Although the following narrative is historical, I shall not begin it with Noah's ark and the genealogy of his forbears as was wont once to be done by the ancient Spanish historians of' America who should be our models.
The opening line sets the stage immediately for the tone of the writing to come. It is dense and elevated in diction and syntax. And that’s the English translation. If one can read the original language any story rather than a translation, it is highly recommended because as impressive as the language is here, it is worth remembering this is not how the author actually envisioned it. Throughout, challenges are placed upon the translator in this story because the writer is clearly equipped with a literary vision which, and this is not the always the case, he follows through with execution.
In its wake there came instantly rolling down from the stockade the head of a child, cut clean' from the trunk as if by an ax. The trunk remained immobile, perched in the form of a pole, long streams of blood spurting from every artery.
Much of the prose is realistic description of the processes involved in the slaughter yard. The story is not really known as an example of realism, however, because of the introduction of symbolism and even moments approaching surrealism. One of the highlights of those latter moments is the shocking sudden and totally unexpected appearance of the head of a child. The head of the child, spurting blood and creating a stir, but not a left turn in the narrative becomes symbolic in its very surrealistic weirdness.
Therefore a sort of intestinal war between stomachs and consciences began, stirred by an inexorable appetite and the not less inexorable vociferations of the ministers of the Church, who, as is their duty, tolerated no sin whatsoever which might tend to slacken Catholic principles. In addition to all is, there existed a state of intestinal flatulence in the population, brought on by fish and beans and other somewhat indigestible fare.
In this magnificently twisted imagery can be found the swirling vortex of the story as a whole. The juxtaposition of war between hunger and conscience defined as “intestinal” is powerfully visceral and draws the reader into both the realism of the text and the metaphor of the subtext. The accusation of un-Christian principles laid upon the Catholic Church is done so in such a civilized manner as to be both almost too tame at the same time as it is a vicious excoriation. This is the power of language: to convey two conflicting ideas at the same time based upon the perspective of the reader who is interpreting the meaning. The “other somewhat indigestible fare” is also a bravura example of the intensity to be gained through purposeful imprecision. The narrator, of course, knows what that “other” fare is and likely so does the reader who comes to the story equipped with the Argentine backstory here. For others, however, it opens the potential up while dragging the reader in.
