No entiendo a los hombres. No quiero saber nada de relaciones sentimentales, al menos por un tiempo largo. A la mierda con el amor. I can't understand men. I don't want to know about romantic relationships, at least for a long time. Fuck love. A word or phrase that is commonly used in conversational speech e. Regionalism used in the United States. Se te ve por los suelos, chico. You look miserable, dude. What's wrong?
Weren't you in love? We've combined the most accurate English to Spanish translations, dictionary, verb conjugations, and Spanish to English translators into one very powerful search box. Try Fluencia, the new Spanish learning program from SpanishDict. The page is Inaccurate Unclear Missing translations Missing conjugations Other.
- Divas In Danger Box Set.
- Vidas cruzadas / Crossing (Spanish Edition).
- Get this edition.
- Handbook of Psychology, Clinical Psychology: Volume 8.
- Q&A: Kevin Conroy, President, Univision Interactive Media - Multichannel.
- ISBN 13: 9788499899046!
- Shop by category.
Some admired the technique and the themes, but criticized the as- pect of exotic nationalism. The author re- turned several times. I will comment on this nega- tive reception in chapter five. I see in Pau-Brasil a broader range of positions. I will focus on topics and themes that have rarely been considered. In the literature review I pro- vide in chapter five, I explain the debate surrounding Pau-Brasil. I agree with some arguments but also disagree, in part, with both po- sitions. I analyze several poems in Pau-Brasil with emphasis on the liaisons and the exchange of ideas between Oswald de Andrade, Blaise Cendrars, and Paulo Prado.
The Ban- deirante trope is also present in various poems. In general, the poet- ic discourse in Pau-Brasil displays a deceptively ludic character. I focus on aspects of immanence, or the allusions to certain non-visu- al ancestral, historical aspects of the poems.
Nova Casa Editorial
My study is essentially a critique of the framework that supports the institutionalized definitions and readings of the early modernist period. It is a critique of the simplistic notions of rupture and emancipation that have framed the standard definition of Mod- 17 Prado makes reference here to the Jacobins, who formed the nationalist group during the French Revolution. It is also a critique of the time-bound conventions that structure the study of Modernism in Brazil e. My critique of the self-aggrandizing rhetoric of the modernists, which is largely reproduced in much of the criticism and historiography, does not invalidate or discard this entire body of work.
It simply evaluates some of the adverse effects that such constructions have for the study of modern Brazilian literature. My emphasis on the aspect of self-legitimation of the critical and his- torical discourse produced by modernist intellectuals puts in evi- dence their self-interest; it calls attention to the degree of invest- ment that these intellectuals display when they assume the role of critics and arbiters of their own literary output. By the same token, my analysis of their texts is based on the recognition of the centrali- ty of their legacy: On the contrary, my readings attempt to avoid commonplaces and conventions that I think have impoverished the study of the modernist legacy.
I ex- plore topics and issues that have received less attention exactly in an attempt to revitalize interest in this legacy, which is still relevant and should not be kept in a museum of national memory in ossified form. The details of this rupture or ruptures are explained only at the level of the aesthetic. However, in this kind of discourse, the aesthetic innovations attributed to Mod- ernism usually assume meanings that transcend the realm of the aesthetic. Implied in this discourse is that such ruptures also occur at the ideological, political, ethical, and moral levels.
This definition appears more explicitly in the discourse of literary historiography. Modernism is said to have ushered in a distinct language that re- flected a new intellectual attitude. The literature that predominated at that time, especially Parnassian poetry and Art Nouveau prose, is 1 I am referring to traditional histories and a kind of aesthetic criticism that prevailed in Brazil from the s until, at least, the early s.
There are excep- tions to this kind of formal criticism, but they are rare. I will explain the details of this kind of scholarship in chapter two. Their openness for the new ideas and forms of expression is said to have been expressed through the affirmation of popular culture, the use of a Brazilian language, and the desire to bring literature and art out of institutional ivory towers and into daily life.
Along these lines Modernism as a whole is defined as a watershed cultural movement that renewed or revolutionized the entire Brazilian intellectual landscape. Thus narrated, the modernist trajec- tory starts and ends in victory, with the triumph of freedom and au- thenticity for national literary and artistic expression. Some Sym- bolist poets are praised as well. I am providing a list of literary histories that I have consulted and that include similar definitions and similar timelines and ex- planations about Brazilian Modernism.
