Hello everyone, when I read Ricardo Piglia’s “Money to Burn” it was, in my opinion, a compelling story about mystery, deceit, and the complex dynamics of power. Likewise, I discovered that this novel always brought to mind Arlt’s Mad Toy, which we had read at the start of the term. The characters are from comparable socioeconomic origins, and the story is set in a similar location. The message the group was purposefully and unwittingly spreading by burning the money was one that I found very appealing. 

The intriguing notion that earning money can become compulsive, similar to drug addiction, is examined in “Money to Burn” by Ricardo Piglia. The psychological and emotional significance that wealth possesses for people makes it all the more alluring than its actual practical utility. People are addicted to the power that comes with wealth, making them want it more and more. Money is like oxygen. You don’t notice it until you’re gasping for breath.

The actions of characters in the book, such as the group that deliberately burns money, serve as examples of this addictive aspect of money. Their acts highlight a deeper psychological desire (I’m a psyc major btw) to take charge of the money, even if it means destroying it. Renzi said they burned the money. After all, it was theirs because it represented power, and because they could. The novel suggests that the need for money is not just motivated by practical necessities but also by a deeper emotional need for control and power. This is evidenced by the fact that even the billionaires in the narrative have an insatiable appetite for more cash. This theme elucidates the intricate connection between money and human psychology, demonstrating how pursuing wealth may turn into an all-consuming fixation. I believe Piglia’s unique storytelling technique relates to the novel’s themes of justice and criminality. By including a variety of viewpoints, Piglia might help readers better comprehend what happened. This can even make people wonder: Is this the violent gang or the dishonest authorities who are really at fault in this situation? I sometimes can’t decide whether to express support for the gang or condemn their actions, especially in the last scene when Dorda describes how he killed the girl due to voices in his head. This felt strange to me since I couldn’t tell what was right or wrong, or maybe I was blurring the lines between good and evil. I find myself doing this a lot even with villains from movies, I find myself having sympathy for villains such as Bane from Batman, Thanos from The Avengers, etc

Question for the class;

Concerning my last couple of sentences, do you feel bad when you have sympathy for clearly bad people after hearing their side or way of thinking? Is this a “normal” way of thinking or should I…you know… get checked?