This novel has so many areas that can be explored. From memory, to morality, to information, to accuracy and the nature of fiction and literature!

I really enjoyed this read. Particularly the first and third sections. I found the second section to be a bit dry – though it was intriguing to know more of the man with the mysterious survival story, I was more interested, as was the protagonist, in finding out more about the soldier who let Mazas go and why he did. Though the details of the second section did leave me zoning out, I did really appreciate the way the three sections were tied to each other! It offered up broken information trying to be linked by whatever commonalities the journalist could find, and this was reflected in the way he went about finding and tracing the story, as well as critically evaluating it and questioning the gaps and discrepancies.

I really liked the third section as it offered some release to the tension built up of the journalist finding clues and trying to produce a satisfactory novel that both felt complete and factually accurate. I found the repetitiveness of the comparison of historical tales and fictional tales to be quite interesting, though I’m not sure how to frame that into a larger theme – maybe it alludes to the ending whether details are left out and it is stated that unless you’ve lived through it, you can’t really know or understand the experiences of war.

My question to you is the one explored by the journalist in this novel; why do you think the soldier let Mazas go?