Mario Vargas Llosa: Inclusive language is a kind of aberration

"I'm fine, but I'm coming out of a cold," says Mario Vargas Llosa before beginning the interview with The voice. He hesitates when he utters the last word – he sleeps that we say "cold" here – but he smiles and it is clear that we understand each other: he floats in the air, after several days of listening to the Congress of the language, that the unity of Spanish is in its rich differences.

The Peruvian writer, the Nobel Prize for Literature, the author of The City and the Dogs or The War of the End of the World – the first of a monumental set of literary works – stood in Córdoba, celebrated his 83 years here and far away to occupy forms and political correctness, it was more than ever.

That's why, watch out! Spoiler for those who disagree with him and who will not fail to get excited: he is more than ever convinced of liberal ideas, is scandalized by populism, rejects the inclusive words and believes that Argentina is on the right track even though he admits how bad he is. It happens a lot of people.

– At the opening of the Language Congress, he responded to the President of Mexico for the claim he had made to Spain for the conquest. Beyond this case, why do you think these concepts persist in the imagination of Latin America?

These are commonplaces that creep over generations, sometimes starting from certain real facts to distort them later and, for reasons of ideological type, they denaturalised a historical truth. This is a fact that occurs in virtually every country. Without a doubt, the arrival of Europeans in America has been violent. All settlements are violent. But it is very unfair to blame the conquerors entirely for a problem that we have not been able to solve. The aboriginal problem, the sad, sometimes miserable and dramatic situation of aboriginal people, is not 500 years old. It is nowadays. Perhaps in the case of Mexico in a more dramatic way, by the amount. Millions of Indians live in a completely marginal, highly exploited condition. It does not make sense that the President of Mexico, from a country that has been independent for 200 years, attributes cruelty and evil to something that happened 500 years ago. Just look out the window and you will realize that the situation of the natives has not only not improved, but has in many cases worsened. And that applies practically to all of Latin America.

– Do you see links between these realities and the quality of our democracies?

-I think it's a way of not seeing reality, to move to a fairly mythological past so as not to directly face the problems that beset us. The case of Mexico is more dramatic. that's why the president's letter (Andrés López Obrador) is so ridiculous at this point. Call for such prejudiced myths, so lie about the story … It's as if all the problems came from this encounter. But our pre-Hispanic story was much more violent. And in the case of Mexico, do not say it. There was a culture, a very advanced civilization, except perhaps in one aspect: the Aztecs' belief that the universe was nourished by human sacrifices. They were hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of natives sacrificed for this belief. It was therefore essential to clarify this precision so as not to allow the demagogy to replace the historical reality again, as unfortunately happened during the years of indigenismo, at the beginning of the twentieth century, which was very destructive and caused a lot of damage. This created a lot of confusion about the real problems of Latin America.

– As a fervent critic of populism, and beyond the political and ideological reasons that support it, do not you think that there are socio-economic reasons to explain it?

Populism is unfortunately a disease of democracies, underdeveloped countries and developed countries. It usually feeds on the most serious of diseases, nationalism, which has filled the blood story. If there is a continent that knows it, it is Europe that has suffered terrible damage. The two world wars were born because of nationalism. One of the worst realities of our time is perhaps the resurgence of nationalism behind Brexit or the problems of the European Union, born with such good auspices and with so much enthusiasm. So, if you believe in democracy and institutions, you must fight against nationalism and all forms of populism, because populism does not solve problems, but creates and increases them.

– At the language congress, the theme of inclusive language was flown over, even though it was not part of the official curriculum. Many panelists have included it in their papers … Why do you think, as you have written, that feminism is a "determined enemy" of literature?

There are forms of feminism that are enemies of culture. This is not feminism in all its aspects, let alone. It is true that there is discrimination against women, even in the most advanced countries. We can not deny this and we must correct it. At that time, it is one of the facts that most affect the public and, with great justice, there is a women's movement that calls for equal rights. I support him resolutely. Now, there are excesses that are very important to fight. In the field of language, there are excesses that are laughable. The language needs freedom, it exercises freedom, it renews itself, it adapts, and it can not be forced without causing linguistic trauma. And that's what I mean. And with that, the RAE (Spanish Spanish Academy) was consulted and pronounced in a very reasonable, wise and effective way. He says that academies do not create a language; they collect the language produced by the speakers and the scribes. It's important to understand. We can not force language by completely denaturing it for ideological reasons. Languages ​​do not work like that. Not like this. Inclusive language is a kind of aberration within language, which will not solve the problem of discrimination against women, which must be fought but effectively. Do not go further and denaturalize the language to establish an alleged linguistic equality without prejudices. What you get is a situation of prejudice that distorts the language and impoverishes it.

-Is this still the "Conversation in the Cathedral" the first of his novels that he would save from a fire?

-I have a particular affection. Of all the works I have written, and there are many, it is the one that cost me more work. It took three years to write this novel. The first year almost blindly, without knowing how I was going to tell this story. So if they put a gun on me and tell me to pick a gun, I choose that one.

-In the opening, he also announced that his hometown Arequipa would host the next Spanish language congress. Was it a scoop or a well-calculated forgetfulness?

-No, no, no, I had already been informed that the three institutions that chose the venue of the congress had chosen Arequipa. I was very happy and Arequipa will do everything possible to make the congress as successful as Cordoba.

-How did you find Cordoba? As before, or is there a surprise?

-A much grown up. The first time I came in 1991, in the last century. My impression is that it is a vigorous and vibrant city. In addition, the way in which public opinion has been mobilized has been very interesting. Some academics have said that they have rarely seen such participation at nearly every cultural event of these congresses. And especially the presence of young people. It's something that should cheer us up when we're a bit pessimistic.

Macri, the country of Latin America