THE AVATAR IN PANAMA - Theses - Flinders University

Concluding Remarks: the Paradox in PanamaThe Avatar in PanamaThe fact that Jaramillo Levi had no previous knowledge of thetheoretical or practical applications of the double must have impactedon his literary production in terms of innovation. That Duplicaciones isone of the few publications that assembles a collection of short storiesof a similar obsessive theme, only underlines its significance.Consequently, as he had not investigated the double or its literaturebeforehand, he does not view doubling in his fiction as a conscious,contrived or as a manufactured literary device, but rather as a form ofautomatic writing: “Lo que he escrito al respecto en mis cuentos ypoemas ha salido intuitivamente, por necesidad intelectual y anímica”. 2However, in retrospect, he seems to have had clear goals for what hewanted to demonstrate in terms of doubling in Duplicaciones:lo que quise hacer en ese libro es justamentedemostrar que la duplicidad se da a todos losniveles, en múltiples formas, por muy variadascircunstancias: a veces mediante polaridades ocontrarios, a veces entre la realidad y lafantasía, otras entre realidad y sueño, otrasdentro y fuera de la ficción, también dentro de lapropia mente escindida por la paranoia ("Ciclosde acecho"); otras veces oscilando entre laprimera persona gramatical y la tercera comoformas de narrar. 3Jaramillo Levi does not deny his differing positions. Inexplaining the disparity between Latin America’s version of the doubleand Europe’s, he concludes that Latin Americans are less intellectual intheir general writing and more reactive and emotional in all aspects oflife. The creation of the double requires an intellect which Latin Americaseems to find challenging. 4 While confessing to his contradictory stanceon this occasion, he states that he may be suspended between the twoaxes of the intellectual and emotional, at once confident but insecure,needing solitude, yet striving for recognition as a writer. 5His comments on his writing style are also conflicting. LikeQuiroga, Jaramillo Levi does not consider the reader when writing hisstories, only himself. 6 He claims he has never used a pseudonym, but2 See Appendix A1 questions 18 and 24.3 See Appendix A1 question 21.4 See Appendix A1 question 22.5 See Appendix A1 question 24.6 This is in keeping with Quiroga’s “Decálogo del perfecto cuentista”: “X: No piensesen tus amigos al escribir, ni en la impresión que hará tu historia. Cuenta como si turelato no tuviera interés más que para el pequeño ambiente de tus personajes, de losque pudiste haber sido uno. No de otro modo se obtiene la vida del cuento”. SeeAppendix A1 question 15.261