Tag Archives: Latin America

Things I like: O alienista (The Psychiatrist)

1 Reply
Friday - 4 July 2008

About eight years ago, I lived in Fremantle, Western Australia. I had a great time there, working as a door-to-door salesman (more on this in the future), getting into scrapes, going clubbing and listening to Royal trux and the Flaming Lips. I also indulged my habit of wondering around second-hand bookshops looking for new, interesting books that I thought I'd enjoy.

One such book was a collection of Latin American short stories edited by Thomas Colchie (it's still available second-hand from Amazon or you could spend a pleasant afternoon in an actual shop, looking for it). The anthology is packed with moving and amusing stories by writers from all over Latin America, translated into English. At the time, I knew nothing about Latin American authors (still don't, really), except that I had enjoyed the dreamy romance and masculine mendacity of Love In The Time of Cholera.

I devoured the collection and have read it several times since. But one story I always come back to, and must have read nine or ten times now is The Psychiatrist (O alienista) by the famed Brazilian author Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis. First published in 1882, The Psychiatrist tells the story of one Dr. Simão Bacamarte, a famous physician who decides to start studying psychiatry. He constructs a mental hospital in the town of Itaguaí and begins the process of committing those who appear to be mentally ill according to his theories.

The story is an obvious metaphor for the abuse of science, power and authority on the part of Bacamarte but it's also a stinging (and hilarious) indictment of bureaucracy, populism, demagoguery and selfishness. Another fascinating aspect of the story is that even though it was written in the 1880's, if not before, it seems to gently foreshadow much of the madness that was coming with the century ahead.

In turn funny and thought-provoking, O alienista is also helped along by the very modern direct-narrative form employed by its author. Machado de Assis had a very interesting background as he was apparently the son of a mulatto housepainter and a Portuguese washerwoman, not an upbringing which one would expect to produce a famous writer and journalist (at least, not in the 19th century). His writing is clear, simple, witty and absorbing and The Psychiatrist almost feels like it might have been written in 1952.

If you've not been lucky enough to enjoy this fine piece of literature, I cannot recommend it strongly enough. It's almost certainly available in numerous anthologies and if you find a copy of Colchie's, it'll be accompanied by a fine selection of great Latin American writing.

Update: Apparently, you can still buy the anthology I have, published under a different title.

Two dinosaurs exchange insults

5 Replies
Monday - 12 November 2007

As you have probably seen, Hugo Chavez was told to shut up the other day by king Juan Carlos during an international conference. Chavez was boorish as usual, using flamboyant insults to lambaste former Spanish president Aznar as a 'fascist' (not strictly correct – Aznar was a falangist, which isn't quite the same thing). When current president Zapatero stepped in to say 'Steady on, old boy', Chavez wouldn't stop interrupting him, despite his microphone being turned off. At this point, Juan Carlos did his bit for international diplomacy by saying "Why don't you just shut up?".

The general feeling in the media is that most Spaniards are pretty happy about their king taking Chavez down a peg, but the people I've spoken with don't sound quite so pleased. Chavez was being a complete prick, as usual, but JC didn't make himself look much more civilised by telling him to shut up, and then storming out of the conference. A friend said to me "He shouldn't have said that… that's not how you talk to people at these sorts of events". And I agree. The king, for all the short term 'macho' points he might have earned, didn't do much to make Spain look like the modern, civilised democracy we know it to be. He may also have piled some more risk onto Spain's relations with Latin America, which could affect trade and the economy. No, it was an unhelpful flare of temper and not much more.

One man did make Spain look good, and that was Zapatero. In the coverage on the UK's Channel 4 News, ZP was praised for his composure and diplomacy. Oh, and apparently, our cousin Mariano Rajoy telephoned the king to thank him for sticking up for Aznar… but failed to call Zapatero to thank him. What a petty, poisonous little man Rajoy is. He's almost worse than Aznar.

Apologists and fantasists

2 Replies
Tuesday - 12 December 2006

As the obituaries of Augusto Pinochet rolled in over the last couple of days, several claims were made repeatedly as an attempt to mitigate what was almost universal condemnation of the murderous dictator. It is understandable that those who have benefited from the rule of a brutal despot will seek to describe him as in some way necessary, excused or even good. Pinochet is no exception: even supposedly neutral news agencies have been busily repeating the myths that the General either solved Chile's economic problems or saved the country from communism.

The economic myth is the most convincing to those not versed in rudimental economics: things didn't seem to be going very well at all when he took over but when he eventually lost power, Chile's economy was a model for Latin America. In fact, this myth is easily debunked on various grounds: (i) there's no telling how the economy would have fared had democracy been allowed to flourish; (ii) Chile's economy only really picked up in around 1982 when the Chicago Boys policies of prior years were abandoned; (iii) the real upturn in the economy coincides perfectly with a sharp increase in the value of copper, the country's prime metal resource.

That Pinochet prevented communists from taking over Chile is a slightly more slippery myth. Of course, it is true that during Pinochet's rule, communists were interned, tortured and murdered – ensuring, along with the proscription of left-wing parties, that communists couldn't take over the country. However, the country had not undergone a communist revolution and while many critics of President Allende argued that his election opened the door to a revolutionary state, it cannot be said for sure if this would have ever happened. What Pinochet did rid Chile of was the chance for its citizens to decide how they wanted to be governed… which, presumably could have included 'soviet republic' as a possible result.

What's really important about Pinochet is that he never faced justice for his many crimes against humanity. This is greatly unfortunate and the UK's 'Labour' government helped him smiling on his way to freedom, despite attempts by the judiciary and even the Lords(!) to extradite him to Spain. Is it right that former heads of state had a supposed immunity to prosecution? No. Is it right that the House of Lords passed a landmark ruling in this regard? Yes. Is it sickening that Labour ended up letting him go home (he looked very sprightly walking down the runway in Santiago)? Yes.

The brief time I've spent with victims of Pinochet's rule has had a massive effect on me. These weren't communist revolutionaries, Stalinist stooges or, for that matter, liars. They were idealists who elected a left-wing government in Chile with the hope of a new age of progressive, socialist government which defended the poor and stood up to big business. I know it's not always a case of either/or but the Chilean refugees I met helped me to realise that sometimes, it's better to be on the losing side. Call us fantasists, fools and losers… we don't care: we know that it's right to stand up for what we know to be right. There's nothing wrong with wanting the world to be a better place.