Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:06:59.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Argentine Literary Journalism: The Production of a Critical Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2022

Francine Masiello
Francine Masiello*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Todo genuino movimiento literario, todo amanecer, toda ruptura, ha tenido indefectiblemente su primera exteriorización en las hojas provocativas de una revista. La revista descubre, polemiza; el escritor de revistas anticipa, es el guerrillero madrugado, el pionero que zampa terrenos intactos. La revista es vitrina y es cartel. El libro ya es en cierto modo un ataúd, quizás más duradero y más perfecto, pero menos jugoso y vital.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , 1985 , pp. 27 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the University of Texas Press

References

Notes

1. Cited in Nélida Salvador, Revistas argentinas de vanguardia (1920-1930) (Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 1962), pp. 92–93.

2. Jorge Luis Borges, “Intenciones,” La Biblioteca, second series, 9, no. 1 (1957):5.

3. Héctor René Lafleur, Sergio D. Provenzano, and Fernando P. Alonso, Las revistas literarias argentinas, 1893–1967, 2nd ed. (Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina, 1968), p. 9. For a similar opinion on the little review's role in U.S. literary culture, see Tom Montag, “The Little Review/Small Press Connection: Some Conjectures,” in The Little Magazine in America: A Modern Documentary History, edited by Elliott Anderson and Mary Kinzie (Yonkers, N.Y.: Pushcart, 1978), pp. 575–93.

4. Jan Mukarovsky, “The Individual and Literary Development,” in The Word and Verbal Art, translated by John Burbank and Peter Steiner (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), pp. 161–79.

5. All formalist critics shared this opinion; see, for example, Juri Tynjanov, “On Literary Evolution,” in Readings in Russian Poetics, translated by Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971), pp. 66–78.

6. Michel Foucault, “What is an Author?,” in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice, translated by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980), p. 115.

7. On the positioning of a speaking subject in verbal discourse, see, for example, the seminal works of Emile Benveniste, Problemes de linguistique générale (Paris: Gallimard, 1966); and Roman Jakobson, “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics,” in Style in Language, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1960), pp. 350–77.

8. For a broad overview of the philosophical and ideological implications of this problem, see Rosalind Coward and John Ellis, Language and Materialism: Developments in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977). On the notion of textual productivity in particular, see Julia Kristeva, La révolution du language poétique (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1974).

9. I discuss these questions in a forthcoming book, Lenguaje e ideología: las escuelas de vanguardia en Argentina (Buenos Aires: Hachette, in press).

10. In the introductory statement of the first issue of Nosotros, the editors insisted upon the anthological purpose of their review: “Esta revista no será excluyente. No desdeñará las firmas desconocidas. Si lo hiciere, renegaría de este su origen, humilde como el lector ve. Todo aquello que bien pensado y galanamente escrito a sus puertas se presentare, recibirá una afable acogida. Ningún otro anhelo anima a sus directores que el de poner en comunión en sus páginas, las viejas firmas consagradas con las nuevas ya conocidas y con aquéllas de los que surgen o han de surgir. Siempre que lograra revelar algún joven, ya podría esta revista vanagloriarse de su eficacia. Y si estas aspiraciones pudiesen salvar las fronteras de la patria y extenderse a toda la América Latina, mejor aún. Nada de más urgente necesidad que la creación de sólidos vínculos entre los aislados centros intelectuales sudamericanos.” From “Presentación,” Nosotros no. 1 (Aug. 1907):5–6.

11. Beatriz Sarlo discusses the self-consciousness of Argentine avant-garde activity in her article, “Vanguardia y criollismo: la aventura de Martín Fierro,” Revista de Crítica Literaria Latinoamericana 8, no. 15 (1982):39–69.

12. “Manifiesto de ‘Martín Fierro’,” Martín Fierro 1, no. 4 (15 May 1924):1.

