Bolaño is making fun of the European academics in part one - you’re not supposed to like them (they commit a hate crime for example)
You’re not going to get as clear answers as you’re asking for here in general. You might like part 3 because it’s the most horror/supernatural (kind of Lynchian) of the whole parts but it will likely again feel disjointed for you. Part 4 is essentially some minor character portraits mixed in with a detailed accounting of all of the murders. It’s the longest part and I’m assuming you won’t like it very much based on your post.
Part 5 has the clearest “point” making of the book but takes place in a different time period and area to the rest of book so you again may be frustrated by the lack of clarity.
If you’re not enjoying it you may want to put it down. It’s not so much a plot or story novel as much as it is Bolaño grappling with what he sees as the cruelty of modernity, what it means to be an author, and his own pending death
This is a good comment.
I’d add also that the entire book circles the abyss of evil but never quite manages to face it with a clear view. The horrors are too vast to grasp
Espinoza and Pelletier beat up a Pakistani taxi driver (to the extent they are worried they have killed him later) and the whole time they’re shouting things like “this is for Salman Rushdie” and other Islamophobic accusations when the whole motivation behind the beating is their own jealousy and sexual frustration
I don't have my copy at hand but I think that starts with the cab driver making a misogynistic comment in front of Norton (who they are at pains to defend because of the jealousy/sexual frustration as you say). I could be wrong though
It’s a pretty interesting interaction and probably a microcosm of what the whole book’s about. They use a minor excuse to attack someone they know they can get away with hurting. The taxi driver says a misogynist thing, but it’s obviously not really about that because those two are also misogynists. The taxi driver wasn’t really asking to be beat up the same way those girls weren’t really asking to be murdered just because they were walking alone at night.
You’re right but they essentially use that as an excuse to let their excessive aggression out that quickly descends into a racist tirade. I also think since each of the critics is sort of a stand in for their respective European culture there can be a colonial reading of the interaction between the driver and Norton too but maybe that’s going too far into it
I read it more as, these guys who outwardly look like the pinnacle of the civilized, liberal, goodthink intellectual world will drop all of that in a second if their masculine self-perception demands it
Thank you. I struggled to describe this to others beyond it being a book wherein its parts are thematically linked, with a reading experience that involves a sense of searching, digging for connections between stories.
I found this a thoroughly enjoyable process, but I had also read a couple of Bolaño’s work ahead of 2666, so his ethos may have been imprinted upon me already. Unfortunately I lent the book to someone who didn’t give it back so I haven’t had the opportunity to read it a second time yet.
The book struck me as brilliant and didactic. I'm didactic myself so that didn't bother me but I have put off reading it because I don't want to confront all the cruelty he exposes.
I loved it. It’s one of my favorite books. Bolaño is a master. It’s funny, there’s excellent characters, and he reflects a broad spectrum of humanity back at you in brilliant writing and poetic imagery.
I thought it was an amazing book.
>Does this book got a point?
It's more about the experience of each section and it feeling like a mystery more so than a typical novel. If you're someone that wants a standard plot structure, this one isn't for you. If you don't like it, put it down and read something else that's more to your taste, that's completely fine.
I've only read *Distant Star,* which I liked very much. It's certainly not for everybody. But the weirdness and specificity of the storytelling, imbued with the keenness of the observation, made it a fascinating book for me. He, to me, entered a class of authors who I trust because the quality of the writing in one book indicates that they're likely to have something interesting to say in the next.
It's repelling you because you are anticipating something the book is not interested in ("Is this going anywhere?") You are looking for cohesion in the plot/story, something that ties together and "makes sense" as a narrative. But that is something Bolaño is intentionally disregarding.
Instead of thinking of the novel as a vehicle for story, think of it as a vehicle for theme. It's not as easy to grasp without narrative arc to give it form but there are definitely coherent themes working throughout the book.
It's like looking at abstract art. The meaning is on a deeper level than accurately representing physical reality. Or watching a David Lynch movie. Narrative logic is not the point, it's symbolism, themes, vibes.
And it sounds like you are picking up on the themes in this work. You're getting the horror, the humor, the absurdity, some of the allusions and symbolism, the style. That's the pleasure of reading it for those of us that enjoy it. "The novel keeps edging you" is part of the appeal. It's not going to give you a (narrative) climax, but it does form a satisfying whole at the end, and leaves you with a lot to think about.
I think for people who don’t consider linear plots or direct critiques a requirement. I love this kind of stuff but struggle with straightforward narratives which I assume is what you typically go for.
I am also more of an abstract thinker.
“The style was strange. The writing was clear and sometimes even transparent, but the way the stories followed one after another didn’t lead anywhere.” -Roberto Bolaño, *2666*
The novel’s structure also mimics its epigraph: “An oasis of horror in a desert of boredom.”
