Reading Javier Cercas’ Soldiers of Salamis felt like playing a game of two truths and a lie. On the very first page, the narrator starts off with stating three things that have happened to him, however, he later reveals that he’s lying as only “the first two are factual” (3). The question of whether the novel is […]
This novel has so many areas that can be explored. From memory, to morality, to information, to accuracy and the nature of fiction and literature! I really enjoyed this read. Particularly the first and third sections. I found the second section to be a bit dry – though it was intriguing to know more of […]
In the books we’ve been reading there has been a recurring theme of distrust in the information being presented. This distrust could be due to faulty memories, trauma, or merely the truth changing over the years after being told and retold. This book was no different, its a fiction that almost didn’t feel like fiction. All three parts of the book were enjoyable in different ways, with the last part being my favorite. We start reading about an unhappy journalist who has a writer inside him waiting to be unleashed. He tried to become the writer he wanted to be and even published books that people actually read, he didn’t see himself as a real writer. Every time he came across someone who mentioned his books, he’d make a joke that they were the only person who bought his books. The narrator then decides that if he were to write another novel, it would be a ‘true tale’ and he went on pursuing the facts. I was rooting for him. Even though I was not too excited about the topic of his novel. Why this seemingly insignificant moment about an unheroic fascist?
When the second part of the book came along, I wasn’t too excited. Did I really want to read about Mazas? It was still interesting, as war stories often are. The best part about it was perhaps the very end. When we see Mazas amounting to nothing. He did not succeed at being a politician nor the best writer he could be. I think the best description of him is – unheroic.
The third part was my favorite. The conversations with Balano were great and were especially enjoyable after having read Amulet last week. Talking to Balano led him to get in touch with the most important person he’d interviewed the whole time. He had to make a ridiculous amount of phone calls to meet him but he was the part of his story that had been missing. He was the missing piece of the puzzle. He was the person who gave him more clarity and helped him envision the novel he always wanted. He was the hero. My question to you is: in the novel, three people shared their thoughts on what it means to be a hero. What is your definition of a hero?
In the books we’ve been reading there has been a recurring theme of distrust in the information being presented. This distrust could be due to faulty memories, trauma, or merely the truth changing over the years after being told and retold. This book was no different, its a fiction that almost didn’t feel like fiction. All three parts of the book were enjoyable in different ways, with the last part being my favorite. We start reading about an unhappy journalist who has a writer inside him waiting to be unleashed. He tried to become the writer he wanted to be and even published books that people actually read, he didn’t see himself as a real writer. Every time he came across someone who mentioned his books, he’d make a joke that they were the only person who bought his books. The narrator then decides that if he were to write another novel, it would be a ‘true tale’ and he went on pursuing the facts. I was rooting for him. Even though I was not too excited about the topic of his novel. Why this seemingly insignificant moment about an unheroic fascist?
When the second part of the book came along, I wasn’t too excited. Did I really want to read about Mazas? It was still interesting, as war stories often are. The best part about it was perhaps the very end. When we see Mazas amounting to nothing. He did not succeed at being a politician nor the best writer he could be. I think the best description of him is – unheroic.
The third part was my favorite. The conversations with Balano were great and were especially enjoyable after having read Amulet last week. Talking to Balano led him to get in touch with the most important person he’d interviewed the whole time. He had to make a ridiculous amount of phone calls to meet him but he was the part of his story that had been missing. He was the missing piece of the puzzle. He was the person who gave him more clarity and helped him envision the novel he always wanted. He was the hero. My question to you is: in the novel, three people shared their thoughts on what it means to be a hero. What is your definition of a hero?
I would say my engagement with this novel fluctuated. As the fictional Cercas states to Bolano (fun little cameo by the way), “It’s a story with real events and characters. A true tale” (192), though the lecture video renders it clear that this novel is definitely partly fictionalised. The parts I found the most engaging […]
Javier Cercas’ Soldiers of Salamis is a novel set after the Spanish Civil War, where the narrator is attempting to understand the story of one soldier. The story focuses on a political prisoner, I believe, at the time and how they escape from a firing squad. I had found interesting in the novel the topic […]
This novel confused me from the moment I read its title. Mainly because I couldn’t see the link between Dictatorship-era Spain and the actual Battle of Salamis. I still can’t, to be honest. The Battle of Salamis was a naval battle between the Persians and the Greeks like 2500 years ago. When I look it up to try and find an answer to my question, all I get is that it’s a “metaphorical allusion”. If anyone has any ideas as to why the title of the novel is what it is, please let me know.
Otherwise, I really enjoy the blend of fact and fiction, though I often have to remind myself that it isn’t meant to be taken literally; kind of like when I watch a biopic and then find out later that lots of the movie was just dramatised and doesn’t actually reflect reality. I find the unreliable narrator more likeable in this novel than others we have read with unreliable narrators (such as W, Or The Memory Of Childhood). Maybe because the narrative voice feels stronger here, I’m not sure. Either way, the process of reading this book felt like I was actively trying to suss out the reality from the fabricated, which made me feel like a more active participant in the telling of the story.
I found some of the political takes to be quite interesting. A line that piqued my interest was ‘I don’t know what you think, sir, but to me a civilised country is one where people don’t have to waste their time on politics.’ (p21 of my pdf). This line made me think about the scope of politics and what exactly it means. My guess is that Aguirre (the guy who said the line) was talking more about political parties and who is in government, to which I don’t entirely disagree. But politics isn’t just that, it permeates every level of our society. I guess the statement also depends on who we are counting as “people”. If “people” means everyone who has historically been able to turn a blind eye to the reality of the politics around them in society, that is leaving out a huge chunk of the population. I don’t know, truthfully my thoughts on this sentence are still a little half-baked and I need to think through all of the possible scenarios and combinations before I can claim to understand my own opinion and where I stand.
