
Mario Vargas Llosa: The Man Who Broke From the Tribe
In one of the many interviews I had with Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, he said he hoped death would surprise him with a pen in his hand. I can't say whether that dream came true, but what is certain is that Llosa likely had little left to write—the world had already been captured in his books.
Mario Vargas Llosa (1936-2025) died on April 13 in Lima. And with him, one of the most lucid, courageous, and brilliant voices—not only of the Spanish language but of all humanity—has left us.
Llosa, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2010, will be remembered for many things. But I'll remember him for his courage above all else, which was exemplified by his defiance of the dominant trends of his time.
More Than a Novelist
Born in Arequipa in 1936 and raised in Cochabamba, Vargas Llosa had little chance of becoming one of the most important writers in the world. In his autobiographical work '
'Marito,' as he was called in his youth, began doing business with his writing at a very early age. He sold his first 'little novels' for cigarettes to his classmates. He also wrote love letters on commission for other cadets, and the money he earned allowed him to enjoy small pleasures on weekends.
Like many young people in Latin America during the post-war era, Mario Vargas Llosa found himself increasingly drawn to Marxist ideas. In his autobiography, the Peruvian writer describes how, while studying at San Marcos University—the first university founded in continental America and a breeding ground for Marxist movements in the South American nation—he joined discussion groups that viewed communism as the ultimate solution to the world's problems. He wrote:
Related Stories
4/30/2025
4/24/2025
'We were chatting in the courtyards of San Marcos ... and we talked about very serious things: the abuses of the dictatorship, the great ethical, political, economic, scientific, and cultural changes that were being forged over there in the USSR, or in that China of Mao Zedong that had been visited and about which that French writer — Claude Roy — had written so many wonders in Keys to China, a book we believed word for word.'
After several trips to Cuba, however, he came to understand the horror behind communism. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he did not turn a blind eye. He broke with the revolution and dared to say out loud what others only whispered in private: that there was no freedom on the island, that the regime persecuted dissidents, imprisoned homosexuals, and executed opponents.
Vargas Llosa was never just a novelist—and that was his power. He could build entire worlds through fiction, then turn around and write essays that cut to the core of human nature and political delusion. He understood power. He understood the tyranny of collectivism, which made him not merely a dissident, but a heretic in a literary world steeped in political orthodoxy and the romance of revolution.
He had once been seduced by the myth of Castro's Cuba. But he woke up—sharply, irrevocably—when reality revealed its face.
A Breaking Point
It was not an isolated event. Llosa clashed with García Márquez. He confronted Mario Benedetti. They called him a traitor, a bourgeois, a sellout to imperialism. All for the crime of rejecting totalitarianism.
While his old friends applauded Castro, Chávez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega, Vargas Llosa exposed them one by one. He denounced authoritarianism disguised as benevolent socialism, and the misery caused by planned economies full of bureaucrats and 'wealth redistribution.'
His ideological evolution was not opportunistic—as claimed by those who have never read Hayek or Popper—but deeply rational. Llosa understood that liberalism is not just another ideology, but the only system that guarantees respect for human dignity, private property, and freedom of thought. He made that clear in his essay '
In 'The Call of the Tribe,' Vargas Llosa skillfully explored the ideas of Adam Smith, Hayek, Popper, Berlin, Aron, Revel, and Ortega y Gasset. In them, he found the intellectual tools to build a coherent defense of the individual against the collectivist Leviathan. In that essay—perhaps one of his most important—he made it clear that liberalism is not a closed ideology, but an open doctrine, always ready for debate, criticism, and constant refinement.
Beyond expressing his political views in essays and weekly columns, his novels also explored (some might say exposed) human nature and the harsh realities of a region plagued by centralism, collectivism, poverty, and authoritarianism. In 'Conversation in the Cathedral,' he opens with a question: 'At what precise moment had Peru [expletive] itself up?' In 'The Feast of the Goat,' he takes us to the Dominican Republic to tell the story of dictator Rafael Leonidas Trujillo—a work that could easily describe many of the dictatorships in Latin America, where some men play at being gods and end up becoming demons.