13. The “Boedo and Florida” controversy has received extensive critical commentary. See, for example, Adolfo Prieto, El periódico Martín Fierro (Buenos Aires: Galerna, 1968); Beatriz Sarlo Sabajanes, Martín Fierro (1924-1927) (Buenos Aires: Carlos Pérez, 1969); and Marta Scrimaglio, Literatura argentina de vanguardia (1920-1939) (Rosario: Editorial Biblioteca, 1974).

14. Argentine intellectuals were especially influenced by Ortega's generational philosophies, which were described in journals and in El tema de nuestro tiempo (Madrid, 1923). Among the Argentine avant-garde journals of the 1920s, Inicial, the self-proclaimed voice of the “new generation,” followed Ortega's theories with the greatest enthusiasm and commitment.

15. See José Ortega y Gasset, El tema de nuestro tiempo and his notes in Meditación de un pueblo joven (Buenos Aires: Emece, 1958).

16. Recent critics have begun to study the ideological implications underlying generational philosophy. See, for example, Robert Wohl, The Generation of 1914 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979).

17. Victor Shklovsky, cited in P. N. Medvedev and M. M. Bakhtin, The Formal Method of Literary Scholarship (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), p. 160.

18. For an example of condemnation of Sur's elite positions, see Nicolás Rosa, “Sur o el espíritu de la letra,” Los Libros 2, nos. 15–16 (Jan.-Feb. 1970):5-6; David Viñas, Literatura argentina y realidad política: de Sarmiento a Cortázar, 2nd ed. (Buenos Aires: Siglo Veinte, 1974); and the entire issue of Punto de Vista 6, no. 17 (Apr.-June 1983), dedicated to an analysis of Sur.

19. For the most serious evaluations of Sur, see María Luisa Bastos, “Sur y la obra de Borges,” in Borges ante la crítica argentina, 1923–1960 (Buenos Aires: Hispamérica, 1974); and her articles, “Escrituras ajenas, expresión propia: Sur y Los Testimonios de Victoria Ocampo,” Revista Iberoamericana 46, nos. 110–11 (Jan.–June 1980):123-37; and “Dos líneas testimoniales: Sur, los escritos de Victoria Ocampo,” Sur 348 (Jan.–June 1981):9–23. See also John King, “Toward a Reading of the Argentine Literary Magazine Sur,” LARR 16, no. 2 (1981):57-78; David Lagmanovich, “Sur y las revistas literarias argentinas de medio siglo,” Sur 348 (Jan.-June 1981):25-33; and Jesús Méndez, “The Origins of Sur, Argentina's Elite Cultural Magazine,” Inter-American Review of Bibliography 3 (1981):3–16.

20. For a summary of Amado Alonso's understanding of stylistic criticism, see his Materia y forma en poesía (Madrid: Gredos, 1965).

21. Sur's project was continued in several Argentine journals of the 1940s and 1950s, among them Anales de Buenos Aires (1946-48), Realidad (1947-49), Buenos Aires Literaria (1952-54), Poesía Buenos Aires (1950-60), and Ficción (1956-67).

22. Juan José Sebreli, “Posición del hombre en el caos moderno,” Existencia 1, no. 1 (1949):1–2.

23. Ismael Viñas, “Reflexión sobre Martínez Estrada,” Contorno no. 4 (December 1954):2.

24. Oscar Masotta, “Leopoldo Lugones y Juan Carlos Ghiano: antimercantilistas,” Centro no. 12 (Oct. 1959):146–62.

25. See, for example, those issues of Ciudad devoted to specific Argentine authors: Martínez Estrada in no. 1 (1955); Borges in nos. 2–3 (1955); and Francisco Luis Romero in no. 5 (1956).

