1.1.3 Oralidad y verosimilitud.
Además del rápido cambio de narradores y de puntos de vista, la oralidad es otro recurso que el autor emplea para hacer creíble el relato. Tampoco esto es un secreto. En la introducción, el autor lo señala abiertamente: “la verosimilitud dependía de que el lector tuviera la impresión de estar oyendo, no leyendo: la historia debía entrarle por los oídos” (Vargas Llosa, xi). Esta idea se materializa en el uso del discurso libre y del reportado.
Dice Prince que el discurso indirecto libre es aquel en el que se presentan los pensamientos de un personaje, por oposición a los enunciados (Cfr. Prince, 2003: 1980). Pero Vargas Llosa cuestiona esta idea y la lleva al límite de lo posible, pasando instantáneamente del discurso indirecto libre al reportado: a veces se narran las acciones de los personajes de manera indirecta, y a veces sus pensamientos. Esto ocurre generalmente para sustituir los diálogos, los cuales no se presentan en párrafos separados comenzados por un guión largo o por comillas. En efecto, algunos pasajes enfatizan la rápida sucesión de narradores-hablantes, presentes dentro de los mismos enunciados
“Quién como tú, decía Choto, te das la gran vida, lástima que Judas no nos mordiera a nosotros, y él no era por eso: los Hermanos lo sobaban de miedo a su viejo. Bandidos, qué le han hecho a mi hijo, les cierro el colegio, los mando a la cárcel, no saben quién soy, iba a matar a esa maldita fiera y el Hermano Director, calma, cálmese señor, lo sacudió del babero” (Vargas Llosa, 115).
Solamente una coma separa la narración acerca de Choto de la de Cuéllar. Pero no solamente hay carencia de transición entre los interlocutores, que ocupan la misma frase. Las palabras de Choto se narran de manera directa, textual. Las de Cuéllar se narran de manera indirecta. Incluso cuando hay un solo personaje, se mezclan distintas maneras de reportar el parlamento. Las palabras del padre de Cuéllar a veces se narran de manera directa (“les cierro el colegio”) y a veces de manera indirecta (“iba a matar…”).
Otros pasajes no hacen tanto énfasis en los diversos narradores-hablantes, sino que transcriben literalmente fragmentos hablados. La ortografía es alterada con la intención de producir mayor verosimilitud, tratando de calcar pronunciación y entonación. Así se describen los episodios de tartamudez de Cuéllar:
“y de pronto, Pichulita, sssí, le gggustabbban, comenzaba, las chicccas decentttttes, a tartamudear, sssolo qqque la flaca Gamio nnno, ellas ya te muñequeaste y él además no habbbía tiempo por los exámmmenes y ellos déjenlo en paz, salíamos en su defensa” (Vargas Llosa, 128).
1.2 Individualidad vs. colectividad.
Ya se ha dicho que es frecuente el uso de un narrador homodiegético subsumido en el nosotros. Es necesario ahora ver cómo son (cuando ocurren) las figurativizaciones nominales de los personajes. Pocos personajes femeninos tienen nombre de pila; la mayoría solo tiene un apodo y el apellido.
De los masculinos, solo uno lo tiene (Arnaldo Alvarado). Y quizá ni siquiera pueda considerarse un personaje, porque no interviene directamente en la acción. Es, más bien, una referencia muy tangencial: aparece dentro de una narración indirecta acerca de un artículo de prensa en el que se le nombra; de modo que es una mención doblemente indirecta.
Finalmente, los personajes masculinos del núcleo central (Choto, Chinglolo, Mañuco y Lalo) no solamente no tienen nombre de pila, ni siquiera tienen apellido y solo se les conoce por el apodo. Así, se produce una clarísima paradoja: a mayor grado de intimidad en la relación interpersonal, mayor ambigüedad en el vocativo. O sea, a mayor intimidad, mayor fusión grupal pero también menor individualidad.
1.3 Oral language and verisimilitude
Besides the fast change of narrators and points of view, oral language is another resource the author uses in order to make the anecdote credible. This is not a secret, either. In the introduction of the book, the author openly points it out: “verisimilitude depended on this: the reader should have the impression he was listening, not hearing: the story should come to him by the ears” (Vargas Llosa, 1996: xi).
Prince defines verisimilitude as the quality by which a text adapts itself to a set of “true” rules (Cfr. Prince, 200). Scholars agree upon a precise matter: the speech, be it in conversation or as a silent mental activity, does not only provide verisimilitude to the text, it could also be an indication of a character’s traits; this happens through the form and the contents (Cfr. Rimmon-Kennan, 2001: 63). In fact, what a character says, how it is said and within which context is a “particularly effective and economic” way to define both the character who speaks and those whom he talks to (Cfr. O’Neill, 51).