For these reasons, Vargas Llosa distanced himself from the Latin American Boom—a literary movement that flourished in the 1960s and 1970s and included fellow Nobel laureate Gabriel García Márquez, Argentina's Julio Cortázar, and Mexico's Carlos Fuentes. He broke away from this literary elite, which, despite earning international acclaim and awards, often justified the executions ordered by Castro and Che Guevara, as well as the regimes that followed in their wake. The Peruvian writer chose to be a free man rather than an ornamental intellectual. He opted to focus on the people oppressed by the state, not the oppressors with their 'inclusive' rhetoric. He decided to write from a place of truth, not propaganda.
A Giant on a 'Fragile Good'
Mario Vargas Llosa died as what he truly was: a great man—free, honest, morally unblemished, and proudly reborn as a classical liberal without complexes. He was a moral giant in an age of ideological dwarfs.
What remains is his work, his example, and the urgent task of continuing the battle he never abandoned. Because as Vargas Llosa himself said: 'Freedom is a fragile good that only prospers if it is defended every day.'
Today, more than ever, we must defend it.
From the
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
White House lobbying for a Nobel prize for Trump takes a farcical turn
Donald Trump's desperate and yearslong desire for a Nobel prize is well documented. In fact, after his defeat in 2020, the Republican president released a weird, campaign-style video that suggested he'd already received a Nobel prize. But as pitiful as this has become, Trump isn't lobbying by himself. Congressional Republicans have tried to please the president by nominating Trump for a Nobel prize, and foreign leaders eager to curry favor with the American leader have done the same thing. And then, of course, there's the White House. The Hill reported: White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said Thursday that President Trump deserves a Nobel Prize for his commitment to 'restructuring' global trade rates. 'I'm thinking that since he's basically taught the world trade economics, he might be up for the Nobel on economics...,' Navarro said during an appearance on Fox Business Network. He didn't appear to be kidding. Just so we're all clear, when economists receive Nobel prizes, it's because of their academic work and the impressiveness of their scholarship. Navarro seemed to suggest that the president should get the same honor for imposing trade tariffs — which as University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers explained, Trump appears to have settled on by 'scribbling numbers with a Sharpie.' Roughly six hours later, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, reading from prepared notes, told reporters that Trump 'has brokered on average about one peace deal or ceasefire per month during his six months in office.' She added, 'It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.' She seemed to overlook Trump's vow to end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza — a promise he apparently doesn't know how to keep. Nevertheless, to recap, the White House called for the president to receive one Nobel prize in the morning and a different Nobel prize in the afternoon. But why stop there? Every year, the Nobel committee awards a prize for medicine — and Trump has presented some groundbreaking ideas about injecting disinfectants into people. Sure, the medical 'establishment' frowns on these sorts of treatments, but that's all the more reason to reward the president's 'outside the box' creativity. There's also a Nobel Prize in literature that could theoretically go to Trump. Has the Nobel committee seen his weird letters to foreign leaders? How about his hysterical tweets filled with misspellings, weird capitalization and enough exclamation points to make an ill-tempered tween blush? Or maybe everyone involved can just cut to the chase and simply rename Nobel prizes and agree to call them 'Trump Prizes'? Given recent events, it seems inevitable that some GOP lawmaker will introduce a resolution along those lines sometime soon. This article was originally published on

18 hours ago
Appeals court upholds restrictions on Los Angeles immigration arrests
An appeals court upheld a lower court's order to temporarily block federal immigration agents from conducting immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. In the ruling on Friday night, the ninth circuit court of appeals agreed with a federal judge that immigration agents cannot use race, ethnicity or other factors, including speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop people. 'We agree with the district court that, in the context of the Central District of California, the four enumerated factors at issue -- apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location and type of work, even when considered together -- describe only a broad profile and do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,' the three judge panel said. The appeals court found that the Trump administration did not dispute in filings that definitive stops in Los Angeles have occurred based on the factors and did not dispute the district court's conclusion that the reliance on them 'does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion.' The judges concluded that plaintiffs 'are likely to succeed' in showing that the Trump administration stopped and detained people based on their race, place of work and language. Last month, immigrant advocacy groups filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps in Los Angeles. A hearing in the case is scheduled for September.


CNBC
19 hours ago
- CNBC
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. "If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guard and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!" They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. "It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. "Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. "No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status." She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents.