“The literary prizes must not go to the best ode, but to the best study of the political factors in the student’s country” (291).
This quote speaks to the problematic tension created by the overwrought, glaringly literary writing style of Our America. Martí seems to denounce the aesthetic literary object, epitomized by the ode, in favor of a more clear and straightforward method of textual communication deployed in the study. Yet, in his present piece he relishes in the very signifiers of the literary: metaphor, strikingly visual language, drama, etc. Is this simply an ironic oversight? More likely, the text enacts Martí's ideal literary product, where the study, which Our America could be categorized under, is more deserving of the ode's stylistic tenants that label it literature. The equation of the political study to the object most deserving of literary prizes suggests as much. However, the tension created by the piece's overly written style is not limited to the value and function of the style as signifier, but to the style's relationship with its audience. Martí is writing in some respect for a subjugated, “uneducated” group, and because of this I find it troubling that his text's form would likely hinder the ability of that group to easily approach and understand the piece. Does this not widen, or at least illuminate, the gap between Martí and the lower masses, and possibly cause Martí to participate in the very subjugation he criticizes? Or does writing Our America in such a way that constantly points to itself as literature have a more positive effect in relation to the "mute" population of his America?
I agree with your response to Jose Marti's "Our America" when you state, "Does this not widen, or at least illuminate, the gap between Martin and the lower masses, in cause Martin to participate in the very subjucation he criticized?". In class we discussed the numerous contradictions throughout his piece but the most prevalent is this. It is extremely evident that Marti intends the audience to be well educated because how could the average uneducated person understand such a complex peice of work? Its interesting he views himself as working class man but his text proves otherwise.
ReplyDelete