“Money to Burn” was a new genre for me I’m a bit of a scaredy cat and I’m not intrigued by the possibility of being wrapped up in a thriller, I feel I internalize the emotion of novels sometimes and so thrillers/mysteries tend to make me anxious while reading lol. I thought the plot was really enticing as uncomfortable as I may have felt in some places, which I guess is a testament to how deeply rich the detail and character impressions were. I think the style of narration was unique Piglia’s documentary like structure embraces both the aforementioned event and its perpetrators, their associates, and victims, I’m making an inference as I don’t read mystery thrillers, that this is a different take on storytelling the characters are flawed and the entire plot is messed up and violent to me it read more as an action movie than how I suspect mystery novels are usually drawn out to emphasize motive. A tense exposition introduces the audience to the “twins”,  “Gaucho” Dorda described as a born criminal, “the man who had been ruined since boyhood” and Franco “Kid” Brignone, introduced as a, soulless spoiled angel. The two have a complicated relationship one that extends past friendship/partnership into an intense sexual relationship. As for the robbery itself the scene was so vividly narrated, the use of  testimonies and thoughts of various witnesses, the corrupt  police commissioner Silva, as well as characters such as the police wireless operator Roque Perez who’s presence though brief was crucially involved, punctuated the intensity of the crime in a very cinematic fashion.   Interest is creatively articulated through the irony implicit in the thieves justification of their actions insisting that they are “honorable revolutionaries”. The novel I feel is intended to make it’s audience uncomfortable it presents a narrative where there are no good guys and I think this intentional exploration of criminality is supposed to make people think about the disturbing involvement of corruption and evil within society. The questions that arise from the novel are those uncomfortable social contemplations of morality that that the average person doesn’t like the thought of addressing. Like with Piglia’s inclusion of flashbacks used to illuminate his self-doomed protagonists’ twisted upbringings and their subsequent paths to petty crime, prison, and their violent ends, it feels as if he’s asking are villains born or made.

Q- My question this week is particularly for my peers who seemed to have personally really enjoyed the novel. I wonder from reading a few peoples post this week, if your enjoyment of the book has more to do with how well detailed the characters flaws are portrayed (kinda like when you watch a movie and the actor playing the villain does tooo good of a job that you begin to dislike the actual actor which of course says something to the skill of the actor like the broken characters in this book demonstrate the skill of the author) or did some of you actually find the characters redeeming? like some of the posts seemed excited to see a queer Bonnie and Clyde type rendition which to me seems odd because it’s not necessarily positive representation like dramatic love story dying in the arms of their lover aside, they weren’t good people.