6GoytisoloDavis

Stuart Davis
is a Lecturer in Spanish
at Girton, University of
Cambridge, since 2003.
Previously he studied
and taught at the
University of
Birmingham. His broad
research interests lie in
the contemporary
periods of both Spanish
and Latin American
literature and culture,
literary theory,
metacriticism, the
theories of
reader-response, and
gender and sexuality.
His current research
addresses the fiction of
several contemporary
Hispanic writers and
their responses and
reactions, both
conscious and
unconscious, to their
literary predecessors..

How to cite this article:
Davis, Stuart. "Something
of a One-Man
Generation: Understading
Juan Goytisolo's Place in
Contemporary Spanish
Narrative". Dissidences.
Hispanic Journal of Theory
and Criticism.
On line. Internet:
05/20/10
(http://www.dissidences/
6GoytisoloDavis.html)

"Goytisolo is not alone
in making the
transition from the
narrative style of ‘social
realism’ to a less
prescriptive
experimentalism, but
Señas de identidad
proved to be the first of
a trilogy of novels,
together with
Reivindicación del
Conde don Julián and
Juan sin tierra, which
became key to
literature at the time
that both attacks
Spain and also reveals
authorial identity as
an important part of
the narrative process,
refuting the earlier
objective realist stance."

"Whilst remaining
sensitive to geographical
and socio-cultural
background, Goytisolo
prefers to think of a
temporal schism, with
his own work included
with writers such as
Vargas Llosa and
Carlos Fuentes. In this
regard, he positions
himself as the Spanish
writer who has been at
the forefront of
renovating and
responding to the
paradigm shifts in
literature of the 1960s"

Juan Goytisolo (Barcelona 1931) is responsible for a large and varied body of work, from his
first published novel in 1954 until the present day. In addition to nineteen novels and two
volumes of autobiography, he has written several volumes of essays on literature and culture,
newspaper opinion pieces, travelogues, short stories, and even poetry which was included in
the 1995 novel El sitio de los sitios. Rather than focusing on close readings of Goytisolo’s
work, this article traces key elements of the trajectory and reception of Goytisolo’s work,
from the ‘social realism’ of the 1950s, via the ‘avant-garde’ Mendiola trilogy of Señas de
identidad (1966), Reivindicación del Conde don Julián (1970), and Juan sin tierra (1975)
with its complex attacks on Francoist language, culture and society, to subsequent novels
which continue to be heavily influenced by attempts to question narrative, implicate the
reader in the text and simultaneously attend to social questions, whether homosexuality, the
Arabic world or civil war. Goytisolo is a self-marginalised figure in the literary world, openly
scornful of literary prizes and the establishment, yet he is perhaps one of the most studied
and critically acclaimed of contemporary writers [1]. Indeed, as early as 1982 Milagros
Sánchez-Arnosi described Goytisolo as:

Juan Goytisolo, un nombre durante mucho tiempo maldito, hoy, paradójicamente, incorporado en los
planes de estudio de COU, lectura obligada de universitarios, psicoanalista nacional, fugitivo en otros
tiempos, destructor de instituciones y símbolos caducos, denunciador de clisés y prejuicios anti-
islámicos, filoarabista total, indagador del lenguaje y las relaciones entre la cultura árabe y española
(Sánchez-Arnosi 4).

Sánchez-Arnosi’s reading of Goytisolo’s position points to how this ‘difficult’ writer has so
quickly become part of the institutional fabric, after the end of Francoist censorship,
essential reading for curricula. It is also interesting to note how here she identifies Goytisolo’
s concern with Arabic folklore and Spanish identity as a defining feature, while, as we will
see, differing critical perspectives offer a number of approaches to the work. The trajectory of
Goytisolo’s novelistic development, the focus of this study, can be traced by critics in
principal as: thematic, stylistic and relative to social changes. Continually considered in
relation to other writers and wider socio-literary movements, such readings are always
dependent on the viewpoint of the critic who is evaluating Goytisolo’s career and the time
and place from which he or she works and the institution from which he or she speaks. As
will be made clear in this study, critics’ viewpoints, including my own, are always marked by
the habitus of the critic, over which they have no control and little consciousness, as well as
by the current wider episteme.

The Goytisolo industry

We will begin by identifying the critical industry around the author’s fictional work. A
metacritical overview reveals many of the underlying critical values that have influenced
the reception of Goytisolo’s work, and suggests how readings of the later novels are
influenced by the earlier texts. By using the comprehensive MLA bibliographical database,
we can gain a snapshot of the critical work surrounding Goytisolo [2]. A search for each of
the novels, and the two short story collections Para vivir aquí and Fin de fiesta, reveals the
following counts:

The following table provides information on entries relating to Goytisolo on a year-by-year
basis in the same database:

It is clear from the data that there is a cluster of critical work around the Mendiola trilogy
with the 1980s work also occupying a prominent space [3]. There is also a large increase in
publications in 1975 with several particularly high counts of references in 1977, 1984, 1988 and
1996 (a phenomenon in part due to the publication of volumes of essays, since each critic’s
contribution to the volume counts as a separate entry in the bibliographic database). How
might we account for some of this data? How has this industry been shaped and by whom?

The early work: 1966 and all that

For Goytisolo, the main critical focus for a shift in his narrative voice occurs with the
appearance of the first of the Mendiola trilogy, Señas de identidad, after a relatively quiet
period without publications. Previously, Goytisolo had been included as a member of the
Generación del medio siglo or Generación de 54, but by 1966 he moved towards a more
experimental style of writing. The Generación del medio siglo was characterised by the
writers' backgrounds and their literary style. While the writers of the 1940s, epitomised by
Cela and Laforet, had been teenage or adult during the Civil War, Goytisolo, along with
writers such as Ana María Matute, Juan Marsé and Rafael Sánchez Ferlosio, had been only a
child during the conflict and had been schooled and educated during the hardship of the
immediate post-Civil War period, a member of a generation that had not been old enough to
comprehend fully the war as it happened. Goytisolo’s early novels such as Juegos de
manos, El circo, Fiestas and La resaca are characterised by a need to attend to social
deprivation and the politics of 1950s Spain. This early Goytisolo was described in 1970 by
Kessel Schwartz as representative of “much that is typical of the new writers in his
interpretation of a Spain haunted by its Civil War memories and subjected to a political and
religious censorship” (Juan Goytisolo 22). Stylistically, the writings of this generation
were part of the neorealismo movement, which Margaret Jones retrospectively defines
as working in three directions: objetivismo (where the narrator takes a cinema-like,
non-intrusive approach, allowing direct description of actions and conversation to shape the
characters and plot), ‘the social novel’ (taking the working class as its subject matter in
order to reveal the injustices of politics and class divisions), and ‘subjective neorealism’
(frequently characterising the child or young adult as rebel, with the adult as disillusioned,
foregrounding psychological development) (Jones 28-96). Although Jones does not use any
of Goytisolo’s novels as paradigms for her definitions, his publications of the time are closely
related to Jones’s theories; the 1958 novel Fiestas, in particular, depicts the working class of
Barcelona in a narrative style that, while not as objective stylistically as Jones’s models
(Cela’s La colmena (1951) and Sánchez Ferlosio’s El Jarama (1955)) is nonetheless
characterised by a lack of clear narratorial intrusion as it focuses on depravation, murder
and social outcasts.

The critical consensus is that this is a generation that is critical of the Establishment, using
their literary output to express, according to José Domingo:

sus preocupaciones sociales, sus deseos de superar ciertos aspectos de la vida nacional, y lograr la
necesaria libertad de expresión, a la vez que manifiestan con progresiva intensidad “una actitud de
inconformismo dentro del país” y muestran las insuficiencias de una sociedad anquilosada, inadecuada
para los tiempos actuales (La novela 119).