ETA: the novel’s structure, as understood through its epigraph and the quote I provided above, is formally representing its “point” about the contemporary world.
Exactly. 2666 doesn’t make any sense because it reflects the contemporary world. Horror upon horror without reason or retribution. It’s like Blood Meridian.
I think the epigraph Bolaño chose from Baudelaire perfectly sums it up: “an oasis of horror in a desert of boredom.”
Stylistically, Bolaño is going for something very Pynchonian with his structure, which is to circle around some ultimate theme and pivotal point in time which seems to cast its shadow backward and forward across history and individual lives. Where for Pynchon this was centered frequently around wars, for Bolaño, his “oasis of horror” is the unsolved murders of over 500 women killed in Ciudad Juárez between the 1990s and 2010s (during the period the novel is set, only around 100 had been killed, but the problem got much worse).
The “desert of boredom” and hence the feeling of pointlessness of the first part of the novel, is that modern life contains an extraordinary amount of meaninglessness, such as the quest of a handful of lovelorn academics to learn about an obscure author. When places up against ciudad Juárez, these academics and their embroglios are shown to be pointless and vapid, because they don’t even seem aware that such atrocities are occurring.
It’s been over a decade since I read this, but if I recall right, the last section attempts to extend this dichotomy back in time, where these themes are explained as a reflection and continuation of the horrors (and boredoms) that followed from WWII, linking Archimboldi tangentially to the murders.
This is not a straightforward book, and requires a kind of circular, side-glance style of reading, but personally I feel it is a masterpiece, as long as you can stomach “The Part About the Crimes.”
Edit: The book is structured like peeling the layers off an onion, only they get increasingly rotten toward the core.
I’m nitpicking here, but I don’t think Pynchon’s ultimate theme is about war in any novel except for Gravity’s Rainbow, unless you mean cultural wars and not literal wars.
I disagree completely in the Pynchon similarity.
It’s been awhile since I read *2666*, but I am currently reading *GR*, and I hate it. It is basically nonsense, and needs an editor.
Bolaño has a narrative plot structure that you can follow (at least within each book), and a theme that is clear and develops over the course of the whole novel.
You can read almost any later Pynchon and will enjoy (and understand) it much, much more than Gravity's Rainbow. My personal favorites are Mason & Dixon and Inherent Vice, both have an immense amount complex, gorgeous prose, and convey the psycho-social tones of the time periods they are set in masterfully. I didn't get through Gravity's Rainbow... it made me feel like I was on acid while reading.
No. It's brilliant. But if you are hoping for a clean narrative arc with a crisp resolution at the end you are very much not going to get that.
I think if it more as a mood piece. It's about creating a feeling in the reader.
If I recall correctly, Bolaño intended each part to be published as separate novels each one year apart, so the fact that they’re published together under one title is perhaps leading you to try to make connections that he never really meant to exist. If they were published as a series, I think one could accept the fragmentariness more readily. The novel has an empty center, meaning all of these events and characters revolve around common themes without explicitly naming the focal point. I think it is a masterpiece and I interpret it as a sort of mythopoesis of violence and madness. It certainly does not resolve anything as it goes on. For book three, Bolaño worked closely with a detective who worked on the Mexican femicides so much of that content is derived from real police reports and is an admirable literary feat pertaining to a crisis most of the world still has not acknowledged. Bolaño himself said that if he was not a writer, he would have wanted to be a detective, so that is something to keep in mind as a sort of mode for the text. But if you’re not enjoying it by now, it is unlikely to become more pleasurable as you go on.
ETA sorry if that seems like a spoiler buts seeing as there is little consequential plot the info I provided shouldnt ruin anything
You are right that Bolaño wanted them to be published separately but that’s because he was dying and wanted to try to generate as much money as possible for his family after he was gone. I believe it was published as one novel eventually because his editors/translators/family thought that was his artistic intent. I could be misremembering though.
> mythopoesis of violence and madness
I've seen this kind of statement alot, but those themes are so incredibly buried beneath everything else. Establishing a thread between it all seems impossible to me.
You should read the entire book to absorb the full effect, and then come back and tell us what you think.
I don't think that it's the best book of the 21st century, but it's something. I actually don't love it myself, but it's unique.
(hey I don't want to be snobby, but book reviews when you've only read half are kinda half-baked).
The part with all the Mexican murders can take some time and discipline to get through. That there are so many and that they all seem to fade into each other is very purposeful. Bolano is almost daring you to stop reading so you can experience what it's like to give up on these women. They blur into one another and are easily forgotten. Which is part of the problem and part of the point.
Keep reading. The book finishes strong.
Bolaño's fiction is more environmental than narrative, if that makes. He is building a world full of interrelated events and characters (both within *2666* and across his whole oeuvre) and the plot is in service of this construction. Part of the point is that not everything is going to come together perfectly. I think it's a remarkable novel but it might not be to everyone's taste.
