Soldiers of Salamis is a novel set during the Spanish Civil War and is probably the closest experience we have to reading historical nonfiction than any of the other novels and stories. Rafael Sánchez Mazas, an important figure in the actual Spanish Falange, is the main character we encounter in the novel as a fascist writer who escaped a Republican soldier casually walking away after a group of Nationalist prisoners, including Mazas, were scheduled for execution. This detail in the novel is a historical fact. Whether everything else occurring in the novel is an actual rendition of a Spanish history lesson is still up for interpretation because the truth could be told in very different ways. This could explain why historians are avid debaters and always choose to take the unoccupied position on matters that most would deem agreeable. Maybe the novel is Cercas’ work to explore his own roots and find the historian in himself to analyze the past so he could understand how Spain changed to how it was today. It shows how history has shaped a controversial identity and vice versa.

The narrative’s focus is divided into 3 parts. The first part introduces the background and the developing interest that the writer felt towards Rafael Sanchez Mazas. The second part is the actual book itself about Mazas written by the narrator, who is the author or storyteller of his actual experiences. I felt the second part to be riddled with points of deception and the underlying idea that Rafael Sanchez Mazas was hiding a dark secret from us as civilized beings and attempting to influence the world under his own terms behind the shadows. Stepping outside of the written novel, I also feel the deep significance that the narrator had when he used Andrés Trapiello’s phrase: Falangist writers “had won the war but lost literature.” (19), which is also echoed in the third part too. The intention of writing Soldiers of Salamis seems to reject the highly regarded political figure as a good role model amidst those who support him. It also teaches those who love poetry and books that the poets and authors do not always think the same way about what they write. It is very difficult to understand a poet who uses words to create walls while all everybody else sees are the flowers that bloom on the other side. I think as a Falangist writer, Rafael Sanchez Mazas had the ability to confuse his audience. He was a successful man in achievement, if one could argue, but he was not so great as a person. The third part returns back to the narrator making his reflections on his own work, first feeling euphoric about his success with his novel and then disappointed afterward.

My post-reading thoughts about Soldiers of Salamis has probably left me with more questions than answers. From the perspective of the interviewer/narrator, I feel that, despite all of the facts about the events, people, and places, I feel that I never know enough. More questions need to be addressed. There is something about Rafael Sanchez Mazas that I don’t know about and I can’t find something particular for it. My questions are: How are we to know the social dilemmas before we start critiquing a person and do you think the narrator has taken a neutral stance on this political matter? What do you think Rafael Sanchez Mazas would say about himself? Could it possibly be a lie?