University of São Paulo: Book brings Graciliano Ramos as “someone whom modernity does not deceive”

The Modern Art Week of 1922 represented a turning point in the Brazilian literary scene. If, on the one hand, it generated innovations, on the other hand, it generated questions about the changes proposed by the writers. Among those who resigned themselves to the paths taken by the modernist movement was Graciliano Ramos.

The criticisms made to the movement by the author from Alagoas were explored in the book Antimodernista: Graciliano Ramos e 1922 (Editora Record), a work organized by Professor Thiago Mio Salla, from the Department of Journalism and Publishing at the School of Communications and Arts (ECA) at USP, in São Paulo, together with researcher and literary critic Ieda Lebensztayn.

In addition to excerpts from interviews given by Graciliano, chronicles and letters, the book contains passages from the work Memórias do Cárcere and the text Pequena História da República , in which the author “makes small highlights of some periods to try to understand the republican history of Brazil and one of them is the year 22”, explained the organizer of the work.

In conversation with Ciclo22, the professor spoke about the reasons behind the anti-modernist stance of the author of Vidas Secas .


The work shows that one of Graciliano’s first criticisms of Modernism was made in 1926. In a letter to a friend, the author ironically reports that, in order to understand the poem Neste rio tem uma Iara , by Mário de Andrade, it was necessary to understand the the São Paulo language, “as if it were a variant of the Portuguese language that he didn’t master”, emphasizes Salla.

The poem in question has the style proposed by the modernists with free verse and the use of colloquial language, a style of which Graciliano was critical. For him, the facilities brought by the movement made room for mediocre literature.

“He will say that Modernism was the opportunity for ‘a lot of naughty’, he even uses that term. That is, people who wanted to write a book of poems in a day or novels in a week, simply thinking that they were writing in the language of the people, a supposed orality that for him meant language vices, cacophonies, amphibologies”, said the professor.

No wonder, the author disagreed with the modernist proposal to make renowned authors, such as Olavo Bilac, models of what should not be followed in literature. Breaking with the current grammatical aesthetics, for Graciliano, led Modernism to fail politically, as analyzed by the professor. “Instead of proposing a revolution against the constitution, against the established order, [the modernists] took a stand against grammar, against the novelistic tradition up until then. It is a superficiality of what was proposed”.

Graciliano’s anti-modern stance, however, cannot be considered conservative. The critical view led the writer to maintain a traditional aesthetic in writing, at the same time that it made him propose new elements to literature, as a recognition of the social ills in the Brazilian Northeast.

“An anti-modern is nothing more than a viscerally modern being. Someone whom modernity does not deceive. Coming from a traditional place, he has a more traditional view of the world, which does not mean conservative or reactionary. He is, in a way, trying to mediate between innovation and tradition,” said Salla.

In addition to the aesthetic rupture, the writer from Alagoas criticized the artistic productions with the use of the colors of the flag. Graciliano recognized that the interventions with nationalist praise, proposed in what became known as the Escola da Anta, around 1927, had political use by fascist movements, such as Integralism.

This opposition to Modernism was in line with other critics of the movement at the time, such as José Lins do Rego, for example, showing that criticism was also used in order to establish the writers of that generation, the so-called Geração de 30.

“It is an interested point of view. He [Graciliano] says that Modernism did nothing, its role was disruptive. What it did was pave the way for the great literature of the Romance of 30 to become established. Just as Modernism did with the Parnassians, he will speak ill of Modernism”, explained the professor.

For Thiago Salla, the trajectory and work of the anti-modernist author remain current for contributing to discussions of themes that, just like in 1922, make up challenges faced by Brazil. Social inequality and political proselytism are some of them.

“The importance that Graciliano has, whether as a watchful figure or as someone who managed to portray these problems in an artistic way, helps us to look critically at our present and at our country in the broadest sense,” he said.

Graciliano Ramos at IEB
The Antimodernista became a project in early 2021. The work brings together productions that are part of the Graciliano Ramos Collection at the Institute of Brazilian Studies (IEB) at USP, in São Paulo.

It was there that Salla discovered his enthusiasm for Graciliano’s literature and continues to gather efforts to catalog and investigate materials that keep much to be discovered. Through the Unified Scholarship Project (PUB) entitled Survey, Transcription, Cataloging and Analysis of New Facets of the Author of Vidas Secas , the professor works with students to map productions that trace the author’s trajectory.

In addition to manuscripts that demonstrate modifications to the works, the archive holds materials that recount Graciliano’s career. Salla reported, for example, the discovery of a “cash book” used by the author during his tenure as mayor of the city of Palmeira dos Índios. The materials help to understand the impact of everyday life on the author’s writing.