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
Whoops, I spoke to soon. I don’t know of a world power that didn’t have jails or barracks or camps. Your answer is disappointing because it’s not an answer, it’s an avoidance and a fallback on wartime propaganda. You conflate Hitler with Stalin, thereby National Socialism with Communism and were done. But you never even started. Hitler was beloved and his policies succeeded wildly, that’s why there was a war. It should also be noted that no one was more hated or feared by communist, even to this day. Hitler fought to preserve europe, Stalin to destroy it but somehow you equate them.
Walnut
sorry my responses are so belated
LikeLike
Here’s a question. How did Stalin feel towards Hitler? While you think about it, I’ll remind you that the utter incapacity of the US education system to see the equivalency between Stalin and Hitler is the cause of the woke revolution.
So. What were Stalin’s feelings towards Hitler? I’ll need a correct answer before I continue this discussion with you. People who don’t know the answer don’t deserve to have an opinion on this subject.
LikeLike
I’ll answer your question when you answer mine as regards the case against fascism, rather than giving me some vague, stale boiler plate. I don’t see how you can continue this discussion when you’ve never engaged it.
Walnut
LikeLike
It’s ok not to know. Stalin loved Hitler. Which is why he brought him to power. Stalin’s miscalculation was that he thought Hitler would never open the second front because that would be suicidal. Like it ended up being.
They both lost in the end. Hitler lost his life. Stalin lost the only chance he had to fulfill the dream of a lifetime and usher in world revolution. It’s a fascinating story of two totalitarian regimes eating each other.
LikeLike
No Kid, Hitler came to power because the German elite reasonably feared Communism after 1917. Stalin had bugger all to do with it, I am sure he was shocked what Lebensraum actually implied,
LikeLike
My grandmother’s family had to flee from Hitler’s Germany after being clarified as Jews, so I guess they didn’t count as his people.
LikeLike
I find it extraordinary that people advance the argument that in a totalitarian state with complete censorship people loved the totalitarian leader. Well, duh. What other option did they have?
All tyrants are absolutely adored by the people. Because their control over information is absolute.
LikeLike
That Hitler was popular not only in Germany but Austria and throughout much of Europe is universally recognized. Over 600,000 members of the Waffen SS were non German, a testament to his cause. You said above you hated WW2 literature, I suspect that might be extended to WW2 history.
Walnut
LikeLike
That’s small potatoes compared to how popular Stalin was in the USSR. Even today, good luck finding a college history program in the US that has much negative to say about Stalin.
LikeLike
They were not his people. The Nuremberg laws confirmed that. Germany was to be for Germans. Non Germans were allowed to remain in Germany as non citizens. They were not allowed to vote or serve in government or in academics. There were only 500,000 jews in Germany at the time.
Walnut
LikeLike