - Essay Example

Mario Benedetti, one of Uruguay, if not South America’s most celebrated writers, is renown for his exploitation of a wide array of literary genres for the purpose of criticising the socio-political conditions of both his nation and continent.1 His writings, whether his novels, plays, poems, short stories, political articles or polemical songs, are both reflective and critical of the political discontent and socio-cultural idiosyncrasies which were fomenting throughout and characteristic of Latin American/Uruguayan politics and society. Benedetti’s writings, with their inherent ideological concerns and message, betray an intricate relationship between the worlds of fiction and reality; between literature and contemporary history. It is a committed, or `engage’ literature, as some have described it and, while appreciated by some critics, vehemently criticised by others.2 Indeed, some critics have maintained that Benedetti’s works, insofar as they are guided by ideological and socio-political concerns, have little poetic and aesthetic value. That some critics should interpret his works as such indicate that Benedetti’s intentions were never to produce works which flattered critics but works which criticised his surrounding reality. To claim that Benedetti’s literary works are so overpowered by ideological and socio-political concerns that they are ultimately rendered bereft of aesthetic and poetic value is not only an exaggeration but, an exaggeration predicated on erroneous readings and interpretations of works such as Ida y Vuelta, La Víspera a indeleble, El Ultimo viaje y otros cuentos and El Cumpleaños de Juan Ángel, to name but a few. Benedetti’s literary works, including the most overtly political ones of the late 1960s and 1970s, are not simplistic representations of political ideology and concerns, nor is their intent a primarily didactic one, as has been claimed.3 Instead, they seek the transformation of middle-class myths and contemporary history into literary and artistic renditions which highlight the inherent idiosyncrasies of the stated even as they sound a call for awakening, for reform. Benedetti aspires towards the analysis of the Uruguayan mindset, worldview, contemporary history and the peculiarities of Latin American culture within an aesthetic framework. This approach has led to both the popular and critical acclamation of Benedetti as the “Generation of 1945’s” voice and pen.4 Within this group, a circle of writers and artists who, through their aesthetic productions sought the exposition of reality’s inherent contradictions, Benedetti was hailed as the embodiment of a literary movement which, through art, sought to change self-contradicting, idiosyncratic and truth-defying reality of the contemporary Latin American socio-political culture and landscape.5 In terms of literary style, Benedetti’s works clearly betray the influence of writers such as Onetti, James Joyce, Virginia Wolfe and Marcel Proust. As his critics have maintained, in his search for a style which could best express his concerns and maintain a realistic focus, Benedetti turned the aforementioned writers, in his opinion, the masters of Western literature.6 He did not, however, simply replicate their literary style but, instead, reformed and reshaped their narrative strategies, ultimately lending towards the creation of a uniquely Benedettian style, which both shocked and surprised readers with its abruptness; a deliberate abruptness whose underlying intent was to shock his Uruguayan and Latin American readers out of their stupor and the middle-classes out of their self-satisfaction.7 Therefore, one can affirm that Benedetti’s literary style reflected his preference for realism and, at the same time, echoed his ideological and socio-political concerns and intentions. Within the vast body of Benedetti’s works, whether fiction or non-fiction, novel, poetry or drama, the above stated holds true. There is, throughout his works a persistent concern with reality and a determination to draw uncompromisingly realistic portraits of that reality as a means of both criticising it and sounding a call for reform.8 In the process, Benedetti dissected most everything related to contemporary Latin American culture leaving, not even literary critics and artists unscathed. Indeed, through a thematic and textual analysis of “Ida y Vuelta” this essay shall emphasise that in expressing his socio-political concerns, Benedetti criticised both politics and culture ad, politicians and critics. Far from producing a work which flattered critics, Benedetti’s intention were centred upon the creation of a critical theatre which, among others, criticised the critics themselves Despite his affiliation with the realist genre and his predilection towards a critical theatre as opposed to a theatre which flatters critics, Ida y Vuelta is categorised as a comedy. At first glance, this “play within a play,” purports to be a comedy but upon a deeper or more critical analysis, is not. Indeed, “Ida y Vuelta,” juxtaposes existential with base reality and fuses several literary styles into a