As mentioned above, alongside his fictional writing Goytisolo is a prolific essayist and social
commentator, and his essays from the time reveal his support for a literature that is engaged
with social ills, creating a mirror that intends to reflect society as it is. This essay work,
addressing the relationship of literature to nation and society, sparked a debate in the pages
of the influential literary magazine Ínsula [4]. That Goytisolo now disowns Problemas de la
novela (1959), the collection of essays that argued for the neorealist, social role of literature,
reveals how that manifesto of writing is now regarded as naïve and over-simplified by a writer
who subsequently engaged with themes of language and literature that raise questions about
the mimetic value of literary writing [5]. However, in his autobiography published in 1985,
Goytisolo justifies the position of the time, writing in defence of such accusations by stating
that: “importada pieza por pieza de Francia o Alemania, la defensa primero del
‘behaviorismo’ y luego del ‘realismo crítico’ serían el tributo que pagaríamos a la miseria
intelectual de la posguerra” (Coto vedado 236). From the viewpoint of some forty years later,
all Goytisolo’s novels pre-1966 are together considered to be part of the social novel mode of
writing, although nearer the time his career trajectory was divided by critics into different
periods based on narrative style. Writing in 1966, José Francisco Cirre demonstrates the
typical method of dividing Goytisolo’s early period into three distinct groups of novels: Juegos
de manos and Duelo en El Paraíso, as his first publications, are Goytisolo ‘finding his voice’;
the trilogy of El circo, Fiestas and La resaca is concerned with politics, the novels also
connected through their intertextual link to the Machado poem ‘El mañana efímero’; Para
vivir aquí, La isla and Fin de fiesta, along with the travelogues, Campos de Níjar (1960) and
La Chanca (1962), embody the technical heights of objective realism espoused in his
theoretical essays (Cirre 1) [6]. Chronologically, the novels therefore reveal an increasing
stylistic shift towards the behaviourism, or objective realism, fashionable at the time.
Although his novels are not considered emblematic of the social novel of the 1950s, Goytisolo
achieved a prominent position in part due to his theoretical work, alongside that of his friend
José María Castellet whose work likewise called for the social engagement of Spanish
literature. As a result of his frequent trips to France in the mid-1950s, culminating in his
permanent residency there, Goytisolo’s presence was cemented in the generation on the
international scene. His role at the Gallimard publishing house in Paris, as well as his
relationship with fellow editor Monique Lange, brought him into contact with many non-
Spanish writers, and he promoted Spanish writers by having their works translated and
published abroad by Gallimard. Indeed, José Luis Cano noted at the time that the French
translation of Juegos de manos had been better received than the original version in Spain
(‘Con Juan’ 8). Cano does not give any explanation for this, but it is reasonable to expect that
Goytisolo’s reception abroad was better than that in Spain due to his willingness to attack
Spanish values and view Spain from the outside, much as other exiled writers were doing.
Indeed, Mario Santana suggests that the French reaction is in part due to “an ideological
context prone to find a new historical hero in every Third-World country in turmoil – a role
for which Franco’s ‘exotic’ Spain easily qualified” (Santana 54). This was a view of Spain that
swiftly changed, as Goytisolo himself narrates in his autobiography Coto vedado.
Contrastingly, in his homeland, Goytisolo was often measured by the yardstick of the
objective style and found to be lacking. Cano’s reviews of Juegos de manos and El circo
seem more concerned with Goytisolo’s age and the consequent lack of worldly experience
that he can bring to his work, than with the novels themselves [7]. The reviews also point to
the more poetic, literary aspects that were common to Goytisolo’s early work, belying the
supposedly objective, neutral narrative voice. While for Cano the mix of realism with poetic
imagery is symbolic of man versus society as it portrays fantasy and reality, for A. Martínez
Adell there is a lack of verisimilitude in Goytisolo’s characters, as they are too fantastical
(Martínez Adell 6). Indeed, later post-Franco readings of Juegos de manos and Duelo
en El Paraíso stress and praise the symbolic anti-mythological elements in the
novels [8]. Although critics have disputed how far Goytisolo’s novels were truly objective,
the mode of understanding his development was against this model (his own, as suggested
in Problemas de la novela) and as part of the generación del medio siglo, until the
publication of Señas de identidad in 1966.

Señas de identidad and the Mendiola trilogy

By the time he came to write Señas de identidad, Goytisolo was permanently living in Paris
and was persona non grata in Spain, thanks mainly to an incident where a documentary in
which he was involved was stolen during a preliminary showing in Italy and tampered with
before being released in Spain as part of a slur that portrayed Goytisolo as a traitor to Spanish
society. The engagé literature promoted by Castellet gradually lost favour, particularly after
Luis Martín Santos’s Tiempo de silencio (1961) was critically claimed as a new form of
writing that was baroque, challenging, but still critical of Spanish society [9]. At the same
time Goytisolo became more interested in theories of structuralism and the possibility of
language itself as a locus for resisting dominance and countering hegemony [10].

Although published abroad because of its damning critique of Francoist Spain, initial
response to Señas de identidad claimed the work as his best to date, with José Domingo’s
review highlighting Goytisolo’s lack of stylistic restraint as a positive movement towards
distancing himself from the restrictive theories of social realism (‘La última novela’ 13). Many
of the survey works produced in the 1970s by some of the authoritative names in Hispanism
cite Señas de identidad as representative of a stylistic shift in Goytisolo’s chronology.
Domingo’s survey of the twentieth century places Goytisolo amongst the most important
writers, and declares that “el léxico, más amplio, y la construcción, mucho más cuidada, nos
demuestran hallarnos ante una nueva etapa del novelista” (La novela 109). Juan Carlos
Curutchet sees the novel as representing a more nuanced reality and as demonstrating the
ambiguous relationships of ideological commitments as both Republicans and Francoists
come under critique; the protagonist, Álvaro Mendiola, is also characterised by semi-
autobiographical references and internal conflict (Curutchet 105-118).

It soon became clear that Señas de identidad was Goytisolo’s most acclaimed novel, and
consequently the whole period of writing beforehand is (re-)read as a search for this later
voice, as Manuel Durán expresses here when he states in 1970 that: “De todos los novelistas
españoles activos hoy, Juan Goytisolo es, quizá, el que más tiempo ha tardado en conquistar
un lenguaje propio, en domesticar el idioma hasta transformarlo en servidor fiel” (‘El
lenguaje’ 167).

For Hector Romero, “Goytisolo rechaza los cánones literarios […] para ofrecernos una
experiencia lingüística altamente original” (Romero 62). The irony is, of course, that
Goytisolo’s renovation of language and literary style could only be produced in exile, and
through publication abroad. This shift in literary appreciation sees critical works of the
period now praising the linguistic and narrative experimentation of authors such as Benet,
Marsé and Torrente Ballester. Whereas before Goytisolo had been criticised for his use of
incorrect grammar and unconvincing characters, these problems were now overlooked and
later applauded in favour of an interest in content. More recently, Alvar, Mainer and Navarro
have regarded Martín Santos’s shift-defining novel as tied to socialism, and as effectively a
precursor to other changes; for them, Señas de identidad, although owing much to
Tiempo de silencio, ‘más solemnemente representa un nuevo horizonte’ (Alvar, Mainer and
Navarro 654).

Yet, at the same time, the novel can be read in terms of its frontier position, as a text that
looks both forwards and backwards, as signalled by Goytisolo himself when re-reading the
novel around forty years later for his Obras completas: “Algunos capítulos enlazan por
el tema con mis anteriores novelas y otros contienen la semilla de su evolución posterior”
(Obras completas Vol. III 11-12). For Senabre, Morán and Gimferrer, Señas de identidad
represents a new era in Goytisolo’s trajectory in its primacy of discourse over story and its
desire to recount life through multiple perspectives, but also closes one as the characters’
travels complete Goytisolo’s travelogues, and events echo those in earlier novels and short
stories (Senabre, Morán and Gimferrer 458-71). As a link between two eras, one
characterised as social realism and the other by experimental narrative, Pere Gimferrer
claims Goytisolo as: “Ejemplar, porque esta trayectoria zigzagueante y autocrítica, hecha de
quiebras y percances ilustra de modo casi paradigmático el destino de toda una generación
de escritores españoles” (Gimferrer 9). This quotation comes from the introduction to
Goytisolo’s Obras completas, published in 1977, but Gimferrer originally wrote this
extensive evaluation of Goytisolo’s career in 1974, when, according to Gimferrer, only six out
of the then sixteen publications of Goytisolo were available in Spain (Gimferrer 10). Part of
Gimferrer’s aim, then, is to increase awareness of Goytisolo’s work in the territory where
perhaps it matters most, Spain, claiming him as exemplary of changes in the literary field.

Goytisolo is not alone in making the transition from the narrative style of ‘social realism’ to a
less prescriptive experimentalism, but Señas de identidad proved to be the first of a trilogy of
novels, together with Reivindicación del Conde don Julián and Juan sin tierra, which became
key to literature at the time that both attacks Spain and also reveals authorial identity as an
important part of the narrative process, refuting the earlier objective realist stance. Building
on the themes recognised in Señas de identidad, the Mendiola trilogy, named after their
loosely shared protagonist Álvaro Mendiola, has attracted the most critical attention of
Goytisolo’s works, as we have seen from the MLA data. The trilogy is characterised by its
experimental style and its attack on la España sagrada through Spain’s culture, myths,
literature and people. For the critic and the institution, the complex narratives contain much
that requires explanation and elucidation, from the psychological to the intertextual, and
correspond to an increasingly popular current of criticism in the institution relating to both
the aesthetic of the novel and literary theory. Goytisolo’s ascendancy in the constellation of
Spanish contemporary literature dates from this time and can be ascribed both to the nature
of the texts themselves and to the literary currents and interests prevalent in the late 1960s
and 1970s. This can be understood through various critical factors, as will be suggested here.

The importance of a growing body of literary theory is key to critical reception of this work.
Michael Ugarte reads the trilogy as acting out the “dialogue and subsequent conflict
between existentialism and structuralism”, where the personal quest is at odds with the
intertextual and baroque use of language (Trilogy 23). In interview in 1971, Goytisolo
indicated that his interest in theory had developed from the stylistically cinematic exercise of
realism to an interest in structuralism:

He sufrido en los últimos años el doble impacto de la lectura de Benveniste y del descubrimiento de los
formalistas rusos […] Sigo igualmente con gran atención la labor crítica de autores como Todorov,
Barthes, Genette, de revistas como Communications o Tel Quel. Indudablemente, estas lecturas han
ejercido y ejercen una influencia sobre mi narrativa (Couffon 119-20).

