6 ms·

> The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group. It doesn't say that a

> The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group. It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. You've created a conditional in your head that is found nowhere in the article.

dragonwriter 3y ago
It claims the suppression was “specifically” by the CIA, and the first example of this suppression by the CIA it gives is the publication delay, ascribed to actions of a group, which it ties into the thesis by saying was later identified as a CIA front group.
- the_af 3y ago
  I assume you mean this paragraph from TFA: > But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA. I think it's clumsily worded. There was suppression of the novel and the author was exiled (the novel was self-published in Mexico in 1946, out of the author's own pockets). Guatemala's dictatorship was behind this and the US helped them. But the international discrediting of the author was orchestrated by the CIA through a front, and this took place many years after. So "this" suppression that the CIA aided is not just 1946 -- that's poorly worded -- but in the ensuing years, after the CIA was already formed.
  - jjk166 3y ago
    No, in context "this suppression" is clearly referring to the disruption of the novel's genesis and the sending of its author into exile performed by the dictators in that period prior to 1946. The dictators are the censors and exilers being referenced in the next sentence. It would have been easy to say that those actions were part of a broader suppression, or even just aiding in suppression with no qualifier, but specifying "this" makes it unambiguous that they are still talking about the same thing.
    - the_af 3y ago
      I think if you take the full article as context, where they mention specific incidents in the 50's onwards, the context is not the period prior to 1946. I think it's just this specific paragraph that's clumsily worded.
      - jjk166 3y ago
        No, it is very clear even with the full context that at this point in the article they are referring to the delay of the book being published. The very next sentence states that there were multiple such examples of suppression over his career, indicating that "this act" was a specific one in a sequence of many.
        Convolutional 3y ago
        The act is the act of suppression, which they were involved in. They did not participate in the delay portion of the suppression, nor does it say they did.
        jjk166 3y ago
        It's not "the act" it's "this act" which they were not involved in. The article says they were involved in the delay, which is innaccurate. They may not have meant to say that, but that's what it says.
        the_af 3y ago
        I think that "this act" is poor editing. You cannot ignore the rest of the article.
        jjk166 3y ago
        Okay, well the article as written and interpreted using conventional english is inaccurate. Maybe what they meant to say would have been accurate.
jjk166 3y ago
No, it does say that.
- Convolutional 3y ago
  You would think if it was inaccurate, the inaccuracy could be quoted from and pointed to. You do not do so. I see claims there is an inaccuracy there. I see people doing paraphrases and inventing conditionals and saying they are inaccurate. Which they are. But they're not the original text. It's pretty simple, quote some text and say why it is inaccurate. As there are no inaccuracies of the type mentioned, this does not happen because it cannot happen.
  - smcin 3y ago
    Asturias was by chance discussed recently in "The Inventor of Magical Realism" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35860892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35860892
  - jjk166 3y ago
    > But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA. It's in the first paragraph. Emphasis mine. How could the CIA have aided foreign dictators prior to its existence?
    - Convolutional 3y ago
      The first sentence blames the delay on the dictator of Guatemala, quite explicitly. Then in the next sentence it says the CIA aided in the suppression of the novel, which it did. The text never days the CIA delayed the novel, it says the CIA aided in suppressing the novel. The CCF didn't even exist until the 1950s.
      - jjk166 3y ago
        "This act" refers to the delay. It is explicitly distinguished from other acts of suppression he faced at other points in his life.

dragonwriter 3y ago

It claims the suppression was “specifically” by the CIA, and the first example of this suppression by the CIA it gives is the publication delay, ascribed to actions of a group, which it ties into the thesis by saying was later identified as a CIA front group.

the_af 3y ago
I assume you mean this paragraph from TFA: > But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA. I think it's clumsily worded. There was suppression of the novel and the author was exiled (the novel was self-published in Mexico in 1946, out of the author's own pockets). Guatemala's dictatorship was behind this and the US helped them. But the international discrediting of the author was orchestrated by the CIA through a front, and this took place many years after. So "this" suppression that the CIA aided is not just 1946 -- that's poorly worded -- but in the ensuing years, after the CIA was already formed.
- jjk166 3y ago
  No, in context "this suppression" is clearly referring to the disruption of the novel's genesis and the sending of its author into exile performed by the dictators in that period prior to 1946. The dictators are the censors and exilers being referenced in the next sentence. It would have been easy to say that those actions were part of a broader suppression, or even just aiding in suppression with no qualifier, but specifying "this" makes it unambiguous that they are still talking about the same thing.
  - the_af 3y ago
    I think if you take the full article as context, where they mention specific incidents in the 50's onwards, the context is not the period prior to 1946. I think it's just this specific paragraph that's clumsily worded.
    - jjk166 3y ago
      No, it is very clear even with the full context that at this point in the article they are referring to the delay of the book being published. The very next sentence states that there were multiple such examples of suppression over his career, indicating that "this act" was a specific one in a sequence of many.
      - Convolutional 3y ago
        The act is the act of suppression, which they were involved in. They did not participate in the delay portion of the suppression, nor does it say they did.
        jjk166 3y ago
        It's not "the act" it's "this act" which they were not involved in. The article says they were involved in the delay, which is innaccurate. They may not have meant to say that, but that's what it says.
      - the_af 3y ago
        I think that "this act" is poor editing. You cannot ignore the rest of the article.
        jjk166 3y ago
        Okay, well the article as written and interpreted using conventional english is inaccurate. Maybe what they meant to say would have been accurate.

jjk166 3y ago

No, it does say that.

Convolutional 3y ago
You would think if it was inaccurate, the inaccuracy could be quoted from and pointed to. You do not do so. I see claims there is an inaccuracy there. I see people doing paraphrases and inventing conditionals and saying they are inaccurate. Which they are. But they're not the original text. It's pretty simple, quote some text and say why it is inaccurate. As there are no inaccuracies of the type mentioned, this does not happen because it cannot happen.
- smcin 3y ago
  Asturias was by chance discussed recently in "The Inventor of Magical Realism" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35860892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35860892
- jjk166 3y ago
  > But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA. It's in the first paragraph. Emphasis mine. How could the CIA have aided foreign dictators prior to its existence?
  - Convolutional 3y ago
    The first sentence blames the delay on the dictator of Guatemala, quite explicitly. Then in the next sentence it says the CIA aided in the suppression of the novel, which it did. The text never days the CIA delayed the novel, it says the CIA aided in suppressing the novel. The CCF didn't even exist until the 1950s.
    - jjk166 3y ago
      "This act" refers to the delay. It is explicitly distinguished from other acts of suppression he faced at other points in his life.