Building a Canon: Rolena Adorno's "Colonial Latin American Literature"

Rolena Adorno’s survey of Latin American literature is guided by the post-structuralism premise that no texts are literally literal, and she thus includes documents un-conventional to literary criticism in her study of Latin American Literature. Political, ecclesiastical, ‘historical’ and private documents, such as Columbus’ letters to the King of Spain or Bartolome de las Casas’ notes for the Valladolid trial, dominate the first half of Adorno’s study. It is clear, though, that these texts rightfully belong in the survey, as they were fundamental to later Latin American authors who referenced, critiqued and modified the ideas set forth in these early non-literary texts. Adorno pays careful attention to the provenance of texts – the manners in which authors utilized previous works by Latin American authors as inspiration or dialectical material. Her study aptly demonstrates how intricate the web of literary references in Latin American literature was.

From the outset Adorno notes that the Colonial Latin American literature canon dates back to the early 19^th century. Thus she is laboring within an already extant canon that no doubt privileged the elite Creole, but her study makes notable additions. She not only analyzes the works of Amerindian writers such as Guaman Poma and Ixtlilxochitl, but also, understands their texts in alignment with the goals and developments of Spanish-American authors. Adorno also features the work of Sor Juana, but unfortunately this constitutes the sole female voice in the study. This proves that there is work yet to be done in creating a broad, inclusive literary canon for Latin America.

In order to build a cohesive canon, Adorno stresses the interconnectivity in Latin American literature. She outlines textual connections both to authors in Spain and the Americas, while she simultaneously deconstructs the notion that Latin American authors were servile or imitative of the metropolis. Instead Adorno frames their unique literature as infused with particular circumstances and histories.

Spanish conquest accounts weigh heavily in Adorno’s canon. Considering Latin American literature germinated from these early encounters, this conquest proclivity seems reasonable. Adorno frames her analysis partly though formal structure. She notes that Conquest texts took the general form of a certified testimony of witness, and highlights their subsequent great drive in Latin American literature. For example, this early literary genre is echoed in Grandeza Mexicana, where Balbuena chose to present his text in the form of a letter.

Adorno also considers how Latin American literature carries relevance outside Latin America. For example, Adorno posits that Lunarejo’s defense of Góngora and his theories on poetry carry enough insight and accomplishment to affect the larger field of literature. This literary engagement with the metropolis brings us to another analytical frame: the audience. Adorno demonstrates that proper analysis of colonial literature must consider the distinct manners in which complex audiences read it. Latin American authors wrote not only for multifarious local readers, but also for those in Spain and other Spanish colonies.

I found most engaging Adorno's analytical framework of deconstructing commonly held fallacies about the conquest and the colonial world through literary analysis. By including “true” testimonials about the Amerindians and the Conquest within the scope of literary criticism, Adorno demonstrates how dangerous it is to uncritically consider documents as historical artifact. This conceptual framework actually links Adorno's work to the colonial texts she analyzes. Latin American authors were also were engaged in debunking myths, such as Acosta’s labors to correct false popular opinions about the Indians’ abilities and the age of the American continent in Historia natural y moral de las Indias.

Adorno succeeds in presenting Latin American literature as a canon in of itself, complete with overarching themes (the polemics of possession), internal evolutions (such as the Urban Baroque) and replete with inter-canonical complex references. Admirable is Adorno’s resistance towards fixing meaning in her canon, as she oft notes that the texts she analyzes raise more questions than they answer.