I the Supreme Part II

I don't seem to be able to articulate my thoughts on this tonight so I have no idea if any of this is going to make any sense. Nevertheless, here it goes.

I thought a bit about the discussion we had in class yesterday about the "death of the author" and how readers inevitably connect the texts to, or interpert them within the framework of, some aspects of their own time, place, expereince etc. As we noted in class , this book, along with The President, can really be about any dictator...Fidel Castro is one who comes to mind...or Robert Mugabe....But I had to giggle when I read the following: "I am the final judge. I can decide how things will go" (196). Why? Because this reminded me of (the democratically elected?) Bush, Jr.'s fairly recent statement that he is "the decider" or, the more dated gem, that "it would be a heck of a lot easier if [the US] was a dictatorship...so long as [he is] the dictator!" The quote from I the Supreme just seems so perfect and if we keep reading, the Supreme writes that he can "contrive the facts. Invent the events" (196). Hmmm...sounds familiar...WMDs...mushroom clouds... although, in fairness, it wasn't only the decider contriving the events in this case as he prepared to 'prevent war' by starting one--he had some help from his Patinos. I guess this is my strange way of getting to the theme of writing and power and its relevance today.

Indeed, what I am getting at is the fact that this book is just as relevant today as it was when it was published and that the dangers are not unique to dictatorship. Indeed, the kind of paranoia and fearmongering that Francia exhibits is strangely familiar in today's democracies where the need for security is used as an excuse to erode civil liberties. Writing, whether in the form of legislation (Patriot Act) or in the speeches of senior memebers of the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war. These could be examples of the sentence, not the sword, being the weapon (109)...but we all know what happened then. Of course, the US is still a far cry from the type of regime described in this book but I feel that some of the parallels are useful.

This book is also a powerful indictment of the misuse of religion. Patino's request for a cross to mark his grave is a perfect illustration of the kind of hypocrisy found in those who commit heinous crimes and then turn to religion when it is too late. In this sense, the dictator is less of a hypocrite. He does not pretend to be religious and rightly criticizes Patino, asking, what the cross can mean to him after all he has done after calling him the "craftiest scoundrel in the last hundred years" (408). It certainly did not seem to mean much when he was participating in the torture of human beings duirng the "interrogations" he conducted.

As I've noted before, despite its humour, this book is also very dark even though that darkness is often very subtle. We infer from both the compiler's notes and also El Supremo's descriptions of the punishments almost used on those who did not do what he ordered that such punishments were commonplace at the time. In a sense, it is the account of reality we get from reading between the lines. One of the examples is when El Supreom complains about all the widows wanting to talk to him. The assumption is that thier husbands were killed because of suspected disloyalty. Another example that stuck with me was the story about the kitten that was eaten by rats as part of a sick experiment.

Still, I like this book and I'm glad I got to read it.