[In the following essay, Mullen compares two versions of Azuela's La Luciérnaga, outlining discrepancies between the first complete edition of the novel and its original publication in serial form, and points out the influence of twentieth century avant-garde writing techniques on Azuela's writing style.]

In 1932, the first edition of Mariano Azuela's La luciérnaga appeared in Madrid.¹ It has been acclaimed, almost unanimously, by Hispanists as second only to Los de abajo. John Brushwood considers it “Azuela's second best novel”² and Luis Leal affirmed: “sin duda alguna, La luciérnaga es después de Los de abajo, la mejor novela de Azuela.”³ Given the importance of the work in the history of Mexican letters and the marked attention devoted to its stylistic originality,⁴ it is important to note that it first appeared in quasi-serialized form in a number of Mexican literary journals and newspapers.⁵

An examination of the chapters of La luciérnaga which appeared in this fashion and the first complete edition of the novel reveal some interesting discrepancies. Francisco Monterde, who says he saw the original draft of the novel, now “desgraciadamente perdida”⁶ admits that Azuela modified the work before its final publication. The fact that Azuela altered the selections considerably before the first complete edition may be explained by the reluctance on the part of the author to present his more daring stylistic innovations to the general public.⁷

A comparison of the original version of the pivotal third chapter, “La luciérnaga,”⁸ which appeared in the controversial Mexican literary review Contemporáneos,⁹ with its counterpart in the Madrid edition serves well to highlight the fundamental differences between the two drafts of Azuela's novel. The revision of the fragment in Contemporáneos evinces not only extensive stylistic reworkings but documents changes in the handling of narrative technique.¹⁰ It becomes apparent that the text of the early version contains a number of devices of the stream of consciousness genre which were deleted or masked in the revision.¹¹

There are, for example, noticeable changes in the elaboration of the soliloquy technique. In the Madrid edition the unspoken reflections of the protagonist, José María, have been altered considerably. In an attempt to present his psychic process within a more conventional framework, there is a marked shift from first person to objective narration. Thus while the original passage depicting the struggle of the guilt-ridden José María to rationalize his collaboration with anti-clerical forces is presented as an uninterrupted block of first person narrative, the revision begins with the following interpolation: “En efecto—pensó José María …” (p. 87). Likewise a number of the longer dramatic monologues have been fragmented through the intercalation of sentences and phrases which break up the flow of conscious thought.¹²

The two versions of the chapter differ also with reference to the presentation of the protagonist's levels of consciousness. In the original the fantasy-reality dichotomy is somewhat blurred; the thoughts of José María shift without transition from subconscious meditation to verbalization. In the revision, however, rather clear lines have been drawn between the cognitive and verbal levels of thought. This is evidenced in the following comparison: “Si hay un fuego que purifica los cuerpos, hay otro fuego que purifica las almas. ¡Aleluya … aleluya … ! ¡Sí, señor, dame todos los dolores más grandes y seré tuyo!” “—Que venga pronto el Notario” (C, I, 3, 248). “Si hay un fuego que purifique los cuerpos, debe haber también un fuego que purifique las almas.” Y José María susurra con alborozo: “Sí, sí, y yo sé cuál es.” Otro día, al abrir los ojos, pide el Notario (pp. 102-103).

In addition to changes in narrative technique relating to the presentation of intrapsychic phenomena, a number of general stylistic differences can be noted between the two editions. The earlier version is characterized by a more deliberately elliptic and suggestive prose style. Fragmentary sentences are juxtaposed without rhetorical transition and conventions of paragraph division and punctuation are often ignored. In the Madrid edition a marked movement towards the use of more traditional prose techniques is evident.

Thus pronouns have been consistently replaced by nouns and there is an increase in the use of prepositional phrases to open paragraphs. Even individual sentences were rewritten to satisfy this sense for grammatical completeness. This is noted in the following comparison: “La noche fue muy agitada; pero si el concierto matutino de gallos, vacas y borricos, alabando a Dios, no logró desamodorrarlo, sí la sombra del que se detuvo bruscamente ante su puerta” (C, I, 3, 238). “El concierto matutino de gallos, vacas y borricos alabando a Dios, no logró sacarlo de su ensimismamiento, pero sí algo como una sombra negra que se detuvo en la puerta” (p. 88).

