who is the model reader of delibes's cinco horas con mario

7/28/2019 Who is the Model Reader of Delibes's Cinco Horas Con Mario

1/10

Who Is the Model Reader of Delibes's "Cinco horas con Mario"?Author(s): Ann DaviesReviewed work(s):Source: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Oct., 1999), pp. 1000-1008Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3737233 .

Accessed: 12/11/2012 10:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

to The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:01:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhrahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3737233?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3737233?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra


2/10

WHO IS THE MODEL READER OF DELIBES'SCINCO HORAS CON MARIO?

Miguel Delibes's Cinco oras onMarioconsistsprincipallyof the thoughts of a newlybereaved widow as she watches over her husband's body during the course of anight. Carmen, the widow and the protagonist of the novel, allows her mind torange over the course of her marriageto Mario, the husband, and takes advantageof the last chance she has to harangue him about their marriedlife. Using Mario'sBible that lies at his bedside to prompt her thoughts,she expressesher anger both athis views on life and his treatment of her, and during the course of her monologuewe learn a good deal about both her own reactionaryattitudes and the beliefsof hermore liberaldeceased spouse.Critics have used Carmen's description of her life with Mario to draw broadlytwo conclusions (thoughwith many nuances on these basic positions). Some criticshave inferred from the novel a portraitof the 'dos Espafas', the division of Spanishsociety into conservativeand liberalsectorsreflectingthe victors and vanquished ofthe Spanish Civil War;other critics have takenfrom the novel an understandingofthe position and oppression of women in Francoist Spain. Both lines of thoughtpresupposean oppositional structure n the novel (conservativeagainstliberal,or ofwomen against men) that arises from the antagonism between the wife and thehusband. I do not dispute this division, as it is hard to read Cincohoraswithoutpresuming, or at least being conscious of, some such opposition; though as ArnoldVerhoeven rightly argues, this opposition nevertheless contains many ambiguitiesthat a reader may find difficultif not impossible to resolve.1I propose a differentstrand of opposition:between those who read literature and those who do not. Cincohorass, among other things, a book aboutreading and interpretation,and gives riseto oppositional readings, one of which is carried out by Carmen herself. Myargument is that Carmen, although denied access to the sphere of literaryreadingbeloved of Mario, nevertheless undertakes a 'reading' that exposes the ideologicalnature of Mario's penchant for literature and, indeed, the ideological nature ofliteratureitself.Relevant in this respect are the theories of Umberto Eco,2 who has pursued aconcept of the 'model reader',which he defines thus: 'a sort of ideal type whom thetext not only foresees as collaborator but also tries to create', and as 'a set of textualinstructions'(Six Walks,pp. 9, 15). The model reader correspondsnot to an actualperson but to apreferredway of interpretinga text, to which actualreaders conformto a varying extent. Eco reassuresus that this does not mean in consequence thatthere is only one correctway of reading a text. The text, however, will not allow usto read it in any way we please. There may be no one correct interpretation,but

'La muerte de Mario, jinfarto o suicidio?: La ambiguedad intencionada de Delibes', Neophilologus,70(1986), 6 -74.2 The Role of the Reader:Explorations n the Semioticsof Texts (London: Hutchinson, 1979); InterpretationndOverinterpretation,d. by Stephen Collini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Six Walks in theFictional Woods (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, i994). Juli Highfull has examined otherapproaches to reading and interpretation in Cincohoras,although she does not emphasize Eco, and drawsconclusions different from mine ('Reading at Variance: Icon, Index and Symbol in CincohorasconMario',Analesdela literaturaespanola ontempordnea,I. /2 (1996), 59-83).