single, multilayered one which both shocks audiences/readers and provokes them into a reconsideration of their supposed realities. While referring to Uruguayan politics throughout, both overtly and covertly, and despite its being an unwaveringly localist work (considering the multiple references to the 17th and 18th of July, the day of the first Uruguayan constitution), 9“Ida y Vuelta” is inherently universal and tragic. Certainly, it cannot be categorised as tragic in the classical sense but can be in the humanistic sense insofar as it ultimately revolves around the notion of the futile search for the self and for meaning. It is tragic, universal and humanistic because it is ultimately about the quest for heroism, meaning, truth and love, in an age which recognises the value of none of these and, most definitely, neither encourages nor promotes them. Benedetti, through the fictional author of the work, apparently allows his characters the freedom of improvisation, implying that the characters are in charge of their own fate and not the playthings of an egoistical author.10 Commenting upon this, critics have maintained that in so doing, Benedetti was rebelling against dramatic conventions and declaring his disregard for those authoritarian critics which insisted upon artists’ adhering to them.11 El autor refuses abidance by conventions and repeatedly claims that his characters have assumed an independent. Certainly, the characters are all imagined by el autor and the audience/readers are fully cognisant of this from the outset. Nevertheless, once the characters leave el autor’s imagination and are transferred onto written pages, they appear to assume an independent corporeal form which leaves el autor, himself, in a sense, empty. El autor is left empty because the subject and characters which he had thought of on a daily basis and which, to an extent, were his raison d’être, have left him. In a way, this leaves him somewhat disoriented and incapable of even recognising the work as finished because, his single “una idea en borrador; tengo que decirla en voz alta, tengo que asistir a mis propias imágenes, tengo que saber si a ustedes les gustan y, muy particularmente, si me gustan a mi. De modo que quisiera mostrarles el material humano de que dispongo, y escuchar después esos inevitables consejos que ustedes siempre saben fabricar, eras recomendaciones que todo buen espectador tiene guiñas de alcanzar al autor nacional. Después veremos, ustedes y yo, si esto sirve para una comedia.”12 He identifies his work, the play the audiences are about to see and the drama which the readers are about to read, as a humanistic one, born of the nation itself. El autor, however, due to his having lived with the characters, the story, for such a long time, and as a direct result of his long-term preoccupation with it and them, has, seemingly, lost his objectivity and is profoundly concerned with the reception of others. Indeed, he seeks to protect himself against negative reactions by defining the work as “rough,” even as he, himself, betrays his own reluctance to let go through the aforementioned descriptor. Just in case, however, the play is both well-received and “finished,” el autor announces that he is preparing an work of classic, an “una Nausicaa minuciosamente homérica” (65). With el autor serving as his bookish mouthpiece, in these brief introductory lines, Benedetti tells his readers/audience of the humanistic and localist nature of his play. In other words, he is telling us that this is a serious piece of work which revolves around the human condition, per se, and unfolds within the framework of Uruguayan socio-political life. At the same time, and through el autor, he depicts both the human condition and socio-political life as inherently funny, if only because of its idiosyncrasies and mediocrity. This is succinctly expressed through el autor, who draws his own reality/life from imagination and fiction and who, even though it is his own work, is unable to judge it as finished or not and, indeed, even before allowing us a glimpse into his drama, tells us that he is preparing a classic epic of Homeric proportions. Critics have made a number of interesting comments about the Autor’s introductory remarks, as discussed in the above. Ruffinelli maintains that these remarks are an explicit statement of disregard of critical opinion. Benedetti is telling his audiences what the play is about, rather than allow critics to interpret it for them and, in the process impose their assumed meanings upon it. He is further responding to possible criticisms with pronounced nonchalance. It is as if, in Ruffinelli’s opinion, Benedetti is telling critics that if they do not like the work, if they regard it as “unfinished,” there is little which can be done as the drama is finished and, indeed, is being acted out on stage.13 If one were to accept Ruffinelli’s interpretation of el autor’s introductory remarks, “Ida y Vuelta” opens with a criticism of the very people whose profession it is to criticise drama – the literary critics. Following upon el autor’s claim that “Ida y