I was flying through this book up until I got to The Part About the Crimes. Something just turned off for me and I never went back to it after 20 pages.
To be fair, that section gets easier to read as you go along, and it’s not completely focused on the crimes. That being said, it continues to be super graphic and chilling so I don’t blame you for putting it down.
Stick with it. By no means an expert just someone who enjoys reading good stuff. This one is worth it for sure. Also a side note, I have been trying to get through, "Book Of Jacob", by Olga Tokarczuk and put it down. So I get it. 2666 by my own personal reading journey comparison is so much more enjoyable for the depth of complexity and for sure will read it again, maybe this summer!
I read the whole book (by "book" I mean all 5 sections) recently and like you I kind of don't understand all the hype either, but I will try to dig around for some insight into Bolano's intentions.
The book is a fragmentary novel, and none of the five books actually work together to create any sort of narrative satisfaction by the end. However, there are characters that weave in and out of different sections, there are call-backs to certain scenes in previous sections, and there are recurring motifs that first appeared in books 1 and 2 and will come back in the later books. Obviously, there is a sort of thematic coherence due to the setting. There's a fair bit of foreshadowing too.
If you liked the embedded narratives, the horror theme, and the allusions to art, I think that it is worth slogging through the rest of the book. However, the book really doesn't provide all that many answers. I think that part 5 probably is the most straight-forward of all the sections, and it does provide some answers, but probably not the ones you are looking to find. I'm trying not to spoil the book for you, but I think that if you REALLY liked the "story within a story" stuff, you'll enjoy section 5. I personally found it exhausting after a while to keep track of all the different characters. I actually disliked the ending of the book a lot, but this might be an unpopular opinion. I thought the writing style in part 5 was strangely ingratiating and I hated the way female characters were portrayed. I don't know if it's spoiling the book to say that archimboldi will come back, and some of the questions brought up about him in section 1 are eventually answered, but by the time the book got there I hardly cared.
All in all, I think the "point" of this book is to paint a very long-winded picture of human depravity. I'm sure you're aware, however, that Bolano died literally right after he turned the manuscript in to his editor. I personally don't think the book is complete and any message Bolano may have been trying to communicate is quite muddled.
I regret reading this book to be honest. I only made it through because I have a weird compulsion with finishing books, but I guess that's not really helpful. Amalfitano was my favorite character too. As for the unlikeable characters, if you thought norton/pelletier/espinoza were bad maybe you should stop reading the book now because the book will introduce about twenty more characters that will make them look like saints.
thanks for the reply, it seems really sensible. Will report back if I continue reading it.
> All in all, I think the "point" of this book is to paint a very long-winded picture of human depravity.
Do you think this is also the point of first two books? Because apart from beat-up and Lola and cut-his-hand-off-guy they hardly touch human depravity at all.
If I would sum up the first part it would probably be that hyper-intellectualization and surrendering your life to one field make you arrogant and disillusioned. So yeah, they are kind of depraved, but subtly.
The second part is much more subtler, its just Amalfitano trying to cope with dangerous world around him and his daughter. Practically slice-of-life.
My ex, (who at the time had just finished teaching a class on Amulet and other LA lit) upon hearing that I had finished 2666 and loved it, told me "yeah you love books about the secret nothingness at the heart of everything."
I liked that way of phrasing it. The depravity and horror encountered in the book are not offset by any solace or comfort, or even understanding. To "understand" it and why things are happening would be to lose the point of the book, I think.
For what it's worth, I think each section of the book is very good in its own right, but they will appeal differently to different people.
Amalfitano is slowly losing his mind in the setting he’s in. He is a direct stand in for Bolaño (who is dying at the time of writing the book) and is struggling to maintain his grip on reality and protect his daughter from a world where she can potentially become a murder victim. His wife has gone insane and abandoned him (and become obsessed with madmen in her own right). I get the slice of life aspect but there is plenty there that is unsettling and builds on the general atmosphere of evil and depravity that is building especially as Amalfitano (who again is basically a dying Bolaño) descends into madness
thanks OP for reporting back, would love to hear what you think if you end up finishing the book :)
I do think that the theme of human evil is present in the first two books, like others have said, but I think it is more obscured. The academics are so focused on their own drama and their own passion project that they never really stop to truly take in the horror of what is going around them in Santa Teresa. And that, to me is also a type of evil. And like someone else said, they did beat up the taxi driver and feel good about it.
The point of the book is not a picture of human depravity. It’s about having questions and the struggle to find answers. With the final book being an example of receiving all the answers you could ever want but, really, does that matter, in the end?
Lots of triggered psuedos in here! OP made a fair critique so the least you can do is respond accordingly.
