I thought this novel, like all the other novels assigned for this course, to be interesting. Although this novel is supposed to be fiction, it can also be classified as an autobiographical work because it incorporates several autobiographical elements through the overlap of the life of the real writer and his fictional counterpart. Because it is written in the first person, the reader feels an immediate connection to the narrator. What I liked about this novel is that the narrator introduces himself as a failed writer, subverting the stereotype that paints writers as perfect (and gives other failed writers hope!).

This amateur writer experiments with his talent as a journalist and his literary ambitions by creating a narrative framework set during the Spanish Civil War which took place 60 years ago. His journalistic background helps him create this hybrid novel that blends fiction with historical facts which creates something so realistic that it seems more believable than the actual events, which creates an entirely unique reading experience.

I found it strange for Cercas to be sharing his creative process with the reader because readers are accustomed to reading the finished product. This gives rise to questions like:

Is the ending of Soldiers of Salamis really the end of the novel?

When Cercas is on the train back to Spain, is the “final version” of the novel that he starts thinking about the same version that we are reading now?

In the first section, he outlines for the reader his idea for the novel, and his writing process leads him to embark on an investigation that results in the second part of his novel. The first part also tells us that the novel is not pure fiction because it is based on real events. The novel takes a different turn in the second part where the reader is told about the life of Sanchez Mazas in the third person. However, in the third part, he reveals that he has reread the final product and feels dissatisfied with it.  As the reader, we see how much effort he has put into his novel especially in overcoming insecurities. This is when Roberto Bolano, whom we read last week, comes into the story as a sort of mentor to Cercas, reminding him that a writer is always a writer at heart, even when they are not writing, and that “all good tales are true tales, at least for those who read them, which is all that counts” (161).

Further questions for discussion:

What roles do writing and war play in the novel?

What role does failure play in the novel?

Could this story be considered an ode to life?

To what extent is memory collective or individual in nature?