Vuelta” represents the human condition, critics have drawn attention to the names Benedetti gives his characters. Juan and Maria (not to mention Carlos), as has been pointed out, are common enough in Uruguay, indeed throughout much of Latin America, to signify Everyman and Everywoman.14 The implication here is that these are merely functional names, assigned to the characters for the benefit of the audience and in order to allow them a greater opportunity to follow the events of the drama and digest it. It is important, however, to maintain a focus on the commonness of the designated/selected names because the aforementioned commonality, or normalcy, of the names speaks of the characters’ colourless, uncompromisingly ordinary and plebeian, so to say, personalities. Destiny brings them together and their sense of spiritual affinity, not to mention common interests, unites the two. The circumstances of their coming together are almost tediously common/normal, just as are their lives and jobs. As a means of emphasising the uncompromising ordinariness of their lives, Benedetti has el autor ordering the theatre employees about, instructing them to arrange the set furniture in such a way as to visually communicate the stated. At the same time, and as a means of highlighting the absolutely nonsensical nature of their work, Benedetti writes the following: “El Parlante. ---! Rrrrrrr! Juan.--- (Aprieta un botón) ?Señor? El Parlante.--- (Voz grave) Og og og og. Juan.--- Si, señor. El Parlante.--- Og og og og. og og og og og. Juan.--- Si, señor, en seguida. (Sigue escribiendo cada vez mas frenéticamente, mientras vuelve a oscurecerse ese lado de la escena.).”15 A few lines later, separated only by stage directions and el autor’s comments, “El Parlante. ---! Rrrrrrr! Juan.--- (Aprieta un botón) ?Señora? El Parlante.--- (Voz muy aguda) Ig ig ig ig. Juan.--- Si, señora. El Parlante.--- ig ig ig ig. ig ig ig ig ig. Juan.--- Si, señora, en seguida. Sigue escribiendo cada vez mas frenéticamente, hasta que se apagan las luces, con excepción del circulo que rodea al autor.”16 There are minor, almost imperceptible changes in the above quoted lines. Juan’s “senor” is Maria’s “seniora,” his his ‘og, og …” becomes her “ig, ig …” As a matter of fact, similarities as such that the “og’s” and “ig’s” are in perfect correlation; in each, repeated four times in the first instance and nine in the second. It is interesting, at this point, to question why, given the semi-identical nature of these two passages, Benedetti bothered to insert any variations in the first place. In this instance, the extreme similarities versus minor differences denote a number of things about life itself. In the first place, it tells us that even though the human race is ultimately reducible to an identical, identity-less and faceless mass, were one to search closely enough, differences and identifying features/character traits would become apparent. In the second place, similarities, assuming the form of tedious repetition here, express the monotonous, boring, uninspiring and repetitive nature of life itself. Life unfolds, Benedetti seems to say, according to a single pattern and, day in and day out, that pattern is repeated, with minor variations. Life emerges as tedious but it is tedious because the human inclination towards acceptance of their lot and resignation to their fate. In their self-satisfied, logic-defying contentedness, Everyman and Everywoman have forgotten the value of leaving their mark and, indeed, no longer know how to. Hence, Juan and Maria express unquestioning compliance and perfect submission to their superiors; a compliance and submission which, Benedetti seems to hold responsible for the rise of dictatorship in his country, not to mention all of Latin America. All Juan and Maria do is obediently type down the words spoken to them, without comprehending either the meaning of that which is being dictated or the purpose of their task. It is in order to emphasise this lack of understanding and detached disinterest that Benedetti uses nonsensical sounds such as “ig” and “og,” in lieu of words. In this respect, Juan and Maria, as Everyman and Everywoman, represent Uruguay’s self-important, mediocre middle. In exposing the absolutely ludicrous nature of such mindless submission, Benedetti is justifying his own refusal to submit to the authority of literary critics. In light of the above, references to 17th July assume unique importance. It was on that date, 17th July, 1830, that the first constitution of an independent Uruguay was announced. That date and its implications loom large over the drama as if to draw attention to the clash between political reality and political ideology, as in idealism. The Uruguayans are independent and free; the law of the land, their national constitution, has given them liberty and independence. Yet, the characters Benedetti creates, be it Maria, Juan or Carlos, are inherently dependant and persistently incapable of being free. Believing in fate, accepting destiny and unquestioningly following orders, they cannot exercise liberty nor do they have it within