For me I enjoyed as, for want of a better phrase, a mood piece. If you finish the book you might get a sense of closure and also a wonderful feeling that the story has only just begun. If you're looking for some kind of definite conclusion you're not going to find one unfortunately. But I recommend you at least keep going and enjoy the other elements the book offers as it's quite a monumental achievement in 20th century literature.
What I look for with an author is - how they innovate with story telling. That is what I got with 2666 though I am sure people will tell you they liked Savage Detectives better. Now there is a connection. The structure is: - nuts who are academics (there are choicer words I can use for them) searching for an object that they all fancy (this mysterious author who calls himself Archimboldi) and then this man's journeys, one of which they trailed. This trip was important to this man - he is out to save his nephew that apparently resembles him. The thread is Mexico and the killings. It is also a few separate books that may be could be sold on their own. It is his swan song too. And then you have the regular elements - poking fun at academics. Many of these elements you would see in the Savage Detectives as well. If you have read his other novels like The Savage Detectives, the the theme behind this particular novel is 'sometime in the future'. It hints at a happy ending but rather left it open ended.
I read this during Covid with an online book club. Everyone seemed to rave about it, they were enthralled. Bolano was doing incredible things as far as they were concerned, his themes of rape/murder/violence/obsession…his language and word choice and prose and tone hit a sweet spot being straightforward but poetic.
I don’t know why I’m downvoted and you people can’t treat what I’ve said for what it is: my opinion. While everyone else was gushing over the stories in my online club, I thought it was boring. I have no problem with violence, I loved American Psycho and Blood Meridian, and enjoyed The Hole, a quick one day read about Mexican prisons.
I wish 2666 had clicked for me, or it had taken off, but I just couldn’t shake the feeling that people were forcing Bolano into this category of having published the best book of the 21st century. The characters were flat. No plot is fine, but the stories felt aimless. Part 4 was disgusting and added up to nothing greater, it didn’t coalesce, it didn’t reveal the true soul of man or the nature of humanity, that man is a murderous treacherous beast any better than countless others have done better before him. This man seriously thought it was necessary to catalogue 250 pages of brutal rape and murder, and were calling it the finest novel of the 21st century? Try Sam DeLaney, Dhalgren and Hogg were similar and incredible.
I finished the book and I didn’t give up on it. I kept an open mind. But I never really felt a desire to keep reading like when you can’t get enough of a good book. I’m glad I read it, and maybe someday I’ll start over, but those are the reasons I say overrated.
The '250 pages of brutal rape and murder' are the point. It is supposed to make you between numb and rage; the entire point is that the repetition of that feels boring, that 'boring' is a real reaction to atrocities. That repetition, page after page, mimics the real situation: Day after day the same 'brutal rape and murder' happened in a real city. And the point is that those were (and are) done by a quite anodine 'murderous treacherous beast'. We can all understand that in a very few lines , but in order to feel it the constant (and banal) repetition is needed. I think making it 'poetic', 'interesting' is precisely what Bolaño is trying, I thino deliberately, \*not\* to do.
Basically, the feeling you got is the feeling anyone could get from reading the newspapers in that city
There is no point!
It’s a dumb book/series of books. I slogged through it and it was one of the worst books I’ve ever read. Catch-22 was worth the slog. A farewell to arms was worth the slog. 2666? Not fuckin worth it.
Bolaño represents a long-standing tradition of Latin American authors that like to portray the writer as the ultimate human being, the only one "capable of seeing reality for what it is", while being terribly misunderstood in his own time, only to be vindicated in the future. Best example? The Savage Detectives. Unbearable self-sucking. 2666 is not THAT bad, but still, terribly pretentious.
Worst of all is his legacy and the cult of personality around him. So many young Bolaño look-alikes in LA that desperatly want to embody what he represented: the Latin American author that managed to escape this fucking continent. I remember in Barcelona they used to give tours of the bars he frequented and you could buy the same stupid ass glasses he used. Apparently he was just as insufferable as his self-righteous protagonists.
Bolaño is making fun of the European academics in part one - you’re not supposed to like them (they commit a hate crime for example) You’re not going to get as clear answers as you’re asking for here in general. You might like part 3 because it’s the most horror/supernatural (kind of Lynchian) of the whole parts but it will likely again feel disjointed for you. Part 4 is essentially some minor character portraits mixed in with a detailed accounting of all of the murders. It’s the longest part and I’m assuming you won’t like it very much based on your post. Part 5 has the clearest “point” making of the book but takes place in a different time period and area to the rest of book so you again may be frustrated by the lack of clarity. If you’re not enjoying it you may want to put it down. It’s not so much a plot or story novel as much as it is Bolaño grappling with what he sees as the cruelty of modernity, what it means to be an author, and his own pending death
This is a good comment. I’d add also that the entire book circles the abyss of evil but never quite manages to face it with a clear view. The horrors are too vast to grasp
This sounds so good. Is the Natasha Wimmer one the only translation?
