It is evident that this particular short story written by Luisa Valenzuela vividly exemplifies the difference between conventional and experimental literature. First of all, as we know conventional or traditional literature is characterized by strict compositional structure which can not be violated. It was long accepted by many writers in classical period and is followed know outlined in Freytag’s Model.
There is no denying the importance of the fact that recent developments in literature paid more attention to experimental approach to literature avoiding strict schemata and such popular feature of traditional literature as climax or happy ending.
Valenzuela’s short story is to my mind is one of the most concrete examples of experimental approach to the literature. First of all, we see that its beginning is presented as a fact of the suicide committed by one man. The author didn’t give us any factual and historical account of events that preceded this tragic event. She even does not provide us with its reasons posteriori. The temporal continuum is considerably deviated from the traditional narration and is presented in symbolically estranged way.
It should be pointed that these assumptions on the possible motives of suicide are not presented in a manner peculiar to detective stories but rather are reflective phrases on the absurdity and tragic nature of suicide in general. In fact, the author does not provide us with adequate finale either. All this corresponds to the features peculiar to experimental literature. In particular it concerns giving more power to readers which is characteristic of experimental writers and is evident in this short-story. A read has to fill empty spaces and understand symbolical moves which are given to stimulate his imagination. It also leaves the space for multifaceted and abundant interpretations.