Axolotl

Cortázar’s short story “Cefalea” (“Headache”) also centers an animal as a primary character/symbol. Compare and contrast the ways in which Cortázar employs animal imagery in these two stories. How does animal symbolism help Cortázar establish and develop these stories’ themes?

Early in the story, the narrator often describes the axolotls in terms of human-made inanimate objects. A few examples include “a statuette corroded by time” (5), “Chinese figures of milky glass” (5), “brooches.” What is the significance of these comparisons? Does the comparative language the narrator uses for the axolotls change later in the story? If so, why?

In the story’s final paragraphs, the narrator begins describing his transformation with the phrase, “The horror began” (9). Is it possible to think of “Axolotl” as a horror story? Why or why not? Justify your response with specific textual references.

At which moments in the narrative does the narrator shift away from the first-person singular? Choose one or two of these moments and discuss the implications of the point of view shift occurring at that particular juncture.

Though this story consists almost entirely of interactions between the narrator and the axolotls, Cortázar still includes the guard as a character. How would this short story be different without the guard’s presence?

Throughout “Axolotl,” Cortázar pairs highly specific observations about the axolotls and their lives with vague, abstract language. For example, the narrator notes of the axolotls that “[…] from time to time, the rosy branches of their gills stiffened. […] perhaps they were seeing [him], attracting [his] strength to penetrate into the impenetrable thing of their lives” (8). Choose one passage in which Cortázar mixes great specificity with abstraction. What does this accomplish?

As the narrator muses about why he has formed a connection with the axolotls, he says, “I think it was the axolotls’ heads, that triangular pink shape with tiny eyes of gold. That looked and knew. That laid claim. There were not animals” (8). Why does the narrator feel that axolotls are not animals? What are they to him, if not animals?

At the end of the story, the axolotl-narrator is deeply ambivalent about whether or not the human-narrator’s attempt at understanding the axolotls accomplished anything. What is your take on this question? Does the human-narrator come any closer to sympathizing with the axolotls by the end of the story? Was anything else accomplished through his obsession?