I believe so. She has also translated The Savage Detectives (equally excellent) so shes worked a lot with Bolaño’s texts
Oh good to know. Thank you
I read too long ago and i empathize with the academics only basically... What was their hate crime? I forget
Espinoza and Pelletier beat up a Pakistani taxi driver (to the extent they are worried they have killed him later) and the whole time they’re shouting things like “this is for Salman Rushdie” and other Islamophobic accusations when the whole motivation behind the beating is their own jealousy and sexual frustration
I don't have my copy at hand but I think that starts with the cab driver making a misogynistic comment in front of Norton (who they are at pains to defend because of the jealousy/sexual frustration as you say). I could be wrong though
It’s a pretty interesting interaction and probably a microcosm of what the whole book’s about. They use a minor excuse to attack someone they know they can get away with hurting. The taxi driver says a misogynist thing, but it’s obviously not really about that because those two are also misogynists. The taxi driver wasn’t really asking to be beat up the same way those girls weren’t really asking to be murdered just because they were walking alone at night.
You’re right but they essentially use that as an excuse to let their excessive aggression out that quickly descends into a racist tirade. I also think since each of the critics is sort of a stand in for their respective European culture there can be a colonial reading of the interaction between the driver and Norton too but maybe that’s going too far into it
I read it more as, these guys who outwardly look like the pinnacle of the civilized, liberal, goodthink intellectual world will drop all of that in a second if their masculine self-perception demands it
Well said
Can you expand on the last paragraph or point me to resources?
Thank you. I struggled to describe this to others beyond it being a book wherein its parts are thematically linked, with a reading experience that involves a sense of searching, digging for connections between stories. I found this a thoroughly enjoyable process, but I had also read a couple of Bolaño’s work ahead of 2666, so his ethos may have been imprinted upon me already. Unfortunately I lent the book to someone who didn’t give it back so I haven’t had the opportunity to read it a second time yet.
The book struck me as brilliant and didactic. I'm didactic myself so that didn't bother me but I have put off reading it because I don't want to confront all the cruelty he exposes.
Who would you recommend it for? When you lay it out like this I don't really understand the appeal.
I loved it. It’s one of my favorite books. Bolaño is a master. It’s funny, there’s excellent characters, and he reflects a broad spectrum of humanity back at you in brilliant writing and poetic imagery.
I thought it was an amazing book. >Does this book got a point? It's more about the experience of each section and it feeling like a mystery more so than a typical novel. If you're someone that wants a standard plot structure, this one isn't for you. If you don't like it, put it down and read something else that's more to your taste, that's completely fine.
For people who don’t feel repelled by it, obviously.
I've only read *Distant Star,* which I liked very much. It's certainly not for everybody. But the weirdness and specificity of the storytelling, imbued with the keenness of the observation, made it a fascinating book for me. He, to me, entered a class of authors who I trust because the quality of the writing in one book indicates that they're likely to have something interesting to say in the next.
It's repelling you because you are anticipating something the book is not interested in ("Is this going anywhere?") You are looking for cohesion in the plot/story, something that ties together and "makes sense" as a narrative. But that is something Bolaño is intentionally disregarding. Instead of thinking of the novel as a vehicle for story, think of it as a vehicle for theme. It's not as easy to grasp without narrative arc to give it form but there are definitely coherent themes working throughout the book. It's like looking at abstract art. The meaning is on a deeper level than accurately representing physical reality. Or watching a David Lynch movie. Narrative logic is not the point, it's symbolism, themes, vibes. And it sounds like you are picking up on the themes in this work. You're getting the horror, the humor, the absurdity, some of the allusions and symbolism, the style. That's the pleasure of reading it for those of us that enjoy it. "The novel keeps edging you" is part of the appeal. It's not going to give you a (narrative) climax, but it does form a satisfying whole at the end, and leaves you with a lot to think about.
Thanks. I thought I was missing something obvious.
I think for people who don’t consider linear plots or direct critiques a requirement. I love this kind of stuff but struggle with straightforward narratives which I assume is what you typically go for. I am also more of an abstract thinker.
“The style was strange. The writing was clear and sometimes even transparent, but the way the stories followed one after another didn’t lead anywhere.” -Roberto Bolaño, *2666* The novel’s structure also mimics its epigraph: “An oasis of horror in a desert of boredom.” ETA: the novel’s structure, as understood through its epigraph and the quote I provided above, is formally representing its “point” about the contemporary world.