My list excludes articles and books of literary criticism that focus on specific authors. I opted in favor of works that provide broad historical views of Modernism in Brazil. This orthodox definition of Modernism ap- pears in the following publications: There are also high school textbooks that repro- duce this orthodox view of Modernism, for example: The fact that this definition of Modernism is still included in textbooks for middle and high-school levels in the mids is a sign that the official view of Mod- ernism continues to be deployed in the educational system in Brazil.
Many scholars in Brazil have also pointed out the limitations of this for- malistic approach and have proposed new interpretations and ap- proaches to the study of Modernism. What I want to emphasize here is that this valorization of the notion of rupture is a problem that involves more than methodological limitations of literary criticism. Implicit- ly or explicitly, the historiography and criticism that represented Brazilian Modernism in such terms relied on a preconceived telos of intellectual emancipation. Most of the claims ex- pressed in literary historiography had been part of the cultural agenda of early modernists.
This simplified narrative structure is 6 In fact, Johnson published a series of articles in which he mentions the limi- tations of the formalistic approach to the readings of Modernism, which was pre- dominant until the s.
An Idea Out of Place? These are, by nature, meta-literary pieces of writing, which establish aesthetic and ideological guidelines for other artists and writers to follow. The most important manifestos appear in the mid to late s. For a transcription of all modernist manifestos, see Teles. Modernist intellectuals were well aware of the fact that, even though they shared the desire to transform the cultural landscape, there was rarely an agreement as to what path to follow.
Buy Paperback Fiction Books in Spanish | eBay
In spite of the conflicts among members of the same sub-groups, and of antag- onistic groups, such conflicts, though mentioned, do not obstruct the overarching cohesiveness of the narrative of heroic cultural lib- eration. While Modernism as a whole tends to be idealized, individ- ual authors receive distinct treatment according to the centrality of their work in the modernist movement.
This story is comprised of other stories that are organized in a sequential manner. Lyotard contends that the primary function of these metanarratives is to legitimize knowledge Conceived within institutions of higher learning, metanarratives of knowledge also fulfill the function of self-legitimation Lyotard xxiii.
This crisis of legitimacy oc- curs from within the systems that produced such metanarratives. Within institutions of higher learning, concerns with the validity of the metanarrative self-legitimizing function arise. The author first distinguishes two main types of discourse on knowledge: Narratives that rely on the concept of speculation are proper to discourse of the sciences, 8 Authors whose work was considered more innovative usually received better treatment and higher placement in the volumes of literary history.
Others, whose work remained attached to old-fashioned codes, or whose political positions were too conservative, received less praise. I will return to this topic in chapter two. Within the discourse of emancipation Lyotard distin- guishes two versions of the metanarrative.
The first is political and the second is philosophical In the political version of the dis- course of emancipation, Lyotard recognizes the function of legit- imizing the state. The author argues that, in the narrative of free- dom, the state gains legitimacy not from itself but from the people: This university and its Faculdade de Filosofia [The College of Humanities] were to become models for a central- ized federal university system. It defines Modernism as the pinnacle, the historical moment when the battle for an authentic national identity finally achieved its goals.
In the most euphoric accounts of this bat- tle Modernism appears as the hero of the narrative, working toward the end-goal of emancipation of the national intelligentsia.
Other accounts state that Modernism brings about a renewal of the artistic and literary languages. In most of them it is possible to detect the identification of the historian, at some level, within this epic narra- tive. Therefore, the metanarrative of Modernism is not simply the discourse of legitimation and canonization of Modernism. This metanarrative, which is developed within state cultural institutions and institutions of higher education, performs multiple functions of legitimizing Modernism, the state cultural apparatuses, and itself.
There are several components to this metanarrative. Each of these components constitutes smaller narrative and structuring categories that are used to explain certain key moments in the de- velopment of Modernism. It is a discourse that assumed a some- what definitive form within institutions of the cultural educational apparatus of the Brazilian universities around the s.
