First, more on professors who say we have to be professors, or that they are incapable of being anything else: I always thought this was just lack of imagination and information but is it low self esteem? When I was a child I thought school was my only safe bet as well.
We will think about these things but we will also think about this now old book on geopolitics and the avant-garde. Does it have any substance? Does it say new things? Or does it just review others’ ideas (in a somewhat confused way, at that)? Why is it so well blurbed?
Borges, Asturias, García Lorca, Cardoza y Aragón, everyone had a nationalist phase and these Latin American writers were all expanding the modern space. They also critique modernity as a global project, the author says.
VALLEJO is discussed at the end of the book, 153ff., as someone who questions own place of enunciation, and has cosmopolitan breadth but does not renounce a place of belonging, or give up community in favor of cosmopolitan detachment. He is not nativist, nor in-between (AHA: NOT “MESTIZO”), nor cosmopolitan; “home” is always an interrogation, not an origin or a place to which to return; identity is not [fetishized] and not “placed under erasure.”
I am not sure what to do with all of this. But I agree with these remarks, and I am finished reading.