I read Broken Spears for my World History class up at the University of Utah. It is a composite of several indigenous accounts of the conquest of the Aztec Empire by Cortez and the Spaniards. The claim of the book is that for the past 500 years, the only record of the downfall of the empire was told by the Spaniards. Leon-Portillo argues that the record was highly skewed in the conquerers's favor. While this is probably true to some extent, I don't think anyone from the 21st Century thinks that Cortez wiped out a civilization with flowers.
The book is extremely repetitive. Each detail of the conquest is told at least two or three times. At the end there is another complete summary of the story. Maybe Leon-Portillo thought that this approach was supposed to leave no rock unturned. I felt it did nothing more than bore the reader. I would suggest that the author give only one account, and let the native voice carry the weight of keeping the reader's interest.
If you're obsessed with the history of Central America, you'll love this book. If you're not, well, read it anyway because of its historical importance... Well, read the introduction and the conclusion and skim the rest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't doubt its boring, but it sounds like it follows the pattern many historians take--tell it over and over again. You know what they say, "History repeats itself because nobody was listening the first time." Maybe Leon-Portillo was trying to make sure you got it :)
That's true. You've got a good point. I should have consulted the history expert first. :)
Post a Comment