Multiple Legacies

Author(s):  
Vanessa Pérez Rosario

This chapter studies the work of Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Cuban writers in the diaspora who inherited and extended Burgos's legacy in the contemporary public imaginary. Her legacy among queer, feminist, and diaspora writers highlights the challenge to the Puerto Rican literary canon, the cult of patriarchy, and the foundational myth of la gran familia in Puerto Rican literature, which began to decline in the 1970s. For groups traditionally omitted from the national imaginary, claiming Burgos offered a way to tap into the island's nationalistic impulses, shared history, and social memory. Moreover, in a cosmopolitan city such as New York, Burgos became a transnational Latina/o cultural icon. Reinventing, reimagining, and riffing off Burgos becomes a way for artists to voice their struggles for recognition and self-determination in New York, echoing the themes developed in her writing.

Author(s):  
Arnaldo M. Cruz-Malavé

Initially censored, shunned, or ignored by the literary establishment, both in the United States and Puerto Rico, New York Puerto Rican author Piri Thomas’s 1967 autobiographical coming-of-age story, Down These Mean Streets, gained great visibility as a sociological document when it was first published, garnering much media attention and recognition for Thomas as a spokesman for the New York Puerto Rican community, a role that he embraced as part of his social activism. But Thomas’s work, which includes the sequel to Down These Mean Streets—Savior, Savior, Hold My Hand; a prison memoir, Seven Long Times; a book of short stories, Stories from El Barrio; and performance and poetry, would not acquire canonical literary status as founding a new U.S. Puerto Rican or Nuyorican literature until the 1980s when critics in American universities began to introduce Nuyorican literature as part of a curricular revision of the U.S. literary canon that sought to include minority literatures in American college courses. In the 1990s, Thomas’s status as a founding figure of Nuyorican literature and identity would give way to a more complex view of him as an author, as queer and feminist scholars of color began to examine the relationship of race and national and ethnic identity and belonging to questions of gender and sexuality in his writing. Thomas would then emerge as a more ambiguous, intercultural, and intersectional author, indeed as emblematic of the in-between or abject zone that the hierarchical binaries of dominant discourses of race, national, and ethnic belonging often situated Latino/as in, invisibilizing them. If in the late 1960s and early 1970s Thomas’s work became representative of the communities and subcultures whose voices were elided in American society, in the 1990s young U.S. Latino/a writers would adopt his work as emblematic of a resistant Afro-Latino otherness that could be deployed against an increasingly homogenizing version of Latinidad or Latino/a identity as a racially and ethnically unified commodity in the plural neoliberal American literary and cultural market. Since the 2000s, readings of Thomas’s work have continued to address the topic of otherness in his work, interrogating its normalization and focusing on the psychoanalytic and political issues of racial melancholia, introjection, and the status of lack in subject formation in his writing. Another trend has set about situating Thomas’s writing at the intersection between colonial and diasporic metropolitan racial formations, connecting it with Puerto Rico’s racialized literary canon, Caribbean “intra-colonial” diasporic relations, and Filipino American literature and culture. Yet another line of research has focused on the author’s narrative and performative choices rather than on his abject condition. And his performance in poetry has begun to get some well-deserved critical attention. All in all, the challenge of Thomas criticism remains the ability of scholars to establish a dialogue between the aporias and impasses that his writing is situated in (that is, questions of racial abjection and coloniality) and his skill and imagination as a writer and performer, between what he characterizes, on the one hand, as the “bullets” and, on the other, as the “butterflies” that constitute and propel his writing.


Author(s):  
Marc Zimmerman

This chapter discusses U.S. Puerto Rican literature, which can be divided into three phases, preceded by a kind of “pre-phase.” The pre-phase, extending from the last century, consists of exiles from the independence struggle against Spain. These include major intellectuals who mainly wrote about their Caribbean struggles and reflected critically on the New York experience of arriving Puerto Rican nationals. The first phase, extending from 1917 to 1945, is mainly of autobiographical and journalistic works expressing the efforts of first-generation migrants to adjust to U.S. life. The period of migration from 1945 to 1965 constitutes the second phase, when radical exile writers mainly wrote a literature of exile with hardly any bilingualisms and only limited reference to the migration experience. Lastly, the third phase “effectively draws together the firsthand testimonial of the ‘pioneer’ stage and the fictional, imaginative approach of the writers of the 1950s or 1960s.”


Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Rivera

What constitutes “Puerto Rican literature”? This question is as literary as it is political, to a greater degree than it would be when considering the canon of a sovereign nation. Two reasons may be given to account for this exceptionality: (1) Puerto Rico has been the colony of two successive empires, Spain and the United States, and (2) more than half its people live in the United States, as part of a diaspora shaped sometimes by choice and, more often, by colonial (political, economic) pressures. Scholars interested in the literature of this Puerto Rican majority, which is the diaspora in the United States, should consult Edna Acosta-Belén’s entry in Oxford Bibliographies, as the present entry limits itself to criticism about literature in Spanish that has predominantly circulated within the confines of the island(s) of Puerto Rico. In fact, this geographic and linguistic split (mainland is to island, as English is to Spanish) had conditioned scholarly approaches to Puerto Rican literature throughout most of the 20th century and only began to be questioned in the 1980s by daring scholars such as Acosta-Belén herself. Moreover, this linguistic, geographic, and political split between English and Spanish reflects one of Puerto Rican literature’s most persistent topics: the call for independence from the United States, a feature that sets Puerto Rican literature apart from other literatures in Spanish. More broadly, from the 19th century onward, Puerto Rican authors have been concerned with the question of national identity within a colonial context. Only after the 1970s does this question cease to be the guiding concern of Puerto Rican authors, a rupture (and a new beginning) driven by the voices of women, queer, and Afro-Puerto Rican authors, who continue to insist on the expansion of the literary canon. While the question of national identity still exists, many contemporary authors refuse to join in this totalizing search, and prefer to write about spaces, characters, and situations that have been traditionally marginalized by the heteropatriarchal, Hispanophile literary establishment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document