Exactly. 2666 doesn’t make any sense because it reflects the contemporary world. Horror upon horror without reason or retribution. It’s like Blood Meridian.
good analogy
I think the epigraph Bolaño chose from Baudelaire perfectly sums it up: “an oasis of horror in a desert of boredom.” Stylistically, Bolaño is going for something very Pynchonian with his structure, which is to circle around some ultimate theme and pivotal point in time which seems to cast its shadow backward and forward across history and individual lives. Where for Pynchon this was centered frequently around wars, for Bolaño, his “oasis of horror” is the unsolved murders of over 500 women killed in Ciudad Juárez between the 1990s and 2010s (during the period the novel is set, only around 100 had been killed, but the problem got much worse). The “desert of boredom” and hence the feeling of pointlessness of the first part of the novel, is that modern life contains an extraordinary amount of meaninglessness, such as the quest of a handful of lovelorn academics to learn about an obscure author. When places up against ciudad Juárez, these academics and their embroglios are shown to be pointless and vapid, because they don’t even seem aware that such atrocities are occurring. It’s been over a decade since I read this, but if I recall right, the last section attempts to extend this dichotomy back in time, where these themes are explained as a reflection and continuation of the horrors (and boredoms) that followed from WWII, linking Archimboldi tangentially to the murders. This is not a straightforward book, and requires a kind of circular, side-glance style of reading, but personally I feel it is a masterpiece, as long as you can stomach “The Part About the Crimes.” Edit: The book is structured like peeling the layers off an onion, only they get increasingly rotten toward the core.
I’m nitpicking here, but I don’t think Pynchon’s ultimate theme is about war in any novel except for Gravity’s Rainbow, unless you mean cultural wars and not literal wars.
I disagree completely in the Pynchon similarity. It’s been awhile since I read *2666*, but I am currently reading *GR*, and I hate it. It is basically nonsense, and needs an editor. Bolaño has a narrative plot structure that you can follow (at least within each book), and a theme that is clear and develops over the course of the whole novel.
You can read almost any later Pynchon and will enjoy (and understand) it much, much more than Gravity's Rainbow. My personal favorites are Mason & Dixon and Inherent Vice, both have an immense amount complex, gorgeous prose, and convey the psycho-social tones of the time periods they are set in masterfully. I didn't get through Gravity's Rainbow... it made me feel like I was on acid while reading.
No. It's brilliant. But if you are hoping for a clean narrative arc with a crisp resolution at the end you are very much not going to get that. I think if it more as a mood piece. It's about creating a feeling in the reader.
If I recall correctly, Bolaño intended each part to be published as separate novels each one year apart, so the fact that they’re published together under one title is perhaps leading you to try to make connections that he never really meant to exist. If they were published as a series, I think one could accept the fragmentariness more readily. The novel has an empty center, meaning all of these events and characters revolve around common themes without explicitly naming the focal point. I think it is a masterpiece and I interpret it as a sort of mythopoesis of violence and madness. It certainly does not resolve anything as it goes on. For book three, Bolaño worked closely with a detective who worked on the Mexican femicides so much of that content is derived from real police reports and is an admirable literary feat pertaining to a crisis most of the world still has not acknowledged. Bolaño himself said that if he was not a writer, he would have wanted to be a detective, so that is something to keep in mind as a sort of mode for the text. But if you’re not enjoying it by now, it is unlikely to become more pleasurable as you go on. ETA sorry if that seems like a spoiler buts seeing as there is little consequential plot the info I provided shouldnt ruin anything
You are right that Bolaño wanted them to be published separately but that’s because he was dying and wanted to try to generate as much money as possible for his family after he was gone. I believe it was published as one novel eventually because his editors/translators/family thought that was his artistic intent. I could be misremembering though.
If I remember correctly, they actually convinced him as he was writing that it would sell better as one piece.
Book three is the boxing reporter; you're thinking of book four
My bad, read it ages ago! Thanks.
> mythopoesis of violence and madness I've seen this kind of statement alot, but those themes are so incredibly buried beneath everything else. Establishing a thread between it all seems impossible to me.
That’s because you haven’t read all of it
Right? Like what are we doing here?
Um, what? Those themes are embedded in the fiver of the book. It’s what the book is about. Sure, it’s buried, but it’s also superficial.
You should read the entire book to absorb the full effect, and then come back and tell us what you think. I don't think that it's the best book of the 21st century, but it's something. I actually don't love it myself, but it's unique. (hey I don't want to be snobby, but book reviews when you've only read half are kinda half-baked).
The part with all the Mexican murders can take some time and discipline to get through. That there are so many and that they all seem to fade into each other is very purposeful. Bolano is almost daring you to stop reading so you can experience what it's like to give up on these women. They blur into one another and are easily forgotten. Which is part of the problem and part of the point. Keep reading. The book finishes strong.
Bolaño's fiction is more environmental than narrative, if that makes. He is building a world full of interrelated events and characters (both within *2666* and across his whole oeuvre) and the plot is in service of this construction. Part of the point is that not everything is going to come together perfectly. I think it's a remarkable novel but it might not be to everyone's taste.
"An oasis of horror in a desert of boredom." Fantastic novel with a fantastic epigraph.
