It is difficult to talk about a book with emotional value.
The debate at the end is very, very interesting. I say debate because it invites interaction with the book and not just absorption. Well, the critic Luiz brings up two questions: that of the mysterious magical symbolism and that of the so-called baroque style:
The first becomes a problem when it proposes a "non-critical" view of the world, naturalizing things as if they had a spontaneous generation through an intangible unknown phenomenon. The possibility of "salvation" would be that Rosian prose is not just the magical, but the affirmation of the positive, which gains contour from the contrast with the magical. To a certain extent, perhaps. I think up to the point where the characters and events have a depth beyond what is said, where the reader can ask: "is it possible that?". But the problem of non-critical is not just a problem of being able to reach reality in a positive way. It is a problem of history, of interpretation, of understanding social relations and how they generate and transform social realities. In this sense, I would ask if there is criticism in Guimarães Rosa's narrative from other points (uncomfortable?): what is the proposal when talking about voices that are generally silenced? Or, in whose name is one speaking? Does he insert the voices of these people into literature or does he speak for them as someone from the outside and in a position of power? When he talks about race, are the descriptions and even the discourse about the characters a mark of a Brazil that emerged structured in racism or are they a way for the author to affirm this racism through literature?
The second question, about baroque style in general. Probably the best-known characteristic of Rosa's text is the subversion of language and, while it is an exploitation of the various possibilities of language, it brings a creative power. However, in the author's style, the marks of the brushstrokes stand out, as the critic Luiz puts it. More than in other works, I personally felt as if I were "reading" a child's magic cube or the score of a complicated study for strings by Bach. And not just because of the syntactic inversions, but because of all the poetry of the text, because of the breaking of alliterations and metaphors and even the choice of words that sometimes seemed more of a problem - this word goes here. And even more the metalanguage, the child playing poet, for me this image remained very marked, mainly because sometimes suddenly the child goes and does a miracle with speech, as sometimes it seems that I am looking at the magic cube and it releases some wisdom about life, the world and people. In short, I don't understand literary criticism, but the thing about baroque style made sense to me. In the same way, as I put it, Guimarães Rosa's writing opens up many possibilities and I find this fascinating. It does not end in one question or the other. But a mental note to research more about this specific point.
Edit (05/08/2024)
On the first reading, I didn't think about death, but about an absent father from the past century, a shadowy figure, closed, who does not share feelings or experiences, incomprehensible to a child. I thought about grandfathers, great-grandfathers, great-great-grandfathers and what it must have been like to be a man until a while ago and if this is changing and also about how we assume or not the burdens of our parents, the rights, the wrongs, the possible imperfect etc etc.
Reading some comments, the loss really is a metaphor that makes so much sense.
The idea of a third margin also reminds me of an alternative that is not what is given, of creating indeed, of completely refusing the possible options. In the book, this seems to alienate the father and, subsequently, the son as well, from the flow of life, from relationships with people. I don't need to ask why someone would do this, because I alienate myself from the flow of life all the time for any reason, but I do wonder if it's worth it, if it makes sense.