When we hear the words "forensics" or "autopsy", the conventional words of the procedural crime drama, we tend to think about scientific labs, blood samples, fingerprinting, the examination of a corpse, coroners and police poring over the macabre specter of a cracked-open body. Historically, however, these words had a very different, and mundane, origin. The word "forensic" derives from the Roman forum—a place where orators arguing a case would discuss the evidence and try to convince a jury of someone's guilt or innocence, no scientific inquests or lab reports involved. The word "autopsy" is Greek and it literally meant "seeing for oneself". Autopsy referred to the investigation of facts through first-hand examination of evidence, rather than oral report or theoretical speculation. Over time, the words "forensics" and "autopsy" narrowed in their meaning: they now describe the systematic and the scientific inspection of a crime scene and the victim's body. But their etymology points to a broader truth: a crime scene is not a scientific problem; it is a semiotic puzzle, something that needs to be interpreted, something that must be contested, something we must look at in person and solve through hermeneutics (Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose is a classic in the meta-murder-mystery narrative, making the detective's investigation an exercise in scholastic metaphysics).
In Cristina Rivera Garza's surreal and cerebral novel, there has been a slew of murders: in quick succession, the cleanly dismembered bodies of castrated men are discovered around the city; the words of the Argentine poet Alejandra Pizarnik are scrawled beside each body (in nail polish or with magazine letters—obviously female-coded lettering). What does any of this mean? Is the castration some grizzly act of female vengeance, a violent way to emasculate the men by removing their physical sex? Or is it an expression of phallic envy, someone desperate to have, physically, the male member? Or could this all be the result of some cuckolded man who, discovering his wife's infidelity, has taken the penis in retaliation? Or perhaps there is something more symbolic here. Since the word "victim" is grammatically feminine in Spanish, is this act of castration meant in some way to reinscribe the fundamental femininity of victimhood, to make the men into conventional female victims? Or, to take a literary turn, is the dismemberment some form of metapoetic commentary? In her letters, Alejandra Pizarnik wanted to write not poetry but prose—yet she found her own prose to be fragmented ("I'm missing the subject. Then I'm being the missing verb. What's left is a mutilated predicate, tattered attributes...And above all, a sort of castration of the ear: I cannot perceive the melody of the sentence"). The poet Horace wrote (Sermones 1.4) that if you rearranged verses into prose, you would have the "limbs of dismembered poet" (disiecti membra poetae)—so are the remains of these men, these hacked-up and castrated corpses, a tangible act of literary criticism, morbid attempts at perversely writing in prose with men's limbs?
On the case is an unlikely trio: a female detective who writes bafflingly philosophical police reports, a tabloid journalist who possibly poses as an avant-garde poet, and a professor specializing in Alejandra Pizarnik (who, coincidentally, is named Cristina Rivera Garza—a stand-in or a foil for our own author?) But far from solving the case, the three of them seem, on some psychological and aesthetic level, more similar to the murderer, and more interested in understanding the verses of Pizarnik than identifying the killer. They feel a rapport with the murderer (and possibly the murderer is equally interested in them—purporting to leave obsessive letters at the home of Cristina Rivera Garza). There is a linguistic parity between the killer, the writer and the literary critic: the killer breaks open bodies; the critic opens up books. The killer slices into skin; the critic looks inside the text ("the writer: a coroner who writes down everything that emerges from inside"). The killer dissects; the writer, at least Alejandra Pizarnik, "suffers from the vivisection of isolated words"; this murderer cuts off limbs; in this book, "those who read carefully, dismember". There is an isomorphy between the gruesome act of the serial killer and the seemingly innocuous act of penetrating the text. The killer deals with a corpse; readers deal with a corpus.
This is, in so many ways, an incomprehensible book. There is a refrain throughout, "Who the hell is speaking?" a frustration not just voiced by the characters but felt by the reader, too. The "I" of many chapters could be the detective, her partner, the professor, the journalist, even the murderer. The narrative, if there is narrative, often devolves into desultory lists and fragmentary sentences. It is hallucinatory and delirious at many points. It felt, in many ways, like an inversion of Bolaño's 2666: where his fusillade novel describes a nauseating catalogue of anonymous murdered women, Cristina Rivera Garza's Death Takes Me revolves around nameless castrated men and unnamed narrators, male victims and female investigators, blurred and undifferentiated. This novel is a murder mystery but it is not interested in solving the mystery; rather it turns inward into the mystery of language, identity and personhood. It transforms the whodunit into a more existential question of who.
Interesting, but also painfully enigmatic.