- Do we empathize with the criminals? With some more than others? Why, or why not?
- Do we find ourselves rooting for the criminals, or for the police? Or for neither?
- What is the role of the reporter, Renzi, in the story?
- What is the role of gender in this story: either the women characters or the men and their sense of masculinity?
- What is the role of sexuality in this story, and what do we make of the relationship between Dorda and Kid Bignone?
- What is the role of memory in this story: both memories of the events, and memories (e.g. Dorda’s) that are told while the events take place?
- What is the role of technology (cars, phones, machine guns, microphones…) or the media (TV, the press…) in this story?
- Why is the burning of the money so scandalous? Why is it described as “a kind of innocent potlatch” (159)?
- How does Piglia create a sense of verisimilitude or realism?
- Why does the narrator say that this story is “the Argentine version of a Greek tragedy” (208)? Do you agree?
The following questions are taken from your blog posts…
Did you empathize with the gang? If you did, what did you feel when we got little details about the officials that got killed by our main characters? Did it make you feel conflicted?
What do you think happened to Malito? Which of the speculated endings for him is the most plausible?
The characters
What did you all think of the relationship between The Kid and The Gaucho? Did it make you feel more sympathy for them or change your view of them individually?
Where the hell is Malito? Is he a Traitor?
To what extent are we supposed to be understanding and empathize with him but at the same time not justify his actions?
did you find the gangsters to be likeable or did you think they were purely bad?
Knowing the criminals’ history makes you more sympathetic to who they became, or if you believe people’s experiences and history are not an excuse for their actions?
Did learning about Dorda’s inner thoughts make you feel more sympathetic towards him, or make him seem more unsettling?
Do we think that Dordo’s role in the crime would be treated differently if it was committed at a different time and location?
Why do you think the Kid “embarked on a path of crime (pg. 74)” despite his wealthy parents and privileged upbringing? Do you think it had to do with an adolescent’s tendency for rebellion or adrenaline? Or perhaps he was rebelling against the expectations placed on him by his family and society?
Did you empathize with any of the characters at the end of the book?
Did you find yourself conflicted about empathizing with the characters? Could you see yourself in any of them?
Do you think that these guys were entirely bad?
How does the relationship between the Kid and Dorda change the way we see them as criminals? Does their bond make them more sympathetic?
How do you feel about the characters in this book?
Did some of you actually find the characters redeeming?
Would you have viewed their actions differently if Piglia had made the characters have remorse for those they killed?
How does the novel’s ambiguous portrayal of truth impact your comprehension of the characters’ motivations?
What do you think happened to Malito? in the epilogue they mention different possible endings- do you believe one of them or believe something else entirely?
How did you feel about the characters? Would you want them to get a diffrent ending, even after all the terrible things they did?
Which relationship had the greatest impact on you when reading? Or alternatively, which dynamic seemed the most complicated to you?
Did you have a favourite character in this novel or someone you strongly hated? If so, who?
What was your favourite character and why?
Did you feel sympathy for the robbers after reading or not so much? Did your opinions change at all from right after the robbery to the end of the book?
Can we call these characters tragic heroes, or is my interpretation a stretch?
Do you think it is appropriate to adjust the level of glamour in a character and to what extent should they be seen as complex entities rather then perfect beings we would always root for? Or does not having someone to root for ruin the book for you?
Where did the Kid and the Gaucho’s hate for the police come from? (There doesn’t seem to be one answer, which I like).
This book shows the criminals in a very human light, but can their actions be justified?
Did you empathize with the characters or would you hate them for their criminal acts? Why?
Is Dorda an intrinsically bad person, or was he made to be this way by his environment and the psychological conditions over which he has no control?
Women
What are your opinions on the women in the novel? Do you think they were as complex as the heist members?
What are your thoughts on how women in the story are depicted?
Reflecting on the portrayal of women in « Money to Burn » and its critique of the 1960s societal norms, how do you see this theme echoing in today’s society? Have we moved the needle, or are we stuck in a loop?
The epigraph
The epigraph of the novel wrote “After all, what is robbing a bank compared to founding one?- Bertolt Brecht “ I believe the novel suggests that society’ has double standards about crimes. What do you think about this quote and its relationship with the novel, why is one a crime but not the other?
The money
How did you feel about their act of burning money? How did it affect your perception of their crimes?
What do you think the quote “After all, what is robbing a bank compared to founding one?” means?
Can we imagine a life outside capitalism anymore? and what would it look like?
What are your thoughts on the climax: the money burning, and how did it tie into the entire narrative of that act being “evil to the core”.
Do you think the gang burning the money was an act of rebellion against the system, or was it simply the final sign that everything had spiraled out of control?
In what scenarios do things have an inherent or “real” value. Are things not valued solely by the importance which humans and society put in them, or do some things have this inherent value?
Did the book change how you view the role of money and capitalism in society?
What do you think this story is trying to convey beyond the critique of economic power? Based on this message, can you think of any changes that would improve the conveyance of this (and any other existing) message?
What other way could the robbers have chosen to deliver a message? Do you think the burning of money communicated what the robbers wanted to say?
Money isn’t just at the center of this novel, it’s a necessity for us to survive in the society. Often, money is associated with more negative terms. So what does money mean to you?