Goytisolo goes on to talk about the indirect influence of such theories on his work, where his
novels have unconsciously echoed theories and intellectual ideas. The direct appeal to
theory allows critics to read the novel in the light of the literary theory, and also to use the
text as paradigmatic of that theory at the time, developing a symbiotic relationship where
each relies on the other [11]. As previously mentioned, Goytisolo’s own theoretical writings
had been linked to those of Castellet, one of the eminent critics in Spain from the 1950s to the
1970s. In his autobiographical writings, Goytisolo tells us of the help he received from
Castellet when he was looking for a publisher for his first novels. It was also during this time
that he met Carlos Barral, before Barral became more involved in the family publishing
company, as part of a Barcelona tertulia [12]. Undoubtedly, Juan Goytisolo and his brothers,
the poet José Agustín and the novelist Luis, were helped in their careers by both their
Barcelona connections and their left-wing political leanings which found them a place in the
company of other writers and publishers of the time. According to Janet Winecoff, writing at
the time, subservience to theoretical precepts was at its strongest when Castellet led the
objetivista group, that is, the social realist writers of the 1950s (Winecoff 35). For Winecoff,
Goytisolo’s position is: “important not in terms of his relative excellence as a critic or in
proportion to the truth of his theories, but as the popularizer and propagandizer of the
principles of objetivismo, the cinematographic techniques, and the novela nueva” (Winecoff
39). As a group of anti-Falangist friends, brought up in the post-war era, it is easy to see how
the Goytisolo brothers, Castellet and other writers and publishers such as Barral, can be
linked together as a generational group with common experiences and concerns.

While Goytisolo has been recognised as paradigmatic of the stylistic shift in the 1960s,
Castellet can be seen to mirror that change as his own theories shift from objectivism to a
positive identification of and support for more polysemic writing. Castellet himself traces the
end of the period of social realism, which he sees as monolithic, to a sense of disappointment
that arose when it was apparent that no tangible consequences emerged from such engaged
writing; the writers had been self-taught and lacked a wider perspective and link to the
traditions from before the Civil War (Literatura 138-40). Instrumental in recognising the
paradigm shift, Castellet identifies both Martín Santos and Juan Goytisolo as writers who
have reinvigorated literature through a return to language as a self-conscious tool in
revealing and combating oppressive Francoist discourse (Literatura 146). According to this
Castellet writing in 1967, the committed writer should still remain committed to critiquing
social reality, but should attempt it through invigorating language, thus reflecting the
structuralist theories that were gaining ground at the time. Goytisolo’s novels, in particular
the Álvaro Mendiola trilogy, were to become Castellet’s key examples of the possibilities of
such language. His reading of Reivindicación del Conde don Julián emphasises the
foregrounding of myth and language and the polysemy that engages the reader, “la gran
densidad cultural de esta novela, nunca gratuita, facilita una lectura múltiple”
(‘Introducción’ 195). It is ironic that the objectivist manifesto idealised the engagement of the
reader and the idea of making him or her part-creator of the text as a means of
contaminating the reader with society at the same time; in experimental writing, through the
play of multiple meanings, the reader is likewise engaged with the text and its commentary
on and reflection of society.

As part of this movement away from realism, Túa Blesa reads Castellet’s appropriation of
Goytisolo’s work as part of a wider ideal in which the writer and critic seeks the destruction
of the past through the present; Blesa claims that much of Castellet’s later work consists of
“citas de textos goytisolianos a las que se añadían algunas glosas” (Blesa 11). Both critic and
novelist follow a similar arc through their intellectual development, one which is clearly
influenced by their similar backgrounds and intellectual discoveries and readings. One area
of significant influence was the increased awareness of Latin American narrative in the 1960s.

Goytisolo and the Latin American ‘Boom’

It is commonly assumed that the so-called Boom of 1960s Latin American literature led to a
re-evaluation of the world publishing market, culminating in the magical realist novel as the
epitome of the literature produced by that continent [13]. The recognition arising from
literary prizes and promotion, particularly from Carlos Barral and his Barcelona publishing
house, is often read as welcomed by a Spanish literary institution that was growing weary of
realism and in need of the rejuvenating avant-garde forms of the experimental. Jesús
Rodriguez claims that: “La publicación de Tiempo de silencio en 1962 y la irrupción de la
nueva novela latinoamericana causan tal impacto en España que el realismo social cae
pronto en un descrédito total” (Rodríguez 331). Rodríguez’s assertion is typical of the
metanarrative that swiftly replaces one predominant style of writing with another. In
practice, the immediate effects were not so strong. Should we read Goytisolo’s lack of novel
output from 1962 to 1966 as a direct consequence of the discredited status of social realism?
Janet Díaz tell us that Carlos Barral did not withdraw his support for “social” literature until
1969, and, writing in 1976 she states that Neo-Realism (or objetivismo, realismo social etc)
“is not yet categorically defunct”, although it has been much debated and criticised (Díaz
110). Yet the sense of a ruptura, a break with tradition, is the result not only of the new
literature that comes from Spanish America, but also of Goytisolo, who attempts to throw off
the restrictive chains of the typical Spanish novel in order to express instead a plural reality
and inventiveness (Roffé x-xi). This explicit linking of Goytisolo to the Latin American writers
is exemplified by Reina Roffé’s collection of interviews Espejo de escritores, where all the
subjects are Latin American writers with the exception of Juan Goytisolo. Roffé links him
with them through their politics (all left-wing, or at least anti-dictatorial), their battles against
censorship and their status as exiles (Roffé xiii-xv). Nearer the time, Castellet read
experimentation with language as the primary link between the renovating Spanish writers of
the 1960s and the Latin American writers who had gained international notoriety in that
decade (Literatura 149). Interestingly, one of the first Latin American novels to have a
sizeable impact in the Boom was Mario Vargas Llosa’s La ciudad y los perros (1962), a novel
which itself can be read as both social realist (in its depiction of Lima and the semi-
autobiographical appeal to Vargas Llosa’s own schooldays) and also innovative (its multiple
narrative voices and, at times, lack of clear exposition) [14].

Goytisolo himself has talked of the link between himself and the Boom writers, and of those
writers whom he admires. In an interview with Emir Rodríguez Monegal, Goytisolo
expressed his admiration for the perfected, systematic novel such as Mario Vargas Llosa’s
La casa verde (1966), and for the more chaotic, collage-like style of Julio Cortázar’s Rayuela
(1963) (Rodríguez Monegal 112). In a later interview he responds to the question of the
supposed homogeneity of Latin America by asserting that: “Existen las mismas diferencias
entre la literatura mexicana y la argentina que entre cualquiera de las dos y la española. Más
que de novela española y novela latinoamericana habría que hablar de vieja y nueva novela
escrita en español” (Couffon 120). Therefore, whilst remaining sensitive to geographical and
socio-cultural background, Goytisolo prefers to think of a temporal schism, with his own
work included with writers such as Vargas Llosa and Carlos Fuentes. In this regard, he
positions himself as the Spanish writer who has been at the forefront of renovating and
responding to the paradigm shifts in literature of the 1960s: “La crisis actual [de 1968] de la
novela española viene de que hemos empleado exhaustivamente, desde hace muchos años,
un mismo tipo de lenguaje, y he sentido la necesidad de hacer una obra de ruptura válida no
sólo para mí, sino para los novelistas de mi generación” (Rodríguez Monegal 112). It is in the
use of language and the desire to renew a supposedly tired idiom that Goytisolo has the most
in common with the Boom writers, both in the author’s eyes and in those of the Spanish
critics.

Mexican ‘Boom’ author Carlos Fuentes has long championed Goytisolo as an important
Hispanic writer and has written many essays and reviews of Goytisolo’s novels. This was
noted as early as 1970 when Manuel Durán remarks that Fuentes has been instrumental in
connecting Goytisolo’s Señas de identidad to the Boom writers (‘Notas’ 88) [15]. Fuentes’s
influential collection of essays, La nueva novela hispanoamericana (1969), includes a chapter
on Goytisolo entitled ‘Juan Goytisolo: la lengua común’. For Fuentes, Goytisolo embodies the
meeting of minds of the Spanish and Latin American, where language becomes the locus of
divorce from, and attack on, the motherland Spain, a country which is marginalised on the
geographical periphery of Europe as a dictator state in need of modernisation. From their
positions as ex-céntricos these writers all search for a new freedom. This position is still held
by Fuentes in the 1980s, when he claims Juan sin tierra as a novel that, through its
metafictional status, reinvigorates a tradition, with Goytisolo as: “the bridge which unites two
literary movements of identical idiomatic sign but of radically opposite attitudes towards that
sign: the peninsular Spanish novel and the Spanish American novel” (‘Juan Goytisolo’ 73).

One manifestation of that bridge was Goytisolo’s leadership in the establishment of the brief-
lived periodical Libre, the first edition of which appeared under Juan Goytisolo’s editorship in
1971. The list of the fifty-one contributors in the first edition reads like a snapshot of ‘Who’s
Who’ in (left-wing) literary and intellectual circles of the time. All the major Latin American
writers are included: Fuentes, Cortázar, Vargas Llosa, Gabriel García Márquez, Alfredo
Bryce, Jorge Edwards, Antonio Skármeta, Carlos Monsiváis, José Donoso, Ariel Dorfman,
Octavio Paz, Severo Sarduy; several Spanish writers of the time: Manuel Vázquez
Montalbán, José Ángel Valente, Jorge Semprún, the three Goytisolo brothers; non-Hispanic
writers such as Jean Genet, Susan Sontag and Italo Calvino; and also the ubiquitous Barral
and Castellet [16]. Libre, published in France, aimed to represent pan-Hispanic culture and
its self-proclaimed aims were both literary and political: “[Libre] dará la palabra a los
escritores que luchan por una emancipación real de nuestros pueblos, emancipación no sólo
política y económica sino también artística, moral, religiosa, sexual” (Libre 2).