26. Adolfo Prieto, “Sobre la indiferencia argentina,” Ciudad 1, no. 1 (1955):8.

27. Eduardo Dessein, “La literatura de quioscos contra el individualismo,” Ciudad nos. 2–3 (1955):5–10.

28. Contorno has enjoyed extensive critical evaluation. See, for example, María Luisa Bastos, Borges ante la crítica, pp. 245–52; and her article, “Ciudad, Contorno, Gaceta Literaria: Tres enfoques de una realidad,” Hispamérica 2, nos. 4–5 (1974):49-64; William Hamilton Katra, “The Argentine Generation of 1955,” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1977; Beatriz Sarlo, “Los dos ojos de Contorno,” Punto de Vista 4, no. 13 (Nov. 1981):3-8; Gustavo Valádez, “David Viñas y la generación del 55,” Vórtice 1, no. 1 (Spring 1974):93–102.

29. See especially Adelaida Gigli, “Victoria Ocampo: V.O.,” Contorno no. 3 (Sept. 1954):1–2.

30. See Emir Rodríguez Monegal, El juicio de los parricidas: la nueva generación argentina y sus maestros (Buenos Aires: Deucalión, 1956).

31. See, in particular, Jean-Paul Sartre's What Is Literature? (1947), a book that exercised a decisive influence on the Contorno generation.

32. Juan José Sebreli, “Manuel Gálvez y el sainete histórico,” Contorno no. 3 (Sept. 1954):2–3.

33. Adolfo Prieto, “A propósito de Los idolos,” Contorno no. 1 (Nov. 1953):5.

34. David Viñas, “Onetti: un novelista que se despide,” Contorno no. 3 (Sept. 1954):13.

35. Raquel Weinbaum, “Los ojos de Martínez Estrada,” Contorno no. 4 (Dec. 1954): 1.

36. Rodolfo Kusch, “Lo superficial y lo profundo en Martínez Estrada,” Contorno no. 4 (Dec. 1954):8.

37. In defense of Martínez Estrada, see Ismael Viñas, “Reflexión sobre Martínez Estrada,” Contorno no. 4 (Dec. 1954):2–4.

38. The second issue of Contorno is devoted to Roberto Arlt (May 1954). In the early 1950s, renewed interest in Arlt is also documented in Sur, in Letra y Linea no. 1 (1953), and in a book-length study by Raúl Larra.

39. See for example the comments of Ismael Vinas in “Una expresión, un signo,” Contorno no. 2 (May 1954):2–5.

40. Gabriel Conte Reyes, “La mentira de Arlt,” Contorno no. 2 (May 1954):1.

41. Until its eleventh issue, La Gaceta Literaria was codirected by Pedro Orgambide and Roberto Hosne. Thereafter, Orgambide became the sole director of the review, recruiting various writers for its editorial board. After the demise of La Gaceta Literaria in 1960, Orgambide opened Hoy en la Cultura with the editorial support of Raúl Larra, Juan José Manauta, and David Viñas. Beginning with no. 14 (June 1964), Manauta took charge of the publication. Although these two cultural reviews espoused independent visions, their contributors nevertheless revealed a close adherence to the politics of the Argentine Communist party (it should be noted, however, that the official cultural journal of the Argentine Communist party was the Cuadernos de Cultura; also, in the 1960s, La Rosa Blindada followed that party's orientation).

42. El Grillo de Papel and El Escarabajo de Oro reflect the forceful direction of Abelardo Castillo, and to a lesser extent, that of Amoldo Leiberman and Liliana Heker, occasional editors of both reviews. In 1977 Castillo intitiated El Ornitorrinco, a sequel to these earlier reviews that was more tempered and politically neutral, due to the political climate.

43. See, for example, Jorge Zelaya Morante, “La lección del primer congreso de escritores y artistas de Cuba,” Hoy en la Cultura 1, no. 1 (Nov. 1961):2; and the interview with Juan Marinello in Hoy 1, no. 3 (May 1962):2. On esthetic questions raised in the Soviet Union, see “Vanguardia y decadencia,” Hoy 1, no. 6 (Oct. 1962):7.

