Mexican

Fuentes, Carlos. (2007/2006/2002). The eagle’s throne (La silla del Águila). Trans. from Spanish by Kristina Cordero. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc (Mexico: Alfaguara).


I think this is an okay novel, but it’s not an easy one to respond to. First, it’s basically a series of fictional letters, and/or tapes (pp. 160-161, 178, 211, 221; see p. 152). So I kind of have to approach it from an academic context in order to make sense of what is essentially a passing off of historical documents. In other words, Fuentes (2007/2006/2002) wants the reader to imagine and engage with his novel as an archival record. For this reason, I’ve included a table below that breaks up the letters (and/or tapes)/chapters in a meaningful way, listed in order of character appearance of the addressers, with notes to the numbers of letters and/or tapes written to specific addressees and where in The eagle’s throne they appear (you get to figure out the rest).

Character	No. of Letters	Corresponding Chapters/Letters or Tapes
María del Rosario Galván	13	1, 3, 7, 9, 31, 32, 34, 36, 39, 49, 63, 64, 69
To Nicolás (6), Bernal (5), President Lorenzo Terán (1), Tácito (1)
Nicolás Valdivia	15	5, 11, 13, 16, 19, 24, 30, 33, 35, 44, 46, 51, 52, 58, 62
To María (10), Jesús (3), Tácito (1), César (1)
Xavier 'Seneca' Zaragoza	5	2, 8, 20, 47, 50
To Mariá (4), President Lorenzo Terán (1)
Andino Almazán	3	4, 22, 25
To President Lorenzo Terán (2), 'La Pepa' (1)
Bernal Herrera	6	6, 12, 18, 37, 42, 68
To President Lorenzo Terán (2), Mariá (4)
'La Pepa' Almazán	3	10, 26, 55
To Tácito (3)
Tácito de la Canal	5	29, 38, 41, 53, 57
To President Lorenzo Terán (1), Mariá (2), Andino (1), 'La Pepa' (1)
Dulce de la Garza	3	14, 28, 56
To Mariá (1), Tomás Moctezuma Moro (1), Old Man (1)
Ex-president César León	3	15, 21, 40
To President Lorenzo Terán (1), Tácito (1), Onésimo (1)
General Cícero Arruza	4	17, 23, 27, 45
To Mondrágon (4)
General Mondrágon von Bertrab	2	59, 66
To Nicolás (2)
Jesús Ricardo Magón	1	61
To Nicolás (1)
Onésimo Canabal, president of Congress	3	43, 60, 67
To Paulina (1), Nicolás (2)
Paulina Tardegarda	2	48, 65
To Onésimo (1), Nicolás (1)
The Old Man Under the Arches	1	54
To Paulina (1)
Lorenzo Herrera Galván*	1	70
* I don't think his stream of consciousness (pp. 308-310) can be counted as a letter or tape, but ...

 
Of course I have some criticisms based on these letters and/or tapes, the first being that five players in the story have no letters and/or tapes of their own (President Lorenzo Terán (to identify letters addressed to him see table), Doris (see pp. 44-46, 65-66, 77), Tomás Moctezuma Moro (for direct references see pp. 111-116, 195, 208-211, 221-224, 228-233, 249-253, 258, 272, 286, 295; for inferential references see pp. 60, 70-71, 173-177, 194, 205-207, 218-219, 248), Humberto Vidales (see pp. 109, 148-150, 166, 250-253, 295-296), Penélope Casas (see pp. 120-121, 197)), while three of them are never written and/or recorded to (Doris, Humberto, Penélope). So what you get is a lot of hearsay.

The second thing is that many letters are missing. In only one case – the exchanges of General Cícero Arruza (pp. 68-71, 92-93, 108-110, 178-182) – do we know that the addressee, General Mondrágon von Bertrab, isn’t responding (p. 110); more, Mondrágon later assassinates his addresser (pp. 245-246, 294-295; see pp. 257-258), but with no communication between him and Cícero that explains why (for hints see p. 273, 295) – Was it backstabbing (see pp. 272-273)? Did Cícero assume a relationship between them that didn’t exist? Did he threaten Nicolás Valdivia , who later turns out to be Mondrágon’s son (pp. 292, 294, 296; see pp. 289-290)? What?