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/10

ANN DAVIESsome interpretationsmay well be wrong. Eco calls appropriate reading strategies'second-level' readings:Every ext is also addressedo a modelreaderof thesecond evel[asopposed o a first-levelreader,who onlywantsto knowhow thestorywillend],whowonderswhat sort of readerthatstorywould ikehim or her to become[...]. Onlywhenempirical eadershave[...]understoodwhat t [themodelauthor, .e. thetext]wanted rom hem,willtheybecome ull-fledged model readers. (p. 27)Thus in the case of Cinco oras econd-level readerswill not implicitly accept all thatCarmen says as true, but will read beyond Carmen's actual words to see a differentportraitof Mario from the one Carmen ostensibly gives.With a return to Eco's outline of the model reader quoted above, the word'collaborator' used to describe this reading strategyshould be noted. 'Collaborator'carries overtones of collusion, suggesting that a model reader cannot ultimately bea hostile one. Collaborationimplies connivance with the basic premises of the text,which in turn can entail collaboration with (and acceptance of) the ideology inwhich the text is grounded. My argument is that such a reading strategyultimatelycolludes in the use of literature to exclude certainpeople, in this case women.Gonzalo Sobejano'sreadingillustrates he possible consequences of collaborationin the patriarchalpractices that underlie Carmen's monologue. Sobejano equatesMario's liberal openness and Carmen's conservative narrow-mindedness with amale/female axis. Thus female inevitablymeans conservativereactionaryand malemeans left-liberal. He describes Carmen as 'la mujer espafiola comun [...] estaespafiola, tan corrienteque no hay mas que abrir los ojos para verla'.3 Further: Lamujer espafola corriente [...] se define por ser una mujer con principios,entendiendo aqui por principios ciertas creencias inarrancablesque ella misma noha creado, sino aceptado a ciegas y por costumbre' (p. 188).It is certainlytrue thatCarmen is not one to reflect overmuch on her principles, but blind faith is not amonopoly of the reactionary right and the conventional, or of women. Sobejano'sattitudes themselvesreflecta 'blind faith' in the ignorance and prejudiceof ordinarywomen. If his excoriation of Carmen is compared with his elevated view of Mario('estehombre tan modestamente concreto y tan extento de nimbo se va labrando suvia de verdad y amor,y en eso esta su grandeza, que sale indemne de la fusileriadetrivialidadesde su compafiera' (p. 19 ) ) it becomes clear how thisparticularsecond-level interpretation rests on the supposed ignorance and narrow-mindedness ofwomen.Attempts have been made to counter suchentrenched disparagementof women.More aware of the socially constructed and determined position of women, latercritics have reacted to such views, and have to some extent rallied to Carmen'sdefence. Alfonso Rey, for instance, notes the need for a strongerevaluation of thenovel in terms of male/female distinct from terms of left/right: 'Es sorprendenteque no se busque en Cincohoras onMariootra interpretaci6n igualmente licita y designo bien diferente: la de la opresi6n de la mujer por una sociedad hecha a lamedida del var6n.'4Verhoeven's essay on the ambiguitiesof the novel, cited earlier,includes an analysis of the state of Mario's and Carmen's marriage:he argues that

3 Novelaespanoladenuestrotiempo enbuscadelpueblo erdido),2nd edn (Madrid: Prensa Espafiola, 1975), p. I87.4 La originalidad ovelistica eDelibes(Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 1975),p. 203.

IOOI



4/10

Io02 TheModelReaderof 'Cinco orasconMario'there is as much to be said against Mario as against his wife, observing Mario'sintellectual snobbery (in contrast to Carmen's social snobbery), his lack of passion,and his ignorance or neglect of Carmen's feelings. And while Carmen readilyadopts a pose of martyrdom in her embrace of the role of traditional wife andmother (part of her complaint against Mario is that he never seemed to notice hermartyred pose), there may also be more than a trace of martyrdom in Mario's ownattitude. His insistence on his separateness from society, his lack of money andfriends, and the lack of communication with his wife, may point to a penchant forplaying the victim. In further defence of Carmen, a comment from Manuel Alvarcould also be considered:Si al hombre se le conoce por la mujer que elige, este pobre profesorera tan calamidad comosu mujer: se cas6 con ella a sabiendas, fue incapaz de mejorarlaporque en su egoismo ladespreci6, la abandon6 a una sociedad monstruosa porque tambi6n 1e participaba de lamonstruosidad.Y no se olvide, fue esa misma sociedad la que le permiti6 liberarsey, en suorgullo, crey6 redimir a todos y fue incapaz de salvar a la desdichada criatura que tenia asu lado.5Delibes himself has remarked in relation to CincohorasconMario:Si la mujer espafiola es asi, los responsables de que la mujer espafiola sea asi somos loshombresespafiolesen buena medida y, desde luego, la sociedadespafola. La discriminaci6n,la tendencia de relegar a la mujer a la cocina, el convertirla en un relicario de virtudesdomesticas, es un error que ha esterilizado a muchas y ha castrado, en todo caso, suiniciativa,inteligenciae imaginaci6n.6Whatever our preferred political views (and some of Carmen's own opinions arerepellent), they should not blind us to the fact that she has had less access toeducation and intellectual stimulation, and less time to spare from the concerns ofrunning a household. She herself argues that she works hard:El dia que os casais, comprais una esclava, haceis vuestro negocio, como yo digo, que loshombres, ya se sabe, no tiene vuelta de hoja, siempre los negocios.