When did we as a society start prioritizing money over the value of a human life? And what should truly be held more in value: money or morals? And how do you interpret the meaning of money in this novel?
Why is burning money so taboo? Why have we, as a society, deemed paper more valuable than human lives? Why is it then that the crowd is furious?
How easy do you think it was for the criminals to burn something they stole? If you were in their position, would you have been able to make the same decision? What would you have used the money for?
Do you think they burnt the money as a form of rebellion against society or because they are simply just crazy?
Do you agree that with an infinite amount of money, there is no crisis for an individual?
What did you think the burning of the money symbolized? Can be general, or for a specific character.
What are your thoughts on the symbolism associated with the burning of the money? How might it have changed your perception of the characters?
If they did not steal for the money, then why did they do it? Why did they go through all of this?
The ending of the book involves the burning of all the stolen money. What do you think this act symbolizes?
Government involvement and corruption
Do we think that all of the inside contacts within the police and border security etc that were involved in the robbery will face any consequences? If not, why?
What is your perspective on the topic of criminality being a systemic problem? Did this book evoke the same thoughts for you?
The narrative
Did you enjoy the fictional or the true parts more? Did you feel they blended together well or did they contrast each other in their message?
If Money to Burn presents itself as a “true story” but clearly changes or invents details, does that make the novel less trustworthy or does it actually make its ideas about truth more interesting?
Do you think Piglia’s use of multiple perspectives (police reports, witnesses, newspapers, etc.) makes the story feel more realistic, or does it make the story harder to connect with emotionally?
Would you have rather seen a different perspective of the events in the book and if so, whose?
What was the “initial” thought on this book? I am asking about the impression of this book. What did you feel right after finished reading this book?
What did you like the most or the least about this story?
What are your thoughts on how Piglia makes use of fiction to tell a true story?
How much do you all think that embellishment of stories effects the truthfulness of the story being told. How much is too much and is there sweet spot?
What effect did the structure of this book have on your experience with it?
Why do you think Piglia chose to include the money-burning scene when it is not confirmed that it occurred?
How does Piglia use language and narrative structure to create suspense and tension throughout the novel? What effect does this have on the reader’s experience?
What relationship does our culture have with stories in literature, the news, or social media, in your opinion?
Why did Piglia go from the robbers, to the witnesses, to the newspaper excerpts, to pedestrians ? Why not follow just the robbers?
Do you think that Piglia alters the story to the point that it changes how true it is?
What do you think about this book’s method of story telling?
What are your thoughts on the distortion of reality to fit the themes and narrative that Piggly wanted to express?
Did the ending surprise you, or did you expect things to turn out that way?
How does violence manifest in society, the gang, and the authorities?
Was there anything that infuriated you about this book? Or am I alone in this rage of hatred? What do you think about the ethics behind writing this story the way Piglia did?s
What did you think about the amount of action/killing in the story?
Surrounding the depictions of violence in the novel, what effect did they have on you and what purpose do you think they served in the overarching ideas of the novel?
Do you think the robbery in Money to Burn feels carefully planned, or does the novel make it seem like the situation is constantly slipping out of the characters’ control?
Who is actually worse here? The criminals who openly steal and kill, or the institutions thsssat quietly allow corruption to exist behind the scenes?
Other
What did you think when the money was burned? What do you think it symbolized?
What did you think of the crowd’s reaction to Dorda’s capture? Justified or not?
If a heist of this size occurred nowadays, how would the public react? Do we think this is a timeless novel that almost denounces everyone involved in such things? I felt that nobody was the ‘good guy’ in the story, did you all share that feeling?
Were you able to enjoy the book even through its disturbing nature?
Did anyone else also get reminded of the movie Reservoir Dogs?
Were there any elements of this text that threw you for a loop in any way, big or small, and if so, what was it?
How does Ricardo Piglia’s portrayal of the pursuit of the perfect crime in ‘Money to Burn’ reflect broader societal pressures and individual desires for success and fulfillment? Can you draw parallels between the characters’ motivations and real-world instances where people may feel compelled to resort to unethical means to achieve their goals?
>What are your thoughts on the “true crime” genre? Do you view it (favourably/indifferently/ unfavourably)?
Concerning the twins, what role does identity play in this book? What is the relationship between crime and creativity?
If you could commit a crime but if you do then no one in the world can commit it anymore, what crime would that be?
Do you think if you read this in Spanish it would be very different? Do you think someone from Argentina has specific feelings towards the way society and the policemen were portrayed?
Do you think Piglia owes us (the readers) the truth? Is it irresponsible for him to go to such lengths–for example, revising the novel and obtaining the facts–to find the truth only to have the novel be a dramatized version of the event?
What is the difference in your impression of the novel/story if the story is a complete fiction vs. a true story?
Can ordinary people commit horrific acts under certain circumstances, or do such actions make someone inherently evil?
Do you think the book is more interested in the criminals themselves, or in how society reacts to crimes like this after they happen?
Do y’all think if the media and the public news wasn’t involved, they would have had a better chance of surviving the fall? The live broadcasting showing all the townsfolk the raining burnt money, would they might have not been condemned as harshly after they got caught?
Why do you think people are compelled to crime stories like these, especially if they’re portrayed as true, like this one? What makes these true crime stories so captivating?
What would you have done if you were in their situation?
Is there a story that’s stayed with you over the years, like this one has for Piglia?