The magazine was short-lived however, with the Cuban Padilla case driving an ideological
wedge between the contributors. The persecution of homosexuals in Fidel Castro’s Cuba
had already weighed heavily on Goytisolo’s mind, so it is unsurprising that he supported the
letter that was sent to Castro protesting against the treatment of Heberto Padilla who had
been gaoled because of his allegedly subversive poetry; Barral, Cortázar and García
Márquez were amongst those who did not sign. Goytisolo tells us in the second of his
autobiographies, En los reinos de taifa, that the magazine folded because “un gato negro
había cruzado inopinadamente el domicilio de la revista: el célebre caso Padilla. […] Libre
significó así el final de muchas amistades e ilusiones” before going on to recount the details
that led to a split between the writers along political lines, and how the magazine and letter
to Fidel Castro caused a great amount of both debate and collaboration (En los reinos 184).
An idealist vision, perhaps, but Libre is indicative of the kind of ideologically driven literary
communities of the time, shaping the literary and social fields.

Whilst language and ideology were seen as positive links between the Spanish and Latin
American currents of literature, they were also read as problematic by critics of the time and
later. Horst Rogmann’s review of the Mendiola trilogy criticises Goytisolo’s following of both
Latin American writers and French literary theory, resulting in writing that has a pretence to
be politically engaged via its language, but in fact has very little to say because it is so elitist
(Rogmann 1,12). Stylistically, according to Rogmann, Goytisolo is “un reto si no un insulto
frente a la tradición castiza: un español que escribe como suramericano” (Rogmann 12).
This opinion is echoed in a more measured way by José Miguel Oviedo who claims that Juan
sin tierra, “pertenece, con todo derecho, a la nueva literatura hispanoamericana”, a claim
that, while defended as part of Goytisolo’s right to a natural literary progression, still makes
the novel “una nueva traición a España y una reivindicación de lo periférico” (Oviedo 199-
200). In this way, Goytisolo’s appropriation of the Latin American style is another form of
attacking Spain [17]. These readings are paradigmatic of the reception of Goytisolo’s Álvaro
Mendiola trilogy that sees it thematically marked by treason against Spain, whilst stylistically
influenced by the ‘foreign’ writings of Boom writers and French theorists.

More recent attempts to re-evaluate the literary changes in Hispanic literature of the 1960s
have also placed Goytisolo as the connecting piece between Spain and Latin America. Pablo
Sánchez López reads Goytisolo as exemplary of the move from the localist writer to the avant-
garde, a result of marketing forces which imported the Hispanic American novel into Spain,
constituting a crisis that was not so much about renewing style but symptomatic of Spain’s
marginal position in international letters (Sánchez López 57-73). Mayder Dravasa examines
the myths originating from the Boom that make a “tabula rasa” of Latin American tradition,
instead creating a myth of 1960s modernity in Paris and Barcelona, the cities characterised
by the Modernist movement, of which the Boom writers were most enamoured (Dravasa 47).
Dravasa reads the myth of Modernity, supposedly reflected in the complexity of the Boom
text, as in fact only hiding conventionality, while Goytisolo does actually resist meaning by
excluding certain readers. Her insistence on reading Goytisolo alongside the Latin
American writers, but then separating him from them as a case apart, reveals a persistence
in reading the Spanish author both as part of the Boom but also in terms of the move away
from social realism in Hispanic literature, returning him to the context of the development of
the literature of Spain.

Most recently, Brad Epps has questioned the relative ease with which the literary changes of
the 1950s and 1960s have occurred (‘Questioning’). Epps re-reads the traditional dialectical
opposition of social realism and the aesthetic of l’art pour l’art to reveal the underlying
aspect of supplementarity. Tracing the movement from social realism to the avant-garde
aesthetic through the course of his essay, Epps reveals how the social realist and
experimental novels reflect upon each other as both styles of writing are characterised to
some degree by artistic merits, even if those of social realism are denied because of the
supposed non-intervention of the author. Moving on to draw on the Latin American Boom,
Epps’s reading reminds us that both magical realism and social realism are realisms of a
kind, and neither are true reflections of society as both are mediated through the refraction
of author and text, themselves refracted back to the reader and society through the channels
that affect understanding and appreciation of literature: “Literature does not mirror reality,
or reality literature, without a gap. […] the writers who question the text take the mirror as
less than reliable, but take it, nonetheless, even if to break it” (Epps 210). An understanding
of literature as a reflection of society is an inherent assumption throughout all the criticism
on Goytisolo, and Epps demonstrates the status of literature as a refraction that is never
completed, nuancing and questioning further existing critical divisions.

Anglo-American criticism: Kessel Schwartz

The MLA data reveals that one particular North American Hispanist published several early
and influential critical pieces on Juan Goytisolo, starting in the 1960s. Kessel Schwartz’s work
on Goytisolo spans three decades and he was one of the first to publish both an academic
article (1964) and a monograph (1970) on the author. That the monograph was published as
part of the Twayne’s World Author Series in the United States demonstrates the importance
already ascribed to Goytisolo, despite the predominant readings of his career that see the
Mendiola trilogy as the novels that later established him as an academic subject. Playing an
important role in increasing awareness of Goytisolo’s work, Schwartz contributed to the
legitimisation of the academic study of the Spanish author, as well as helping to introduce
Goytisolo to a wider audience. According to MLA bibliography data, the first PhD
dissertation on Goytisolo was awarded in 1967, with a second in 1970, two more in 1971 and
another in 1972. This would suggest a growing interest in his work from the mid 1960s
onwards, around the same time that Schwartz began publishing on him.

Schwartz’s first article length study, ‘The Novels of Juan Goytisolo’ (1964), acted, literally, as
an introduction to the author with Schwartz briefly explaining Goytisolo’s background, and
then chronologically explaining the plots of each novel, extracting from each the principal
themes. The picture we draw of Goytisolo from this article is that of a sensitive young writer
who likes to write about children, adult relationships and the disenfranchised in order to
“discover the essence of the contemporary Spaniard” (‘The Novels’ 307). Throughout,
Schwartz compares the novels to those of already respected writers such as Cela, Azorín and
Delibes, concluding that after,

Camilo José Cela, who continues to be the leading Spanish fictionalist in Spain; Ramón Sender, perhaps
the greatest of all living Spanish novelists, residing in New Mexico; and Juan Antonio Zunzunegui, a
representative of an older type of writing who continues to win prizes, Goytisolo is the most important
novelist of the day (‘The Novels’ 308).

A rather measured praise of Goytisolo, but nonetheless one that sees him as a hope for the
future.

Many of Schwartz’s publications on Goytisolo’s work, over the following two decades, are
thematic in style and, as such, reflect the literary criticism of the 1960s that takes its object
and identifies structurally thematic and stylistic links. In his second article, ‘The United
States in the Novels of Juan Goytisolo’, Schwartz identifies Americans as being presented as
drunk and destructive, whilst also listing and demonstrating the influence of English words
in the novels, done “to reflect the growing importance of the United States in current Spanish
literary realism” (‘The United States’ 122). There is little further reflection on the
consequences of the theme and much of the short article is taken up by lists of examples.
The 1970 monograph and Schwartz’s reading of Reivindicación del Conde don Julián,
published swiftly after the novel’s appearance, show his readings of Goytisolo’s work to be
still infused with the need to account stylistically for objectivism. Even when reading
Reivindicación, a novel characterised by hallucinations and the unusual stylistic use of the
colon, Schwartz speaks of Goytisolo’s “keen photographic eye” and measures the success of
the individual perspective against ideas of the realist theoretician Lukács (‘Cultural
Constraints’ 965). Yet at the same time Schwartz develops the imagery of time in the novel,
revealing the struggle of the protagonist to reconcile himself to the past that has constructed
his identity.

Much of Schwartz’s criticism from the 1970s takes several assumptions as the basis for its
exploration of Goytisolo’s work, viewpoints that arise from the increased interest in Freudian
and Lacanian psychoanalytical theories at the time. In what would seem a damning
criticism, Schwartz declares that Goytisolo does not care for the Spanish people as other
social realists have done, and instead:

His primary concern is Juan Goytisolo, a man unable to escape emotional, romantically tinged ties to a
former existence and the traumatic events of his youth. Much as a thwarted child might react, he
rekindles repressed desires both of omnipotence and defiance, as even a casual perusal of any of his
anti-social protagonists demonstrates (‘Ambivalent Artist’ 189).

Schwartz presumes that all of Goytisolo’s protagonists are alter egos of the author and that
all their actions reflect on the psychological make-up of their creator. In doing so, he
recognises some of the more complex arguments that have developed from these novels, in
particular the tension between the personal quest and the stylistic that Michael Ugarte later
identified as connected to existentialism and structuralism. Yet Schwartz insists on reducing
these observations to Goytisolo’s personal needs, concluding that:

If the world Goytisolo portrays contains only executioners and victims, he should not only hope but also
fight for a free and just society which would allow his creative gifts to flourish. In the final analysis,
Goytisolo uses creativity as a weapon against his loveless universe, for he cannot acknowledge that, in
truth, he needs his Spanish soil (‘Ambivalent Artist’ 196).

