Dear Julio isn't aimed at literary scholars, who will no doubt continue to refer to the Alfaguara volumes. There's no Preface, no Introduction, no Note from the Translators, no Index, and only a handful of explanatory footnotes. This has advantages and disavantages. On the one hand, Cortázar himself was averse to pedantry and academic apparatus — though he could be a stickler when it came to the editing and publishing of his own work — and by eliminating all but a few notes the reader is free to relax and concentrate on enjoying brilliant letter-writing of a kind that, in an age of instant electronic communication, is unlikely to be revived soon.
The downside, unfortunately, is that many readers, especially in the English-speaking world, will be unfamiliar with the names of many of the recipients of the letters, as well as the names of people mentioned in passing (sometimes by only a first name). A case in point is that of the writer and translator Edith Aron (1923-2020), who, we read, was at the center of an awkward kerfuffle involving the German translations of several of Cortázar's works. Cortázar had given Aron his novel Los Premios (The Winners) to translate, but Aron apparently wasn't up to it. When her work was shown to several expert readers (at her own suggestion) it was unanimously deemed unacceptable, and the subsequent decision by Cortázar and his Argentine publisher to take her off the project led to considerable bitterness on her part. But there's more to the story, and without an explanatory note it's easy to miss. Cortázar writes to his publisher, Paco Porrúa:
I told Edith a long time ago in Paris that she wasn't qualified intellectually to translate Rayuela, and there ensued one of those scenes that's better left unsaid. I don't need to tell you who Edith is, do I? You'll have long figured it out. So can you imagine her translating Rayuela? She would make great intuitive decisions, but all that entails information (in the modern sense of the word) would be botched. In Rayuela, you'll recall, La Maga confused Thomas Aquinas with the other Thomas [the Apostle]. This would happen on every line...What Porrúa would have "long figured out" is that Edith Aron was the primary "inspiration" (to the extent that a character in a work of fiction can be said to be drawn from a model) for the character of La Maga, and Cortázar's somewhat condescending characterization of Aron as intuitive (i.e. feminine) but ill-informed and unintellectual fits La Maga to a T. Why Cortázar would have suggested that Aron translate Los premios in the first place if he didn't think she could handle Rayuela is another matter. A brief note identifying her would have been advisable.
The appealing vignette on the cover is doubly appropriate, because it's the work of the painter Zao Wu-Ki (1920-2013), whom Cortázar mentions admiringly several times, and because Cortázar highly approved of cats.