5/10

ANN DAVIESeducation and opportunity. Her role as housewife precludes intellectual pursuit:there simply is not the time. She cannot even find time to read the newspaper(p. I9).8Her scorn for her husband's books and intellectualpursuitsmay arisefromsecret shame at her ignorance, a frustrated desire for education, and despairat herrelegation to domestic tasks for which she displays no enthusiasm. Mario, on theother hand, has been able to follow his intellectualpursuitspreciselybecause he hasremained free of the household concerns that occupy Carmen, as Maria LuisaBustos-Deuso suggests.9That is to say, his freedom to pursue intellectual interestsrestsupon her lackof freedom to do likewise. This point is of particular significancesince, as I shallargue in more detail, Mario attemptsto deny Carmen any access tohis own literary sphere and intellectual discourse. Excluding her from intellectuallife ensures her relegation to the domestic sphere and in turn preserves such a lifefor his own personal enjoyment.Mario and his intellectual cronies attempt to relegate Carmen to a sphere ofignoranceby engaging in a form of second-levelreading by usinga form of languageor coded discourse that Carmen does not understand and to which she cannotacquire the key. They always change the subject when she enters a room (p. 57),denying her access to the world they talk about. Carmen notices the conversationbetween Ar6stegui, don Nicolas, and Moyano over Mario's corpse: 'Ella no dijonada porque aquellos hombres hablaban en clave y no les comprendia, ni Mario,en vida, se tomo la molestia de explicarle su lenguaje' (p. 24). All they have left herare the platitudes that surround her as friends and relatives assemble to view thebody. These platitudes are summed up in the common phrase 'lo dicho', repeatedseveral timesduringthis scene. The emphasison speech ('dijo'and 'dicho') indicatesthat the coded discourse of the men grantsher no capacity to speakfor herself('ellano dijo nada porque aquellos hombres hablaban en clave') and leaves her only theoverused and ultimately inexpressive discourse of cliche ('lo dicho'). That Marioconsciously acquiesces in Carmen's exclusion is implied in his refusal to read herthe love poetry he has dedicated to her eyes (p. 56). Another point is Mario's angerover Carmen's dealings with the Comisaria over the letter of protest he wroteconcerning Civil Guard action at a football match. Carmen had no choice but toanswer the questions put to her by the police, and she does so with plain truth, 'mimarido no va al ffitbol', but Mario is angered by her inability to interpretwhat isgoing on, and also by the fact that anyone should ask her anything: '`"Quien temanda hablar a ti, di?"' (p. 169).Mario believes that he, and not Carmen, has theright to speak,because he can speakin the appropriatecoded discourse.One of the verses (from Proverbs) hat Mario has underlinedin his Bible seems topoint directly at Carmen: 'La mujer insensata es alborotadora, es ignorante, nosabe nada. Se sienta a la puerta de su casa o en una silla en lo mas alto de la ciudad,para invitar a los que pasan y van de camino' (p. I85). 'Di a la sabiduria:"Tuieresmi hermana"y llama a la inteligencia tu pariente. Paraque te preservende la mujerajena, de la extrafia de lubricas palabras' (p. 230) is another verse from Proverbsthat appears to equate Carmen with the 'mujer ajena', a woman alien to the life of

8 Of course,we need to allowfor Carmen'sair of martyrdom,which means thatshemaywellexaggerateherlack of time: n anycase, thefamilyhasa maid. But this does not necessarilydisproveCarmen'sclaim to a lackof leisure ime.9 La mujern la narrativaeDelibesValladolid:Secretariadode Publicaciones,Universidad de Valladolid,1991), p. 37.

