Monthly Archives: March 2022

Cercas

The Game of Two Truths and a Lie in Soldiers of Salamis

Reading Javier Cercas’ Soldiers of Salamis felt like playing a game of two truths and a lie. On the very first page, the narrator starts off with stating three things that have happened to him, however, he later reveals that he’s lying as only “the first two are factual” (3).

The question of whether the novel is a work of fact or a work of fiction only continues as the book progresses. For instance, the book is split into three parts: part 1 and part 3 follow the narrator’s journey to write his “true tale” about how Rafael Sánchez Mazas a firing squad while part 2, titled ‘Soldiers of Salamis’, is presumably the novel that the narrator ends up writing.

I’m not familiar with the history and the accuracy of what’s written, but the writing style of the second part of the novel mirrors what you would expect from a biography. Meanwhile, although the first and third part of the novel features real life individuals such as Roberto Bolaño, these two parts seem to be works of fiction. However, the narrator, also named Javier Cercas, makes numerous claims throughout the book that he is writing “is not a novel” but rather “a story with real events and characters” (161).

Notably, Bolaño replies to Cercas by saying that a novel and true tale are essential the same since  “all good tales are true tales, at least for those who read them, which is all that counts” (161). I found this statement fairly interesting and applicable to the rise in popularity of movies and tv shows based on true events/stories. In the past few months alone, there have been multiple shows  based on real life individuals: Pam and Tommy, Inventing Anna, and The Dropout. These shows, regardless of whether they are fully accurate or not, serve the goal of being entertainment so the line that separates them from being fact or fiction blurs and becomes irrelevant. Additionally, the disclaimer ahead of each Inventing Anna episode, “This whole story is completely true. Except for all the parts that are totally made up”, feels like it could be a tagline for Cercas’ book as well.

Alas, here are some questions for everyone else!

Near the beginning of Part three, the narrator makes the note that despite multiple rewrites and edits, he felt as if his book was “insufficient” and was “missing a part” (138). While reading Part two, did you feel the same sentiments? Also, do you think Part 2 is necessary for the book? Would the novel work if it was just published without the inclusion of Part two?

Also, when you watch movies/shows that are based on real life events or individuals, do you care if the events being portrayed are true or not?

 

Standard
Bolano

Amulet

Roberto Bolaño’s Amulet starts the novel starts off with a thrilling note as the first few lines are: “This is going to be a horror story. A Story of murder, detection, and horror” (1). However, the narrator, who is later revealed to be a Uruguayan woman named Auxilio Lacouture, makes the quick distinction that the story won’t appear to have those traits because of her narration.

I agree with that statement because this book did not feel like a horror story or even fit its description of being a “story of a terrible crime”(1). Instead, I found that this book felt like reading a stranger’s diary. In particular, since there are many references that the narrator makes to real life individuals and historical contexts that I’m not familiar with, I felt lost at times. The best example of this is on page 159 where the narrator makes a series of prophecies about historic figures and how they will regain a sense of relevancy in the future. Nevertheless, apart from Marcel Proust and Virginia Woolf, I wasn’t aware of who the other individuals were. However, interestingly enough, the dates for the years when everyone else is supposedly prophesied to become significant are still decades away. So, maybe in 2045, I’ll be aware of who César Vallejo and Jorge Luis Borges are and read their books underground?

Moreover, I noticed that chapters would often start with a line that would directly relate back to the last line of the previous chapter. For instance, chapter four ends with “Although I could also have gone crazy” (41) and leads to chapter five starting with “But one thing stopped me from going crazy” (43). With the combination of this novel’s short length, it made it a fairly quick read.

Hence, since Bolaño made such an effort to link each chapter, I began to question why he chose the name the book “Amulet”. Until the last line, “And that song is our amulet”, there isn’t any other mention of the word amulet (184). However, since amulets are supposedly objects or tiny trinkets that possess magical capabilities to protect individuals from diseases and dangers, could it be a direct reflection to the novel’s first line? To elaborate, my thoughts are that maybe the narration style of Lacouture acts as an amulet that keeps the tone lighthearted and prevents it from becoming like a classic horror story.

That concludes my thoughts about this novel, but here are some questions for everyone else!

