In Poligramas 25 (2006) Noé Jitrik ends his commentary on María thus:
El arte de Isaacs reside en las alusiones, en las suposiciones detrás de las cuales todos comprenden la verdad que por pudor se oculta, en los cambios de plano, de lo subjetivo a lo objetivo, lo cual crea una atmósfera de veladuras no exentas de una solemnidad que lo religioso, demasiado evidente, no expresa, pero que sí sería el sagrado lenguaje de la tierra. Esto, y no las descripciones concretas, es lo colombiano, el retorno, como decía Aimé Césaire, al país natal, sea quien fuere quien lo escribe.
The “veladuras” and the atmosphere pregnant with truths which cannot be spoken are what fascinate me about this novel, too. In the article, Jitrik addresses the question of why people keep returning to this text and this atmosphere of secrecy may be its “secreto encanto” (palabras de Jitrik).
The article looks at Judaism and psychoanalysis; Judaism here is not a figure for race as it is in Sommer and also for me, but of the sinister, the dark, the hidden, the occult. The novel lulls you into the natural scenery of the Cauca and makes you identify with it, and tantalizes you with the feeling that there are many secrets to be revealed, including but not limited to masters, slaves, sex, frustrated destinies — materials for psychoanalysis.
I would say the novel claims to be about love and loss but this nucleus of issues is right below the surface, and just-showing: black, white, brown, gray, author, authority, property, properiety; master, slave, father, son, legitimate, illegitimate, heir; being and not being. I must read this article more closely.
Speaking of psychoanalysis, how did I fall for the incredibly poor logic of the psychotherapy I went through, which is now apparently one of the most discredited there are?
It was not really the poor logic that was the problem, nor even the destructive therapeutic theories and principles. It was the counter-transference.