[dragonwriter]

It claims the suppression was “specifically” by the CIA, and the first example of this suppression by the CIA it gives is the publication delay, ascribed to actions of a group, which it ties into the thesis by saying was later identified as a CIA front group.

[the_af]

I assume you mean this paragraph from TFA:

> But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA.

I think it's clumsily worded. There was suppression of the novel and the author was exiled (the novel was self-published in Mexico in 1946, out of the author's own pockets). Guatemala's dictatorship was behind this and the US helped them. But the international discrediting of the author was orchestrated by the CIA through a front, and this took place many years after.

So "this" suppression that the CIA aided is not just 1946 -- that's poorly worded -- but in the ensuing years, after the CIA was already formed.

[jjk166]

No, in context "this suppression" is clearly referring to the disruption of the novel's genesis and the sending of its author into exile performed by the dictators in that period prior to 1946. The dictators are the censors and exilers being referenced in the next sentence.

It would have been easy to say that those actions were part of a broader suppression, or even just aiding in suppression with no qualifier, but specifying "this" makes it unambiguous that they are still talking about the same thing.

[the_af]

I think if you take the full article as context, where they mention specific incidents in the 50's onwards, the context is not the period prior to 1946. I think it's just this specific paragraph that's clumsily worded.

[jjk166]

No, it is very clear even with the full context that at this point in the article they are referring to the delay of the book being published. The very next sentence states that there were multiple such examples of suppression over his career, indicating that "this act" was a specific one in a sequence of many.

[Convolutional]

The act is the act of suppression, which they were involved in. They did not participate in the delay portion of the suppression, nor does it say they did.

[jjk166]

It's not "the act" it's "this act" which they were not involved in. The article says they were involved in the delay, which is innaccurate. They may not have meant to say that, but that's what it says.

[the_af]

I think that "this act" is poor editing. You cannot ignore the rest of the article.

[jjk166]

Okay, well the article as written and interpreted using conventional english is inaccurate. Maybe what they meant to say would have been accurate.