In this chapter I intend to focus on one of the most problematic components of this metanarrative, which is the expla- nation for the changes that occurred in Modernism in the passage from the s to the s. I will then contrast that explanation with that of the studies that dealt with the relationship between intellectuals and the state during the s and 40s, which consti- tute the first manifestations of incredulity toward the metanarra- tive of Brazilian Modernism. In the final section of this chapter I will explore some of the issues that contributed to the building of the metanarrative by examining the first efforts to canonize the lit- erature of Modernism.
These first efforts do not form a cohesive body of historiography, but they suggest tem- poral demarcations, establish a list of important authors and works, and, above all, confer authority to these intellectuals to ar- bitrate the terms of their own canonization. Let me start with one of the conventional temporal demarcations that render, in aes- theticized terms, the beginning of the process that leads to this canonization.
See a transcription of the texts in Batista, Lopez, and Li- ma, Primeiro tempo modernista This negative review ended up helping histori- ans and critics build a narrative that emphasizes the shock provoked by the intro- duction of the new aesthetics in the arts.
It corroborates the general argument that modernists in the beginning had to fight hard against the conservative taste and mentality of the bourgeois public. Others talk about being cursed and thrown rotten eggs. In general, there is a lot more emphasis on the shock and dismay of the audience than on the performances themselves. These sto- ries contribute to the mystique of heroism that surrounds the early modernist mani- festations in Brazil. And we lived some eight years, until around , in the biggest intellectual orgy ever registered in the history of this country. And it is just around this date of that a calmer, more modest and quotidian, more proletarian phase, so to speak, of construction starts.
This short passage contains a sketch of a historical framework that explains in broad strokes and in simple terms a very complex and long period of time for literature and the arts in Brazil. Andrade covers eight years of the history of Modernism in one sentence. The author pro- vides a homogenized view of the s, by portraying it as a contin- uum, as a coherent whole.
Thus, this passage already puts forth the notion that the s were a time of intense creativity, innovation, rebelliousness, and transgression for the modernist movement, which is also hyperbolically described as the biggest extravaganza in the history of national culture. On the other hand, Andrade establishes a temporal mark, , as the beginning of yet another transformation in the intellectual milieu.
It is also im- plied in this passage that the literature of the s not only had a connection with the earlier modernist endeavors, but it also was in a way made possible because of the experiments of the s. Andrade is probably referring to or including the group of modernists from the Northeast and the literature of the neo-real- ist novel, which he depicts as a development of the s, but also as something distinct in spirit and attitude.
This is, nonetheless, a 11 I am using the original book version of this essay that was later published as an article. It is a way to assume for his own generation part of the re- sponsibility for this development. This argument that the best writers and literary works of the s somehow derive from the early modernist movement was a construction with which the authors of the Northeast did not al- ways agree. Vem agora o Sr. In the fragment quoted above Andrade provides no explanation for this change in attitude in the intellectual milieu in Brazil.
Other authors explain this change as a maturing of the ideas, and they sometimes point out the fact that modernists did not need to be as aggressive in the s because the movement had gained supporters along the way. Contrariando o nome, sob o moderno buscou o permanente. But its influence persists. It [the movement] was assimilated because it in fact encompassed solid principles, because it constituted a to- tal revolution, not just a simple revolt, much less an academic im- position of literary precepts.
As a revolution, it acted upon the environment, modifying it; as a revolution, it overcame a destruc- tive phase, moving toward a constructive one. Contradicting its name, under the sign of the modern it searched for the perma- nent. Originating in foreign aesthetic movements, it soon be- came national; negative in its initial impetus, it soon became af- firmative; dogmatic in its inaugural formulas, it soon acquired a flexibility indispensable to action; eager for novelty in its origin, it acquainted itself with the most vivid tradition of our literary past; intellectually aristocratic at its onset, it rapidly became hu- mane; festive and somewhat humorous in its beginnings, it later gained the gravity of the creative impulses; apparently disruptive, separatist at first, it turned out to be a strong cohesive agent.
Pereira juxtaposes several antithetical adjectives in an attempt to reconcile many of the contradictions as well as the paradoxes that make it so complicated to narratize the movement in a linear, ho- mogeneous, and coherent flow of ideas and actions. The author clearly sees these opposing forces as transformative in the intellec- tual area because the trajectory generated from these conflicting elements always led Modernism in the direction of intellectual emancipation; of becoming national.
