Blogs

The Soldiers of Salamis is a novel based loosely on real events, told by a narrator with the same name as our author, Javier Cercas. Whether it’s supposed to be him or that’s just an aspect of the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy of the story, I am not sure. The fiction/nonfiction story is divided into three parts— […] read full post >>

Soldiers of Salamis, Javier Cercas. I want to start by saying how much I enjoyed the title of the book, which I’m not sure if it makes a lot of sense with the story but I still like the way it sounds.  My thought about this book is that I enjoyed this week’s novel and […] read full post >>

I liked how this novel, although it was separated into 3 parts, tied together. Some of the other texts we’ve gone over throughout the semester have been confusing or difficult to put together due to uncertain timelines, memory rambling, or whatever it may be. This one seemed to stay on track for the most part. […] read full post >>

Javier Cercas’ “Soldiers of Salamis” was a gripping tale about the nature of ideology, truth, narrative, and the power these things can hold. Calling to mind the novel “W”, “Soldiers of Salamis” also features two distinct narratives in which the second is presented as being written by the protagonist of the first. The story surrounding […] read full post >>

 

I really enjoyed the concept of ‘Soldiers of Salamis’, by Javier Cercas. By far one of my favourite themes in the books we’ve read so far is the mix of real and imagination – I love when the authors take something real but add their own narratives to it. As we come to the end of the course, I’ve begun to realise this is probably my favourite part of the books we have read so far. ‘Soldiers of Salamis’ was no different. I enjoyed the fact that the way the story was written was fairly easy to read (at least to me), but still made you think.

Throughout the story though, I was wondering why the author decided on some falsehoods and not others. Some of his characters are real, others were not; some of the events happened and others did not. The dates and facts are made up in some instances completely. I wondered where he got his ideas, some of which are seemingly random. It was reminiscent to me of ‘Amulet’, where the story is based off of a real character but most of her life is entirely made up. Do the authors have meanings behind the changes the make, or in some cases are they just adding what they like? While I know there is often a larger meaning, I think it is interesting to remember that authors will also sometimes just add things to their writing for the sake of it; that they don’t even necessarily have to have a reason.

Building off of the mix of reality and imagination that Cercas uses in ‘Soldiers of Salamis’, it’s interesting to see the dichotomy of truth and invention. In the story, they are presented often as in stark contrast with each other, one good and one bad, which is almost ironic considering the fact that Cercas uses both of them to weave his story. In reality, while writing, he treats both his realities and his inventions the same; which is how the story of ‘Soldiers of Salamis’ is born. Along with this, we have to trust the narrator, however the narrator is also shown to lie, and after watching the lecture, we can also see that Cercas himself makes up a lot of lies for the story. Because of this, there’s an emotion of distrust present, which made me more critical of everything occurring in the story. This leads me to my question: what effect does an unreliable narrator have on you? Does the fact that the narrator lies sometimes affect how you read the story or do you simply take it as it comes?

P.S sorry there are no specific examples, I don’t have my book with me currently, so I’m just speaking about some of my thoughts from while I was reading the book!

read full post >>

 

I really enjoyed the concept of ‘Soldiers of Salamis’, by Javier Cercas. By far one of my favourite themes in the books we’ve read so far is the mix of real and imagination – I love when the authors take something real but add their own narratives to it. As we come to the end of the course, I’ve begun to realise this is probably my favourite part of the books we have read so far. ‘Soldiers of Salamis’ was no different. I enjoyed the fact that the way the story was written was fairly easy to read (at least to me), but still made you think.

Throughout the story though, I was wondering why the author decided on some falsehoods and not others. Some of his characters are real, others were not; some of the events happened and others did not. The dates and facts are made up in some instances completely. I wondered where he got his ideas, some of which are seemingly random. It was reminiscent to me of ‘Amulet’, where the story is based off of a real character but most of her life is entirely made up. Do the authors have meanings behind the changes the make, or in some cases are they just adding what they like? While I know there is often a larger meaning, I think it is interesting to remember that authors will also sometimes just add things to their writing for the sake of it; that they don’t even necessarily have to have a reason.

Building off of the mix of reality and imagination that Cercas uses in ‘Soldiers of Salamis’, it’s interesting to see the dichotomy of truth and invention. In the story, they are presented often as in stark contrast with each other, one good and one bad, which is almost ironic considering the fact that Cercas uses both of them to weave his story. In reality, while writing, he treats both his realities and his inventions the same; which is how the story of ‘Soldiers of Salamis’ is born. Along with this, we have to trust the narrator, however the narrator is also shown to lie, and after watching the lecture, we can also see that Cercas himself makes up a lot of lies for the story. Because of this, there’s an emotion of distrust present, which made me more critical of everything occurring in the story. This leads me to my question: what effect does an unreliable narrator have on you? Does the fact that the narrator lies sometimes affect how you read the story or do you simply take it as it comes?

P.S sorry there are no specific examples, I don’t have my book with me currently, so I’m just speaking about some of my thoughts from while I was reading the book!

read full post >>

I struggled for quite a while to get into Solders of Salamis. I’m not sure that I enjoyed it completely, but it did give me a lot to think about in relation to history and loyalty and writing. The Spanish Civil War is one that I haven’t studied very deeply. The little that I do […] 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 >>

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 >>