Her Accurate Observations

As I complained with my sister about how a publishing house would let such an uninformed book be distributed to the public, I realized that I don't actually hate the book, I deeply resent the author. The book is wonderful--it has accurate and interesting imagery, good expression of her emotions, it even has  deep and insightful metaphors about Colombia, that, if I didn't know anything about the country I'm from, I'd think the author is poetic and has an amazing ability to represent the reality. While I read the book I indeed reflect about Colombia and I relate many of the things she says to other things that actually happen. I feel emotive and inspired as I disapprove on what Paternostro says, my nationalism is triggered. Perhaps she is successful as a writer in making the readers be alarmed about the violence at Colombia. Nevertheless, I feel like her rhetorical purpose gets tangled up as she tries to write a sellable book. Silvana Paternostro narrates events on her life while dumping in interesting facts, most of them subjective, about the wars in Colombia. Maybe she's having an identity crisis and, consequently, messes up her ideas. I intend to have an open mind but most of  Paternostro's thoughts are simply inaccurate.

The author describes her encounter with a young marine going to fight in the Colombian drug war. She says, "He can be my next story. Will the New York Times Magazine want it? Maybe it's best for Rolling Stone. I wonder if my friend's friend is still an editor there" (pg. 24). There are infinite ways to respond to an American going to fight in the country she grew up in. As an author, she could have made a point about what American intervention could mean for Colombia, but she decided to express how thrilled she was to benefit from an armed conflict. Even when she does talk about important things related to the subject, Paternostro has a really biased version of reality. She thinks that every Colombian man would want to be like the American marine, showing how unaware she is about the Colombian culture. It is true that many Colombians migrate to the US looking for a better life, but I am sure that in the minds of Colombian men, becoming a handsome American that is going to fight in Colombia is not a priority. A paragraph later, in page 25, Paternostro refers to Pablo Escobar as, "a boy with an absent father and no money who hated discrimination and the difficulty of achieving upward mobility for someone average." I respect her opinion as an author but I'm not falling for that. Pablo Escobar might have suffered a lot but he is not an innocent little boy, as the author tries to portray through her misleading pathos. When she talks about drug dealing and the armed conflict, Paternostro at least informs the reader, whether I like the way she does it or not, but there are moments in the book where she simply sounds unintelligent, not to say something offensive. Her perspective on American military influence on Colombia is: "I am sure he will have a chance to practicar his español. Charlie is coming to my country to fight, to have a good time, to learn a language, to flirt, to get paid good money" (pg. 28). She also says that she was going to Colombia to fight a personal war, making me doubt her reputation.

As I kept on reading, I just kept running into ignorant comments from the author. Paternostro believes that FARC wants to attack only the government, not the civilians, which is a really outdated point that no one actually believes since the 1980s or earlier.  The author also believes that Colombia is the new Vietnam, which is not at all correct. Paternostro continues trying to fit Colombia into a stereotype--El Salvador, the Balkans, or anything that makes her story interesting. She actually thought that Colombia was going to be the new Cuban Revolution, perhaps as a way to get attention as a Colombian in the US. So far the comment that I find the most uninformed yet was when she said that the Colombian economy was fueled by drug production. The author has a really twisted version of reality.
The author personally seems to be yelling for people to notice her. She writes about how worried she was when FARC was about to take over Bogota. She also shows her self as a victim, as Colombians rightfully see her as a traitor. Paternostro complains about the campaigns that promote Colombia's image, as if they were hiding the reality for worse, when they actually seek to promote optimism and foreign investment to improve the country's situation.
At the end of chapter two, Paternostro states that she wants to make Colombians conscious about their situation. When Colombians are asked if they're happy or not, they don't just forget about the armed conflict and the history of civil wars. Colombians, whether she likes it or not, are usually warm, grateful and try to look at the good side of things. "Colombia, they continue to insist, is a happy place, the best place in the world. To them, Colombia might not be at war. But I am in war with Colombia" (pg. 40). Paternostro has a twisted way of thinking. All I have to say is that when someone doesn't vote, they don't have the right to complain.