Juan de Oñate, an art historian and full-time journalist who graduated from the Autonomous University of Madrid, is above all a habitual offender of this novel. He is interested in fiction, truth, and plausibility. In order to squeeze the lemon of truth, … Dedicated to several distributions, the latest of which “Omen” (Plaza & Llanes)a novel that addresses the dangers of curiosity and knowledge.
Set between the Monastery of Sant Julián de Samos in 1951 and modern-day Galicia, the novel connects past and present through an investigation that uncovers a book that predicts the dates of death of certain people, and how that discovery disrupts everything in the present. Manuscripts, archives, and ancient documents take center stage, placing the characters in situations where the desire to know can become a charge. Juan Oñate, director of the European Association of Journalists, talks about literature and journalism.
“The Omen” takes up the myth of knowledge as punishment. Do you not prescribe Prometheus?
Knowledge is punishment. In this case, knowledge has dire consequences. Knowing the day you disappear is a punishment. It can cause complete chaos. Now, what happens is, while it’s true that the plot is great, everyone tries to intervene in its fate. And not necessarily for the common good.
In what sense?
I want to know the date of my destination, but I don’t want to tell anyone else. That would be perfect. But then there’s also the game of who wants to own that information and for what purpose, which is the second variable. It is no longer just about knowing the date of one’s death personally, but also about using sources that record the date of death of others. That is infinite power for everyone, in all fields, in politics, in the media.
If you talked about originals and replicas in your novel The Perugia Effect, now you’re back with another discovery.
I’m starting to realize that I’m a bit obsessed with truth and its interpretations. Because I believe that the climax of this novel has, in a sense, to do with Heisenberg’s principle: we do not know reality, but we know reality as exposed to our methods of interrogation. And that seems to be a bit of what’s going on in this novel as well. It seems to me that the analysis of the truth that each person makes is very meaningful, because each has its own vision, approaches the truth in a certain way, and already has different results.
In this novel, the monk, the historian, and the journalist have three ways of seeing the world.
Very present in the novel are the skepticism with which the historian approaches paranormal phenomena, the religious implications that the monk brings to his field and gives it, which of course is the object of his interest, and the journalist’s vision, the general interest that it evokes. The three looks looked very juicy to me. These two, if the monk is also added, are related to that temporal thread. Eternity is suitable for priests, the past is suitable for historians, and present, active or living is suitable for journalists.
You are a historian, journalist, and author. What is the appeal of a novel that is not found in an essay?
In fiction, I transpose the voices of the characters to allow for observations that I find interesting. I’m not saying they are definitive or axioms, but they seem to me to be excuses for allowing myself such considerations. And the same thing happens to me a little bit with journalism. I’m critical of the profession of journalism, and it seems like there are things going on that don’t satisfy me, and there’s a lot of polarization happening, both from politics and from journalism, and sometimes it seems like it’s a polarization that interests me, and I think it’s interesting to include that in the consideration within the novel.
Umberto Eco and Dan Brown, how can we add another twist?We live in this world of journalism, and whether we want it to or not, we can’t let it get out of our way. In a sense, I think that approach is correct, but I wish it was a little closer to Umberto Eco.
As of this writing, who is winning: the historian or the journalist?
When it comes to writing novels, I believe that historians are superior to journalists in the first place. Because one of the most enjoyable stages of writing a novel for me is research. But novels always require the will of a journalist. Because he is more alive. But the final reflection or final conclusion of someone who has all the information and has come to a conclusion, that of the historian, is a much more boring character, and the journalist character is much more fun than the normal historian character.
Are there real writers in the media? Do you do any maintenance? Will it encourage them?
For journalism and writers, the best thing that could have happened has been and is the best thing. Journalism today does not necessarily have a special linguistic quality. But when it comes to writers, it’s fun to read how they write things, even if they’re talking about a subject that doesn’t interest them at all. That’s the basics. And there are two sides. One is the side of journalists who want to get into writing and think that’s completely legitimate and normal. Another is the side of writers who prefer to approach journalism and give short, direct observations, and this greatly satisfies them. I believe it’s essential for it to continue to exist, but I actually don’t feel like it exists any more than it should. If I had a newspaper, I would put columns written by writers in it.
About The Author
