It has been a long time since I had to consult a Spanish dictionary. The last time I did so was in middle school when I was required to take a Spanish class. It has been never since I had to simultaneously consult a Spanish dictionary(more specifically, Google translate) and an English dictionary to understand the text that I am reading. 

As that paragraph would suggest, I am interested, perhaps obsessed, with Gurba’s usage of two languages in her critique. Obviously, Gurba’s original critique, and the additional commentary she added to construct this article was mostly intended for English audiences. Yet she chooses to deliberately weave in Spanish words and phrases, most of which your average English speaker is unlikely to understand. Some would argue the confusion this creates makes the article too frustrating to read to anyone that isn’t bilingual in both English and Spanish. Personally, while annoyed at the forced consultation of google translate, I find that it strengthens her argument. While my knowledge of Spanish is practically nonexistent, I gained the implicit feeling, without any objective confirmation, that the author is fluent in Spanish, despite writing in English. The idea that the author is fluent in Spanish, something difficult to prove when writing in English,  only reinforces the idea that she hails from Mexico, something that her entire argument hinges on.

Aside from her interweaving of Spanish, it’s worth noting the article is simply very well written. Her vocabulary alone would have tipped me off that she was a professional writer. As I stated, I had to also consult an English dictionary; I myself, despite being a native English speaker, needed a dictionary to understand some of the more advanced words that she uses. While I am not knowledgeable enough to understand the intricacies of why her writing is at a professional level, I can at least admit that I personally found myself completely engaged in her writing, despite knowing nothing about the subject matter. 

Speaking of, as someone who has never read American Dirt by Jeanine Cummins, it is difficult to objectively evaluate Gurba’s criticism, so I was hesitant to readily hop on the anti-Cummins bandwagon. That being said, Gurba presents multiple convincing arguments. I in particular remember her criticism about the main character being surprised by things a normal Mexican wouldn’t be surprised by: ice skating, the raping of female migrants, and others. Despite my hesitancy as a result of my lack of knowledge on the subject matter, I find myself mostly agreeing with Gurba. 

I did try to partially resolve this hesitancy by doing some basic research on the topic. Preliminary research shows that American Dirt received a controversial reception, though it has both praise and criticism from members within the Latino community. Booksellers give it fairly high reviews, though a few sources have listed the book as arguably the most controversial literature scandal in recent history. Overall, it seems the critics outnumber the praisers, though it is impossible to know for sure. 

A few random miscellaneous comments. One is the snarkiness of the author. I laughed out loud after reading that her singular reference is “his[her grandfather’s] fucking tombstone,” which she lists as “evidence” that her grandfather was a publicist. Related and somewhat more controversial, is her introductory paragraphs and her usage of the word “gringo.” I did not know about this until reading a fellow classmate’s critique, but allegedly the word is actually racist and derogatory. I tried confirming this with Google, and according to an NPR article it’s fairly ambiguous whether the term is derogatory or benign, though they do note that the term is definitely “distracting,” something that is evident here given that I am talking about the word at all. More importantly, Gurba seems to distinguish and divide the two ethnic groups relevant to her critique in the first opening lines and paragraphs of the article. Whether or not the reader is comfortable with this is up to them; I personally didn’t mind, though I will note that given the subject of her article the distinction is relevant.