Testimonio y literatura. Algunas reflexiones y tres realizaciones en la narrativa argentina: Walsh, Urondo, Cortázar (1957-1974)

Resumen: El estudio de la relación entre testimonio yliteratura reviste la complejidad que conlleva lasiempre discutida definición de lo literario. En efecto,la discusión sobre qué había de ser la literatura, en unaAmérica Latina cuyo proceso revolucionario se veía enmarcha, posibilitó la institucionalización el testimoniocomo género literario en el comienzo de la década de1970. El presente artículo se inserta dentro de dichadiscusión, presentsando el fenómeno de la literaturatestimonial desde el punto de vista de susimplicaciones teóricas y mostrando los criteriosconceptuales que sustentan, en nuestro enfoque, laconstrucción de un corpus de literatura testimonial.De acuerdo a dichos criterios, analizamos un corpusde literatura testimonial argentina, conformado porobras de Rodolfo Walsh, Francisco Urondo y JulioCortázar, producidas entre 1957 y 1974.Palabras clave: Testimonio, Literatura,The relation between testimony and literature is as complex as the always debated definition of literature itself. In fact, the discussion about what was and had to be literature, in the context of a revolutionary Latin America, gave room to the institutionalization of testimonio as a literary genre in the early 1970s. This paper raises that discussion. Firstly, we introduce certain theoretical implications of the testimonial literature phenomenon. In such sense, we argue that the problem is inseparably linked to the constitutive ambiguity of literature, which is clearly showed in the case of testimonio, as the genre includes “non-literary” texts than appear as literature in certain conditions of the literary field. Secondly, we postulate the conceptual basis which supports the conformation of a testimonial literature corpus of analysis. Thirdly, we analyze a testimonial literature corpus, which integrates works of three Argentine authors, Rodolfo Walsh, Francisco Urondo and Julio Cortázar, written between 1957 and 1974. The analysis exhibits different narrative realizations of the relation between testimony and literature, and furthermore, shows different ways of dealing with the constitutive tension of such link, within the field of literary practice