… I think this is one of those books where I was interested the whole time, but also never fully trusted what I was reading. Which I think was on purpose? The novel felt less like reading a normal novel and more like following someone’s obsession in real time. The narration kept pulling me in and then immediately making me doubt everything. Right from the beginning, Cercas gives us: “Three things had just happened: first my father had died; then my wife had left me; finally, I’d given up my literary career. I’m lying” (p.3) like… if you are already correcting yourself in the opening lines, then how am I supposed to take anything that follows as simple truth? It immediately invites us to question the facts of the story, and I felt like I was constantly doubting the narrator for the rest of the novel..
What I found really interesting (and also confusing at times…) is how the whole novel is built on different versions of the same story. Cercas is constantly collecting accounts from different people, and no one seems fully reliable.. When Mazas’s son tells his version, Cercas literally says, “I don’t know whether or not it is strictly true; I’m just telling it as he told me” (p.12). That line stuck with me because it feels like the novel is less about finding one truth and more about showing how truth gets passed around, shaped, and exaggerated. The story of the execution and escape especially felt like this. Even the characters in the book admit that it “sounds like fiction” (p.22), which I agree with.. a soldier finding Mazas in the forest and choosing not to kill him feels almost too perfect..
Also… I have to say, I didn’t really care about Mazas. I don’t care about fascists.. whatever.. I was more drawn to the unnamed soldier, the “friends of the forest,” and later Miralles. Aside from the obvious issues, Mazas feels kind of underwhelming as a central figure. His survival depends on luck and other people helping him, not on any kind of bravery. There’s even that suggestion that he kept telling the story because it “redeemed his cowardice” (p.27) which is probably true. So I was actually really glad that the novel shifts focus away from him. The soldier who chooses not to kill, the villagers who risk helping him, and Miralles all felt way more meaningful and compelling to me.
I also liked how the novel challenges simple versions of history. One quote on page 17 stood out a lot: “Some nationalist historians insinuate that the ones who burned down churches and killed priests were from elsewhere… It’s a lie… what pisses me off are those nationalists who still go around trying to sell the nonsense that it was a war between Castilians and Catalans, a movie with good guys and bad guys” (p.17). That idea that history gets simplified into these narratives really connects to the whole structure of the book. It feels like Cercas is pushing against the idea that there’s one clear story or one clear side. And also it kind of reinforces the idea that history is told by the winners. Mazas, as a fascist who survives and later gains status, is remembered. Meanwhile, the Republican soldier who maybe did the most morally significant act in the whole story is basically anonymous or forgotten.
Overall, I think I enjoyed the narration and the ideas more than the actual “plot.” I was confused a lot, but in a way that made me think more about how stories are constructed and remembered.
My discussion question: If the most morally important figure in the novel is the anonymous soldier who history forgets, what does that say about the reliability and purpose of historical narratives?