I will examine the social forces and historical conflicts that surround Miranda in order to highlight his character as a victim of the corrupt underbelly of Barcelona society and its allusions to Francoist Spain. I will also focus on …show more content…
Miranda’s relationships with Paul-André Lepprince, Domingo Pajarito de Soto and María Coral to show that his pivotal role in this satirical postmodernist novel functions as a spotlight used by Mendoza to question the identity of Spain and to highlight the personal torment of a neutral figure. We will discover the ways in which his position in the novel exposes the relentless struggle for power of the middle classes as well as the suffering and anarchic rebellion of the lower classes against the urban backdrop of Barcelona during World War I.
From the outset, the frank tone of Miranda’s narration to depict scenes of raw violence creates a disturbing atmosphere of demise that underpins the events throughout the novel. For example: “Cayeron algunos cuerpos al suelo, ensangrentados”. The graphic image of blood-stained bodies, depersonalised by the use of “algunos”, implies that Miranda finds himself surrounded by commonplace, merciless bloodshed. We can also infer that this is also a reference to the multiple assassinations that occur in the novel as Barcelona is presented as a setting familiar with frequent brutal carnage. This description also sets up the character of Miranda as an observer, his focal role in the novel and defines him as an antihero.
In addition, society in the Catalan capital is described as being at its worst in 1919: “la peor por la que habíamos atravesado jamás. Las fábricas cerraban, el paro aumentaba […] germinaba el odio y fermentaba la violencia” (p. 185-186). This indicates the intense and ever-intensifying sociopolitical tension that Miranda observes as a palpable negative energy in the city from an apparently neutral standpoint.
Journalist and friend of Miranda, Pajarito de Soto, bluntly reinforces this sinister truth behind society as he explains: “De ellos, que os oprimen, os explotan, os traicionan y, si es precioso, os matan” (p. 213). The unstable state of society is clear as the workers suffer endlessly due to being oppressed by the bourgeoisie in any way necessary for their personal financial and societal gain: “Os pagan para que no os muráis de hambre y podáis seguir trabajando” (p. 213). Due to the ignorance of Miranda, Pajarito de Soto educates him about the values and actions of the anarchists: “Pajarito de Soto me habló de los anarquistas, yo le respondí que nada sabía” (p.92).
I would therefore argue that Miranda’s interaction with Pajarito de Soto allows the author to allude openly to the torment suffered by Spain under Franco’s dictatorship, which was nearing its end at the time of the novel’s creation and publication, when taking into account the idea that “the novel demonstrates the power of fiction to offer an array of stories about the past, as well as lending them serious and potentially useful meanings”. Thus we can infer that Mendoza’s positioning of Miranda provokes consideration both of Spain’s history and status at a time of significant sociopolitical change.
In Miranda’s view, the on-going feud caused by the political tension between “el conservador y el liberal” (p. 101) has caused “años y años de lucha constante y cruel” (p. 314). We perceive this notion with the same observatory distance as Miranda who seems to have gained perspective on the stark reality of the situation after returning from his honeymoon: “todos los combatientes (obreros y patronos, políticos, terroristas y conspiradores) habían perdido el sentido de la proporción, olvidado los motivos y renunciado a los logros” (p. 314). This conveys a sense of complete social bedlam as it implies the idea of violent combat spanning the whole social spectrum.
Furthermore, the relationship between Lepprince and Miranda allows exposition of the truth about the incompetence of both political parties, as Lepprince frankly explains the problem and ostensible fate of Spanish government on account of their “características generales vagas” (p. 101): “Este país no tiene remedio […] No sé de un solo gobierno que haya resuelto un problema serio” (pp. 101-102). We can perhaps also regard this as elucidation of the gloomy state of Mendoza’s society as the problems in 1970s Spain are resonated in this comment.
The biblical metaphor uttered by Miranda also addresses the issue of social development: “los españoles decendíamos en confusa turbmulta una escala de Jacob invertida” (p. 314). This reference to a reversed version of “a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to Heaven” (Genesis. 28:10-22, KJV), typically associated with the ascendance of humans into Heaven, powerfully portrays the seemingly disgraceful lack of societal progress in Spain, implying the obsolete values of its citizens and resulting anarchy.
Miranda claims that his political stance is one of absolute indifference: “Todo aquello me traía sin cuidado, indiferente a cuanto no fuera mi propio caso” (p. 186). His apathy in the face of societal disputes results in an overwhelming feeling of “aburrimiento” (p. 186) as he is caught up in the centre of the action, ensnared by violence and sociopolitical conflict. This is reinforced by his comment to Pajarito de Soto: “No conozco tan a fondo el anarquismo como para darles la razón o rebatir tus argumentos” (p. 43). We can thus infer the non-existence of favouring either political side.
However, although not a member of either party, he seems to be plagued by his own ethical code and naïve desire to find truth: “inició usted pesquisas por su cuenta para esclarecer la muerte de su amigo” (p. 89). His own investigations into the reasons behind Pajarito de Soto’s death, in spite of his lack of success, signify an eager search for some form of justice in the unethical world of the bourgeoisie.
The simple structure of the societal hierarchy, of which Miranda finds himself at the lower end, dictates a life of “soledad” (p. 162), dejection and squalor that is illustrated in the description of his unkempt house and sluggish behaviour: “me había […] reemprendido el camino a casa con paso cansino… las pocas piezas de que constaba eran de la peor manufactura” (p. 143). The use of “cansino”, “pocas” and “peor” succinctly convey his destitute situation and melancholy disposition as emphasis is placed on his lack of riches and overall weariness.
Contrastingly, the office of Cortabanyes is depicted as a place that exudes affluence and elegance. For example: “una silla semejante a un trono tras la mesa y dos butacones de piel” (p. 21). The use of “trono” and detail of expensive materials create a stark contrast with the social status of Miranda as the middle classes are portrayed as having a secure place at the top of the social order. The Savolta Company therefore symbolises the corrupt wealth and success in early twentieth century urban society by which Miranda is captivated and controlled.
The setting is highlighted as a contributing factor to the overall malleability of Miranda’s character, which makes him a victim of the grim reality of his surroundings. For example: “Los suburbios que atravesábamos, y que no desconocía, me deprimieron hondamente” (p. 77). This illustrates the terrible quality of life of the lower classes by which Miranda is sickened and from which he is driven to escape by complying with the orders of the underhanded Savolta Company.
The influence of the city on Miranda is also highlighted in a comment that he makes to Teresa about the fundamental nature of Barcelona: “Es cuestión de buena voluntad y de dejarse llevar sin ofrecer resistencia” (p. 22). This remark perfectly summarises Miranda’s seemingly innate hopelessness with regard to defying any sort of greater power. The dark spirit of the city is portrayed as an ominous force with which one should not attempt to battle, which is echoed in the Machiavellian Lepprince.
Miranda finds himself at the mercy of this guileful Frenchman due to his great social and economic power and his own yearning for social success: “Yo buscaba el éxito a cualquier precio” (p. 70). However, his character is depicted as compliant and fearful due to the nature of the social hierarchy: “Yo era sólo un asalariado cuya única esperanza de subsistencia estaba puesta en Lepprince” (p. 80). The idea of “asalariado” conveys the fragile and subordinate societal position of Miranda as he is forced to comply with the immorality of the Savolta Company in order to survive. The notion of “única esperanza” summarises his pitiable character and feelings of powerlessness faced with the social dominance of the bourgeoisie.
We observe a close yet forced friendship between Miranda and Lepprince due to a common ground of being “extranjeros” in the “espíritu de clan” (p. 98) of Barcelona. However, it appears that it is Miranda’s “fascinación” (p. 97) with Lepprince and resulting submissive role in their relationship that dictates his loyalty to the cunning businessman as he feels protected “por su inteligencia, por su experiencia, por su dinero y su situación privilegiada” (p. 98). The subservience of Miranda and dominance of Lepprince is made clear from his attitude towards their friendship: “A partir de aquel momento ya no volví a manifestar mis opiniones en su presencia” (p. 99). This also shows Miranda’s essentially torpid state as, although not a supporter of capitalist values, he displays cowardice as he resorts to remaining silent with regard to expressing contradictory personal opinions.
Lepprince in Miranda’s view is “siempre tan elegante, tan mesurado, tan fresco de aspecto y tan jovial” (p. 26). He thus appears to have an effusive admiration for Lepprince’s every quality, which contrasts with own extremely low self-esteem: “Qué puedo ofrecerle yo?” (p. 273). Miranda’s humble beginnings from a family that “vivía en la miseria” (p. 174) in Valladolid enable him to identify with the despair and unfair treatment of the “masa” (p. 91), but his social loyalty lies with Lepprince as an employee of the Savolta Company.
We can therefore infer duality in his character, as Miranda is “constituted by both immoral egoism and moral altruism”. On the one hand, due to fear and desperation to achieve societal and financial success, he is forced to become Lepprince’s “perro” (p. 235), yet his character displays compassion and he expresses “la indignación y el bochorno” (p. 61) when recalling the horrific deeds instigated by the bourgeoisie. As a result, he forms an intense hatred towards them, which encapsulates this duality, as he feels morally imprisoned, yet ultimately urged to obey: “Odié […] a la empresa Savolta y a ella, en especial” (p. 47).
Miranda’s observation of Lepprince as an “individualista ciento por ciento” (p. 100) indicates the relentless and dissolute desire and struggle of the conservatives for power, money and control: “Los ricos son distintos al resto de los mortales” (p. 121).
Miranda, by contrast, lives pathetically in his shadow, suffers from “depresión nerviosa” (p. 157) and only displays any sign of authority in the absence of Lepprince: “Sólo que ahora yo era el dueño de la situación” (p. 192).
The unscrupulous nature of Lepprince is especially clear in his proposition to Miranda of marriage to María Coral: “Recurro a usted como amigo y consejero” (p. 273). His brazen manipulation highlights Miranda’s comparative innocence and reinforces that his fate is determined by the sinister control of the bourgeoisie. Miranda’s tragic disposition and social inferiority are arguably most prominent in his prosaic and passionless relationship with María Coral.
Miranda is a victim of an orchestrated “arreglo” (p. 284) due to his naivety, forlorn state and genuine care for María Coral. Not only is his relationship with the “fruto prohibido” (p. 362) a business arrangement with no basis on love, but his crippling loneliness is clear throughout the novel as during single periods his family teases him: “Menudeaban las bromas en torno a mi soltería” (p. 174) and his brief relationship with Teresa is borne out of “la mutua necesidad de compañía (p.75).
María is shocked and surprised that Miranda develops sincere feelings of love for her as she is an exotic gypsy forced to live a “turbulento” (p. 273) life in the seedy world of “el cabaret” (p. 362): “Lo que jamás supuse es que fueras un idealista que creía en el amor” (p. 345). This exemplifies Miranda as an ingenuous victim of circumstance, entangled in and tainted by “traiciones y falsedades” (p. 357). His first encounter with María Coral reveals this genuine compassion for her and hatred of her mistreatment due to class: “odié […] todas las circunstancias que mezclaban en su tela de araña venenosa el destino de aquella niña” (p. 47). The “araña venenosa” illustrates the sordid depths of society by which both Miranda and María are confined due to their lower class status.
His simplicity is underlined by his unawareness of the affair between Lepprince and María that “lo sabe todo Barcelona” (p. 348), which reinforces the depressed, pessimistic, self-pitying disposition present throughout the novel: “La perspectiva de los años sólo me ha traído el dolor de reconocer los fracasos sin poder enmendarlos” (p. 210). The folletín style employed by Mendoza mocks the character of Miranda by implying that same style of life to expose the intense humiliation and suffering caused by the complete abuse of Miranda by Lepprince. This truly exposes the cruelty of the “escurridizo y pérfido” (p. 25) Frenchman and his absolute control of Miranda’s life, as María states: “Ya ves qué sencillo es todo cuando se tiene dinero y poder” (p. 346).
Furthermore, his traditional masculine role as a spouse is completely undermined by Lepprince and Max’s presence.
Not only does María Coral engage in sexual encounters with Lepprince, but Miranda is helpless under the threat of Max’s pistol: “No nos gustan los niños fisgones” (p. 368). This horrendous experience of betrayal forces Miranda’s imagination into a childlike state: “mi padre me llevaba por primera vez al colegio” (p. 368). The two images of childhood and adultery are juxtaposed to stress Miranda’s position as a victim of the sinister power of the wealthy.
Additionally, Miranda’s doubts about the existence and authenticity of love are revealed in his conversation with Perico Serramadriles: “A medida que pasa el tiempo más me convenzo de que el amor es pura teoría” (p. 285). This underlines the sad reality of the meticulous organisation of society in which disturbing ulterior motives drive the formation of relationships and love is a façade used for personal gain. This is particularly prominent in Lepprince’s callous pursuit of María Rosa Savolta for social power: “Lepprince me comunicó que se casaba” (p.
128).
However, we observe that María Coral and Miranda’s relationship develops into an “amor inquebrantable” that functions as a coping mechanism for surviving “las duras pruebas de aquellos años” (p. 429), which we can interpret as an indication of hope for improvement as bonds of companionship can be borne out of enduring a great test of spirit, such as that of WWI Barcelona or of the Francoist regime.
On the other hand, I would argue that the end of the novel highlights the all-powerful dominance of high society as Miranda is ultimately compelled to lie in court as a final duty to Lepprince. He may perhaps be bound to moral incentives, bearing in mind the needs of Lepprince’s wife and child of “el seguro” (p. 427), but what prevails is the feeling that truth and justice are unattainable. This act is also a final underscoring of Miranda’s moral code and devotion to Lepprince in spite of their turbulent relationship.
To conclude, Javier Miranda functions as a pivot around which all the events in the novel take place and a viewpoint from which every character and situation can be scrutinised to the finest detail. Principally, La verdad sobre el caso Savolta is a murder mystery that exposes a fruitless class war that ends in failure and death. However, I feel that there is a poignant focus on Miranda’s persistent despair and loneliness caused by a feeling of disconnection and desire for, yet lack of, status as he longs to achieve success in a corrupt, threatening and chaotic society.
The cyclical nature of the novel mirrors the inescapability of Spain’s wretched state. Despite his relative innocence, Miranda is aware of the need for change to instigate societal improvement. It is his silence that implies the silence of those in reality, oppressed and trapped in an inescapable mayhem.
Mendoza describes the character of Miranda as follows: “Creo que Miranda es excesivamente ingenuo y que lo ha de ser para que ocurran cosas y puedan irse produciendo sorpresas”. We can deduce therefore that his guileless nature is key to providing an honest perspective on both early twentieth century and Francoist Spain. Miranda’s position in the novel functions as a means to expose the dark truths about Spanish society, which are enveloped in an entertaining and satirical story.
2,971 words
Bibliography