When authors make references to real world individuals/events that you are unaware of, do you google it to gain the context or do you ignore them? Do you think those references affect your ability to be engages or understand the novel? Also, what are your thoughts on why Bolaño decided to name the novel “Amulet”?

 

 

Standard
Fuentes

The Old Gringo

There was a choice between Norman Manea’s The Trenchcoat and Carlos Fuentes’ The Old Gringo for this week’s reading. As the name of this blog post indicates, I chose the latter, but hen I heard about Norman Manea joining in on a class discussion, I questioned whether I made the right decision. However, although it would have been interesting to hear directly from an author about their book, I ended up really enjoying reading Fuentes’ novel.

What made me choose this novel in the first place was because of its description on the “Which texts” page of the course website. The Old Gringo was described to be the “closest we have here to a romance” and I was excited to see how it would play out.

The main romance of this novel is between the Old Gringo and Harriet. However, the connection between the two constantly switch from being portrayed either as romantic or like a father-daughter relationship. A really great example of this is that the Old Gringo, himself, describes seeing Harriet as an “elegant thirty-one-year-old woman who reminded him of his daughter, and his wife when she was young” (140). Despite the character’s own confusion about how he feels about Harriet, within just a few pages, he “kissed her like a lover” (146). To make things even more confusing, after that moment, Harriet tells the Old Gringo that “in you I have a father” (147). However, it is seemingly decided that the relationship leans towards being a romantic one as the Old Gringo comes to the conclusion that Harriet is a “beautiful woman who could be his wife or his daughter but was neither, only herself, at last” (147).

Also, I found out that there is a film adaptation of this novel that stars Gregory Peck and Jane Fonda. The trailer for the movie also seems to lean towards portraying the relationship to be romantic. Additionally, I watched this one scene of the movie and although the age gap is more apparent, it’s clear that the two characters are lovers.

Anyways, here are some questions for everyone!

What are your thoughts on the relationship between the Old Gringo and Harriet? Did you read it as more of a paternal relationship or a romantic one? Also, from the lecture video, I learned that Ambrose Bierce, the Old Gringo’s identity,  is actually a real person. Why do you think Fuentes chose to base his character on a real person instead of creating a complete fictitious one?

Standard
Perec

W, Or the Memory of Childhood

With two narratives being told in alternating chapters, I felt a bit lost at times while reading Georges Perec’s W, or the Memory of Childhood. I personally found that the switches between the fictional story of W and Perec’s memoir sections to be a bit disruptive and made it difficult to maintaining the flow of reading.

There is W, the fictitious story that starts off with a mystery about of Gaspard Winckler. Although there were some parallels with both the narrator of W and Perec being adopted after the death of their parents, I wasn’t able to catch up on too many connections between the two stories.

However, in the second part of the story, with the introduction of the island W, there were some clear references to Nazi concentration camps. The island seems a bit odd at first with it being described as “a land where Sport is king, a nation of athletes where Sport and life unite in a single magnificent effort” (67).

As the book furthers, the island becomes more and more disturbing. From the age of 14, boys are put into rigorous training programs at four villages where they train for the games. Additionally, the stakes of those games are also fairly high as losers can either be punished with humiliating acts such as being forced to run nude or be sentenced to death. The latter option is brutal as the athlete would be stoned to death by the crowd and then have his corpse on “displayed for three days in the village, suspended on the butcher’s hooks….before being thrown to the dogs” (111).

Moreover, although women on the island of W don’t have to compete in the games, their fates are filled with horrors too. Instead of heading to the villages, they are sent to the Women’s Quarters where their days are filled with doing tasks such as making the tracksuits, and domestic chores. The only time that they are permitted to leave the Quarters is during the Atlantiads; a disturbing monthly even where women have to run nude around a track and the athletes are sent out to chase them and when they catch up, it often results in their rape. All in all, I found the story of W quite disturbing, although I think that could have been the intention of the author as he grapples with the horrors Nazi camps.

With that said, here are some questions for everyone:

Why do you think the title is W, or the Memory of Childhood instead of W, and the Memory of Childhood? Is this supposed to reference the blurred lines between the non-fiction and fiction parts of the story? Also, do you think that the stories would make sense if they were published as two different texts?

Standard