I have no idea how Prada manages to be such a scandalous right-winger everywhere he goes and end up writing utterly apolitical novels like Lucía en la noche, or all the rest of them that I’ve read. The two most recent ones I haven’t read because they are about WW2 and I hate WW2 literature. So maybe those are political, I don’t know.
The only thing in Lucía that can be vaguely seen as political is the storyline about a corrupt NGO that abuses refugees in a Syrian refugee camp. Which is a stance that everybody across the political spectrum will support because there’s no pro-abuse of refugees party on the left or the right.
I liked the novel until the Syrian refugees made a showing. My dislike of this storyline isn’t content-based. I didn’t like it because it’s clumsily done and feels like something completely extraneous to the novel. Prada needed to tie the loose ends and he came up with this narrative device that is not elegant and does not add to the enjoyment of the novel. You can absolutely write about Syrian refugees in a way that will improve a novel. Prada, however, didn’t manage that. He decided to wrap things up, had no idea how to do it, and tacked a spy-who-came-in-from-the-cold ending to a novel about a writer’s struggle to regain his creative impetus. Some people should write about refugees but Prada is not one of them. He should write about writers. Those are his best novels by far.
Clarissa's Blog 
The little I know of and have read by Prada, he reminds me of a Spanish version of Evelyn Waugh (both had their first marriages annulled, which, as a traditional Catholic is troubling) who was also routinely accused of fascist tendencies. What exactly is the argument against fascism other than that they lost the war?
Walnut
LikeLike
It’s the complete subjugation of individual freedom to the needs of the state. I don’t believe that individual freedom should be God and King. But I also don’t believe it should be discarded completely. I remember COVID, and that was no fun. I don’t want an eternal COVID-type lockdown on all manifestations of human will. We can find a golden mean between the gender fluidity of the worship of individual whims and the concentration camp of sacrificing everything for the common good.
LikeLike
Thats not fascism, certainly not National Socialism. I can’t think of a modern leader who put more emphasis on the importance of the individual than Hitler;”There is nothing great in the world that does not owe its origin to the creative ability of an individual man.” The 25 points, which are the foundation of National Socialism, are mostly about securing and protecting the rights of the people as individuals against the predatory classes, thereby freeing up the individual. But as Napoleon said ability is of little account without opportunity. Hitlers Germany set about to free the people from the weight of birth, of poverty, of ignorance, the results speak for themselves. Had he failed there would have been no war. I cant think of a political figure that was more beloved by his own people in his own time. That must mean something.
At least you didn’t bring up the “holocaust.” Also you didn’t insult me, not yet.
Walnut
LikeLike
Yes, it was all about individual freedom in those concentration camps, jails, and army barracks.
Have you read Stalin’s constitution? It’s also all about rights and freedoms. But guess what? Yep.
And Stalin was much more beloved by Hitler. Let’s institute Stalinism? What method will we use to choose between these two freedom-loving beloved leaders?
LikeLike
Will I have to explain why Stalin was bad today or will I be spared that fate? That’s a cliffhanger right there.
Why can’t we debate if Franco was bad like normal people? Why do we have to go straight to Hitler and Stalin? Or Pol Pot. Maybe we can debate Mao and Pol Pot, just to be edgy and contrarian.
LikeLike