I003



6/10

I004 The Model Readerof 'CincohorasconMario'the intellectual that Mario embraces, while the whole of Carmen's monologueconfirms her as a woman of 'lubricaspalabras'. Yet another verse, this time fromRevelation, goes directly to the question of reading and interpretation: 'Todarevelaci6n es para vosotros como libro sellado; se le da a leer a quien sabe leer,diciendole: Lee esto, y responde:No puedo, el libro esta sellado. O se da el libro aquien no sabe leer, diciendole: Lee esto, y responde: No se leer' (p. 265). Mario'saction in underliningthese versessuggestsan awareness of Carmen's exclusion fromhis language. The verses indicate Carmen's inability to read in Eco's second-levelsense: she is the 'mujer ajena'denied access to the sphere of the intellectualand theword. Such a sphere has become, literally, a closed book. As I shall suggest,however, Mario has got thiswrong:Carmen is able to open the book andreinterpret(recode) the discourse that Mario has used to shut her out. Mario's knowledge ofwords as a tool for self-expression (as much in the underlining of verses as in hisliterary efforts) and his simultaneous use of words and literature are to separatehimself from his wife.Carmen has apparentlyabsorbed this lesson that Mario and othershave tried toteach her, and overtlyexcludes herselffrom the readingprocess. Forher, books andlearning are bad: she comments of her son Mario, 'ese chico con tanto librotey esaseriedad que se gasta no puede ir a buena parte' (p. 87). She believes that 'laporqueria que almacenan, para eso es para lo que sirven los libros' (p. 27), andderides Esther for her interest in books (p. I13). Carmen furtherobserves that thebest use she found for a book was to help improve her posture by walking with abook on her head (p. 76). She also uses reading as a symbol of her strugglewithMario for authorityover the children, arguing that he wanted the children to readrather than to obey her (p. 147). She criticizes Encarna's habit of reading in thebathroom, preventing the children fromusing it (p. 201). Young Mario's comment,referringto his father, 'Los libros eran el', suggestsa reason for Carmen's reversalof some of the books on the shelfbeyond what is fittingfor mourning (pp. 26-27). Itis as if Carmen resents Mario's appropriationof literature. Bustos-Deuso observesCarmen's poor handling of language, includingher need to resort to cliche and herbad command of grammar (pp. I o-I I). Carmen herself acknowledges her ownignorance concerning writing and intellectual endeavours: 'Escribir bien no se siescribiras,que en eso no me meto' (Delibes, p. i66). None the less, her awareness ofher own lack of language skills leads her to remark: 'Que si yo hubiera sabidoescribir, Mario, ique novela!' (p. I I4). This phrase is clearly loaded with irony, forthe bulk of Cinco oras entres on what Carmen 'writes'in her mind, and the novel'stext consistsprincipallyof her own words to describeher marriage.The main pointI wish to makehere is that contraryto what sheovertly professesand Mario believes,Carmen can actually read rather well at a second level. Cincohoras onstitutes hercriticalreading of Mario's own reading of her, and more particularly,her exposureof reading and literature as an exclusive ideology.Carmen is able to conduct a second-level reading of the text that is her ownmarriage. Her reading is also collaborative in the sense that her interpretativemonologue (perhaps dialogue would be more accurate, since we hear Mario'sviews) forms most of the novel, but specifically it also challenges Mario's ownliterary assumptions.Thus Carmen in turn challenges the notion of who is thoughtcapable of readingliterature(thatis, who is able to undertake second-levelreadings)and who is not, and underminesthe notion of a model reader for Cinco oras.ndeed,