The oral language as a tool used to achieve verisimilitude is materialized in the used of both free and reported speech. According to Prince, free indirect speech is the one in which the thoughts of a character, in opposition to the utterances are presented (Cfr. Prince, 2003: 80). But Vargas Llosa questions this idea and takes it to the edge of what is possible. He instantly shifts from the free indirect speech to the reported one: sometimes the actions of the characters are narrated in an indirect way, and sometimes their thoughts are. This normally happens in order to substitute the dialogues, which are not displayed in separated paragraphs limited by quotation marks or some other conventional resource. In fact, some segments emphasize the quick succession of narrators-speakers, who are present within the utterances themselves.
“Who could be like you, said Choto, you live a luxurious life, pity that Judas didn’t bite us, and he, it s not because of that: the Brothers flattered him because they were afraid of his old man. Bandits, what have you done to my son, I close the school, I send you to jail, you don’t know who am I, he was going to kill that damned beast and the Brother Director, calm, calm down sir” (Vargas Llosa, 1996: 115).
In the Spanish original, only a comma separates the Choto’s voice and Cuéllar’s. but there is not only a lack of transition between the speakers, which occupy the same phrase. Choto’s words are narrated in a direct, textual way. Cuellar’s are narrated in an indirect way. Even when there is only one character different ways of reporting the discourse are mixed. Cuéllar’s father words are sometimes narrated in a direct way (“I close the school”) and sometimes indirectly (“he was going to kill that damned beast”).
Other passages do not emphasize so much in the diverse narrators-speakers, but they literally transcribe spoken fragments. Orthography is altered with the intention of producing a greater plausibility. In fact, Vargas Llosa tries to copy pronunciation and intonation. This way struttering episodes are described:
“and suddenly, Pichulita, yyyes, he likked, he began, dddecent gggirls, to strutter, just nnnot that Gamio thin gggirl, and them, you’re a chicken and he besides ther was no timmme because of the exxxxams, and they leave him alone, we came in his defense” (Vargas Llosa, 1996: 128).
Needless to say that much of the original richness of the text is lost when translated to another language. But anyway, as we try to recreate the author’s intention, it remains clear the decisive role the text as an oral imitation displays. An interested reader will find no problem in contrasting this version with the original.
1.4 Individuality vs. collectivity
It has been said that it is frequent the use of a homodiegetic narrator subsumed in a collective, all-male voice. There is a choral nucleus (Choto, Chingolo, Mañuco and Lalo). Apart from those nicknames, the reader ignores any other nominal reference. We know neither their real first names nor their last names. This way, a most clear paradox is produced: the greater the intimacy degree within the interpersonal relation, the greater the ambiguity. That is, the bigger the intimacy, the bigger the collective fusion and henceforth the lesser the individuality.
Only one male character has both name and last name: Arnaldo Alvarado. And perhaps we cannot even consider him as a character for he does not participate in the action. He is, rather, a very tangential reference: he appears in an indirect narration of a newspaper article in which he is mentioned. So it is a doubly indirect apparition.
Then, it is now necessary to see how are –when they occur- the nominal figurations of the female characters. Feminine characters are always peripherical. They only appear as the girlfriends of the initial all-boy quartet which Cuéllar joins. Few of those characters have a first name; most of them only have a nickname and the family name
1.5 Narrative time
This is undoubtedly the sole feature “Los cachorros” has which match traditional narrative paradigms. Narration unfolds itself in a lineal way. It begins with the apparition of an important character; this character’s conflict –which impacts the entire group- is presented immediately, and the story ends almost at the same time he dies. Therefore, there are no temporal leaps; the text does not show contemporary narrative devices such as the flash forward or the flashback, so the story ends up developing itself in logical, standard time sequences
The author’s intention was not only telling the story of a castrated boy, which could be regarded as a gruesome plot, but rather embroider such story within the evolution of some children who grow up and turn themselves into men. Therefore, such evolution had to be very carefully depicted. Therefore, all the text is constructed as a subsequent narration, the classical narrative standpoint, in the past tense (Cfr. Genette, 1988: 217).
If it is true the author sometimes uses verbs in present, he proceeds in such way in order to imitate the habitual Latin American Spanish oral speech, which comfortably tolerates grammatical and tense violations.