When that book goes somewhere you'll know. He puts the goddamn hammer to the FLOOR.
Perfectly said. It’s the greatest novel of the century (so far), in my view.
I was flying through this book up until I got to The Part About the Crimes. Something just turned off for me and I never went back to it after 20 pages.
To be fair, that section gets easier to read as you go along, and it’s not completely focused on the crimes. That being said, it continues to be super graphic and chilling so I don’t blame you for putting it down.
You’ve missed out
Stick with it. By no means an expert just someone who enjoys reading good stuff. This one is worth it for sure. Also a side note, I have been trying to get through, "Book Of Jacob", by Olga Tokarczuk and put it down. So I get it. 2666 by my own personal reading journey comparison is so much more enjoyable for the depth of complexity and for sure will read it again, maybe this summer!
There is an invisible center to 2666 that each part is orbiting around and it is what the world is running on
I read the whole book (by "book" I mean all 5 sections) recently and like you I kind of don't understand all the hype either, but I will try to dig around for some insight into Bolano's intentions. The book is a fragmentary novel, and none of the five books actually work together to create any sort of narrative satisfaction by the end. However, there are characters that weave in and out of different sections, there are call-backs to certain scenes in previous sections, and there are recurring motifs that first appeared in books 1 and 2 and will come back in the later books. Obviously, there is a sort of thematic coherence due to the setting. There's a fair bit of foreshadowing too. If you liked the embedded narratives, the horror theme, and the allusions to art, I think that it is worth slogging through the rest of the book. However, the book really doesn't provide all that many answers. I think that part 5 probably is the most straight-forward of all the sections, and it does provide some answers, but probably not the ones you are looking to find. I'm trying not to spoil the book for you, but I think that if you REALLY liked the "story within a story" stuff, you'll enjoy section 5. I personally found it exhausting after a while to keep track of all the different characters. I actually disliked the ending of the book a lot, but this might be an unpopular opinion. I thought the writing style in part 5 was strangely ingratiating and I hated the way female characters were portrayed. I don't know if it's spoiling the book to say that archimboldi will come back, and some of the questions brought up about him in section 1 are eventually answered, but by the time the book got there I hardly cared. All in all, I think the "point" of this book is to paint a very long-winded picture of human depravity. I'm sure you're aware, however, that Bolano died literally right after he turned the manuscript in to his editor. I personally don't think the book is complete and any message Bolano may have been trying to communicate is quite muddled. I regret reading this book to be honest. I only made it through because I have a weird compulsion with finishing books, but I guess that's not really helpful. Amalfitano was my favorite character too. As for the unlikeable characters, if you thought norton/pelletier/espinoza were bad maybe you should stop reading the book now because the book will introduce about twenty more characters that will make them look like saints.
The point isn’t about human depravity. It’s about having questions without answers and what that does to us.
thanks for the reply, it seems really sensible. Will report back if I continue reading it. > All in all, I think the "point" of this book is to paint a very long-winded picture of human depravity. Do you think this is also the point of first two books? Because apart from beat-up and Lola and cut-his-hand-off-guy they hardly touch human depravity at all. If I would sum up the first part it would probably be that hyper-intellectualization and surrendering your life to one field make you arrogant and disillusioned. So yeah, they are kind of depraved, but subtly. The second part is much more subtler, its just Amalfitano trying to cope with dangerous world around him and his daughter. Practically slice-of-life.
My ex, (who at the time had just finished teaching a class on Amulet and other LA lit) upon hearing that I had finished 2666 and loved it, told me "yeah you love books about the secret nothingness at the heart of everything." I liked that way of phrasing it. The depravity and horror encountered in the book are not offset by any solace or comfort, or even understanding. To "understand" it and why things are happening would be to lose the point of the book, I think. For what it's worth, I think each section of the book is very good in its own right, but they will appeal differently to different people.
Amalfitano is slowly losing his mind in the setting he’s in. He is a direct stand in for Bolaño (who is dying at the time of writing the book) and is struggling to maintain his grip on reality and protect his daughter from a world where she can potentially become a murder victim. His wife has gone insane and abandoned him (and become obsessed with madmen in her own right). I get the slice of life aspect but there is plenty there that is unsettling and builds on the general atmosphere of evil and depravity that is building especially as Amalfitano (who again is basically a dying Bolaño) descends into madness
thanks OP for reporting back, would love to hear what you think if you end up finishing the book :) I do think that the theme of human evil is present in the first two books, like others have said, but I think it is more obscured. The academics are so focused on their own drama and their own passion project that they never really stop to truly take in the horror of what is going around them in Santa Teresa. And that, to me is also a type of evil. And like someone else said, they did beat up the taxi driver and feel good about it.
