Zitat des Tages von Mario Vargas Llosa:
I am not going to participate in professional politics again.
Literature is dangerous: it awakens a rebellious attitude in us.
We were trained as writers with the idea that literature is something that can change reality, that it's not just a very sophisticated entertainment but a way to act.
Today, everybody is more or less conscious of the total failure of the Cuban revolution to produce wealth, to produce a better standard of living for the Cubans. With the exception of small radical parties, Latin Americans know that it's a brutal dictatorship and the longest in Latin American history.
In fiction, you are not limited by real facts. You can manipulate reality; you can invent without being disloyal to the essence of history.
I thought that, when I came to New York, that I would have a very life here for three months or three and a half months. And my impression is that it won't be so quiet as I wanted.
No matter how ephemeral it is, a novel is something, while despair is nothing.
When I was at university in the Fifties, Latin America was full of dictators. Trujillo was the emblematic figure because, of course, of his cruelty, corruption, extravagance, and theatricalities.
Good literature always ends up showing those who read it... the inevitable limitation of all power to fulfill human aspirations and desires.
Since it is impossible to know what's really happening, we Peruvians lie, invent, dream and take refuge in illusion. Because of these strange circumstances, Peruvian life, a life in which so few actually do read, has become literary.
You cannot teach creativity - how to become a good writer. But you can help a young writer discover within himself what kind of writer he would like to be.
It isn't true that convicts live like animals: animals have more room to move around.
My three years in politics was very instructive about the way in which the appetite for political power can destroy a human mind, destroy principles and values, and transform people into little monsters.
There is an incompatibility between literary creation and political activity.
Writing a book is a very lonely business. You are totally cut off from the rest of the world, submerged in your obsessions and memories.
In general, I think my freedom of invention is not limited when I use historical characters.
I learnt to read when I was five, and I think that is the most important thing that happened to me.
Prosperity or egalitarianism - you have to choose. I favor freedom - you never achieve real equality anyway: you simply sacrifice prosperity for an illusion.
I think that literature is something that embraces a much larger experience than politics. It's an expression of what is life, of what are all the dimensions of life. But politics is one among others.
The novels that have fascinated me most are the ones that have reached me less through the channels of the intellect or reason than bewitched me.
Maintain democracy or go to dictatorship: that is what is at stake in these elections.
If you are killed because you are a writer, that's the maximum expression of respect, you know.
Eroticism has its own moral justification because it says that pleasure is enough for me; it is a statement of the individual's sovereignty.
I don't want to finish my life not being alive. I think that is the saddest thing that can happen to a person. I want to keep living to the end.
Couldn't imagine any other way of living, outside of books, outside my work. Which doesn't mean I am not interested in other things, of course - I am interested in many things. But the center, the crux, is always literature.
I think yellow journalism is something that appears everywhere, in the underdeveloped and developed worlds alike.
I remember, when I was young, to have a literary or artistic vocation was really dramatic because you were so isolated from the common world. You felt that you were marginal, and if you dared to try to organise your life around your vocation, you knew you'd be completely segregated.
I love stories, and my life is principally concentrated on stories, but not with a pretense of scientific precision.
In general, a writer would like to think that the best book that he has written is the book that he is writing, and the next book will be even better. Maybe if this is not true, it is very useful to keep the illusion alive.
Sartre said that wars were acts and that, with literature, you could produce changes in history. Now, I don't think literature doesn't produce changes, but I think the social and political effect of literature is much less controllable than I thought.
I was absolutely convinced that I wouldn't win the Nobel Prize. My impression was that the Nobel Prize in Literature was given to people more or less affiliated with, let's say, socialist ideas, and that was not my case.
I think everybody, or the great majority of human beings, have this aspiration to become other: to live a different identity, at least for a while.