More things wrong with Doris Sommer’s book

Page 79 is where she says Isaacs’ novel is “atypical” in its anti-mestizaje stance. On page 80 she says romance was used as a figure for national unity although not equality.

I do not think it is accurate to put a writer like Alencar in the same basket as Villaverde. Alencar (O Guaraní) talks about mythical mestizo beginnings — all that mestizaje is very l.i.t.e. and in the distant past.

Back to unity but not equality — is it even about unity? Does the effort to summon nostalgia really work for all?

Axé.


One thought on “More things wrong with Doris Sommer’s book

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s