The 1981 article ‘Fauna in the Novels of Juan Goytisolo’ to some extent reproduces the “list
effect” as Schwartz seizes upon a particular animal and throws up recurring images
throughout Goytisolo’s novelistic output, disregarding both the context and the literary style
in which it is produced. However, the study shows a shift in emphasis towards the symbolic
potential of the animals present, as Schwartz reads them through their iconoclastic
representation, in particular in terms of their sexual and psychological import. This
particular article seems to be a culmination that sees Schwartz examine both the ties of the
typical reading of Goytisolo’s novels in terms of their adherence to the tenets of social
realism, and also the application of theoretical frameworks of authorship and psychological
development. By this time, more complex analytical work was being undertaken by critics
such as Linda Gould Levine and Robert C. Spires whose work reflected a theoretical
background that was sensitive to less rigid analytical frameworks. Schwartz’s overview of
Goytisolo’s work, that did not differentiate between the pre-1966 and post-1966 novels, was
gradually replaced by younger critics who increasingly dismissed Goytisolo’s early period as
uninteresting when compared to the Mendiola trilogy. Schwartz’s work, although at times
unreflective by later standards, was nonetheless important in establishing and furthering
some of the key themes that came to represent Goytisolo’s writing: linguistic
experimentation, the use of the body, the autobiographical element in his novels.

After the trilogy

As an object of study within the institution, criticism of Goytisolo’s work has continued to
develop along the lines of the paradigmatic shifts as characterised by Thomas Kuhn in his
seminal study The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. That is to say, as later scholars
continue to read and re-work both the novels themselves and the canon of criticism that is
continually growing, their approaches and understanding develop both in a cumulative
sense, as each critic responds to those before him or her and adds to the wider wealth of
knowledge, but also in response to wider changes. An example of this can be seen in the
relationship between two articles written ten years apart, that both take Señas de
identidad as their object of study. Robert Spires, in 1977, reads the 1966 novel both from a
Formalist perspective and through the temporal structures that characterise the novel
(‘Modos narrativos’). Spires examines the mix of discourses used by Goytisolo and the tú
form also used in the novel, relating them to the commentary on identity that runs
throughout. Ten years later, David Herzberger begins his discussion of the same novel from
the same standpoint, defending the Formalist reading of the novel because of the text’s
cultural and historical origin, and by the fact that Goytisolo read and wrote much of that very
same theory. But Herzberger claims to be approaching the text from a “modified formalist
point of view”, an approach that is modified by the distance from the object of study and also
distance from the wholesale, unquestioning application of theory to text (Herzberger 612).
Like Spires, Herzberger also examines the use of discourse in the novel, building upon and
discussing earlier critics’ studies, and rejecting the earlier claims that the novel was self-
referential. At the same time he develops a theory that relates Goytisolo’s writing to
polysemy and theories that connect the novel to wider literary strands. Thus, Herzberger
can claim that:

Goytisolo’s literary language is not ‘new’, as many have contended, only the contexts into which it is
placed […] To approach Señas from a perspective that fails to take this into account, and to insist upon
a self-directed/referential dichotomy within its discourse, is to miss the aesthetic and social substance
of the entire enterprise (Herzberger 620).

Herzberger therefore rejects the previous paradigmatic model for understanding the text,
and authoritatively establishes his own by pointing up the shortcomings of others. His
reading of the novel is the “correct” one in that it corrects mis-readings and from its
temporal vantage point is able to relate itself to current, correct understanding. The shift in
knowledge is small, but it continues discussion of the text at hand, reinforcing its importance
for contemporary narrative, and is a small part of a larger change in values.

During the 1980s and 1990s Goytisolo’s novelistic work continued to experiment with and
develop new themes, although as we shall see seemingly without the coherence that
characterises his earlier works. Ways of understanding this change have varied, although all
have revolved around the schism of 1966 [18]. Indeed, Javier Escudero, writing in 1994, still
reads Goytisolo’s career trajectory in three divisions: 1954-1958 young period, 1958-1962
characterised by social objectivism, and 1966-1975 the Mendiola trilogy (Escudero 24).
Despite having published four novels and two autobiographies in the 1980s and early 1990s,
Escudero disregards these in his taxonomy since any attempts to link the texts had, to date,
been inconclusive. Instead these works are left unclassified as a group, although Escudero’s
study itself then enacts an unspoken grouping by examining mysticism as a defining theme.

Five years after the trilogy, Goytisolo published Makbara, a novel whose position in Goytisolo’
s career has been disputed. Stylistically similar to the Mendiola trilogy in its unconventional
punctuation, its protagonists – an angel and an Arab – are not connected to Mendiola, nor is
it overtly an attack on Spain. Pablo Gil Casado, writing soon after Makbara’s initial
publication, views it as a fourth counterpart to the “etapa desmitificadora” beginning with
Señas de identidad (‘Makbara’ 217). While Escudero does not even attempt to include
Makbara in his breakdown of Goytisolo’s oeuvre, by the 1990s other critics read Makbara as
part of the postmodern or post-trilogy era. Randolph Pope’s chronological reading of
Goytisolo’s work in Understanding Juan Goytisolo devotes a chapter to the Mendiola trilogy
(‘Trilogy of Liberation’) and incorporates Makbara into the chapter that follows entitled ‘The
Postmodern Goytisolo’ [19]. Carmen Sotomayor, who even notes that there is not a rupture
but a progressive link from Juan sin tierra to Makbara, nevertheless devotes a chapter to the
trilogy as an entity and a separate one to the 1980 novel in Una lectura orientalista de Juan
Goytisolo (Sotomayor 132). Stanley Black’s book-length study of Goytisolo’s aesthetic
evolution sees Makbara as the culmination of the stylistic and thematic progression of the
trilogy, while also laying the ground for the later interest in Islamic and spiritualist concerns
apparent in novels such as Las virtudes del pájaro solitario and La cuarentena. Most
recently, Alison Ribeiro de Menezes’s Juan Goytisolo: The Author as Dissident pairs
Makbara with Juan sin tierra around the spatial theme, and embedded within a chapter
of her book bracketing off Makbara with the trilogy.

Like Señas de identidad then, Makbara seems to be positioned as a Janus like text, looking
simultaneously backwards (through its style and writing from the margins) and forwards (a
portent of the increasing elements of satire of wider Western culture and postmodern
techniques). In comparison to the texts that make up the Mendiola trilogy it is an
understudied novel, despite being exemplary of many of the ways in which Goytisolo has
been read and appropriated by critics. Of the novels that have followed, none have received
as much critical attention as those of the trilogy, although the autobiographies, published in
1985 and 1986, have become a focus for study of the autobiographical genre as well as
sparking a public war of words between Juan and his brothers regarding the allegations that
their grandfather had sexually molested the young Juan. Critics, as Escudero indicates, have
not grouped together these later novels definitively, either because their differing nature has
supposedly not allowed it, or because there has not been the need or desire to over-simplify
and categorise the novels in the way that there had been before. In this sense, the novels and
their critics have reflected instead a wider cultural shift towards an era of multiple narratives,
in part a response to ‘Spanish’ literature becoming Hispanic, invaded from outside its
national borders, and also fragmenting through growing recognition of regional cultures and
literatures. This is a multiple post-Francoist Spain, neither unified under nor against the
dictatorship.

Cross-cultural trajectories and a play on multiple identities are common in Goytisolo’s post-
Makbara novels, although the concern is less with spaces internal to Spain, and more on
infiltrations of the Arabic world, sexual identity and desdoblamiento of the individual. While
Goytisolo’s later work of the 1980s, 1990s and into the 2000s has not been as widely read or
critically acclaimed as the Mendiola trilogy, its place within his oeuvre and how it is read as
such, reveals much of the conceptualisation and modes of mapping a literary writer. The
MLA bibliography data reveals that in the last fifteen years scholarship on pre-1966 texts is
virtually non-existent while there continues to be a focus of publications on the Mendiola
trilogy (a disproportionate 40% of work on Goytisolo during the period). The most studied of
the post-1975 novels are Las virtudes del pájaro solitario, La cuarentena, El sitio de los sitios
and Las semanas del jardín. Although it is perhaps still too early to obtain a full sense of the
importance of critical work on the post-1990 publications, it is interesting to note that the last
two novels listed above have already attracted substantial interest, reasons for which will be
suggested here.

In the work on El sitio de los sitios, two general themes, interlinked but distinct, have come
to the fore: firstly, the subject of the author and authority in the novel; secondly the
impossibility of writing the experience and memory of war, whether Bosnian or Spanish [20].
On occasion comparisons are made between later and earlier texts, in particular in relation
to Paisajes después de la batalla, the novel which followed the Mendiola trilogy and
Makbara, and which appears to be held up as an example of the new fragmented
‘postmodern’ Goytisolo [21]. In their criticisms both Manuel Hierro and Inger Enkvist draw
attention to the links between the two novels, with Enkvist claiming that both texts:
“actualiza[n] ambientes multiculturales, la homosexualidad, diferentes protagonistas que
parecen ser álter egos del propio Goytisolo y juegos literarios basados en la fragmentación,
la yuxtaposición y la idea de la muerte del autor” (‘Ética’ 29).

