Student Blogs

For this week’s blog post, I read Soldiers of Salamis by Javier Cercas. I have been enjoying the theme of civil war that we have been seeing in a few of these readings. They have been teaching me a lot about history and different world conflicts. When I heard that this book was declared “a work of fiction” “where real-life historical figures and public figures appear” from the lecture, I thought of The Old Gringo because Fuentes used the real Ambrose Bierce’s point of view although the story was fiction as well. I like how we are now able to relate what we are reading to our previous course texts and notice what patterns are being repeated. I found it surprising to see Bolano’s name in the third part since reading Amulet last week, but also interesting that we are starting to see past authors' connections in different works.

It was interesting how Cercas, used these embedded narratives to reveal Mazas’s story. Each part functioned to reveal more but was dependent on each person’s experience and memory. The book follows the story of a fictional version of Cercas becoming interested in the story of Rafael Sánchez Mazas. He uncovers the story of how Mazas fled his death from the republican firing squad in part one. Then part two tells the biography of Rafael Sánchez Mazas’s life before the events of his capture and escape. Finally, in the third part, it goes back to the fictional Cercas after he finishes his book, but feels like there is a narrative that is missing so he tries to find the one who let Mazas go. He then meets Miralles who is never confirmed to be the one who freed Mazas, although Cercas is sure he is. 

There are definitely some parts in this novel where the reader has to put together some of their own connections. We have come across unreliable narrators before in previous readings, but the fact that the narrator himself didn’t have the full story made it even more questionable. While the other readings had an unreliable narrator because of trauma or the character’s personality, in Soldiers of Salamis, Cercas had to rely on the retellings of other people’s versions to put together what he believed to be fact. 

My question for the class is: How do different perspectives and the way we remember things alter the retelling of stories that are passed down?

read full post >>

For this week’s blog post, I read Soldiers of Salamis by Javier Cercas. I have been enjoying the theme of civil war that we have been seeing in a few of these readings. They have been teaching me a lot about history and different world conflicts. When I heard that this book was declared “a work of fiction” “where real-life historical figures and public figures appear” from the lecture, I thought of The Old Gringo because Fuentes used the real Ambrose Bierce’s point of view although the story was fiction as well. I like how we are now able to relate what we are reading to our previous course texts and notice what patterns are being repeated. I found it surprising to see Bolano’s name in the third part since reading Amulet last week, but also interesting that we are starting to see past authors' connections in different works.

It was interesting how Cercas, used these embedded narratives to reveal Mazas’s story. Each part functioned to reveal more but was dependent on each person’s experience and memory. The book follows the story of a fictional version of Cercas becoming interested in the story of Rafael Sánchez Mazas. He uncovers the story of how Mazas fled his death from the republican firing squad in part one. Then part two tells the biography of Rafael Sánchez Mazas’s life before the events of his capture and escape. Finally, in the third part, it goes back to the fictional Cercas after he finishes his book, but feels like there is a narrative that is missing so he tries to find the one who let Mazas go. He then meets Miralles who is never confirmed to be the one who freed Mazas, although Cercas is sure he is. 

There are definitely some parts in this novel where the reader has to put together some of their own connections. We have come across unreliable narrators before in previous readings, but the fact that the narrator himself didn’t have the full story made it even more questionable. While the other readings had an unreliable narrator because of trauma or the character’s personality, in Soldiers of Salamis, Cercas had to rely on the retellings of other people’s versions to put together what he believed to be fact. 

My question for the class is: How do different perspectives and the way we remember things alter the retelling of stories that are passed down?

read full post >>

This week's reading, Soldiers of Salamis by Javier Cercas, was a long but entertaining read. The three parts and the switch between fact and fiction made it stand out from the previous novels we have read. 

