1.1.1 El protagonista.
Según Genette, el sujeto “no solo es la persona que acarrea la acción, sino también quien la reporta, y todos los personajes que participan, incluso pasivamente” (Genette: 1988, 231).
Aunque Cuéllar es el obvio eje de la narración, solo lo es en tanto miembro de un conjunto. Todo gira en torno a él, pero no necesariamente es el protagonista, ya que la acción no comienza ni termina con él. En efecto, el relato comienza con la llegada de Cuéllar y su aceptación por el grupo de cuatro amigos. Y termina con el envejecimiento de esos cuatro amigos, después de muerto Cuéllar. Los primeros párrafos narran la llegada de Cuéllar y su inserción en el grupo:
“Todavía llevaban pantalón corto ese año, aún no fumábamos, entre todos los deportes preferían el fútbol, y estábamos aprendiendo a correr olas, a zambullirnos desde el segundo trampolín del ‘Terrazas’, y eran traviesos, lampiños, curiosos, muy ágiles, voraces Ese año, cuando Cuéllar entró al Colegio Champagnat. Hermano Leoncio, ¿cierto que viene uno nuevo?, ¿para el Tercero “A”, Hermano? Sí (…) Apareció una mañana, de la mano de su papá (…) y en la clase el Hermano Leoncio lo sentó atrás, con nosotros” (Vargas Llosa, 107).
Dice Baldick que la catástrofe es “la resolución final o desenlace del argumento en una tragedia, usualmente implicando la muerte del protagonista” (Baldick, 2009: 49). Sin embargo, a pesar de la muerte –trágica, por lo demás- de Cuéllar, la narración prosigue y se extiende un párrafo más. A pesar de su corta extensión, este párrafo abarca un amplio período en la vida de los personajes que sobreviven. Así se cuenta lo que sucede después del accidente que le cuesta la vida a Cuéllar:
“Eran hombres hechos y derechos y ya teníamos todos mujer, carro, hijos que estudiaban en el Champagnat, la Inmaculada o el Santa María, y se estaban construyendo una casita para el verano en Ancón, Santa Rosa o las playas del Sur, y comenzábamos a engordar y a tener canas, barriguitas, cuerpos blandos, a usar anteojos para leer, a sentir malestares después de comer y de beber y ya aparecían en sus pieles algunas pequitas, ciertas arruguitas” (Vargas Llosa, 151).
La continuación de la narración incluso después de la muerte de Cuéllar es otro de los elementos que inducen a pensar que el es solamente un primus inter pares, no un protagonista stricto sensu. Es importante recordar que “un solo actante-sujeto puede ser manifestado por varios actores”, de modo que cada actor deja de ser la variable de un solo actante que nunca cambia (Cfr. Greimas y Courtés: 1979, 7). Queda claro, entonces, que el grupo de amigos es un actante colectivo. Los cuatro amigos siempre se encuentran en la misma posición y desempeñan el mismo rol actancial, entendido como “un estado particular asumido por un actante en el desenvolvimiento lógico de la narrativa” (Prince: 2003,46).
Tal como se verá en seguida, el rápido cambio del punto de vista narrativo no hace sino sobremodalizar y actualizar esta convergencia funcional. Además, el estilo de la narración contribuye efectivamente a aproximar el relato a la lengua oral
1.1.1 The protagonist
According to Genette, the subject is not only he who carries the most important part of the action or actions, but also he who reports it. This situation does not necessarily involve a single character, but also all the characters that participate, even in a passive way (Cfr. Genette: 1988, 231). So, although Cuéllar is the obvious axis of narration, he is such only as a member of a whole. It is true that everything revolves around him, but he is not automatically the main character, for neither the action begins with his appearance, nor it ends with his disappearance. In fact, the story begins with Cuellar’s arrival to Champagnat boy school as a new student, and his subsequent acceptance by the group of four friends who previously studied there. The first paragraphs recount Cuellar’s entrance within the group:
“They still wore short pants that year, we still didn’t smoke, among all sports, they preferred soccer and we were learning to surf, to plunge from the second board of the ‘Terrazas’, and they were nasty, hairless, curious, very agile, voracious. That year, when Cuéllar entered Champagnat school. Brother Leoncio, is it true that a new one is coming? To Third “A”? Yes (…) He appeared one morning, holdng his father’s and (…) and in class Brother Leoncio sat him at the back, with us” (Vargas Llosa, 1996: 107).As we can see, the paragraph begins talking about a they. It shows the habitual actions in the life of the original quartet, not those of Cuéllar. As he befriends his schoolmates, he is instantly accepted by them. This situation establishes uniformity in the group, which will be only disrupted by Cuéllar’s tragedy.
Let us now consider the end of the story. Baldick calls catastrophe “the final unraveling of the argument in a tragedy, usually implying the protagonist’s death” (Baldick, 2009: 49). However, despite Cuéllar’s tragic death, narration continues and it extends itself another paragraph. Despite its short length, this paragraph comprehends a vast period in the life of the character who survive. This is the way the author relates after the accident in which Cuéllar is killed.
“They were all grown-up men and we all had a woman, a car, children studying at Champagnat, la Inmaculada or Santa María, and they were building themselves a small summer house in Ancón, Santa Rosa or the Southern beaches, and we were beginning to become fat, and have gray hair, small bellies, squashy bodies, to use glasses to read, to feel uneasy after eating or drinking and on their skins some freckles and some little wrinkles started to appear” (Vargas Llosa, 1996: 151).
The continuation of the narration, even after Cuéllar’s death is another element which leads us to think he is just a primus inter pares, not a protagonist stricto sensu. We must remember that “a single actant-subject can be manifested through several actors”, so every actor stops being the variable of a single actant which never changes. (Cfr. Greimas and Courtés: 1979, 7). It is clear, then, that the group of friends are always within the same position and execute the same actantial role, which must be understood as a particular function or state, which may assumed by an actant in the logical unraveling of the narration (Cfr. Prince: 2003, 46).
As we will immediately see, the rapid change of the narrative point of view does nothing but to overmodalize and actualize this functional convergence. Besides, the style of the narration contributes to approach it to oral language. The text is liberally punctuated, normally using mere commas and not very lengthy paragraphs.
According to Bal, when there is textual interference, the narrator’s text and the actant’s text are so tightly related that differentiating narrative levels becomes impossible. The writers do this in order to exceed the level of maximum intensity. (Cfr.Bal, 2007: 52)
All these situations lead us to discover that, “Los cachorros” does nothing but follows an ancient technique known as embedded fable, which stands for one narrative sequence inside another. Spanish literature is especially well acquainted with this kind of procedures: Don Quijote de La Mancha, the greatest monument in Spanish literature consists of a major story (the madness and eventual death of Alonso Quijano) which is packed with small, intervallic pirouettes. This is what happens in “Los cachorros” we instantly discover that Cuéllar’s is not the main story: that of the boys of Champagnat school is. Nonetheless, unlike Don Quijote, Cuéllars adventure is not a minor episode within the plot: in fact it is the opposite. But, despite its long extension, it is still a secondary story.
Bal explains that one of the possible relations between the primary fibula and the secondary one [the embedded fable] is that the first should explain the latter, for its function is not solely explicative. In fact the structure of the narrative levels becomes part of the poetics of the narration and not just a device used to tell stories. (Cfr. Bal, 2007: 54). This technique gives the text dynamism and variety. But it also makes it more complex for it becomes a multiple entity. According to Lotman, the intricacy contemporary literature depicts is accentuated because the reader is dealing with two realities which are linked but ultimately different: the material reality and the artistic reality (Cfr. Lotman, 1993: 175)