However, it is also noted that the later novels offer a differing commentary on the relationship
of text and reality than might be expected from the 1970s and 1980s publications. Although,
as Stanley Black states in Juan Goytisolo and the Poetics of Contagion, there is a concern in
Goytisolo’s work with both ethics and aesthetics, the later novels stress the ethical and social
realities, whilst never relinquishing the innovative narrative strategies that have singled out
Goytisolo’s work from his contemporaries. This shift is noted by Estrella Cibreiro, who
identifies a movement away from a Verfremdungseffekt approach to novels that “proponen la
escritura como medio de inclusión, no de separación, y ponen de manifiesto una disposición
autorial que ha dejado de ser condenatoria y alienante para convertirse en indagatoria y
familiarizante” (Cibreiro 53/457). This would seem to be an overriding feature of studies of
the 1990s novels, in which the two novels El sitio de los sitios and Las semanas del jardín,
although never labeled a diptych, relate closely in theme and character links, and are often
studied together [21]. Indeed, and perhaps in keeping with the contemporary questioning of
cultural memory in a Spain that is more actively re-visiting its past, studies of Las
semanas del jardín focus on the act of writing memory and authority over the past, whilst
drawing out the intertextual matrix of the text. In her monograph, Ribeiro de Menezes links
Paisajes después de la batalla with the war diptych, through the theme of the ‘voyeur’,
also discovering a change of emphasis from postmodern playfulness to a more ethical
position.

Goytisolo himself creates connections throughout his work and presents us with self-
reflective works that comment on their, and the author’s, status, as noted in Pope’s recent
entry in a Dictionary of Literary Biography: “Goytisolo’s subsequent novels [after 1990]
revisit central topics of his work, but in fresh and highly innovative ways” (‘Juan Goytisolo’
119). Like most readers, critics come to the later works after the Mendiola trilogy and
correspondingly are led into comparisons across the Goytisolo oeuvre, perhaps reading
similar themes in new contexts, or re-reasding earlier novels such as Paisajes después
de la batalla as pre-cursors.

Reading the Whole: Academy and Texts

Responding to the question of reading Goytisolo’s literary trajectory, Inger Enkvist’s short
metacritical study of Goytisolo’s career reads the novels themselves alongside the shifts in
critical perspective that are dependent on the relationship of later novels to earlier ones.
Enkvist views three stages in Goytisolo’s trajectory: pre-1966; 1966-1975, and post-1975 (‘Un
estudio’ 73). Such a division of the novels is not unusual, but Enkvist relates these stages to
stages in criticism also: pre-1966 criticism is concerned with reviews that compare Goytisolo
to other writers; from 1966 to 1975 the Mendiola trilogy texts are compared to the earlier
ones, but there is a new need to explain and explore the later challenging texts; the post-1975
era is characterised by a fragmentation of themes in both the novels and criticism that
cannot possibly encompass the complexities of the novels in one critical work (although
several have attempted to do so). Enkvist’s study is marked, however, by a need to read this
fragmentation as a criticism of the lack of critical consensus:

La crítica universitaria dedicada a Goytisolo es más descriptiva que analítica, y hay además
una tendencia a hablar de una pluralidad de interpretaciones y de perspectivas en vez de
llegar a un consenso, o en otras palabras, parece que el ideal es aditivo. Esto se suele
denominar tolerancia pero también se podría hablar de falta de rigor o de cobardía (‘Un
estudio’ 74).

Responding to perceived multiplicity of critical opinion, Enkvist misreads fragmentation and
disagreement within criticism as a barrier to establishing stable meaning that then prevents
the critical institution from moving forwards in its pursuit of knowledge.

Elsewhere, an overview reading by Stanley Black (Juan Goytisolo) sees Goytisolo’s career as
made up of constant shifts in aesthetics, reflecting ideological commitment in the novels.
Instead of a traditional reading of Goytisolo’s shift from realism to political activism, Black
reads the thematic trajectory as moving from behaviourism to an attack on social realist
aesthetics, to Goytisolo seeking his own Spanish literary tradition, coupled also with him re-
discovering the body as a locus for subversion, culminating in his most recent ludic novels
that reflect and comment on all of the above. This kind of reading does not clearly bracket off
one novel from another as there is a necessary overlap. In contrast, José María Izquierdo
links his division of Goytisolo’s work into three blocks with wider and far-reaching socio-
cultural issues: social realism, corresponding with Spanish economic development;
experimentalism, corresponding to the era of protests in the 1960s; and postmodern
experimentalism, connected to the end of the Eastern bloc and subsequent war in the former
Yugoslavia (Izquierdo 114). While I would expand Izquierdo’s third definition to include a
sense of the questioning of grand narratives in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this reading of
Goytisolo’s career reveals the contemporary desire to read literature as a cultural product in
relation to what are considered the most prescient issues of the time. Enkvist, Black and
Izquierdo all speak from differing institutions, indeed nationalities, and each seek their own
agendas in this long and varied career.

Goytisolo reads his own value to the Spanish literary tradition in terms of his personal
creation of an “árbol de literatura”, identifying stylistic and thematic concerns that link his
work to the pre-modern. Yet also, his identity and position in the literary field is constructed
in relation to contemporary Spain and Spanish letters. In the Epilogue to a recent collection
of his essays he responds directly to the question of his position in Spanish literature by
claiming that,

mi lugar es una ausencia de lugar o, por mejor decir, un no lugar. Nacido en Barcelona, no me expreso
en catalán. Tampoco soy vasco no obstante mi apellido. Si bien escribo y público en castellano, no vivo
desde hace décadas en la península y me sitúo al margen del escalafón. Por ello me etiquetaron
primero como afrancesado aunque sólo he redactado en francés un puñado de artículos. Ahora me
llaman muy cortésmente moro, por el hecho de dominar el dialecto árabe de Marruecos y haberme
afincado en Marrakech. Ni nuestros entomólogos universitarios, con sus rutinarias clasificaciones, ni
nuestros críticos literarios, tan propensos a la vacuidad y redundancia, alcanzan a incluirme en el
comodín de una generación: la que ellos me denominan del “medio siglo”, por más que coincida
cronológicamente con los agavillados en ella. Mi experiencia personal y literaria es radicalmente
distinta y por consiguiente mi obra también (Pájaro 403).

Faced with such a virulent desire to stand outside any attempts to categorise, suspicious of
the academic enterprise of classification inherent in any critical reading of his work, it is no
wonder that Perriam, Thompson, Frenk and Knights refer to Goytisolo as “something of a
one-man generation” (Perriam et al. 219).

Ultimately, critical readings and responses to Juan Goytisolo’s career map out themselves a
place in the literary field and tradition, creating and reinforcing a space in the contemporary
canon for the author. We have seen how dictatorship in Spain, imposed on the literary field,
has affected both the text produced, in part engendering the social realist movement, and
the market in which it is read. We see that experimentation of the late 1960s mirrors the
desire to break free from rigid models, with the leftwing Boom writers supposedly leading
the way. Following the transition to democracy, there has been a lack of cohesion, with the
need to express the personal and psychological coming to the fore.

Consequently, we detect a shift from literature committed to attacking conservative Spanish
society to the playful questioning of narrative authority and matters of spirituality, a shift that
reflects changes in both the political and social climate, and also in the literary market. This
is not to say that Goytisolo cannot be read as hitting double targets; he is still socially and
politically committed, and readings of later novels suggest a stronger sense of that
commitment in his work, and, perhaps more importantly in the context of it being read. Las
virtudes del pájaro solitario responds to the AIDS epidemic, Paisajes después de la batalla
represents marginalised groups in Paris, while El sitio de los sitios is set in war-torn Sarajevo.
In this way, Juan Goytisolo’s work spans a period of time in which much re-coding of values,
social and literary, inside and outside Spain, has taken place. However, the ‘difficult’ status of
his literature derives from a sense of conflict where the need to react to and represent society
is in tension with the stylistic play of language and narrative that denies accessibility to the
consumer.

As Goytisolo’s work has spanned such a large period it is inevitable that his works relate to
different historical periods and different ways of reading. This study has sought to reveal how
many disparate trends of literary criticism and intellectual thought have converged (and
continue to do so) around Goytisolo and his work. As ways of understanding literature have
shifted, so too have the critical approaches to the novels, constantly evaluating and re-
evaluating the works, while Goytisolo himself has responded to those shifts through both his
fictional and non-fictional output. What we have seen is a microcosm of a wider process that
is the shift in the study of literature, in particular Hispanism, during the second half of the
twentieth century, revealing a movement from a preoccupation with the author and text, to
readings that encompass wider theories and cultural trends. Goytisolo’s acceptance into the
literary canon is built upon these preoccupations and changes.

Notes

[1] This is, of course, a very schematic overview of a complex figure. For the interested
reader the following monographs listed in Works Cited are recommended: Gould Levine,
Lee Six, Pope Understanding, Epps Significant Violence, Black Juan Goytisolo and
Ribeiro de Menezes.

[2] Obviously, such databases cannot include every published critical work, an impossible
compilatory task, and the MLA bibliography is naturally weighted towards Anglo-American
publications, but this resource offers the most accessible comprehensive cover. The
snapshot was taken in April 2009.

[3] A brief earlier study by Inger Enkvist also identifies a ‘boom’ in Goytisolo criticism at the
end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s, a period in which Goytisolo was publishing little
but was increasingly recognised as an important literary figure by both Spanish and Anglo-
American Hispanists (‘Juan Goytisolo’ 62). Enkvist notes also that this growth in interest is,
in part, due to the wider expansion of Hispanism in the academic institution, concomitant
with an increase in the number of periodicals and outlets for scholarly publication, an
observation that underpins my own reading of the trajectory of Goytisolo’s career and which
I will trace with closer reference to specific critical works.

[4] See in particular Goytisolo (1959) and the responses by de Torre and Corrales Egea.

[5] The collection was excluded from the 1976 Obras completas published by Aguilar, but
included in the more recent Obras completas Vol. I published by Galaxia Gutenberg (2005),
which Goytisolo himself approves through his contribution of a Prologue to each volume.