7/10

ANN DAVIESshe exposes the tendency of literatureas a whole to exclude those deemed unable toconduct the right readings. Carmen herself is one of the people that literatureandliterarydiscourseattemptsto exclude.In order to understand how one reading can undercut another and stillbe valid,I turnto furtherobservationsby Eco on the questionof interpretation.Collaborationis not the only appropriatereading strategy.Eco comments: 'Not only the outline oftextual ideological structuresis governed by the ideological bias of the reader butalso [.. .] a given ideological backgroundcan help one to discoveror ignore textualideological structures.' But he immediately goes on to remark: 'A reader whochallenges many of the author's explicit value judgments is to go furtherwith anideological analysisso as to "unmask"the hidden catechization performedat moreprofound levels.' More particularly: Anideological bias can lead a criticalreadertomake a given text say more than it apparentlysays, that is, to find out what in thattext is ideologically presupposed, untold' (TheRoleof theReader, . 22). The modelreader does not only, or even necessarily, collaborate with the author in theinterpretative production of a text. He or she may go beyond this to expose theideological underpinnings of such a collaboration. As Delibes comments: 'Laspalabras son falsas y son equivocas. Las palabras se entienden de dos manerasdistintaso de treso de cinco, depende de los interesesde cada cual o de la ideologiade cada cual' (Alonso de los Rios, p. I38). Thus in Cincohoras here is not only thepotential for a collaboration between text and reader that implies Carmen as anignorant and prejudiced woman but an exposition of the way in which suchcollaboration necessarily and deliberately places Carmen in such a position. Ibelieve that Eco's argumentsreveal Carmen's own capacity to expose an ideologythat attempts to marginalize her. While her readingsare at times inaccurate (and Ireturn to this problem below), she does what Eco posits here as the 'unmasking'ofan underlyingcode that Mario and his cronies have used to deny Carmen access totheir world of thought, debate, and learning, by using a coded language to whichshe does not have the key. Indeed, it is even possible to look on her monologue inpart as a critiqueof literature as a device to exclude.Carmen engages in debate with Mario about the whole point of writing: 'Y nome salgascon que se pueden escribir cosaspara nadie, porque eso no, Mario, que silas palabrasno se las dices a alguien no son nada, ruidos o garabatos' (p. 207). Sheappreciateswhat she believes to be good use of language, when she describes Pacoas a man of 'pocas palabras, pero las justas' and as 'hablando como un libro'(p. 121). For all her protestations that she has no time to read, Carmen at leastmakes the attempt to read and interpret, in full awareness of her own limitations asa reader: 'Con el articulitoaquel [. . .] yo no lo entendi del todo, te lo confieso,peroa fuerza de leerle creo que saque el sentido' (p. 207). She also tries to provide acritique of Mario's novels, giving a brief analysis of three different titles and theprotagonists in each (pp. 266-67): in particular, she quotes from one novel andanalyses the sense of self-satisfactionexperienced by Mario's characterCiro P6rezon doing good works. (Her critique ironicallypoints to the self-satisfactionof bothherselfand Mario in regardto their charitableactions.)There is humourin Carmenpoking fun at Mario's habit of writing in capitals (pp. 49-50); she even refers tothem in order to deride his denouncement of vote-rigging (p. IIo) and hisacknowledgement of his virginity when he married (p. II6). In this way she turnsMario's literary technique (which is pretty poor, in this instance) against himself