With all that said, my question to you is: do you think a civilised country is one where people don’t waste their time with politics? Do you agree with Aguirre?
Bonus question: do you know why the title is Soldiers of Salamis?
This novel confused me from the moment I read its title. Mainly because I couldn’t see the link between Dictatorship-era Spain and the actual Battle of Salamis. I still can’t, to be honest. The Battle of Salamis was a naval battle between the Persians and the Greeks like 2500 years ago. When I look it up to try and find an answer to my question, all I get is that it’s a “metaphorical allusion”. If anyone has any ideas as to why the title of the novel is what it is, please let me know.
Otherwise, I really enjoy the blend of fact and fiction, though I often have to remind myself that it isn’t meant to be taken literally; kind of like when I watch a biopic and then find out later that lots of the movie was just dramatised and doesn’t actually reflect reality. I find the unreliable narrator more likeable in this novel than others we have read with unreliable narrators (such as W, Or The Memory Of Childhood). Maybe because the narrative voice feels stronger here, I’m not sure. Either way, the process of reading this book felt like I was actively trying to suss out the reality from the fabricated, which made me feel like a more active participant in the telling of the story.
I found some of the political takes to be quite interesting. A line that piqued my interest was ‘I don’t know what you think, sir, but to me a civilised country is one where people don’t have to waste their time on politics.’ (p21 of my pdf). This line made me think about the scope of politics and what exactly it means. My guess is that Aguirre (the guy who said the line) was talking more about political parties and who is in government, to which I don’t entirely disagree. But politics isn’t just that, it permeates every level of our society. I guess the statement also depends on who we are counting as “people”. If “people” means everyone who has historically been able to turn a blind eye to the reality of the politics around them in society, that is leaving out a huge chunk of the population. I don’t know, truthfully my thoughts on this sentence are still a little half-baked and I need to think through all of the possible scenarios and combinations before I can claim to understand my own opinion and where I stand.
With all that said, my question to you is: do you think a civilised country is one where people don’t waste their time with politics? Do you agree with Aguirre?
Bonus question: do you know why the title is Soldiers of Salamis?
“This is going to be a horror story. A story of murder, detection and horror. But it won’t appear to be, for the simple reason that I am the teller.”
Bolaño’s Amulet is a powerful read, to say the least. The introduction (as quoted above) is poignant enough to captivate a reader and make them ponder about perspective. Personally, those lines developed a stream of consciousness in my mind that began to wonder about how war and revolution always have multiple sides to them, whether it may be the perspective of a civilian, an activist, a politician, or a child.
Auxilio Lacouture played more than one role in her life – she was a poet and a mother to many. Moreover, she symbolically resisted the army’s invasion of her university by hiding in the bathroom for around two weeks. As she began to recount her story, the introduction of the book became clearer than ever. I forgot about her situation and the horrors that she would have experienced. This was kind of unsettling to realize but also interesting because the narrator’s intended purpose was achieved.
I suppose that this was somewhat unsettling for me to read, especially because I could not get a proper idea of Auxilio at the moment. She came across as a very powerful personality who knew what she needed to do in any situation. This was exemplified by the distraction that she provided herself with for the two weeks she spent in hiding.
Additionally, I believe that the lecture helped provide a new understanding of the setting of the book. The intersection of identities (cultural and otherwise) expresses how the consequences of revolutions extend beyond just the locals of a country. Moreover, one of the points mentioned in the lecture really stood out to me – how this novel by the author is a clear break from the magical realism that Latin America is usually associated with.
Overall, I found Amulet to be an introspective read. I enjoyed the unique setting that it was placed in. Lastly, my question for the class would be: did you think that the narrations of Auxilio’s past served as a powerful distraction from the events in the book? How do you think this experience would have impacted her (physically and emotionally)?
“This is going to be a horror story. A story of murder, detection and horror. But it won’t appear to be, for the simple reason that I am the teller.”
Bolaño’s Amulet is a powerful read, to say the least. The introduction (as quoted above) is poignant enough to captivate a reader and make them ponder about perspective. Personally, those lines developed a stream of consciousness in my mind that began to wonder about how war and revolution always have multiple sides to them, whether it may be the perspective of a civilian, an activist, a politician, or a child.
Auxilio Lacouture played more than one role in her life – she was a poet and a mother to many. Moreover, she symbolically resisted the army’s invasion of her university by hiding in the bathroom for around two weeks. As she began to recount her story, the introduction of the book became clearer than ever. I forgot about her situation and the horrors that she would have experienced. This was kind of unsettling to realize but also interesting because the narrator’s intended purpose was achieved.
I suppose that this was somewhat unsettling for me to read, especially because I could not get a proper idea of Auxilio at the moment. She came across as a very powerful personality who knew what she needed to do in any situation. This was exemplified by the distraction that she provided herself with for the two weeks she spent in hiding.
Additionally, I believe that the lecture helped provide a new understanding of the setting of the book. The intersection of identities (cultural and otherwise) expresses how the consequences of revolutions extend beyond just the locals of a country. Moreover, one of the points mentioned in the lecture really stood out to me – how this novel by the author is a clear break from the magical realism that Latin America is usually associated with.
Overall, I found Amulet to be an introspective read. I enjoyed the unique setting that it was placed in. Lastly, my question for the class would be: did you think that the narrations of Auxilio’s past served as a powerful distraction from the events in the book? How do you think this experience would have impacted her (physically and emotionally)?