[6] Interestingly the recent series of volumes of Goytisolo’s Obras Completas by Galaxia
Gutenberg make the following divisions: Vol. I Novelas y ensayo (1954-1959), Vol. II
Narrativa y relatos de viaje (1959-1965), Vol. III Novelas (1966-1982), Vol. IV Novelas (1988-
2003), Vol. V Autobiografía y viajes al mundo islámico. In the first volume, El circo remains
excluded, as it did from the 1976 Obras completas Aguilar edition, with Goytisolo claiming
it as mediocre, trite and consigned to the “panteón de la mala literatura”, making these
actually incomplete complete works (Obras completas Vol.I 40). The subsequent
publication of the novel El exiliado entre aquí y allá in 2008 also renders the collection
incomplete, of course.

[7] See Cano’s reviews ‘Los libros del mes’ in Ínsula, 1955 and 1958. The former finishes by
proclaiming, “Atención, pues, a Juan Goytisolo. Esperamos mucho de él” (‘Los libros’ (1958)
6).

[8] See, for example, work by Squires and Labanyi. Writing nearer the height of neo-realism,
Eugenio G. de Nora similarly reads the aesthetic as overriding the ideological concerns in
Goytisolo’s early novels (Nora 297).

[9] There are a myriad of reasons for the end of the neo-realist movement, amongst them the
arrival of Tiempo de silencio, but also the growth of interest in literary theory and the
impact of Latin American writing, as will be explored shortly. With this description of
Goytisolo’s novel trajectory, I do not wish to imply an over-simplified history of Spanish
literature; it is important to remember that Martín Santos’s novel was not universally praised
on initial publication and that this story of progression is one written with hindsight.

[10] For a detailed exploration of this, see Black, Juan Goytisolo and the Poetics of
Contagion, especially Chapter One.

[11] See, for example, the work of Spires and Pérez.

[12] See Goytisolo’s account in Coto vedado and his ‘Cronología’ in Disidencias.

[13] Just as with many other literary terms used throughout this thesis, epithets such as the
‘Boom’ and ‘magical realist’ are always subject to debate and variations of definition that are
beyond the scope of this study.

[14] For a detailed mapping of La ciudad y los perros in Spanish literature, see Mario
Santana Foreigners in the Homeland, where Santana identifies the novel’s
simultaneous difference and similarity as a key to its success, it is a “poetic social novel”
(Santana 75).

[15] See also further criticism by Carlos Fuentes for example ‘Juan Goytisolo or the Novel as
Exile’ and ‘El honor de la novela: A propósito de Juan Goytisolo’.

[16] The other names listed in the first 1971 edition are the following: Claribel Alegría, Rubén
Bareiro Saguier, Albina du Boisrouvray, Antonio Cisneros, Carlos Droguett, Hans Magnus
Ensensberger, Carlos Franqui, Salvador Garmendia, Juan Gelman, Adriano González León,
Rodolfo Hinostroza, Noé Jitrik, Roberto Juarroz, Wifredo Lam, Enrique Lihn, Luis Loayza,
Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Daniel Moyano, José Miguel Oviedo, José Emilio Pacheco,
Teodoro Petkoff, Sergio Pitol, Angel Rama, Julio Ramón Ribeyro, Vicente Rojo, Nicolas
Suescún, Antoni Tápies and Francisco Urondo.

[17] Later critics have also identified some of the shared aspects and divergences that
connect the writers. See, for example, work by Susan Levine, who explores Fuentes’s and
Goytisolo’s shared passion for the work of Cervantes, Michael Ugarte, who explores their
appropriation of Américo Castro’s historical view of heterodox Spain and Nicolás Toscano
Liria, who compares Fuentes’s creation of language in Terra nostra (1975) with Goytisolo’s
destruction of it in Juan sin tierra.

[18] In this respect some recent critics, such as Abigail Lee Six and Ryan Prout, have
stressed the continuation of certain themes and motifs throughout all of Goytisolo’s
production. Prout reads Goytisolo’s unpublished juvenile writings as stylistically closer to his
post-1966 work than to Goytisolo's novels of the 1950s.

[19] It is of course in labeling the three novels published between 1966 and 1975 as a trilogy
that a bracketing off of that period is enacted, a grouping made by critics, not Goytisolo
himself (Obras completas Vol. III 9).

[20] El sitio de los sitios is written and set during the early 1990s Balkan wars, but contains
echoes and allusions to the Spanish Civil War. For examples of readings that focus on
authority see Stanley Black ‘The Author as Hero’, Stuart Davis ‘Life, Death’ and Manuel
Hierro. For examples that focus more on war-writing see Antonio Monegal and Stuart Davis
‘Narrative Battles’.

[21] The absent protagonist of Las semanas del jardín, Eusebio, is first mentioned as a
distant relative of the Comandante in El sitio de los sitios. Both novels also contain
playful images of the absent, but present, real author of each text, that is to say, Goytisolo
himself, and thematic concerns with unorthodox poets connected to sufi traditions.

Works cited

Alvar, Carlos, José-Carlos Mainer and Rosa Navarro. Breve historia de la literatura española.
Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1997.

Black, Stanley. Juan Goytisolo and the Poetics of Contagion: The Evolution of a Radical
Aesthetic in the Later Novels. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2001.

——. “The Author as Hero in the New World Order: The Power of Fictionality in Goytisolo’s
El sitio de los sitios”. Gargett, Graham. Ed. Heroism and Passion in Literature: Essays in
Honour of Maya Longstaffe. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2004.

Blesa, Túa. ‘“Hem de fer foc nou””. Ínsula 652 (2001): 9-13.

Cano, José Luis. “Los libros del mes”. Ínsula 111 (1955): 6-7.

——. “Con Juan Goytisolo en París”. Ínsula 132 (1957): 8.

——. “Los libros del mes”. Ínsula 136 (1958): 6.

Castellet, José María. Literatura, ideología y política. Barcelona: Anagrama, 1976.

——. “Introducción a la lectura de Reivindicación del Conde don Julián de Juan Goytisolo”.
Rodriguez Monegal et al. Eds. Juan Goytisolo Madrid: Fundamentos, 1975.

Cibreiro, Estrella. “Apocalípsis y ecologismo, muerte y posteridad: de Paisajes después de la
batalla a La saga de los Marx de Juan Goytisolo”. Anales de la Literatura Española
Contemporánea 26 (2001): 29/433-60/464.

Cirre, José Francisco. “Novela e ideología en Juan Goytisolo”. Ínsula 230 (1966): 1.

Corrales Egea, José. “Entrando en liza: Cinco apostillas a una réplica”. Ínsula 152-153 (1959):
26-7.

Couffon, Claude. “Una reivindicación”. Rodriguez Monegal et al. Eds. Juan Goytisolo
Madrid: Fundamentos, 1975.

Curutchet, Juan Carlos. Cuatro ensayos sobre la nueva novela española. Montevideo:
Editorial Alfa, 1973.

Davis, Stuart. “Life, Death and the Name: The Case of Juan Goytisolo”. Forum for Modern
Language Studies 41 (2005): 365-74.

——. “Narrative Battles: War and Memory in the Novels of Juan Goytisolo”. Bulletin of
Hispanic Studies, forthcoming.

Díaz, Janet W. “Origins, Aesthetics and the ‘nueva novela española’”. Hispania 59 (1976):
109-17.

Domingo, José. “La última novela de Juan Goytisolo”. Ínsula 248-249 (1967): 13.

——. La novela española del siglo XX: 2 - De la postguerra a nuestros días. Barcelona:
Editorial Labor, 1973.

Dravasa, Mayder. “Writing as Conquest and Anxiety of Influence in Juan Goytisolo’s
Reivindicación del Conde don Julián”. Revista de Estudios Hispánicos (Río Pedras) 22
(1995): 37-51.

Durán, Manuel. “El lenguaje de Juan Goytisolo”. Cuadernos Americanos 173 (1970): 167-79.

——. “Notas al margén de Señas de identidad, de Juan Goytisolo”. Schraibman, José. Ed.
Homenaje a Sherman H. Eoff Madrid: Editorial Castalia, 1970.

Enkvist, Inger. “Ética, estética y política en Paisajes después de la batalla y El sitio de los
sitios de Juan Goytisolo”. Enkvist, Inger. Ed. Un círculo de relectores: Jornadas sobre Juan
Goytisolo (Lund, 1998). Almería: Instituto de Estudios Almerienses, 1999.

——. “Juan Goytisolo en el MLA: ¿Una imagen en miniatura del hispanismo?”. Enkvist,
Inger and Ángel Sahuquillo. Eds. Los múltiples yos de Juan Goytisolo. Un estudio
interdisciplinar. Almería: Instituto de Estudios Almerienses, 2001.

Epps, Bradley S. Significant Violence: Oppression and Resistance in the Narratives of Juan
Goytisolo 1970-1990. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

——. “Questioning the Text”. Turner, Harriet and Adelaida López de Martínez. Eds. The
Cambridge Companion to the Spanish Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003.

Escudero, Javier. Eros, mística y muerte en Juan Goytisolo (1982-1992). Almería: Instituto de
Estudios Almerienses, 1994.

Fuentes, Carlos. La nueva novela hispanoamericana. Mexico: Editorial Joaquín Mortiz, 1969.

——. “Juan Goytisolo or the Novel as Exile”. Review of Contemporary Fiction 4 (1984): 72-6.

——. “El honor de la novela: A propósito de Juan Goytisolo”. La nación August 6th 1989: 1.

Gil Casado, Pablo. La novela social española. Barcelona: Seix Barral, 1975.

