A few days ago, the new French Interior Minister, Bruno Retailleau, joined the so-called "migratory confusion", one of the most pressing issues. It has provided the prefects of the State with clear mandates: zero tolerance towards immigrants and structures and prisoners who show ties or accomplices in their eyes. That they retain the ordrea in France, an authoritarian discipline, with the support of the “internal security forces” – that is, the police institution. It is time for the authorities to assume the segregation of the migrants, although Xalbador 50 years ago reminded us that “if man is without reproach,/the road should be free to go wherever he wants” (To those who have been lost in the mountain). The violent and unceasing speeches of the great politicians coincide with the wind blowing from the far right and accentuating the general climate of threat and fear.

Fortunately, the protection of the family is there, privileged, to protect us, even though an outrageous word could at any time break the sweetness of our intimacy. I especially remember that two weeks ago, in the burial of my grandmother, who had reached the age of 100, as the relatives needed consolation, the cure told us that for us “and for many” salvation, and not for us, as I heard as a child, “and for all”. This liturgical change is justified by the strict translators of the Bible, and it has to be understood that “much” and “everything” is not so different, but nevertheless, how can we not associate that change with the cleaning talk that dominates around it? Xalbador, for his part, wrote that “Jesus died on a cross for all of us.”

Fortunately, we have here, in our environment, popular culture, to collectively reflect on what is beyond us. Although in our spectacular places too, a general smoothness is being imposed without large funds, as Peio Berterriz recently explained in his Master's Office.

Fortunately, on the other hand, and above all, art, which as a religion, is able to illuminate the path of general darkness: Was not the Miñan Theatre, offered by Artedram on October 18, an image of speaker and entrepreneur? There are those who say that we should not give transcendent measures to the work of art. Pierre Bourdieu has written that “liturgical readings” should no longer be made, and Roland Barthes said that literature is “what is taught and done”. In this sense, many have explained that the didactics of literature should be left with the responsibility of explaining what literature is, because literature has nothing to do with the sacred: it could only be an object, scientifically dissectable. The truth is, I don't want what I teach profane, based on several serious and complex theories, to be the mental tail of literature. In fact, I usually start and finish the courses by telling the students that what I'm going to tell you and what I've told you have to put it in the background, in the organization of their brain, and that they have to prioritize, just in case, the agitations, the releasing bells or the knots that good literature is going to produce in its deepest interior.

When I was 23 years old, I was taught the characteristics of 19th-century French romanticism, when I was on the corners of Paris, a teenager told me: “You know, Mrs. Victor Hugo and the romanticism are of your time. We are no longer like that.”

Maybe I have a 19th-century view, because I see in literature and, in general, in art our path of salvation. If it is modern and literature is considered an object, it could be considered a bellows, which could spark not many, but all.