I 05



8/10

ioo6 TheModelReaderf 'Cinco oras onMario'and his beliefs. She also shows a rudimentary knowledge of literature, referringtodon Juan Tenorio (p. Io8). Her favourite story by Maximiliano Conde (p. 107)seems at first sight to be popular romantic material,'0 but its plot takes the samepremise as the story of Phaedra (only in reverse), this story being the stuff of greatliterature. She shows some awareness of symbolism in her desire to wear white ather wedding. Mario will not allow her to do this, but after her sister Julia'spregnancy outside marriageCarmen wishes to proclaim her status as a virgin bride(p. I87). Mario shows plenty of charity to others, but cannot indulge his bride (orher mother, who dreams of seeing Carmen married in white). The use of white tosymbolize purity coincides, of course, with Carmen's love of tradition(and perhapsostentation),but it also reveals her awarenessof the symbolicvalue of things, whichin this instance seems to have passed Mario by.Moreover, Carmen criticizes Mario for the way in which he writes about love(pp. 241-42), and while she clearly has little charity and fellow-feeling (she revealsher racial prejudices clearly in Chapter 25), she is correct in claiming that Marioshows little love for his own wife. She links his writing directlyto his lack of passion.She tells him: 'Hay que poner ardor en las cosas que de verdad merecen la pena enlugarde gastarel tiempo escribiendopatochadas que ni te dan dinero' (p. I26); thispassage immediatelyfollows her unfavourablecomparisonof Mario with Armando(whose jealous protection of Esther indicates, she believes, his virility),and, beforethat, complaints about her sexless wedding night. Mario's refusal to read Carmenthe love poem dedicated to her furtherimplies the lack of passion in his writing.Themutual exclusivity between writing and sexual desire stronglyindicates that Mariohas used literature as a means to separate himself from his wife, so that literaturecomes to represent the denial of sex and love and, consequently, Carmen's sexualfrustration. Her arguments against him here demonstrate her awareness of thisstrategy; her derision, through the parody of his tendency to capitals, at hisannouncement ofpre-marital virginity(p. I 16) strengthensthe connection betweenwords and a denial of sex.But Carmen's reading technique is also flawed on occasion. She readsin order toconfirm her own prejudices (though it might also be claimed that critics who viewhercontemptuously merelyreaffirm heir own prejudices,raisingthe whole questionof reading as collaboration).She originallylearned to read in order to make out herfather's name in ABC (p. 148): in other words, to confirm her belief in traditionalauthority (her father)and conservatism(ABC).Her imperfect graspof language, animperfection used effectively to shut her out, reveals itself poignantly in hermisunderstanding of the word 'reactionary' (p. I I8), implying that she cannotrecognize herself as reactionary (she thinks the word means quick to react,impulsive),so that she apparently'reads' herselfincorrectly.Further evidence of herdifficultiesin reading, perhaps the most significant, appear in her use of the Bibleverses as the catalystfor her own train of thought. Often the link between the verseand Carmen'sown thoughts is tenuous and not overtlyrational,and on occasions itis downrightsinister.An example of her misuse of the verses is her interpretationofIsaiah 9, about the Prince of Peace, in terms of how much she enjoyed the war'o Recently, scholars have begun to reinterpret popular romantic novels and other 'typically female' media inmore positive terms as media of empowerment. See, for instance, Televisionnd Women'sCulture:ThePoliticsofthePopular,ed. by Mary Ellen Brown (London: Sage, 1990), and also Brown's Soap Operaand Women'sTalk: ThePleasure fResistanceThousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994).



