Between Eduardo Sacheri and history there is a strong relationship. The writer has a degree in this subject and continues even today, despite being one of the most widely read authors in Argentina, teaching classes in a secondary school. But, in addition, his novels always pay special attention to the temporal context in which the narrative is located. And last year, Sacheri published his first historical essay, “Days of the Revolution”with which he quickly reached the top of the bestseller ranking.
His new novel also has to do with this passion of the writer. “The Two of Us in the Storm” (Alfaguara) tells the story of two friends and militants, one belonging to Montoneros and another to the ERP, who try, each one by his side, to make the revolution. The result is a book of almost 500 pages, with a different look at the 1970s and with a focus on the armed organizations, an issue that he considers “uncomfortable” and that is hardly talked about.
NEWS: How was the research for the novel?
Eduardo Sacheri: I did research for a couple of years, before getting into writing. I read academic papers on the functioning of the guerrilla structures. In Argentine universities the topic of the ’70s is very well worked out. I also met with some members of these organizations and with victims of their armed actions. The idea was to reconstruct an era and get rid of “common sense”, which usually leads to stereotypes.
NEWS: It is a time that generates many conflicting passions in society. Did you take this information into account when choosing how to tell the story?
Sacheri: It seemed to me that the key to the matter was respect, that no one felt that they were not respected. And that you go through the novel from your own way of thinking, that when you finish it you don’t feel that the author lowered you line. It bothers me as a reader when I feel that.
NEWS: The novel shows, among other things, how a family experiences the kidnapping of one of their children, at the hands of guerrilla organizations. Why did you choose this situation?
Sacheri: I was interested in going to that microscopic level of people affected by history. Fiction is a good realm to go into that smallness. Academic work, on the other hand, is about totalities, general categories, necessarily abstract. Political discourse also uses generalizing categories, it is neither good nor bad, it is typical of political discourse and its breadth. But in what I write I am interested in the smallness of individual human life. In addition, what happened with the families of the militants or the guerrillas when these young people were appropriated by the dictatorship has been shown a lot, especially in fiction. In the novel there is a father whose son is kidnapped by the montoneros. We have been, if you will, more witnesses of parents who have embraced the causes of their children, or who embraced them after their disappearance. But what about a father who adores his son, but he doesn’t agree with what his son is doing?
NEWS: Precisely, in the novel there is a father who loves his son, who is montonero and does not approve of what his son does. How do ideological differences intersect with generational differences?
Sacheri: I think it happens to all of us. Even though the dreams of my children have nothing to do with those of those young people of almost 50 years ago, each generation considers that the world is their own, that of their own youth, especially at that founding moment of their vision of the world. world. And as you get older you spend your time dealing with other visions of the world that are no longer yours, challenged by visions that need something else. I am 55, the ’80s were very foundational for my own view of the world: those values, the democratic restoration, the Alfonsín era. The world of my children is totally different. It is interesting to be representatives of a world that is ceasing to matter. But it also seems to me that it is important that all generations know this. I do not believe that there is, neither in the past nor in the future, a sacred golden age. I prefer a vision where those who come see the world differently. Also, they have the right.
NEWS: In an interview, you said that the guerrilla is an “uncomfortable” subject and that this discomfort translated into silence. Historian Hernán Confino tweeted about his statement saying that the guerrillas were the reason for “numerous reflections, discussions, writings and public interventions”. What do you think about it?
Sacheri: In almost every interview I’ve given throughout this vertiginous month, the question arises, why write about this period? That this question arises reinforces my idea that it is an uncomfortable subject, beyond the academic texts that are published on it. But, precisely, they do not perforate towards the general public discussion, there are no fictions that talk about this. That is what I claim.
NEWS: Do you consider that your novel is critical of the armed struggle?
Sacheri: It was interesting to me that a character was slightly off center, precisely so that he would see things in a different way from those around him. The others are absolutely convinced of what they do and it seemed important to me to respect his level of conviction. The chapters that are narrated from those characters have the solidity of that look and what they are doing is coherent. When I was talking about having respect, I mean that the characters have to be coherent with their way of seeing the world. Then you, as a reader who has your own coherence, will approach it sympathetically or with a critical sense. But from my point of view, it seemed important to me not to be critical. I believe that you as a reader have the right to stop where you want and that my perspectives are not a weight that you have to deal with during the reading.
NEWS: Last year he published “The days of the revolution”, a history book. Is another volume coming?
Sacheri: I was working hard on the second volume, with which I am going to go up to 1852, at the battle of Caseros, a very pivotal moment. The idea is to continue with two more books.
NEWS:How do you think history finds us at this moment?
Sacheri: It gives me the feeling that an antithetical panorama of options is deepening: either a strongly capitalist economy, open to the world and to the market; or an economy where the State is getting bigger. Especially if we separate voters from candidates. If I analyze candidates, it would give the impression that there are more “pro-market” candidates, or “center-right”, to put it more broadly. They would clearly be the majority, even within the space of Peronism. At the voter level, I believe that the dichotomy is still valid and although I am not a political analyst, this tension that exists in a political space faithful to Kirchnerism is interesting to me, due to the view they have on the State and the economy. How are they going to reconcile these ideas with a candidate who is supposed to represent that perspective, but gives the impression that he has another?
Image gallery