44. On Cortázar's visit to Cuba, see the comments of Edmundo Graciarena in “Primera Plana, la revista y sus armas secretas,” Hoy 3, no. 17 (Nov.-Dec. 1964):12.

45. On censorship, see the editorial of Hoy 1, no. 1 (Nov. 1961):1 and 8–9. It should be noted that all literary reviews of the 1960s, not merely the journals of the independent left, denounced the conditions of intellectual repression in Argentina. See, for example, La Gaceta of Tucumán, Sur, Capricornio, Cormorán y Delfín, and Testigo, which together offer a wide variety of comments on the censorship of Argentine writers.

46. See “Comunicado,” El Escarabajo de Oro 1, no. 1 (May-June 1961):2; and the editorial of El Escarabajo in 2, no. 5 (Feb. 1962):4. The editorial staff repeatedly denounced the general indifference of intellectuals and, in particular, singled out the Sociedad Argentina de Escritores (SADE) for its political detachment and silence on the issue of censorship.

47. See the proclamation of Hoy en la Cultura, announcing the formation of an Argentine Unión de Escritores in vol. 1, no. 5 (Sept. 1962):5. The manifesto was signed by Sábato (as President of the organization), Manauta, Orgambide, and David Viñas (secretaries), and Sebreli, Roa Bastos, and Verbitsky (members of the executive committee). In a second proclamation, “Actuar ahora,” the Unión de Escritores encouraged the active participation of all intellectuals against the machinations of the state. See Hoy 1, no. 6 (Oct. 1962):2.

48. On the rights of intellectuals, see the editorial, “La crisis de los intelectuales,” Hoy 2, no. 8 (Apr. 1963):2; the unsigned essay, “Un importante acontecimiento: la ley del libro,” Hoy 4, no. 17 (Nov.-Dec. 1964):10-11; Rubén Benítez, “El compromiso literario,” Hoy 2, no. 7 (Nov. 1962):7; and Pedro Orgambide, “La gran frustración,” Hoy 2, no. 8 (Apr. 1963):3.

49. See Mario de Lellis, “Respuesta a Borges,” Hoy 1, no. 3 (May 1962):3, on official discourse; for a similar understanding of “official” texts, see also Tabaré di Paula, “La crítica literaria y sus fantasmas,” Escarabajo de Oro 3, no. 8 (also listed as no. 14) (Aug. 1962):21.

50. Pedro Orgambide, “Sociedad y literatura,” Hoy en la Cultura 1, no. 1 (Nov. 1961):5.

51. On Leónidas Barletta, see Gaceta Literaria (GL) 1, no. 4 (May 1956):1; and GL 3, no. 19 (Nov.-Dec. 1959):15. On Arlt, see Hoy, no. 5 (Sept. 1962):4. On Raul González Tuñón, see GL 2, no. 10 (July 1957):11; and GL 3, no. 19 (Nov.-Dec. 1959):10, 11. On Roberto Mariani, see GL 1, no. 5 (June 1956):5; and GL 2, no. 11 (Nov. 1957):4. The special issue of Gaceta Literaria devoted to Argentine literature contains various studies on the writers of the Boedo group. See vol. 4, no. 20 (May 1960).

52. Unsigned editorial, Gaceta Literaria 1, no. 1 (Feb. 1956).

53. In defense of an active popular culture, Gaceta Literaria sharply attacked the traditional historical reconstructions of Contorno. See for example Roberto Hosne, “El disconformismo de la nueva generación,” GL 1, no. 4 (May 1956):11; and José Chiaramonte, “Contorno y el Peronismo,” GL 1, no. 8 (Oct.-Nov. 1956):15.