9/10

ANN DAVIES

(pp. 91-94). Delibes's representation of Franco as a distorted Christ-figure, theprince of a very flawed and cruel peace, shows the grotesque nature of some of herlines of thought.Carmen's interpretationof the Bible verses shows a capacity to misinterpret,oroverinterpret, againstwhich Eco warns (Interpretation,hapter 2). While he agreesthat texts may afford more than one interpretation,or indeed a myriad of them, hecontends that some interpretationsarejust plain wrong. Surely Carmen's readingsof the Bible versesare 'wrong'in this sense?Isaiah9 does not allow the interpretationthat she imposes on it. What does this tell us, then, of her role as a second-levelreader?In one sense, certainly, it reminds us not to rely too much on herjudgement(though equallywe cannot assume that because she is wrong in these instances, sheis wrong elsewhere). However, her misreadings also alert us to Mario's owncollaborative use of the Bible. He has used the Bible in much the same way asCarmen used ABC, as a source of patriarchal authority. He uses God's words tojustify the way in which he reads and thusfor the way in which he excludes Carmen.The Bible, farfrominspiringChristianlove, becomes in his hands a tool of exclusionand separation, as is suggested by his underlining of the verse from Revelationquoted earlier. In turn Carmen's misreadings subvert his technically correctreadings that none the less perpetuate and indeed celebrate her ignorance. Herreadings are 'wrong' in a sense, but they reveal the importance of exposing andsubverting a collusion with textual authority that facilitates her exclusion. AsJonathan Culler puts it: 'Many "extreme"interpretations [.. .] will no doubt havelittle impact, because they are judged unpersuasive or redundant or irrelevant orboring, but if they are extreme, they have a better chance, it seems to me, ofbringing to light connections or implications not previouslynoticed or reflected onthan if they strive to remain "sound" or moderate.'11While a 'correct' reading isnot unimportant, it may not necessarily disclose underlying ideology. Sobejano'sreading, for instance, is not incorrect, but it takes as inevitable and invisiblestructuresand practicesthat have keptwomen such as Carmen in ignorance.So Carmen is a model reader, not in the collaborative sense but in the sense thatshe reveals what has been 'ideologically presupposed', as Eco put it, in the entireliterary act. When she turns the books in Mario's library back to front, we canperceive in her action an attempt to reverse all that his literature stands forideologically. Her action, crude though it is, suggests her positive attempt to gainsome sort of power over writing and reading, an attempt to reverse her exclusionfrom the literaryprocess. She knows that Mario and his friends wish to shut her outby using coded language, and that literaturesymbolizes her own sexual frustration(no wonder she turns to Paco, of few but appropriate words, for an adulterousflirtation).As Mario uses the Bible to point to her exclusion, so she uses it to subvertthe denial he attemptsto impose on her.Much of Eco's writing on his posited model reader presupposes what I haveemphasized here as 'collaboration': that is, a model reading strategythat acceptsthe basic premises and ideologies of a text as necessarily given. Acceptance of suchideologies does not necessarily entail concurrence with them: some critics of Cincohorashave accepted the notion that Carmen is prejudiced and ill-educated whilenone the less protesting that her ignorance is not her fault. But while these critics1 'In Defence of Overinterpretation', in Interpretation,p. 109-23 (p. I o).

I007



10/10

TheModelReaderf 'Cinco oras onMario'show more charity to Carmen than Mario himself has done, they collude, as hedoes, in the use of literature as an ideology to deny Carmen access to particularkinds of discourse. The 'correct'second-level readingsthat critics, including myself,undertake draw on the text of Cinco oras or theirjustification, yet Carmenpoints tothe fact that such readings also rest in part on the forced ignorance of others. Thisdoes not necessarily invalidate collaborativereadings, nor does it mean that suchreadings should not be undertaken. But Eco's theories demonstrate not only thatreading can collude with a text but that it can also undermine it by uncovering thepresuppositions on which the text rests. If Carmen's interpretation reveals theideological nature of literary reading, and the exclusivity of coded language, thenwe need to be aware at least that collaboration with the text would entailcollaborationwith thepossible elitism of the literaryprocess. Hence Cinco oras osesanother form of opposition, two reading strategiesthat undercut each other: ourinterpretation of her and her interpretation of a literary process that includesourselves.In the Spanish society of the ig6os, when Cinco oraswas written, the gap betweenthe literary elite and the general population was widening, as the latter turned totelevision, sport, and popular culture for their cultural needs. With this shift, theexclusivity of literature became more apparent. Who is the model reader of Cincohoras?We may prefercollaborative model readers,but I believe it would be hardnotto include Carmen herself asa model reader, in the sense that she demonstratestheexclusive nature of literary reading. Her own interpretation,pointing as it does toan increasinglyobvious separationof the interests of the literaryelite and the mass,shows her to be possibly a model reader,but certainlya prescientone.

I oo8

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON ANN DAVIES

Thi d l d d b h h i d f 192 168 72 232 M 12 N 2012 10 01 34 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

who is the model reader of delibes's cinco horas con mario

Documents