David Uclés and the dream of living in central Madrid: merit under scrutiny in Spain

David Uclés and the right to live in the city centre: merit under suspicion

A tweet from @Tamiroff claims that "this guy isn't even good enough for the Real Madrid first team". The message, which circulates with an attached image, sums up a controversy that has gone beyond the sporting realm and moved into the territory of residential aspirations and access to housing. The discussion quickly shifted to the figure of David Uclés, a writer born in the 1990s who, according to several messages, aspires to live in central Madrid. The conversation mixes mockery of his persona with a bitter analysis of who can afford a penthouse on the Gran Vía or an apartment overlooking the Plaza Mayor.

The core issue is not so much the original tweet as the reaction it provokes: that of those who believe Uclés represents an imposed narrative, that of a supposed representative of empty Spain (the depopulated rural areas of the country) who, in reality, wants to enjoy the pleasures of the urban centre. The discussion thus becomes a barometer of the tension between public discourse and private aspirations, and, along the way, a settling of scores with a certain cultural left.

The tweet that started it all and the "subser" target

The spark was a brief, almost telegraphic message questioning whether someone was good enough to play for the Real Madrid first team. The image accompanying it, of which no further details are given, served to identify the target of the criticism: David Uclés. From there, the conversation splits. Some ask where this character came from; others outright doubt that he exists as such and speculate that it might be a parody account, in the style of those that became famous on Twitter. The idea that it is all a performance hangs over the start of the exchange.

The label "subser" appears in a message expressing bewilderment: "First time I hear this subser speak. Where did this ........ come from". The sentence, though incomplete, reflects the feeling that Uclés is a recent, manufactured product, with no prior track record to back him up. That suspicion of fabrication is the first layer of the debate: before discussing his ideas, his authenticity is discussed.

The right to the Gran Vía and the Plaza Mayor: housing as a mirage

The conversation soon leaves the literary field and moves into the residential one. An ironic message poses the question: "Why do we accept being told that we can't all live with views of the Plaza Mayor?". The question, framed as a provocation, points to a deeper issue: housing in city centres has become a luxury good, and the aspiration to live there clashes with the reality of the market. The same message adds that "living in the Plaza Mayor is an inalienable right that Ayuso and the vulture funds have taken away from us", and suggests, also in a mocking tone, that voting for Podemos would allow access to an apartment, a dovecote or a doorway.

The irony does not hide a criticism: the feeling that access to housing has become a privilege reserved for a few, and that political promises on the matter are worthless. In this context, Uclés's aspiration to live in the centre is interpreted as an example of hypocrisy: those who go on about empty Spain then want the penthouse on the Gran Vía. The mockery becomes personal with the idea that Uclés could buy a penthouse if he "keeps sucking the right cocks", a vulgar expression we do not reproduce but which sums up the tone of part of the exchange.

The writer as a character: between parody and opportunism

As the conversation pogre, Uclés is portrayed more as a literary character than as an author. One message describes him as "a textbook attention whore, or a Telecinco one... more ANNOYING than a salesman's call at siesta time". The comparison with Gabriel Rufián, "to high politics", serves to place him in the realm of politics-as-spectacle. He is accused of repeating pogre clichés and addressing a generation that, according to the author of the message, should no longer have critical thinking.

The criticism sharpens with the idea that Uclés is an "organic JINTELLECTUAL manufactured by the regime", a teddy bear for the proge in moments of despair. The image of the writer born in the 1990s dressed up as a goatherd saying that the civil war "WE ALL SUFFERED IT" condenses the reproach: the appropriation of someone else's suffering to build a narrative. Against this view, another current argues that, precisely because he is a character, Uclés is a shrewd one: "Hick he plays and fool he pretends to be, because what he really is is CLEVER. Fools and hicks are the trinc of such an obvious, upstart, fake pastiche". The discussion thus becomes a judgement on authenticity and on who has the right to tell which stories.

The ending: aspiration as a symptom

The thread runs out without a clear conclusion, but it leaves a question hanging: is it legitimate for someone who presents himself as a representative of empty Spain to aspire to live in central Madrid? For many, the answer is that there is no contradiction: the desire to live in the centre is as human as any other. The contradiction lies in the narrative built around that desire. The last word goes to a message that sums up the general feeling: "He wants to live in the centre of attention". And there, perhaps, lies the key: more than the geographic centre, what is being discussed is the centre of the stage.