54. See Humberto Costantini, “Arte popular y populismo,” GL 3, no. 17 (Jan.–Mar. 1959):1.

55. Luis Emilio Soto, “El escritor, el público y el pueblo,” GL 1, no. 4 (May 1956):1–2.

56. In general, these publications failed to critique popular culture; rather, they relentlessly glorified populist expression without attention to the ideology or the structure of those discourses. See for example Humberto Costantini, “Arte popular”; Gregorio Weinberg, “Sentido y signo de la cultura americana,” GL 1, no. 7 (Sept. 1956):3; or Jorge A. Ruíz, “Posibilidades de una literatura popular,” GL 1, no. 6 (July 1956):6.

57. On this concern, see for example the questions directed to Asturias on the vanguard responsibilities of the Latin American writer in Alfredo Andrés, “Entrevista con Asturias,” Hoy en la Cultura 2, no. 4 (Nov.-Dec. 1961):8-10; or Pedro Orgambide, “Rastreo del ser americano,” GL 1, no. 5 (June 1956):9.

58. On regional manifestations of popular culture, see Omar Estrella, “Tucumán y el panorama cultural argentino,” Hoy en la Cultura 2, no. 10 (Sept. 1963):2; a questionnaire on the value of folklore and popular culture in Hoy en la Cultura 1, no. 5 (Sept. 1962):10; and Edgar Váldez, “Acerca del bilingüismo paraguayo,” Hoy en la Cultura 4, no. 20 (May–June 1965):6.

59. Enrique Revol, “Literatura industrializada,” Hoy en la Cultura 2, no. 8 (Apr. 1963):2. The “best seller” phenomenon also became a topic of study, and many popular journals such as Primera Plana promoted new texts in that style.

60. Francisco Herrera, “Rayuela,” Hoy en la Cultura 2, no. 14 (June 1964):18.

61. For an impassioned defense of Cortázar's politics and literature, see Edmundo Graciarena, “La revista y sus armas secretas,” Hoy en la Cultura 3, no. 17 (Nov.–Dec. 1964):12.

62. The autonomy of the literary text is also emphasized and defended in other liberal and left-wing reviews of the early 1960s. See for example the material contained in Cero, Fichero, or Testigo. In Cero, author Jorge Carvenale attacked reviews like Hoy en la Cultura for dividing art along partisan lines; consequently, he defends the artistic merits of literature, expunging political debates from the arena of criticism. See Jorge Carnevale, “Cortázar o el verdadero rostro,” Cero no. 1 (Sept. 1964):29; or his article, “Literatura argentina actual o la máscara del coraje,” Cero no. 2 (Dec. 1964).

63. Editorial, El Grillo de Papel 1, no. 1 (Oct. 1959):1.

64. Editorial, El Escarabajo de Oro 4, no. 20 (Oct. 1963):3.

65. Abelardo Castillo, “Ir hacia la montaña o hacer que venga,” El Grillo de Papel 2, no. 3 (Mar.-Apr. 1960):10.

66. On Cortázar and Borges, see Abelardo Castillo, “Las armas secretas,” El Grillo de Papel 1, no. 2 (Dec. 1959):19; or Liliana Heker, “Rayuela,” El Escarabajo de Oro 4, no. 20 (Oct. 1963):2. On Viñas and Sábato and their situation within Argentine literary history, see Liliana Heker, “Dar la cara: novela de David Viñas,” El Escarabajo de Oro 4, no. 17 (Apr. 1963):19–22.

67. Within left-wing literary criticism in Argentina, Castillo's defense of Borges contrasts markedly with the earlier commentary of Contorno critics such as Adolfo Prieto, who had demanded that a political content be explicitly drawn from Borges's creative writing. See Castillo's essay “Las armas secretas” in El Grillo 1, no. 2; and Adolfo Prieto's book, Borges y la nueva generación (Buenos Aires: Letras Universitarias, 1954).

