| Categorizing seems to be one of the natural | | | | move or touch). |
| human necessities in its eagerness to establish | | | | |
| order, order that can be based on natural or | | | | Many works of art intend to produce an impact, |
| artificial phenomenon (literature, thought schools, | | | | this chair, without a doubt is impressive and even |
| etc.). There are several denominations in literature | | | | monstrous. An average reader will interpret |
| that are useful to frame, class or categorize | | | | monstrosity as something negative, but we must |
| works and writers such as Classicism, | | | | remember that something can be called |
| Romanticism, Neo-Romanticism, Realism, | | | | monstrous because of its size or because of its |
| Naturalism, Modernism, Surrealism, etc, etc. Yet, | | | | grotesque combinations which lead to a disturbing |
| there are works that are very difficult to | | | | result. Monstrous is such because it is impossible |
| categorize, difficulty that undoubtedly contributes | | | | to classify, is that which cannot be assimilated and |
| to their richness and to their resistance to be | | | | that, if it finally is absorbed, ceases to be |
| domesticated. The concept of domestication is a | | | | monstrous. César Aira –a brilliant literary |
| way of denominating those works that resist to | | | | critic- has defined the Argentine writer’s, |
| be read with only one interpretation, works where | | | | Roberto Arlt, prose as monstrous due to the lack |
| illegibility is a characteristic that was sought and in | | | | of distance between narrator and reader. The |
| which the lack of an unequivocal meaning or | | | | monstrosity of El Juguete Rabioso (The Rabid |
| exegesis disturbs many readers, seduces others | | | | Toy), Los Siete Locos (The Seven Madmen) and |
| and, inevitably, frustrates plenty. An example of | | | | Los Lanzallamas (The Flame-Throwers), amongst |
| these “rebel” works is Trilce of César | | | | other works, not only lies in the narrator’s |
| Vallejo. The asset of these works lays in the fact | | | | complexity but also in the |
| that they can be always read in different ways, | | | | non-literature-conventional vocabulary (related to |
| that they resist a single interpretation –or | | | | what Beatriz Sarlo has defined as “poor |
| they resist any interpretation at all- and for that, | | | | man’s knowledge”) and the characters |
| beside having a high degree of illegibility that are | | | | (were the double figure can be drawn between |
| highly indomitable. | | | | Erdosain and Barsut). More importantly, Arlt´s |
| Is there any piece of furniture that is unique and | | | | work monstrosity resides, in the first place, in its |
| bizarre, almost impossible to categorize? (We say | | | | hybridism (the mixing between German |
| almost because in the human necessity to | | | | Expressionism, North American Existentialism and |
| classify, it can be classified as unclassifiable). When | | | | Italian Futurism without the predominance of any), |
| talking about furniture what really matters are the | | | | as well as in its complete lack of adscription to |
| possibilities of inclusion in a room as well as the | | | | any ideology. The secret society in which the |
| possibilities of combination with other furniture. | | | | main character gets involved, mixes fascist and |
| These are pieces of furniture that, without a | | | | communist discourse, spiritual and technological |
| doubt, capture the eye and self-establish as the | | | | discourse and religious and atheist discourse. |
| central piece of any room. Furniture which’s | | | | The amalgamation of contradictory discourses and |
| protagonism forces the room and its design to | | | | of supposing opposite ideologies is what leads to |
| adapt to the furniture and not the other way | | | | the absolute unbelief towards any ideology and |
| around. | | | | towards the notion of ideology as a lie (there is a |
| | | | constant mention to the metaphysic lie). Arlt’s |
| The Traforata chair has been described as the | | | | writing monstrosity led many contemporary critics |
| king’s chair; the associations are obvious and | | | | to disdain the author pleading that, simply, |
| they are clear to the sight: the detailed wood | | | | Roberto Arlt did not know how to write. What |
| carvings on the chair point out to antique furniture | | | | happened is that the violence of a deformed and |
| and to the baroque art, which can be noticed in | | | | aggressive way of writing towards correct writing |
| the lion’s head on the armrest and also the | | | | bristled up many critics (it is necessary to mention |
| animal paws in the front legs. But is the upholstery | | | | that The Seven Madmen, written in 1929, foretells |
| that is going to make all the difference in this | | | | the 1930 military coup, showing Arlt’s lucidity |
| case: if the classic red fabric with golden tacks is | | | | and his ability to understand the Argentine society |
| to be chosen, or the black and golden wood with | | | | as well as decoding all the discourses circulating at |
| red fabric, the accomplished style has already | | | | that moment in time). For these reasons, and |
| been seen and processed, it has been, basically, | | | | some others (as the possibility of interpreting |
| done. | | | | Arlt’s works always in a different way |
| If instead the upholstery is neither conventional | | | | according to the context of the interpretation, |
| –to the chair- nor typical of antique furniture | | | | and for its untamable and inaccessible |
| the result is a chair that can be described as a | | | | characteristics) Argentine critics were driven to |
| hybrid. In other words, a unique chair that is | | | | acknowledge Arlt’s literary value over the |
| opposed to kitsh (by kitsh we understand that | | | | famous Jorge Luis Borges (of course, two very |
| that does not produce a new feeling, that it has | | | | different styles, and also the fact that Borges |
| turn itself into a model that the reader, spectator | | | | works with the notion of shore while Arlt works |
| or the audience already posses the means to | | | | with the idea of totality –of the anguish, |
| interpret and that does not imply a work of | | | | imprisonment, madness, etc. |
| decoding nor imagination. Kitsch is what does not | | | | |