them to do so. Political reality is, therefore, juxtaposed against political idealism to expose a tragic reality; masses which are enslaved by their own design and who are complicit in their own subjugation. It is important, in this respect, to point out that on the office wall, all that hangs is a map of Montevideo and a calendar depicting a single date, 17th July. Through this, some critics have claimed that not only does Benedetti establish a political climate of expectancy, as if saying that the Montevideo-ians will rise again as they did before, but is juxtaposing the promises of the past against the bitter reality of the present.17 Latchman has, quite interesting, added that Benedetti is paving the way for the Montevideo-ians’ rebellion through his own rebellion against critical opinion.18 The following lines are quite important in light of the argument presented: “Rijo.-No sabes lo que significa asistir a esa libertad. Que un tipo venga y te diga: el señor Tal, morfinómano. Como quien dice escribano o corredor de bolsa. Eso se llama amplitud. Mira, una vez en una fiesta bastante familiar, me fueron presentados varios señores y sus respectivas damas. Uno decía: "Mi señora." Otto: "Mi novia." Otro: "Mi querida." Pero hubo un señor muy culto, con mucho don de gentes, que me dijo: "Le presento a mi amante" y el amante era un tipo de bigote, con un bruto tórax de levantador de pesas. Te das cuenta que amplitud? ... Aquí somos unos neófitos. Capaz que ves un día a te mujer del brazo con otro y te pones furioso.”19 In the very first sentence, Rijo speaks of freedom, of liberty. The remainder of the passage, however, undermines his very conceptualisation of the term and his understanding of its implications. Suffice to say that a man, a supposedly free one, is offering his fiancée, his lover to another. There are two things to note here. The first is that within the matrix of traditional Latin American culture, this is not only unheard of but the man whose lover/fiancée/wife betrays him with another is regarded as having lost the very essence of his manhood.20 By depicting, or having Rijio tell of a man offering his fiancée to another, Benedetti is, very succinctly, commenting on the extent to which traditional Latin American culture and values have been degraded and the degree to which they have been perverted. In this, Benedetti is strongly criticising what the Uruguayans, Latin Americans, have done to themselves and is openly holding them complicit in their own de-humanisation, de-masculinisation and subjugation. The second thing to observe here is that liberty has become a meaningless concept. Liberty, implying the freedom to preserve one’s honour, protect one’s family and keep to oneself what belongs to him/her, has been perverted to the extent that it now means the freedom to participate in one’s own de-masculinisation, humiliation and subjugation. As may be inferred from the stated, Benedetti is not only uncompromisingly critical of his society and the middle class but, he expresses his criticism in a manner which is designed to shock his audience/readers out of their self-satisfied stupor. “Ida y Vuelta” is, indeed, an uncompromisingly critical drama, one which spares neither audiences nor critics. In this play the concept of youth is related to that of freedom and liberty. As Cótelo notes, the notion of youth evokes an image of hope and vitality and recalls to mind all the possibilities which the future holds. Youth, as per the traditional perspective, implies rebellion, freedom and limitless ambition.21 To an extent it is synonymous with liberty which similarly evokes images of vitality, rebellion and the possibilities which both the present and the future hold. With specific reference to “Ida y Vuelta,” Maria and Juan symbolise youth and, importantly, the law, the national constitution has defined them as free. Yet, just as the times led to the perversion of the fundamental implications of freedom and liberty, Juan and Maria ultimately emerge as perversions of youth and all that which it symbolises. They are seemingly devoid of ambition and vitality and do not, at any point, display a spirit of rebellion.22 Apart from this being perfectly exemplified through the very nature of their jobs and their submissive acceptance of senseless dictations but, it is further emphasised through references to Juan’s brief sojourn in Paris. As Cótelo points out, references to the “existencialistas caves” of Paris and the city’s museums 23 are so glib and casual that they tell of an ever-decreasing interest in, and appreciation for, culture, high art and values. The youth, as Benedetti appears to suggest, have lost interest in all of the past, present and future, do not have it in them to appreciate culture and high art but, instead, are on a quest for ephemeral and artificial pleasures.24 The following exchange is relevant to what has just been said: “Rijo.--- Museos? Que museos? Juan.--- De arte, por ejemplo. El Louvre, el Museo del prado … Rijo.--- Ah, esos … Si estuve alguna vez. Juan.--- Notables, Everdad? Rijo.--- Ahí tenes … eso so es igual que aquí. Te aburrís lo mismo.”25 Rijo, Lust’s, dismissive attitude to the high art and culture which the Louvre represents, supports the above stated and emphasises that youth has submitted itself to the artificial, temporary and superficial pleasures offered by the submission to lust. In making this particular comment, or observation, Benedetti is, once again, dissecting Uruguay society and the national mindset for the purposes of exposing their mediocrity. Indeed, the observed mediocrity is such that, not only have real values been replaced with artificial ones but, Lust prevails over reason and intelligence.26 Should we recall that, only a few lines earlier the man who had offered his fiancée to another had been described as “muy culto,”27 the extent to which culture has been debased and the degree to which Lust dominates over sense and sensibility, effectively sweeping the very notions of honour and masculinity aside, becomes all the more apparent. It is, thus, quite humorous that Juan, disgusted with the Europeans’ “artificio” and “indeferencia,” returns to Montevideo.28 If, through Juan, Maria and Carlos, Benedetti dissected and critically exposes the middle class for all of its idiosyncrasies and mediocrity, revealing the extent to which fundamental values have been perverted, he effectively does the same vis-à-vis authority through the figure of el autor. As earlier noted, despite its being his brainchild, the fruit of his supposedly creative labour, el autor is incapable of determining whether or not the work is complete and even before displaying that work for the audience’s judgement, speaks of a grand opus he is currently working on. It is interesting here to note, as does Ruffinelli, an almost perfect correlation between authorial attitude and authority and political attitude and authority. Indeed, Benedetti is referring to the persistent tendency of his country’s leaders to proclaim great projects which will change the face of Uruguay and the lives of her people and their predilection for announcing the completion of those projects before they really have been completed, followed by their declaration of a new and grand project which they are working on.29 The implication here is that not only are Uruguayan political leaders weak and indecisive but are as empty and as superficial as their promises and public declaration. If, in his reference to his grand opus, Benedetti is declaiming his nation’s politicians, he is also directly criticising Uruguay’s literary figures and her critics. El Autor quite obviously confuses literary genres and even as he aspires towards epic theatre, he produces a rough draft and while he presents a satire/a comedy his penultimate aim is tragedy. He speaks of Shakespeare and of Homer, of comedy and tragedy, simultaneously expressing the breadth of his literary knowledge but the superficiality of his understanding. Ultimately, el autor can only speak of his proposed grand works – works of Shakespearian and Homeric greatness – but cannot produce them. Benedetti’s portrayal of el autor expresses his own opinion regarding the contemporary state of Uruguayan literature and is, effectively, criticising the critics for their inability to separate the chaff from the wheat. To all intents and purposes and to the extent that critics have failed to incite Uruguayan drama and theatre towards its precious heights but, indeed, appear quite content with its contemporary mediocrity, Benedetti is questioning the very worth of the opinions penned by his nation’s critics.30 In addition, as he establishes a relationship, a sense of identification between Rijo and el autor, Benedetti sheds additional light on the former’s character and gives audiences plenty of food for thought. As critics have remarked, not only is Rijo the personification of Lust but he is that which the autor dreams of being, is his hidden self and his own interpretation of his being (suppressed persona), as opposed to his seeming (public persona).31 The interrelationship between the two is establish numerous times throughout the play, as when Rijo is portrayed as “de ida,” someone who is cynical and un-idealistic as el autor aspires or imagines himself to be or in the fact that of all the characters, only Rijo and el autor are the professionals, the one a profession actor and the other a professional playwright, to name but two examples. Indeed, as some critics have argued, Rijo is el autor’s suppressed `I.’32 The question is what does this mean? In establishing a correlation between el autor and Rijo, Benedetti is commenting upon the extent to which Uruguayan high culture as been reduced to base sensationalism which is solely capable of giving a fleeting, forgettable, sense of pleasure.33 He is further commenting upon Uruguayans themselves and the degree to which they have resigned their minds and are only tolerant of fleeting, hedonistic pleasures.34 In other words, through his representation of el autor, Benedetti criticises Uruguayan culture and society. Throughout “Ida y Vuelta,” Benedetti, as opposed to el autor, constantly proclaims his lack of interest in whatever opinion critics may have of his work and voices his own opinion on the critics themselves.35 There are multiple examples of this, such as when el autor mentions that the work which is about to be presented is just “una idea en borrador”36 or in his constant references to `improvisation.’ What Benedetti (not el autor) is saying here is that man of the works which are being played on the Uruguayan stage, to critical acclaim, are little other than rough ideas and improvisations. Yet, instead of criticising them as such, many are acclaimed as `groundbreaking works of genius, heralding a new age in Uruguayan drama.’37 This is a reference to the state of contemporary Uruguayan drama and criticism which Benedetti’s Uruguayan audience would have understood. By recalling this, Benedetti imposes upon readers/audiences such questions as who judges works of art as grand or otherwise and who, indeed, in this day and age has the requisite talent and the necessary devotion to art to produce such works.38 Benedetti is questioning the very ability of critics to criticise and judge art and, in so doing, is creating a drama/theatre which is fundamentally critical of the critics themselves. Benedetti’s criticism of both contemporary art and critics, and by association contemporary Latin American socio-political conditions and reality, reaches its peak in the last pages of “Ida y Vuelta,” when el autor proclaims the following: “El teatro es otra cosa mas digna, mas rígida, mas monumental digamos. Cuando un personaje de Sófocles, de Shakepeare o de Calderón, dice una cosa, la seguirá sosteniendo mientras viva …”39 And, a few lines later he directly addresses the critics: “Además, los críticos pueden formular objeciones al ritmo, al dialogo, al tratamiento de los personajes, pero jamás al argumento … porque este … es de Homero.40 Although el autor, an inherently ridiculous figure, is speaking those lines both to exhibit the breadth of his theatrical knowledge and to appease critics lest they judge his work too harshly, Benedetti is communicating something else altogether. In the above two quotes, Benedetti, not el autor, is calling into question the very notion of what constitutes theatre, drama. Is it supposed to be dignified and are all dramatic works expected to fit into the mould established by Sophocles, Shakespeare or Calderon? The critics certainly seem to think so, with the inference being that they have attempted the imposition of rigid conventions upon drama, ultimately stifling the creative spirit. While el autor is seemingly apologetic for breaking conventions in his `play within a play,’ Benedetti is not for doing the same in “Ida y Vuelta.”41 Benedetti is determined to break the mould and while the critics may object, the true artist, the free person, will not listen to any but his muse. This is Benedetti’s communiqué to his critics and this is his message to the Uruguayans – the freedom to choose one’s own path and the right to rebel against stifling conventions imposed from above. The argument presented in the above is clear – Mario Benedetti was, to a great degree, writing for his country and his people. Acting in the capacity of a socio-political observer and artist, in “Ida y Vuelta,” he embarks upon a quasi-vicious attack upon the Uruguayan mindset, contemporary culture, middle classes, socio-political life, contemporary art and literary critics. His purpose, however, is a constructive, not a deconstructive, one. Quite simply stated, he is exposing Uruguay to Uruguay and the middle class to the middle class, literary artists to themselves and, in the process, deliberately shocks in order to incite reform and awakening. Indeed, to instigate reform, to wake Uruguay and its middle class from their stupor, and incite artists to reclaim their creative spirit rather than pay heed to critics and their opinions, he seeks to flatter no one, whether audiences or critics but, instead, to shock and criticise all. It is, thus, that Benedetti’s drama ultimately emerges as a critical theatre as opposed to one which flatters either critics or audiences. Bibliography Benedetti, Mario. “Ida y Vuelta.” Cótelo, Rubén. Narradores Uruguayos. Caracas: Monte Avila, 1969. Curutchet, Juan Carlos “Los montevideanos de Mario Benedetti.” Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, 232 (April, 1969), 141-148. Englekirk, John E. and Margaret M. Ramos. La Narrativa uruguaya. Berkeley: Berkeley UP, 1967. Fornet, Ambrosio. Recopilación de Textos Sobre Mario Benedetti. Havana: Case de las Americas, 1976. Latchman, Ricardo. “Montevideanos por Mario Benedetti,” in Carné Critico: Ensayos, Ricardo Latchman, ed. Montevideo: Alfa, 1962. Ruffinelli, Jorge. Mario Benedetti: Variaciones Criticas. Montevideo: Astillero, 1973. Villegas, Juan. “Historicizing the Latin American Theatre,” Theatre Journal, 41, 4(1989), pp. 505-514. Zeitz, Eileen M. “Entrevista a Mario Benedetti,” Hispania, 63(May 1980), pp. 417-419. Zeitz, Eileen M. “Los Personajes de Benedetti: En Busca de Identidad y Existencia.” Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, 297 (March, 1975), pp. 635-644. Read More