Gabriel García Márquez's The Autumn of the Patriarch (1975) | Book Review and Analysis 

Marquez himself has confessed that unlike several of his great contemporaries, the political was not his primary concern and that it affected him only when it was such a big public concern that nobody could afford to ignore it anymore. As such, The Autumn … is definitely a novel that stands out in his oeuvre, adding to the great ‘dictator’ novel tradition of the Boom…. thank you for discussing the novel in detail… 🙏

Awesome video, Jorge. I also listened to the one on Soseki. The one I have read by him was Sanshiro (which was delicious). Are you on other social media. Best, J

Going to go look for my copy And start reading Thanks

Definitely his best novel. Personally, I think his talent is best revealed in his short stories, especially The Incredible and Sad Tale of Innocent Erendira and Her Heartless Grandmother, and his Strange Pilgrim tales, specifically The Saint, I Sell My Dreams, and I Only Came to Use the Phone. Patriarch, like you said, is certainly more concentrated. But what makes it such an accomplishment is how the author masters the baroque style. For a long time, I’d have said Carpentier was the genius in that department but Marquez’ Patriarch rivals Carpentier’s best examples. And a daring novel too. Usually it is often the case such topics are reduced to satire or parody, even horror, or merely addresses the idea in a peripheral, foreboding manner. The uniqueness of Patriarch is also due to being set in the “Autumn” of his reign. That is something even more rare and daring, since we are often either being revealed the origins or the desperate last act or most often the turning point in the dictator’s reign. And lastly, Marquez’ Autumn of the Patriarch does the precise opposite of nearly every other novel that has dealt with this topic. All this and more, is why it truly is his masterpiece. In Latin American literature, I hate when people say magical realism, it’s fantasy, and not the “fantasy” of the likes of Tolkien, Herbert, Jordan, Martin, Sanderson, etc. The fantasy we see so popular today does the exact opposite of those historically known as the fantasy tale. Where Tolkien and Jordan and so on make their stories very logical (history, sociology, language, etc.) but completely abandon all reality, the classical fantasy instead kept the reality but threw away the logic. George MacDonald, Borges, Bioy, Ocampo, Bradbury, Bierce, Poe, are the ones I feel hold on to that classical fantasy story formula. The fantasy we’re most familiar and bombarded with today follow more precisely the epic and mythological traditions than fantasy. Which is why it’s such a mystery to me as to why certain stories from Marquez like the ones I mentioned above are considered “magical realism”, when it’s just Latin American fantasy, same with Borges or even certain stories from Cortázar. No need to make it exotic. Sadly, Latin American literature seems to have followed Gordimer’s assertion of being obsessed with the politics and the corruption. Literature reduced to journalism and essays. The stories told back then by the authors aforementioned were far more wide and varied than now. And even when addressing the politics and corruption was done with such creativity compared to now. Anyways, I always appreciate reviews of oft-neglected masterpieces.

I never thought Spanish - American literature was just novels about vicious dictators. The "dictator novel" was a genre I found after reading a lot of poetry (Neruda, Paz, Ruben Dario) and Borges. Also nonfiction like Neruda's Memoirs, Llosa's Flaubert book, and the essays of Borges and Sabato. And Clarice Lispector. As a native of the U.S., I can say at least Central and South America has literature of politics, where the ruling classes is examined. All we ever had was Gore Vidal and Ward Just. They were great novelists, but they are gone.

Excellent review.

I loved that book ! And yes, exactly : it felt like being carried down a tumultuous torrent. I was mostly struck by the impotence, the powerlessness coming to the character with old age. Also his paranoia, because he knows he’s become too feeble to cling to the top position.

Hi Jorge.Thanks for the interesting discussion of one of Garcia Marquez's most neglected books.Although the lengthy sentences seem intimidating at first,you soon get used to the style which seems to draw the reader closer to the main character's macabre world.I know the dictator novel is often seen as a typical Latin American subject and I thought of Pinochet in particular when I read it but of course there are many more dictators in other parts of the world ,particularly Africa but I don't know enough about African literzture to know if there is a connection there.But I must re read this novel,so thanks again and have a great weekend.

I'm now interested to read this, thanks. I have to wonder if "Massacre River" by Rene Philoctete was influenced by this as you discussed it, a book I read for Haiti and very much enjoyed.... What I often think of is how the dictator, king, emperor is really the default form of rule rather than the exception in human history. What seems really special about these so called "dictator novels" is that they caricaturize rather than mythologize, humanize rather than "endiosar" the dictator, which separates it from epics of kings of the past. They are radical and strangely optimistic in their belief in a new world, a new paradigm where the ruler can now be seen as a clown, or a puppet of his own masochism and sadism as you put it. We'll see how my ideas on this hold up when I get to "Yo El Supremo" and "El Señor Presidente". Maybe I can sneak this one in and discuss it in those videos.

I adore this book