Pereira describes a mo- ment at which Modernism has achieved a new status and no longer faced significant opposition. Literatura no Brasil It had spread throughout the whole country. Such explanations, of course, can only be defended if one understands the modernist movement as a mono- lithic force with a clear and coherent cultural project.
As it is typical in all of the narratives that make up the metanar- rative of Modernism, this is an explanation that establishes a ho- mogenized meaning for a cultural phenomenon that was diverse, fragmented, and full of internal conflict. It narrates the moment in which Modernism becomes dominant and Brazilian intelligentsia is in a path for liberation.
This is also a type of construction in which the political and ideological meanings of the modernist tri- umph are alluded to but not explained in explicit terms. The al- leged cultural transformation that Modernism underwent is narrat- ed, first and foremost, as a process of aesthetic gain and maturation. Developments outside the aesthetic or outside the realm of ideas are not explained. The preceding discussion is a classic example of the immanen- tist view of Modernism.
They elide the non- aesthetic components of the process of restructuring the political sphere i. Some of these new writers were in- fluenced by the early modernist manifestations, but many of them introduced an aesthetic sensibility and themes that were never part of the s modernist output. This characterization holds true on- ly to those who see literary movements as autonomous entities with historicities of their own.
Only if one takes for granted that the au- thors who were central to Modernism in the s were the same or the newcomers were heirs of certain currents of the modernist movement in the s does this explanation satisfy. The neorealist novel of the s fo- cuses, for the most part, on the problems of the backlands of the northeast region. In poetry the most celebrated writers who debuted in the s were from other parts of Brazil, and they brought along a variety of influences that were not always directly related to the s.
His poetry maintains some points of contact with the experimental poetry of the s, but it could not be reduced to any particular aesthetic group or ideologi- cal current. The above is just a brief description of the changes introduced by the literature of the s, but it is enough to argue that the modernist literature of the s and 40s cannot be seen as a mere development of the experiments of the s.
In the s and 40s, as in any other period, the literary production presents multiple temporalities, styles, an even broader range of subject matter, new authors, and new aesthetic influences. Some segments of this liter- ary production, such as the neorealist novel, were directed at a broader audience and achieved commercial success. Thus, to historicize the changes in the liter- ary milieu from the s to s in a linear fashion—as a continu- ous flow of ideas and a natural development—is to impose a continuity that existed only partially.
There were continuities, which include such traits as nationalism and the need to explore the culture of Brazilian countryside, as well as disruptions, which in- clude a return to less experimental forms, especially in the prose of the s. Not everything that is produced in the s and 40s is a direct consequence of the experiments of the s. Even if seen exclusively from the formal point of view, the changes that occur in the s still present a challenge to historians and critics. However, in the case of Brazilian Modernism, because the early output of the s 12 For a detailed explanation of the market for this kind of literature, see Miceli, Intelectuais In his classic The first phase was marked by a struggle to overthrow traditional forms and styles such as Parnas- sianism, while the second phase was marked by the consolidation of the modernist victory in the cultural realm and a move toward an ideological project.
By opposing aesthetic to ideological, the author proposes a separation between two aspects that are in fact inseparable. The author does mention the fact that the aesthetic project already contains an ideological component We have made here our main choice: We have tried to verify in what measure our authors remain close to this conception; in what measure they accepted the basic precepts of the modernist movement. See Cunha O romantismo no Brasil. By doing so, the author does not recognize that his own defense of the aesthetic precepts of Modernism is not only ideological but prescriptive of an ideology.
They explain the process as something circumscribed to the literary discourse form and ideolo- gy. That is, what is most relevant in their argument is the fact that the language of Modernism becomes less focused on aesthetic ex- perimentation and more focused on the ideological aspects of their work. Though vague, such explanations for the changes in the liter- ature of s are widely accepted. Let us see which aspects of these developments were elided in the discourse of literary criticism and historiography.
This was first done by studies exploring the connections between modernist intellectuals, the rul- ing classes, and the state. This is not to say that there were not studies and essays that contested the discourse of traditional historiography, as I will demonstrate throughout this book. However, since the late seventies it is not the form or the meaning of modernist texts that became prominent or criticized. It is the topic of the institutional founda- tion of Modernism that has become one of the most pursued topics of research in Brazilian studies.