The fictional Cercas describes his growing fascination with the story in the first part when he learns about the night Sánchez Mazas is to be executed in the forest, and the Republican soldier who hunts for him amongst the trees finds in him yet turns away and lets him live. The second part tells the story of Mazas before his capture and intended execution. The third part is more fiction, where the journalist Cercas is determined to seek out the Republican solider who let Sánchez Mazas go free. These three parts and the switch between fact and fiction, although confusing, made me an attentive reader and helped me remain interested through this long read.

This book had a lot to do with history and took place during the Spanish Civil war. I don't read many books about war or know much history about the context of this book, so all the content was new. Still, with the book switching between fact and fiction, it had me at parts confused or searching things up to put them in the proper context of the book. However, after reading books that are so different from what I normally read during this class, I have been made more open as a reader and it has also become a learning experience.

Getting closer to the end of this term, it's hard not to create connections with the past readings. It was interesting to see Bolano make an appearance in the last section of the book, it definitely made reading his name more interesting after reading Amulet last week. Also, memory again was a huge theme in this novel and is a theme that has been brought to attention in most of the books we have read so far. From coming across this theme of memory quite a lot this term, it is interesting to compare and contrast how each author interprets memory in the novels. For W., we are told the memory of childhood can go on affecting life. For Amulet, we are shown the memories of how a single instance of trauma can affect memory and the future. Then in Soldiers of Salamis, we are seeing how memories can be formed by other people’s recollections.

My question for the class is: How do you think the authors in our previous readings interpret memory in comparison to Cercas?

read full post >>

This week's reading, Soldiers of Salamis by Javier Cercas, was a long but entertaining read. The three parts and the switch between fact and fiction made it stand out from the previous novels we have read. 

The fictional Cercas describes his growing fascination with the story in the first part when he learns about the night Sánchez Mazas is to be executed in the forest, and the Republican soldier who hunts for him amongst the trees finds in him yet turns away and lets him live. The second part tells the story of Mazas before his capture and intended execution. The third part is more fiction, where the journalist Cercas is determined to seek out the Republican solider who let Sánchez Mazas go free. These three parts and the switch between fact and fiction, although confusing, made me an attentive reader and helped me remain interested through this long read.

This book had a lot to do with history and took place during the Spanish Civil war. I don't read many books about war or know much history about the context of this book, so all the content was new. Still, with the book switching between fact and fiction, it had me at parts confused or searching things up to put them in the proper context of the book. However, after reading books that are so different from what I normally read during this class, I have been made more open as a reader and it has also become a learning experience.

Getting closer to the end of this term, it's hard not to create connections with the past readings. It was interesting to see Bolano make an appearance in the last section of the book, it definitely made reading his name more interesting after reading Amulet last week. Also, memory again was a huge theme in this novel and is a theme that has been brought to attention in most of the books we have read so far. From coming across this theme of memory quite a lot this term, it is interesting to compare and contrast how each author interprets memory in the novels. For W., we are told the memory of childhood can go on affecting life. For Amulet, we are shown the memories of how a single instance of trauma can affect memory and the future. Then in Soldiers of Salamis, we are seeing how memories can be formed by other people’s recollections.

My question for the class is: How do you think the authors in our previous readings interpret memory in comparison to Cercas?

read full post >>

It definitely would’ve been to my advantage to know more about history and especially Spanish history to follow this book better. When I’m reading about historical events and names my eyes tend to glaze over and I find myself finishing a page of the book without retaining anything that was written on it. That being […] read full post >>

Javier Cercas’ novel Soldiers of Salamis to me raised some of the most interesting questions of all the novel that we have read so far. Specifically I think through this work of part investigative journalism part prose fiction Cercas ask … Continue reading → read full post >>

Coming from East Asia, I didn’t know much about the Spanish Civil War beforehand, but after reading the book I got a decent level of understanding of the historical event from the information provided in the novel and through my own research. I find the quote “[The Nationalist side] had won the war but lost […] read full post >>

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 […] read full post >>

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 […] read full post >>

read full post >>

read full post >>

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 […] read full post >>

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 […] read full post >>

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?

read full post >>

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?

read full post >>