68. Carlos Astrada, “El poeta y el demiurgo y el robot,” El Escarabajo de Oro nos. 18–19 (July–Aug. 1963):10–14.

69. Jorge Lafforgue, Nueva novela latinoamericana, vol. 1 (Buenos Aires: Paidós, 1969), p. 28.

70. See, in particular, Noé Jitrik, El escritor argentino: dependencia o libertad (Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Candil, 1967); Adolfo Prieto, Literatura y subdesarrollo (Rosario: Editorial Biblioteca, 1968); and David Viñas, Literatura argentina y realidad política, 1st ed. (Buenos Aires: Jorge Alvárez, 1964).

71. See Oscar Masotta, Sexo y traición en Roberto Arlt (Buenos Aires: Jorge Alvárez, 1965). Masotta and his work with Lacanian psychoanalytical theory in Argentina are the subject of a recent book: German García, Oscar Masotta y el psicoanálisis en Argentina (Buenos Aires: Argonauta, 1980). Masotta's essays in Los Libros provide a general overview of the issues surrounding Lacanian analysis and the study of literature. See, for example, Masotta's articles, “Aclaraciones en torno a Jacques Lacán,” Los Libros 2, no. 10 (Aug. 1970):6-7; “Tres preguntas sobre J.L.,” Los Libros 2, no. 9 (July 1970):10; “¿Qué es el psicoanálisis?,” Los Libros 1, no. 5 (1969):15 and 21.

72. Louis Althusser, “Ideology and the State,” in Lenin and Philosophy, translated by Ben Brewster (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971), p. 162.

73. Pierre Bourdieu, “Campo intelectual y proyecto creador,” in Problemas del estructuralismo, translated by Julieta Campos (Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno, 1967), pp. 135–82.

74. Most contemporary reviews of the late 1960s also took up the question of intellectual performance and the ideology of artistic production, but in my opinion, none competes with the depth and breadth of Los Libros.

75. Forty-four issues appeared before Los Libros was closed by state authorities during the 1976 military coup. The later directors of Los Libros—Altamirano, Piglia, and Sarlo—have continued their critical undertaking in Punto de Vista, a quarterly cultural review that first appeared in 1978. With an explicitly educational mission, Punto de Vista carries forth the projects of Los Libros and was designed, as Beatriz Sarlo expressed it, “to keep alive a historical consciousness during a period of repression and authoritarian rule.” Interview with Beatriz Sarlo, Buenos Aires, August 1982.

76. Unsigned editorial, Los Libros 1, no. 1 (July 1969):3.

77. While Los Libros always emphasized a broad political commentary of culture, after issue no. 22 (September 1971), the review turned exclusively to political and social issues. At that time, the journal abandoned its book review format (described at first in the masthead as “un mes de libros en la Argentina y en América Latina”) in order to study what was announced as “una crítica política de la cultura.” In the final issues of Los Libros (under the direction of Altamirano, Piglia, and Sarlo), Maoism was openly defended and the national political crisis was centrally discussed. Debating the courses of possible political action, Piglia, in an open letter to Sarlo and Altamirano, resigned from the editorial committee (no. 40, Mar.–Apr. 1975).

78. For an analysis of the ideology of children's literature, see, for example, Paula Waisman and Carlos Sastre, “Las revistas infantiles,” Los Libros 1, no. 6 (Dec. 1969):12 and 21. The authors studied the representation of violence in children's magazines, tracing the organization of colors, images, and language as possible ways to rearrange and defy the order of the dominant culture.