——. “Makbara es un cementerio”. Cuadernos Americanos 40 (1981): 217-26.

Gould Levine, Linda. Juan Goytisolo: la destrucción creadora. Mexico: Joaquín Mortiz, 1976.

Gimferrer, Pere. “Riesgo y ventura de Juan Goytisolo” Juan Goytisolo. Obras completas I.
Novelas. Madrid: Aguilar, 1977.

Goytisolo, Juan. “Para una literatura nacional popular”. Ínsula 146 (1959): 6, 11.

——. Disidencias. Barcelona: Seix Barral, 1977.

——. Obras completas. Madrid: Aguilar, 1977.

——. Coto vedado. Madrid: Alianza, 1999.

——. En los reinos de taifa. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1999.

——. Pájaro que ensucia su propio nido. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg, 2001.

——. Obras completas Vol. I Novelas y ensayo (1954-1959). Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg,
2005.

——. Obras completas Vol.II Narrativa y relatos de viaje (1959-1965). Barcelona: Galaxia
Gutenberg, 2006.

——. Obras completas Vol.III Novelas (1966-1982). Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg, 2006.

——. Obras completas Vol.IV Novelas (1988-2003). Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg, 2007.

——. Obras completas Vol.V Autobiografía y viajes al mundo islámico. Barcelona: Galaxia
Gutenberg, 2007.

Herzberger, David K. “Language and Referentiality in Señas de identidad”. Revista
Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos 11 (1987): 611-21.

Hierro, Manuel. “La memoria sitiada de Juan Goytisolo en El sitio de los sitios”. Antipodas 8-
9 (1996-1997): 144-54.

Izquierdo, José María. “‘Negativismo crítico’ versus ‘pensamiento único’ en la obra de Juan
Goytisolo”. Enkvist, Inger. Ed. Un círculo de relectores: Jornadas sobre Juan Goytisolo
(Lund, 1998). Almería: Instituto de Estudios Almerienses, 1999.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1970.

Jones, Margaret E.W. The Contemporary Spanish Novel 1939-75. Boston: Twayne
Publishers, 1985.

Labanyi, Jo. “The Ambiguous Implications of the Mythical References in Juan Goytisolo’s
Duelo en El Paraíso”. Modern Language Review 80 (1985): 845-57.

Lee Six, Abigail. Juan Goytisolo: The Case for Chaos. London: Yale University Press, 1990.

Levine, Susan F. “The Lesson of the Quijote in the Works of Carlos Fuentes and Juan
Goytisolo”. Journal of Spanish Studies 7 (1979): 173-85.

Libre. 1 (1971).

Martínez Adell, A. “Fiestas”. Ínsula 145 (1958): 6.

Monegal, Antonio. “Aporias of the War Story”. Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies 3 (2002):
29-41.

Nora, Eugenio G. de. La novela española contemporánea (1939-1967). Madrid: Gredos, 1970.

Oviedo, José Miguel. “La escisión total de Juan Goytisolo: Hacia un encuentro con lo
Hispanoamericano”. Revista Iberoamericana 42 (1976): 191-200.

Pérez, Génaro J. Formalist Elements in the Novels of Juan Goytisolo. Potomac: José Porrúa
Turanzos, 1979.

Perriam, Chris, Michael Thompson, Susan Frenk and Vanessa Knights. A New History of
Spanish Writing 1939 to the 1990s. Oxford: OUP, 2000.

Pope, Randolph. Understanding Juan Goytisolo. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,
1995.

——. “Juan Goytisolo”. Altisent, Marta E. and Cristina Martínez Carazo. Eds. Dictionary of
Literary Biography. Vol. 322. Twentieth Century Spanish Fiction Writers. Missouri: Thomson
and Gale, 2006.

Prout, Ryan. Fear and Gendering: Pedophobia, Effeminophobia and Hypermasculine Desire in
the Work of Juan Goytisolo. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2001.

Ribeiro de Menezes, Alison. Juan Goytisolo: The Author as Dissident. Woodbridge: Tamesis,
2005.

Rodríguez, Jesús. “La reivindicación del paria en Makbara de Juan Goytisolo”. Crítica
Hispánica 18 (1996), 331-9.

Rodríguez Monegal, Emir. “Entrevista con Juan Goytisolo” Rodriguez Monegal et al. Eds.
Juan Goytisolo Madrid: Fundamentos, 1975.

Roffé, Reina. Espejo de escritores. Hanover: Ediciones del Norte, 1985.

Rogmann, Horst. “El contradictorio Juan Goytisolo”. Ínsula 359 (1976): 1, 12.

Romero, Héctor R. “Señas de identidad: Una nueva etapa en la novelística de Juan
Goytisolo”. Hispanófila 53 (1975): 61-71.

Sánchez-Arnosi, Milagros. “Juan Goytisolo: ‘La creación como liberación’”. Ínsula 426
(1982): 4.

Sánchez López, Pablo. “La novela hispanoamericana en España y el debate sobre el
realismo (1967-1972)”. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies (Liverpool) 76 (1999): 57-73.

Santana, Mario. Foreigners in the Homeland. The Spanish American New Novel in
Spain 1962-1974. Lewsiburg: Bucknell UP, 2000.

Schwartz, Kessel. “The Novels of Juan Goytisolo”. Hispania 47 (1964): 302-8.

——. “The United States in the Novels of Juan Goytisolo”. Romance Notes 6 (1965): 122-25.

——. Juan Goytisolo. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1970.

——. “Juan Goytisolo, Cultural Constraints and the Historical Vindication of Count Julian”.
Hispania 54 (1971): 960-66.

——. “Juan Goytisolo - Ambivalent Artist in Search of his Soul”. Journal of Spanish Studies 3
(1975): 187-97.

——. “Fauna in the Novels of Juan Goytisolo”. Hispania 64 (1981): 540-49.

Senabre, Ricardo, Fernando Morán and Pere Gimferrer. “La evolución de Juan Goytisolo”.
Domingo Ynduráin. Ed. Historia y crítica de la literatura española. 8. Época contemporánea
1939-1980. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica, 1980.

Sotomayor, Carmen. Una lectura orientalista de Juan Goytisolo. Madrid: Editorial
Fundamentos, 1990.

Spires, Robert C. “La autodestrucción creativa en Reivindicación del Conde don Julián”.
Journal of Spanish Studies 4 (1976): 191-202.

——. “Modos narrativos y búsqueda de identidad en Señas de identidad”. Anales de la
Novela de Posguerra 2 (1977): 55-72.

——. “From Neo-realism and the New Novel to the Self-Referential Novel: Juan Goytisolo’s
Juan sin tierra”. Anales de la Narrativa Española Contemporánea 5 (1980): 73-82.

Squires, Jeremy S. “(De)mystification in Juan Goytisolo’s early Novels, from Juegos
de manos to La resaca”. Modern Language Review 91 (1996): 393-405.

Torre, Guillermo de. “Los puntos sobre algunas ‘íes’ novelísticas (Réplica a Juan
Goytisolo)”. Ínsula 150 (1959): 1-2.

Toscano Liria, Nicolás. “Convergencias: Juan Goytisolo’s Juan sin tierra y Carlos Fuentes en
Terra nostra” Ana María Hernández de López. Ed. La obra de Carlos Fuentes: una visión
múltiple. Madrid: Editorial Pliegos, 1988.

Ugarte, Michael. “Juan Goytisolo: Unruly Disciple of Américo Castro”. Journal of Spanish
Studies 7 (1979): 353-64.

——. Trilogy of Treason: An Intertextual Study of Juan Goytisolo. Columbia: University of
Missouri Press, 1982.

Winecoff, Janet. “The Spanish Novel from Ortega to Castellet: Dehumanization of the
Artist”. Hispania 50 (1967): 35-43.

Suart Davis,
Girton College, Cambridge University

“Something of a One-Man Generation”:
Understanding Juan Goytisolo's Place
in Contemporary Spanish Narrative

Editor s

Publication Info

Submission Policies

Links

Dissidences

Fictional Work	Year of Publication	Count in publications 1954-2008
Juegos de manos	1954	7
Duelo en El Paraíso	1955	6
El circo	1957	2
Fiestas	1958	6
La Resaca	1958	2
Para vivir aquí	1960	0
La isla	1961	2
Fin de fiesta	1962	4
Señas de identidad	1966	51
Reivindicación del Conde don Julián	1970	92
Juan sin tierra	1975	67
Makbara	1980	35
Paisajes después de la batalla	1982	22
Las virtudes del pájaro solitario	1988	23
La cuarentena	1991	12
La saga de los Marx	1993	6
El sitio de los sitios	1995	10
Las semanas del jardín	1997	8
Carajicomedia	2000	6
Telón de boca	2003	3
El exiliado de aquí y allá	2008	0

Year	Publications	Year	Publications
1957	2	1983	15
1958	0	1984	20
1959	1	1985	10
1960	0	1986	8
1961	2	1987	7
1962	2	1988	34
1963	2	1989	14
1964	3	1990	20
1965	3	1991	14
1966	1	1992	10
1967	2	1993	13
1968	0	1994	12
1969	2	1995	11
1970	4	1996	29
1971	6	1997	20
1972	4	1998	16
1973	9	1999	19
1974	8	2000	9
1975	15	2001	18
\|1976	15	2002	14
1977	22	2003	16
1978	10	2004	9
1979	16	2005	14
1980	15	2006	14
1981	21	2007	14
1982	10	2008	3