The absence of corresponding letters everywhere else, though, raises not only the question of credibility, but also of content: What exactly are people responding to? Also, in two cases – the first letters from ‘La Pepa’ Almazán (pp. 39-42, 105-107), and Tácito de la Canal’s last letter to her (pp. 234-241) though he reveals her first name (p. 241) – are we given a hint that other letters or tapes may involve codes (see Ibid). Yet ‘La Pepa’ drops her pretense in her last letter when she stops using codes and names people (pp. 225-227), introducing another inconsistency in the letters overall, a minor one being that different people use exactly the same language or phrases (for examples cf pp. 32, 54; cf pp. 117, 189; cf pp. 272, 294 (see p. 246)).

Also, if most of the characters aren’t using their real names when communicating with each other, we don’t know how they’re actually addressing each other, which makes the material we’re reading more questionable. In this context, then, we have to consider the possibility of a behind-the-scenes editor who isn’t mentioned but may have been responsible for collating and/or doctoring the documents (much like in history when, in general, the only recorded history is of the victor). So what’s being left out?

Additionally, we know that Ex-president César León sent a letter that was designed to “self-incinerate chemically” (p. 152). How did he do it? Was this the only example?

Finally, the inclusion of the last letter or tape (pp. 308-310) makes no sense. In fact, this is the first time Bernal Herrera and Mariá del Rosario Galván’s son (pp. 157-158 (cf p. 269), 160, 194, 268-271; see p. 151; for indirect references see pp. 150, 158), Lorenza Herrera Galván, contributes anything, and this only as a stream of consciousness (pp. 308-310). Now, why is his voice at all important when those of President Terán, Doris, Moro, Humberto, and Penélope aren’t? Because, at the end of the novel, while we can only guess that Doris and Dulce de la Garza are alive – the murders of ‘La Pepe’ (p. 245; for overt connection to Josefina see p. 226) and Paulina Tardegarda (p. 294; for her letter to Nicolás revealing his secret see pp. 276-286) keeps open the possibility that they’re dead (for specific references to Dulce and Josefina/Pepa see pp. 286, 294); Fuentes (2007/2006/2002) simply fails to confirm that status, not just with these women, but also with Taćito (see pp. 257, 286, 295) and Andino Almazán (see pp. 258, 286, 295) – we know Bernal, Maria and their son still are. But, will Bernal (see pp. 129, 296) and/or Maria survive to “the 2024 election” (p. 141 (repeats p. 194); cf pp. 49 (repeats pp. 195, 274), 117 (repeats p. 189), 164 (cf pp. 49, 195, 274), 195 (repeats pp. 49, 274; cf pp. 164), 207, 247, 256-257, 295, 299)?

Remember, you can’t really treat Fuentes (2007/2006/2002) like an ordinary novel except in the fact of its being fiction, with fictional characters and circumstances. This means we need to be skeptical about what story we’re actually reading based on what we do and don’t have, because we never get to the end of the story (yes, the flyleaf suggests that there is a conclusion because the idiot who wrote it obviously didn’t read or finish the novel); after all, the next presidential election is two or three years away now (see p. 150), Tácito – who may or may not be alive (see p. 294) – knows Bernal and Mariá’s secret (p. 145, 153, 156), mafia leader Humberto has yet to be murdered (see pp. 295-296), and Onésimo Canabal’s a wild card with the absence (p. 297) of Paulina (who the reader knows was murdered; see p. 294) – the same woman who was planning to change the law to make Nicolás eligible for the next election (p. 282; see p. 150).

The last line of the flyleaf, then, should’ve read: “There are many questions [left un]answered,” with many missing letters and a story that leaves too open an ending. So if you like to pick at your food, then this novel’s for you; but if you’re actually hungry, pass, because The eagle’s throne just doesn’t cut it. I, at least, wasn’t satisfied; more, I was annoyed at Fuentes (2007/2006/2002) for killing Moro (pp. 248-253, 258, 295; see pp. 272, 286).