79. Unsigned essay, “Samuel Beckett,” Los Libros 1, no. 5 (Nov. 1969):19.

80. Oscar del Barco, “La escritura desencadenada,” Los Libros 1, no. 5 (Nov. 1969):20.

81. Ricardo Piglia, “Mao Tse Tung: Práctica estética y lucha de clases,” Los Libros 3, no. 25 (Mar. 1972):22.

82. “Hacia la crítica,” Los Libros 4, no. 28 (Sept. 1972):3. In this article, the editors formulate four basic questions to organize their discussion of criticism: First, “Desde el comienzo de la escuela, se va internalizando una ideología de la literatura, definida por el lugar que se le asigna a la misma, la ‘función’ que se le define, etc. ¿Es una tarea de la crítica la de definir y precisar los efectos que esta ideología tiene en nuestra manera de leer literatura?” Second, “Si es verdad que en nuestra sociedad existen simultáneamente muchos códigos de lectura (según las clases sociales, los diversos grupos, etc.), ¿la crítica deberá privilegiar alguna de esas perspectivas ya dadas o crear teóricamente su propio código?” Third, “En la producción de un texto literario se ponen en relación varios sistemas (económico, ideológico, estético, etc.). ¿Puede la crítica dar cuenta de las relaciones entre estos sistemas y lo que resulta socialmente ‘legible en un momento dado‘?” Fourth, “En la actual crítica literaria argentina ¿cuáles serían las posibilidades teóricas y prácticas que permitirán dar cuenta de las relaciones entre los sistemas extraliterarios (económicos, políticos, etc.) que están en juego en la producción de un texto? ¿Y el texto mismo como sistema? ¿Cuáles son los límites que impiden este proyecto o, en todo caso, el proyecto crítico que usted crea pertinente?” (p. 4) These questions were asked of young Argentine critics, among them Aníbal Ford, Luis Gregorich, Josefina Ludmer, Angel Núñez, and Ricardo Piglia. Although it was common to interview literary critics in the journals I have described, the 1972 inquiry by Los Libros represented the most serious endeavor to meet the challenge of modern criticism by coming to terms with new systems for the reception and evaluation of art. In recent years, other attempts to understand the direction and historical development of Argentine criticism fall short of the sophisticated vision of Los Libros. See, for example, Adolfo Prieto, Encuesta: la crítica literaria en la Argentina (Rosario: Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, 1963), in which Prieto expressed concern about the professionalism of the critics and their potential influence upon the evolution of modern letters. See also the article by Jorge Lafforgue, “Literatura y crítica: una encuesta,” in Latinoamericana no. 2 (June 1973) and no. 3 (April 1974), wherein the author investigates the possible roles of criticism within the Argentine context. In Lafforgue's terms, “la literatura no es más que la lectura institucionalizada por el sistema, por su cultura, que consecuentemente exige (y obtiene) una crítica explicativa y reverencial” (no. 3, p. 6).

83. Other reviews also challenged the power vested in the individual writer by studying popular culture in a dependent society. See for example Barrilete, published by Roberto Santoro, in which detachable sheets of poetry and fiction, political manifestoes, and criticism challenged the closed form of the book. Barrilete published abundant material by anonymous authors and challenged the assumptions of an institutionalized literary canon. In the same period, Crisis (1973-76) reduced the figure of the sovereign author to one of many participants in political struggle. Together the journals of the early 1970s defied the centrality of authorial control by subordinating individual performance to a broad debate about politics, the mass media, and the neocolonial nature of daily experience in Latin America. Since the 1976 coup, when the journals of the independent left were intercepted by state authorities, a new critique of Argentine culture has slowly begun to emerge, taking into account particularly the importance of popular culture. Among the publications to renew this kind of discussion, the already mentioned Punto de Vista is the most significant. Other journals include Brecha (directed by Francisco Boeris, Marcos Meyer, and Gerardo Serrano), Crear (directed by Oscar Castellucci), Literatura Boletín (directed by Enrique Medina), Medios y Comunicación (directed by Raul Barreiros), and Pie de Página (directed by Alberto Castro and Gabriela Borgna). Especially after the Falklands crisis of 1982 and with the increased liberalization of censorship policies, editors of Argentine literary reviews have taken courageous positions, defending the freedom of intellectuals and offering cogent analyses of contemporary culture. Editors have begun to offer democratic alternatives for culture while also taking into account the ideological implications of national rock music, soap operas, and cultural colonialism in Argentina.