2666

Archimboldi as an author is the most unifying thread throughout the five distinct parts of the narrative. As such, Literary Criticism as a Mode of Understanding Interpersonal Relationships emerges as a major theme. The critics in the opening section of the novel bond over their shared love of Archimboldi. By analyzing his work and sharing their analyses, they create a community and forge interpersonal relationships. The existence of this community—and its centrality to the lives of so many characters—reveals an inherent tension in literary criticism between the critic and subject. The critics seek to uncover the true identity of their favorite writer; they dedicate their lives to criticism and analysis of every word, sentence, and paragraph of his published work. Archimboldi, conversely, does not want to be understood. He is deliberately private and anonymous. Literary criticism is, in effect, a threat to his well-being. Furthermore, as explored in later parts of the novel, Archimboldi actively rejects participation in literary circles and movements. His work and his person are rejected by his peers, making him a cult fascination among the university students who eventually become the critics. Archimboldi is actively dismissive of literary criticism, yet he is the subject of so much of it. Ironically, the critics’ desire to understand Archimboldi (and, by extension, their world) through literary criticism is a betrayal of everything that Archimboldi believes in.

Amalfitano is a philosophy professor and, due to his being stationed at an unremarkable university, the critics cast aspersions on his academic talents. He does not impress them, as they judge everybody according to their talents as a literary critic. Unbeknownst to the critics, however, Amalfitano is practicing new, more radical forms of literary criticism to bring meaning to his life. Since the departure of his wife, Lola, Amalfitano has struggled to find his place in the world. His background in philosophy gives him no comfort as he grows increasingly alienated. He rejects traditional methods of reading texts; he hangs a geometry book from a clothesline so that nature can read the book. Then, he will read nature through the disintegration of the book by the wind, the rain, and the sun. Amalfitano’s bizarre methods are a radical new method of literary criticism. He is broadening the scope of criticism, observing how the forces of nature might interpret or affect a book. Like so many investigations in 2666, Amalfitano’s efforts do not lead him anywhere. His attempts, however, suggest that he still believes in literary criticism, though perhaps not in its traditional form.

Throughout his life, Archimboldi, or Hans Reiter, rejects any involvement in literary movements or scenes. On the few occasions when he is introduced to fellow artists, he quietly excuses himself. He feels no connection to such scenes, which feel to him like artificial constructs, and attempts to create a community from meager resources. He begins to write in earnest after World War II, beginning his literary career in the ruined, desolate remains of the state for which he risked his life and, as he later discovered, was responsible for so much suffering. Archimboldi’s rejection of literary criticism is a product of his experiences, as well as a demonstration of the inherent absurdity of investing meaning in literary criticism when there is so much violence and tragedy in the world. Whether this violence is World War II or the murders in Santa Teresa, the contrast makes literary criticism seem frivolous and insubstantial in terms of extracting actual meaning in life. Feeling so unable to do anything else, however, the significance of literary criticism in so many lives—through endorsement or rejection—suggests that there is a fundamental human desire to understand the world, even if it cannot be repaired.