Out of all the books we’ve read this far, The Witness is by far my favorite.  Saer seems to effortlessly strike a perfect balance between Léry’s ethnography and Borges’ existential musings to create a kind of philosophical anthropology.  When a text becomes too philosophical, I crave real-life examples; when it becomes too narratively focused, I crave philosophical analysis.  I think this tactful blend lends itself strongly towards engaging class discussions.  Simply put, there’s bound to be a little something for everyone.

In order to analyze this book, though, the first interpretive “lens” we have to decide on is the meaning of the title.  In class today we talked about the different linguistic implications of “witness” vs. “orphan.”  There are of course pros and cons for each, notably the inherent Westernism that “witness” can imply.  I was actually really intrigued that the majority of the class (including myself) agreed that “witness” was a more apt title for the book, and now I’m going to play the devil’s advocate for a second.  Perhaps the only reason we think it’s the most fitting title is because it’s the only title we knew upon starting the book.  If we had read this story under the title “The Orphan,” would we have interpreted the protagonist as more of an orphan instead of a witness, subsequently changing the focus of the book from the natives to the cabin boy and influencing our decision about the aptness of the title?

And now to throw in yet another wrench to our linguistic discussion: I did some research on my go-to Spanish dictionary site (SpanishDict) and searched both “orphan” in Spanish and “entenado” in English.  Curiously, the only translation for “orphan” was “huérfano,” (the translation I was familiar with) and the only translation for “entenado” was “stepchild” instead of “orphan.”  I’m not sure if Margaret Jull Costa was using a more archaic translation of the word, but nevertheless this development opens up an entirely new interpretation of the title.  I immediately thought of the cabin boy a stepson, which led me to consider the natives as a collective stepparent with whom he ends up living for ten years.  In line with our discussion about “Def-ghi” and otherness, perhaps the original “marriage” implied by “stepchild” was between the West and itself.  Then perhaps part of the West (embodied by the captain) divorced itself and “married” the “other,” creating the stepchild that is the cabin boy.  When the cabin boy returns home, however, the parental dynamics shift again entirely, but that’s largely hypothetical and beyond the scope of this post.  Anyways, just some musings triggered by a trip to the interweb!