In Mario Vargas Llosa’s The
Storyteller I was surprised by the sheer number of characters named
Tasurinchi. Even to the end, I continued to be flabbergasted at the
introduction of yet another Tasurinchi. At least, I think it was another. But
then, how can I ever be sure? They’re all Tasurinchi’s, after all. The number
was simply confusing. It seems the Machiguengas already knew what we have
learned—that there is nothing new. “History marches neither forward nor
backward: it goes around and around in circles, repeats itself.” (p.240) They get
out ahead of the game in their naming, forgoing to ruse of originality.
Another thing I found interesting was the different versions
of stories Mascarita would tell. “That’s how it’s come about, it seems.”
(p.127) and then another version and “That’s how after began, perhaps.” (p.129)
Just like Calasso tells different versions, so does Mascarita, as Scott talked
about in his blog. I would like to draw another parallel as well. I recently
read the play Copenhagen by Michael
Frayn for another class. The storyline is scientists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg
posthumously attempting to determine the exact events of a night in 1941 in the
middle of WWII. Memory has long since clouded and version after version is
proposed, with no definitive ever found. An echo is felt here, as it is in much
of life.
Another comparison to Copenhagen
is that Mascarita doesn’t seem to know why he is drawn to the Machiguengas. No concrete
explanation can be articulated. Similarly Heisenberg does not know why he came
to visit Bohr on that fateful night. “The sort of decision arrived at by saints
and madmen is not revealed to others. It is foraged little by little, in the
folds of the spirit, tangential to reason, shielded from indiscreet eyes, not
seeking the approval of others—who would never grant it—until it is at the last
put into practice.” (p.34) Why did one German scientist and one red-headed
Peruvian Jew choose to do the things they did? We don’t know, we can only
speculate.