Miceli also includes authors from other regions of Brazil where the modernist move- ment flourished such, as the Northeast, Minas Gerais, and Rio Grande do Sul. Another important development Miceli points out is expansion of the state apparatuses, which would absorb many of these intellectuals His study, whose primary sources were the memoirs and autobiographies of modernist intellectuals, faced a great deal of resistance in the area of literary studies in Brazil. The center has a variety of official documents and classified government information from the Vargas years. There existed different degrees of identification with the regime.
Cassiano Ricardo and his fellow verdeamarelistas strongly sup- ported the Estado Novo and thus acted in consonance with their own ideological and political convictions. In general, though, Miceli implies that all of them were either in support of, or in compliance with, the administration. The reasons for their involvement with the state administration were many, and the level of involvement and support for the state varied considerably from individual to individual.
It was as if Miceli had caught Candido and an entire generation of literary crit- ics and historians in a lie. The author states that to think outside of these parameters was something new to him The author describes the involvement of the aristocracy with the arts and their support of the modernist group of intellectuals as a political reaction against the developing industrial bourgeoisie. However, apart from these notable exceptions, it is still easier to find reissues of studies that perpetuate the institutionalized view of Modernism.
In order to reevaluate the modernist pro- duction in view of their connections with power, the attitude of condemning or defending the modernist generation for their in- volvement with the nation-building apparatus of the Vargas admin- istration seems to be a futile effort. There are more productive paths for reassessing the legacy of Modernism and for critiquing the old structures of knowledge that imposed the formal paradigm as the norm for the interpretation of modernist texts. Miceli makes it evident that the modernist generation benefited from, and was, in many cases, in charge of the very institu- tions and mechanisms of legitimation of their literary production: He argues that these books were influenced by the methodology he used in his book.
Miceli raises the issue of patronage not to simply disqualify the modernist legacy. His remarks in the quote above introduce cate- gories that are usually excluded from the vocabulary of immanent modes of literary criticism. The author provides a generic list of the structures of power, mechanisms of legitimation, private and insti- tutional support that made Modernism possible. These were essen- tial structures providing backing to a cultural movement operating outside of the market and with little commercial potential.
Aimed at setting new standards for high culture and for a discourse of na- tional identity, modernism depended on the structures of power private and state patronage in order to achieve and sustain sym- bolic power over cultural matters.
- Vidas cruzadas / Crossings (Spanish Edition)!
- Please, Papa;
- Whats A Nice Girl Like You......
- Freely available.
In sum, Miceli emphasizes the role of cultural politics in creating and adding value to modernist works. These structures of legitimization were, at that time, the hegemonic forces behind the construction of an iconoclastic image of non-conformity with which many modernist authors liked to be associated.
Vidas cruzadas (Crossings)
In the following section I will provide an overview of the relationship between intellectuals and the Vargas administration, according to the scholarship in this area. It would be a mistake to answer this question with a coherent and homogeneous narrative. The growing scholarship in this area has shown the complexities and contradictions of that relationship. For my purpose here, determin- ing whether or not modernists individually or collectively con- formed to the politics of an authoritarian state is irrelevant. The most important aspect to be considered is how the state cultural and educational apparatuses were involved in a sort of symbiotic re- lationship.
This relationship was tense and complex, but it was also mutually empowering. The state gained legitimacy by appropriating the image of rebelliousness from the modernists and by appointing many modernists to positions of power within the state administra- tion in order to craft a discourse of self-legitimation. On the other hand, intellectuals who participated in the state cultural projects benefited from the state patronage, as it projected them nationally and contributed to their canonization. This is not to say, however, that this relationship was always beneficial for these intellectuals.
The administration had the upper hand in this relationship, appro- priating Modernism to cast the state as a progressive force. In general, the Var- gas state administration used a generic image of Modernism as an emblem for its cultural and educational policies. On the one hand, it put forth an incisive effort to homogenize and institutionalize cul- tural and educational areas.
On the other hand, it stimulated cultur- al production without completely obliterating ideological diver- gence among intellectual factions. This is not to say, however, that Vargas was lenient with regard to opposing political and ideological actions within the govern- ment. Instead, the co-opting of intellectuals with conflicting politi- cal and ideological outlooks should be understood as an efficient maneuver to neutralize opposition.
Related Vidas cruzadas (Spanish Edition)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved