Juan Nepomuceno Carlos Pérez Rulfo Vizcaíno, best known as Juan Rulfo (16 May 1917 – 7 January 1986), was a Mexican writer, screenwriter, and photographer. He is best known for two literary works, the 1955 novel Pedro Páramo, and the collection of short stories El Llano en llamas (1953). This collection includes the popular tale “¡Diles que no me maten!” (“Tell Them Not to Kill Me!”).
Gabriel García Márquez has said that he felt blocked as a novelist after writing his first four books and that it was only his life-changing discovery of Pedro Páramo in 1961 that opened the way to the composition of his masterpiece, One Hundred Years of Solitude. He noted that all of Rulfo’s published writing, put together, “add up to no more than 300 pages; but that is almost as many and I believe they are as durable, as the pages that have come down to us from Sophocles.” Jorge Luis Borges considered Pedro Páramo to be one of the greatest texts written in any language.
(Wikipedia)
Rulfo on Persistence and Transition
Here, the signs and impact of the sovereign, the legacy of a bitter past, are everywhere to be seen. But he is haunted by murmurs, voices, that never entirely go away.
- Rulfo, Juan. Pedro Páramo: A Novel of Mexico. Trans. Lysander Kemp. New York: Grove, 1959.
On Juan Rulfo
A conversation about Pedro Páramo, with Gareth Williams (University of Michigan)
Rulfo videos
Interview with Juan Rulfo on Spanish Television (English Subtitles):
Pedro Paramo by Juan Rulfo–Summary and analysis (the best mexican novel):
Pedro Páramo – Juan Rulfo BOOK REVIEW / GIVEAWAY:
Pedro Páramo (1967 movie)
Pedro Paramo (1967) Full Movie:
- Gramsci, Antonio. Prison Notebooks. Volume 2. Trans. and ed. Joseph Buttigieg. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
- “Juan Rulfo en 10 reflexiones de Gabriel García Márquez”. Centro Gabo. June 3, 2022
- Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. Trans. Samuel Moore, in cooperation with Frederick Engels. Marxists Internet Archive.
There is not all that much eating or drinking in Pedro Páramo. The patrón, Páramo, determines that the town of Comala will starve, and although its inhabitants linger on to rebuke him from their graves, the dead here can speak but they still do not eat. As for the living, they have barely the resources to toast those who are dying all around them: the man we eventually discover kills Páramo does so after spending his final few centavos on a “pint of alcohol” after his wife dies (118). Among the few who are provided for are the revolutionaries who pass through town and are bought off by Páramo, who gives them money and loans them reinforcements, after first feeding them tortillas and beans and chocolate to drink. Chocolate itself was a pre-Columbian delicacy in Central America and what is now Mexico—it was unknown to Europeans before the conquest of the Americas, and the word “chocolate” is derived from the indigenous language, Nahuatl. It was consumed, in liquid (and unsweetened) form by both the Maya and the Aztecs, sometimes for ceremonial purposes. Among the Aztecs, it was highly prized, and cocoa beans could be used as currency for other transactions. It was also associated with human sacrifice and violence—drinking it was compared to drinking human blood—and so its image was far from that of the homely nightcap with which we associate hot chocolate now. No wonder the warriors drink it in Rulfo’s novel.
Rulfo questions
- What does this book have to say about fathers and sons, and their interactions?
- More generally, perhaps allegorically, what does this “novel of Mexico” have to say about what we might call the “national family”?
- What does the book say about inheritance, debt, and what is passed down the generations?
- Does Juan Preciado’s quest end satisfactorily?
- Does anything in this novel end satisfactorily?
- Do we have any sympathy for Pedro Páramo? Why or why not?
- What is the role of women here? What does the novel say about gender?
- What does the book have to say about power and its limits?
- Is Comala Heaven (as Dorotea tells us) or Hell, or some kind of Purgatory? If the latter, what is everyone waiting for?
- Is this a Catholic book? An anti-Catholic one? Religious or anti-religious?
The following questions are taken from your blog posts…
Which part of the book had the most significant impact on you?
How does this book compare to others you’ve read? Does this match your personal expectations of ‘magical realism’? Do you think any of the characters, ghost or ghost-like, have a chance at redemption in purgatory (or after)?
How important does family connection play into who we are as individuals? Is it ethical to be compared to long lost family members that we’ve never even known?
By using themes of hopelessness and despair, what do you think the author trying to convey throughout the story? That life can only be full of hopelessness?
How do others feel about the way you experience history in your own lives? Do you ever feel as if you are really taking part in history or is it always something distant and inaccessible?
What happens to all of our dreams and our motivation of who we wanted to be go when we die?
Have you been to a ghost town yourself? What are the similarities between the real town you visited and the fictional town of Comala? Do you think either town will have an enduring legacy?
Was one of these themes (love & lust, vs. resentment & revenge) displayed more than the other in the text? If so – why?
How important are memories to you?
Do you think that the ghosts are a fragment of imagination, or true living beings? Or further, why do we think that when ghosts were first mentioned in the story the main character was barely surprised by this idea?
Why did Rulfo make it so hard to know when someone was actually a ghost from the past, rather than making it obvious, and maybe even more shocking? I realize that it was maybe a stylistic choice, which made the writing special, but what do you think this specific detail contributed to the story?
What is your interpretation of the themes and messages in “Pedro Páramo”? What do you think the author is trying to convey about the human experience when it comes to life and death?
On Structure
What are the other purposes of the non-chronological structure in Pedro Parámo, apart from providing freedom of speech and how does it contribute to the exploration of life and death?
Do you think there’s a benefit to not having a differentiation between timelines/plots, or does it overcomplicate this story? Would clear headings or a plot roadmap make comprehension easier?
What did you think about the non-linear structure of the book? Did it affect your understanding of the story or did you overall enjoy it? Why?
Did you pick up on any other central themes in to how memory was conveyed throughout this book? How did these make you feel? How can they assist the reader in understanding the events of the book, especially as it in a non-chronological order?
Why do you think Juan Rulfo jumped between times and perspectives while telling the story?
Have any of you experienced reading a book like this before where the narrator is constantly changing, if so how did this novel’s use of the line between death and living add or take away from your experience of reading?
If the story were to continue, do you think that Comala would exist has a sort of never-ending purgatory, or do you think that the souls will eventually figure out how to “leave”?
How much of an impact do non-linear story progressions have on your ability to make sense of a text?
How did you experience the “chorus” of narrators in the book? Did you find it “loud” in a sense or confusing? Or did you enjoy the layered voices and varied perspectives offered on the town and its people?
On Characters
Is Pedro to blame for the story’s ensuing consequences? Do you think this is a case of intergenerational trauma? Why or why not? Give some examples of why you think what you do.
What do you think Miguel’s function in the work is?
Do you think that the young man’s mother escaped the town in the nick of time?
What character story is the one that compelled you the most and why? Like for example, Susana, Juan, and Fulgor. Etc.
What are your thoughts on the Father? Did you like him or not and why? What kind of a character was he to you?
If you could read this story from another character’s perspective, who? and why?
How did you feel about the female characters in this novel? Did you find their narratives to be more empowering or disempowering? Perhaps a combination?
Why do you think Rulfo did this to Pedro’s character? Do you think he wanted to portray a message about maybe “love” being stronger than money, revenge and hate? Or was it maybe an “ironic” way to end Pedro’s strong character with something so simple and fragile as “love”?
Do you think that Juan Preciado will stay in his grave, or is he still wondering Comala after his death?
