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?