Another salient feature of the original was its highly synthetic sentence structure. In the Madrid edition these smaller units were broken up and expanded into more easily intelligible word groupings: “Estoy perdiendo el tiempo en disquisiciones ociosas y el día se acaba y no tengo qué poner en mi haber, en la balanza del Supremo Juez” (C, I, 3, 248). “Pero estoy perdiendo el tiempo en disquisiciones ociosas y mis fuerzas se extinguen. Cada día está más cerca el fin y aún no tengo algo que poner en mi haber, en la balanza del Supremo Juez” (p. 102).

A comparison of the versions of La luciérnaga sheds new light on the problems of genesis and evolution in this, one of Azuela's most controversial novels. It becomes apparent that he was influenced more strongly than the Madrid edition hints by the avant-garde movements of the twenties.¹³

Notes

1. All references to this edition (Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1932) will be cited in the text. For reviews of the novel see Madeline Nichols, “La luciérnaga,” BA, VI (October 1934), 459-460 and Lesley B. Simpson “La luciérnaga,” BA, VI (July 1932), 305-306.

2. Mexico in Its Novel (Austin, Texas, 1966), p. 211.

3. Vida y obra de Mariano Azuela (Mexico, 1961), p. 61.

4. With reference to its stylistic originality, two critics, Manuel Pedro González and F. Rand Morton, take exception to the high praise relegated by other scholars. Pedro González refers to Azuela's experimental techniques (Trayectoria de la novela en México, Mexico, 1951, p. 170) as “extraña a su genio creador” and F. Rand Morton characterized La luciérnaga (Los novelistas de la Revolución Mexicana, Mexico, 1949, p. 52) as “su última burla.”

5. For a bibliography of the editions of La luciérnaga see Alí Chumacero, “Bibliografía de Mariano Azuela,” in Obras completas de Mariano Azuela, 3 vols. (Mexico, 1960), III, 1290.

6. Monterde wrote (Obras completas, I, XVI): “Conocí en su forma original, por gentileza del autor, La luciérnaga; la leí en copia mecanográfica—desgraciadamente perdida—y recuerdo que principió la novela con una serie de bruscas imágenes, con las que sugería el autobús y el tranvía de La Rosa; imágenes que él suavizó después en algunas de sus aristas, para hacer asequible la novela a lectores extraños, puesto que iba a aparecer en España. Aun modificada por él mismo, la obra—que afirmaría su prestigio mundial—conservó en varios pasajes su claridad hermética, propia del período al cual pertenece.” Azuela (in “El novelista y su ambiente,” Obras completas, III, 1139-1140) also alluded to the fact that the novel had appeared in an earlier version.

7. Thus speaking of La luciérnaga Azuela wrote (“El novelista y su ambiente,” 1118): “Soy y lo he reconocido siempre un novelista popular y lo que escribo es para el pueblo y no para los literatos, por lo que más me interesa al componer un libro es que sea lo más leído posible.”

8. For example Leal (Vida y obra, p. 58) considers this chapter to be “El mayor esfuerzo literario de Azuela.” and Monterde (Obras Completas, I, XVI) compares the deliniation of the protagonist to “Las más acabadas figuras de Dostoyevski.”

9. Mariano Azuela, “La Luciérnaga,” Contemporáneos, I (August 1928), 235-252. All future references will be cited in the text.

10. Other reviews consulted (see fn 5) do not evince such extensive revisions.

11. For a discussion of the origins and nature of stream of consciousness fiction, see Wayne Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago, 1960); Melvin Friedman, Stream of Consciousness: A Study in Literary Method (New Haven, 1955); Robert Humphrey, Stream of Consciousness in the Modern Novel (Berkeley, 1954); and Lawrence E. Bowling, “What is the Stream of Consciousness Technique? PMLA, LXV (June 1950), 337-345.

12. Typical are such third person interjections as: “Su piel se achina de frío” (p. 90); “La sabiduría de la almohada fue infalible e inefable” (p. 90); and “Pero Dionisio está satisfecho. Haciendo una mueca de sayón … se acerca a las orejas de granizo” (p. 114).

13. The great vogue of Vanguard novelistic techniques was alluded to by one of the editors of Contemporáneos, Jaime Torres Bodet. In his review of Novela como nube by Gilberto Owen (C, II, 4, 85) he wrote: “Para romper todo compromiso externo con la acción, todo diálogo se ha hecho monólogo interior, autobiografía de pausas y, para sentirse más solo se extiende desnuda sobre un reflejo y viaja en él sobre su propia conciencia, como un Narciso que hubiera leído a Freud.”