(This is Part 1- research- and Part 2- analysis- combined of my CI project about Julio Cortázar’s “Axolotl”)
The short story “Axolotl” by Julio Cortázar uses the quiet, isolated and confusing behavior of the underwater salamander to mirror the narrator’s own loneliness and inability to fit in with a world that doesn’t understand him. The narrator’s predicament is apparent, however the truth of his words is something that under the circumstances of his questionable sanity is up to interpretation.
The narrator of Axolotl is a potentially imbalanced child which brings question to the truthfulness of any of what is written in the story. In the very beginning of the story, the narrator declares “I am an axolotl,” (Cortázar) which, considering the narrator is a human boy can either be taken as a blatant lie, something the narrator has convinced himself of, or actually is the truth. It can be assumed that the narrator has not had much chance for human contact during his life because this is not just a chance visit to the zoo, or his first. He assures the reader that he “was friend of the lions and panthers,” (Cortázar) in order to make the rest of the story seem like a normal occurrence. However this just emphasizes the fact that this boy is probably very lonely, only making friends with the animals. Later in the story, after he’s become entranced by the Axolotls, he does mention his contact with the guard at the zoo who “likely thought [he] was a little cracked.” (Cortázar) The way that the narrator says this, makes it seem as if he finds this idea to be absurd, after he’s already told the reader he is friends with these animals that apparently aren’t animals. He constantly contradicts himself, so why should his instance give us any reason to think differently? The narrator is obviously not all there, so any fact he affirms, should be considered but not instantly believed.
In this short story, the narrator’s own loneliness and isolation are emphasized through his interactions with and similarities to the Axolotl. Cortázar was greatly inspired by Sartre’s writings on existentialism so it is possible that the short story “Axolotl” is a way to show the narrator “discovering the Sartrean notion of existence” (Harris 7) in order to present it to an audience. “Cortázar’s short stories could be considered generally existentialist in terms of their protagonist’s experiences.” (Harris 5) The narrator of this story in particular is completely motivated by his free will and acknowledgment of his own existence as is seen in existentialist works. However, this potentially makes him an unreliable narrator. His awareness of himself, something that at a first glance could sound informed, instead becomes more of a crazed rant developed as a result of this narrator’s lack of human interaction. In the scholarly article by Mark D. Harris about this short story, Harris brings forth the idea that the narrator can be seen as deceitful in numerous ways. The fact that the Axolotls “disguise their very existence,” (Harris 12) by existing through a majority of their life as larvae, is important in showing that the narrator is not altogether truthful in his writings. He is very close to these creatures, even sharing qualities with them, because he does not fit in with human society. As the story progresses he shares more and more of these qualities, and as he appears to become aware of his own true existence, he’s actually losing sight of who he was.
The scholarly article written by Maurice J. Bennett also focuses on change over time of the character; looking at the narrator’s “effort of vision” (Bennett 59) as in his mind’s power of “rejection of scientific knowledge.” (Bennett 59) There is a main focus on how the Axolotl influences the narrator. A person who does not experience proper human social interaction is likely to succumb to changes and manipulation. The article even agrees with Harris when it realizes that the narrator’s change is “antecedent to human awareness.” (Bennett 61) He delves into a heightened sense of reality as the story progresses, and it becomes apparent that the Axolotls have a strong affect on his mind. These solitary creatures act as a mirror image of the narrator, and the reader can watch idly by as the mirror begins to blur the line between reality. It becomes less obvious who is observing whom and by the end of it either the narrator has gone completely mad from his isolation, his obsession has left him and embodied itself as an Axolotl, or he really does become an Axolotl. This ambiguity is important in underscoring the narrator’s potential deceitfulness, and in making the author question what they believe as the story progresses.
The narrator as viewed by Doris T. Wight is completely insane with no doubt about it. She notes that we as the reader “cling to contradiction, we insist on deception,” (Wight 59) and “from the very beginning we know the narrator is insane.” (Wight 59) It becomes obvious that the narrator may not be all there in the story because he continues to contradict himself throughout it. He will say things like “the eyes of the axolotls spoke to me,” (Cortázar) or “it was they devouring my slowly with their eyes,” (Cortazar) only to assure the reader that he is not crazy and that “there was nothing strange.” (Cortázar) It is as if he thinks by assuring us over and over again this is regular behavior, then we will believe it but it becomes less believable because he appears to even be trying to convince himself. Ironically, “we never believe a liar more than when he tells us bluntly that he is lying,” (Wight 60) which leads Wight to believe that by trying so hard to make the reader question the narrator’s facts there could be some truth there. It is very backwards and a reader could drive themselves in circles about the truths or falsities of this story. The reader can at least understand that at some point the narrator was sane, because directly after the first paragraph the things he says are obviously reasonable and logical. This enhances the assumption that he was merely a lonely, albeit not completely normal boy, who was slowly driven mad over the course of his time with the strange creatures.
The “Axolotl” explores “boundaries both physical and psychological” (Bruno 110) that creates a fantastical and magical element to the story which in turn can help the reader understand the narrator’s meaning better. During this whole story, things that seem false or convoluted can be reevaluated and possibly seen as “magical realism.” (Bruno 110) It is hard to judge, however, when the narrator is explaining a fantastical event or when he is just lost in his own crazed fantasies. The Axolotls are protected, or in this case trapped, behind “a glass barrier” (Bruno 111) which in this story serves as a literal boundary. Paula M. Bruno finds intent behind barriers in stories as divisions of even obvious things like gender. Here in this story, it is the boundary between reality and fantasy, or maybe sanity and insanity. Out in the human world, the narrator lives a dreary life that is normal, boring, and doesn’t seem to fit with his own wants. Inside the Axolotl’s enclosure, the creatures seem to “abolish space and time with an indifferent immobility” (Cortázar) as the narrator puts it. Though this is just an assumption, it is actually something that delves into truth. Water creates the illusion of timelessness or a slowed down perception of time. In this story, it is completely possible that the Axolotl’s stretch out the narrator’s own time until he loses the its linear movement and becomes locked in a near purgatory. He is trapped by their very lack of acting on him, and it is understandable then that he would remain longer hours than intended, and eventually lose himself to their grasp. This, or he is truly insane.
A story like the “Axolotl,” is a unique chance for the reader to realize that what is said in a story is not always the truth. People often trust what they read when it sounds reasonable and stop believing it once it goes past realism into fantasy. It should also be understood that readers are sometimes too skeptical about a story when they think it is written by a lunatic, and may choose to not believe something that is in fact an implausible but true story. This short story blurs that line and makes it difficult to tell if we are being lied to or if we are choosing to not trust someone who actually lived through a unique and captivating experience. The ambiguity of the story consistently confuses the reader but is expertly used to make them reevaluate themselves, and the meaning of their own existence just as the narrator does. In the way that there is a boundary between the human world and the aquarium, there is also a divide between the real world and the written. This parallel can make one lose oneself in the story, and make it even harder to distinguish from truth and lies.
Scholarly Articles:
Bennett, Maurice J. A Dialogue of Gazes: Metamorphosis and Epiphany in Julio Cortázar’s “Axolotl” 23.1 (1986): 57-63. Web.
Bruno, Paula M. “Yin/Yang, Axolotl/Salamander: Merce Rodoreda and Julio Cortazar’s Amphibians.” Confluentia 21.1 (2005): 110-22. Jstor.org. Web. 24 Nov. 2016.
Harris, Mark D. “Existence, Nothingness, and the Quest for Being: Sartrean Existentialism and Julio Cortázar’s Early Short Fiction.” Latin American Literary Review 37.74 (2009): 5-25. Astor.org. Web. 24 Nov. 2016.
Wight, Doris T. “Cortázar’s Axolotl.” The Explicator 45.2 (1987): 59-63. Web.
Not my photo!!!!
