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?
Posted in Blogs, Cercas | Tagged with politics, Soldiers of Salamis, unreliable narrator
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?
Posted in Blogs, Cercas | Tagged with politics, Soldiers of Salamis, unreliable narrator
Hi Everyone! This week I’ll be reflecting on Roberto Bolano’s novella, Amulet. I really enjoyed this read. As many have…
Posted in Blogs, Bolaño | Tagged with form and structure, memory, reflection, reflective, thoughts, understanding, unreliable narrator
In Amulet, we find a Chilean author writing about a fictional Uruguayan protagonist based in Mexico. I felt that this…
Posted in Blogs, Bolaño | Tagged with Conflict, memory, Mexico, unreliable narrator
I first heard of Georges Perec as a young teen scrolling through Tumblr when I stumbled across a post about another novel of his, A Void, where he avoids the letter ‘e’ throughout the novel. I was pleasantly surprised when I realised that we’d been assigned his work. Similarly to others whose blog posts I have read, I initially struggled with the two storylines but got used to it fairly quickly. Apparently these two storylines are supposed to depend on each other, rendering each one incomplete without the other. Truthfully, I haven’t been able to discern why they are so dependent on each other, though I hope to understand the text a little further after some class discussion.
I think an important feature of the text is that it has an unreliable narrator, who is telling this story based on unreliable memories and this fictional world of W that he created in his head. I always think an unreliable narrator can be a refreshing twist on the experience of reading a book because it makes you question what you’re being told rather than just taking everything at face value.
I found the parts where the narrator was explaining all the different sports teams and rules a little difficult to follow (not surprising because I’m a little like that when it comes to real teams, forget fictional ones) and became a little lost in the significance of explaining it all in such detail. A potential answer that comes to mind is that it’s all just a coping mechanism; there might not be an inherent significance in the sports teams and all the rules and regulations, but simply the fact that it’s so detailed shows the amount of time the narrator must have spent inside his own head as an escape from the world around him. Considering that Perec’s parents were killed in the Second World War and the Holocaust, it is unsurprising that some of his work should be informed by trauma.
Throughout the novel there is an interesting discussion of names, where they come from, and the importance we attach to them. My favourite part was when he was discussing the nicknames that were first given to individuals, before eventually being passed down and becoming a status symbol and evolving even further. It makes me want to imagine our own society using names in that same way; I’m not convinced it’d be entirely practical but it would be a fun thought exercise. The question I now pose is: what do you think the significant of all the sport-talk is?
Posted in Blogs, Perec | Tagged with metaphor, plotlines, postmodernism, unreliable narrator, W or a memory of childhood
I first heard of Georges Perec as a young teen scrolling through Tumblr when I stumbled across a post about another novel of his, A Void, where he avoids the letter ‘e’ throughout the novel. I was pleasantly surprised when I realised that we’d been assigned his work. Similarly to others whose blog posts I have read, I initially struggled with the two storylines but got used to it fairly quickly. Apparently these two storylines are supposed to depend on each other, rendering each one incomplete without the other. Truthfully, I haven’t been able to discern why they are so dependent on each other, though I hope to understand the text a little further after some class discussion.
I think an important feature of the text is that it has an unreliable narrator, who is telling this story based on unreliable memories and this fictional world of W that he created in his head. I always think an unreliable narrator can be a refreshing twist on the experience of reading a book because it makes you question what you’re being told rather than just taking everything at face value.
I found the parts where the narrator was explaining all the different sports teams and rules a little difficult to follow (not surprising because I’m a little like that when it comes to real teams, forget fictional ones) and became a little lost in the significance of explaining it all in such detail. A potential answer that comes to mind is that it’s all just a coping mechanism; there might not be an inherent significance in the sports teams and all the rules and regulations, but simply the fact that it’s so detailed shows the amount of time the narrator must have spent inside his own head as an escape from the world around him. Considering that Perec’s parents were killed in the Second World War and the Holocaust, it is unsurprising that some of his work should be informed by trauma.
Throughout the novel there is an interesting discussion of names, where they come from, and the importance we attach to them. My favourite part was when he was discussing the nicknames that were first given to individuals, before eventually being passed down and becoming a status symbol and evolving even further. It makes me want to imagine our own society using names in that same way; I’m not convinced it’d be entirely practical but it would be a fun thought exercise. The question I now pose is: what do you think the significant of all the sport-talk is?
Posted in Blogs, Perec | Tagged with metaphor, plotlines, postmodernism, unreliable narrator, W or a memory of childhood
