I The Supreme Continued...

Though this novel is evidently a rich narrative, it never truly captured my attention. I was never able to get over the fact that there is no use of quotation marks to make it clear who is speaking! I did however find it interesting that Roa Bastos uses so many different types of narration throughout the novel; such as recorded dialogues, private notebook entries, documents, episodes of a “perpetual circular”, etc. I was struck by the final complier’s note (p. 435) in which he makes reference to the "fatality of the written language". This notion lends itself to the idea that writing is associated with power. I interpreted this as meaning that writing is powerful because history can be erased by the stroke of a pen...or destroyed if it does not please the Supreme. Of the novels we have read so far, I feel that this novel is the clearest embodiment of writing as power, as the entire narrative is based around writing and its association with power. I suppose it makes sense that this text was “read first and written later” since most of the novel is a dialogue. I believe that it was quite bold to state that “instead of saying and writing something new, it [the novel] merely faithfully copies what has already been said and composed by others.” Dictators, such as the Supreme and the President, never truly create a new history, they simply manipulate what has occurred for their personal benefit, which is essentially something that has “already been said”. These dictators, “Terrorists by Divine Right”, live in constant fear, which is another example that writing is power because they must constantly be fearful and monitor the written word circulating in society. Though I was not a fan of the lack of clarification of speaker, I did enjoy this book more than Facundo, my only other complaint being how ridiculously long it was.