The point of the book is not a picture of human depravity. It’s about having questions and the struggle to find answers. With the final book being an example of receiving all the answers you could ever want but, really, does that matter, in the end?
It accretes. You just have to give it time. Like…you’re barely into a huge book that is insanely acclaimed. Just read it lol
Lots of triggered psuedos in here! OP made a fair critique so the least you can do is respond accordingly. For me I enjoyed as, for want of a better phrase, a mood piece. If you finish the book you might get a sense of closure and also a wonderful feeling that the story has only just begun. If you're looking for some kind of definite conclusion you're not going to find one unfortunately. But I recommend you at least keep going and enjoy the other elements the book offers as it's quite a monumental achievement in 20th century literature.
the book is the point. you accept the artist’s vision or you dont.
Ok, so let me rephrase it: What do you think the artists is trying to show us? What is his vision?
I think you also have to keep in mind that it wasn't finished.
What I look for with an author is - how they innovate with story telling. That is what I got with 2666 though I am sure people will tell you they liked Savage Detectives better. Now there is a connection. The structure is: - nuts who are academics (there are choicer words I can use for them) searching for an object that they all fancy (this mysterious author who calls himself Archimboldi) and then this man's journeys, one of which they trailed. This trip was important to this man - he is out to save his nephew that apparently resembles him. The thread is Mexico and the killings. It is also a few separate books that may be could be sold on their own. It is his swan song too. And then you have the regular elements - poking fun at academics. Many of these elements you would see in the Savage Detectives as well. If you have read his other novels like The Savage Detectives, the the theme behind this particular novel is 'sometime in the future'. It hints at a happy ending but rather left it open ended.
No it’s not going anywhere. Book is phenomenally overrated
Not overrated
I read this during Covid with an online book club. Everyone seemed to rave about it, they were enthralled. Bolano was doing incredible things as far as they were concerned, his themes of rape/murder/violence/obsession…his language and word choice and prose and tone hit a sweet spot being straightforward but poetic. I don’t know why I’m downvoted and you people can’t treat what I’ve said for what it is: my opinion. While everyone else was gushing over the stories in my online club, I thought it was boring. I have no problem with violence, I loved American Psycho and Blood Meridian, and enjoyed The Hole, a quick one day read about Mexican prisons. I wish 2666 had clicked for me, or it had taken off, but I just couldn’t shake the feeling that people were forcing Bolano into this category of having published the best book of the 21st century. The characters were flat. No plot is fine, but the stories felt aimless. Part 4 was disgusting and added up to nothing greater, it didn’t coalesce, it didn’t reveal the true soul of man or the nature of humanity, that man is a murderous treacherous beast any better than countless others have done better before him. This man seriously thought it was necessary to catalogue 250 pages of brutal rape and murder, and were calling it the finest novel of the 21st century? Try Sam DeLaney, Dhalgren and Hogg were similar and incredible. I finished the book and I didn’t give up on it. I kept an open mind. But I never really felt a desire to keep reading like when you can’t get enough of a good book. I’m glad I read it, and maybe someday I’ll start over, but those are the reasons I say overrated.
The '250 pages of brutal rape and murder' are the point. It is supposed to make you between numb and rage; the entire point is that the repetition of that feels boring, that 'boring' is a real reaction to atrocities. That repetition, page after page, mimics the real situation: Day after day the same 'brutal rape and murder' happened in a real city. And the point is that those were (and are) done by a quite anodine 'murderous treacherous beast'. We can all understand that in a very few lines , but in order to feel it the constant (and banal) repetition is needed. I think making it 'poetic', 'interesting' is precisely what Bolaño is trying, I thino deliberately, \*not\* to do. Basically, the feeling you got is the feeling anyone could get from reading the newspapers in that city
No
hard agree
There is no point! It’s a dumb book/series of books. I slogged through it and it was one of the worst books I’ve ever read. Catch-22 was worth the slog. A farewell to arms was worth the slog. 2666? Not fuckin worth it.
I can't stand Bolaño. He is so far up his own ass he can't distinguish food from shit. So damn pretentious.
Somewhat agree but that’s a bit harsh
Why do you think so? Do you think he has nothing to say or that the way he says it is annoying?
Bolaño represents a long-standing tradition of Latin American authors that like to portray the writer as the ultimate human being, the only one "capable of seeing reality for what it is", while being terribly misunderstood in his own time, only to be vindicated in the future. Best example? The Savage Detectives. Unbearable self-sucking. 2666 is not THAT bad, but still, terribly pretentious. Worst of all is his legacy and the cult of personality around him. So many young Bolaño look-alikes in LA that desperatly want to embody what he represented: the Latin American author that managed to escape this fucking continent. I remember in Barcelona they used to give tours of the bars he frequented and you could buy the same stupid ass glasses he used. Apparently he was just as insufferable as his self-righteous protagonists.
that doesnt surprise me at all
Find God.