Month: March 2026

Oof that was an interesting read. I usually like books written from a woman’s perspective especially when they are about girlhood and the experience of female friendships etc. However, this was just a super messy friendship, which I guess is relatable up to a point, but at the same time I rather read something more feel good. However, I also cannot  deny I don’t like reading and learning about the tea hahahaha. Like please tell me in vicarious detail about more about the character’s relationships and messy breakups.

Their friendship is interesting because it seems like they are the bestest of friends wanting similar things but at the same time on different paths. Especially with Lila being smarter and more naturally gifted than Lenù. I lowkey feel bad for Lenù because its not really her fault that Lila is smarter, and of course she is bound to compare herself with someone she spends that much time with and considers to be such a close friend.

It was however extreme opp behavior during the part in middle school when Lila tries to mess up Lenù entrance exam even if she did end up changing her mind and not going through with it. I feel like even having that idea in the first place is so oppish.  Also the part of the book when Lila pulls a knife against Marcello reminded me of that one Ariana Grande Cynthia Erivo meme where someone tries attacking Ariana Grande so Cynthia charges forward to protect her.

Something I enjoyed about the novel is the progression. I have a soft spot for books which begin with someone at a old age and then do a reverse story time of their life progression and kind of share a lifetime through the novel, it just feels so real and wholesome, like life really is that deep.  A part of the book which frustrated me was the neighbourhood environment. It was especially annoying seeing the women fight each other over their husband’s mistakes like guys we need to see who the real common enemy is instead of fighting each other.  I also  thought the part where Lenu is worried about losing her friendship with Lila when she is about to get married is kind of real ngl even if it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It kinda scares me too thinking of my closest friends getting married (obviously not any time soon I think we are a bit too young) but still I would not be ready for that change I feel like.

Questions for discussion ; Have you ever had a messy friendship like this?

There were no chameleons in this book, but there was a talking gecko. The original title in Portuguese is Seller of Pasts, which honestly aligns more directly with what the story is actually about. But “chameleons” works in a deeper, more theoretical way that I think fits the themes of the novel better  it’s just less straightforward about it.

This novel was so unique and interesting to me. It’s pretty short, I really enjoyed the writing style, and despite how creative the plot is I was genuinely captured into the world of it. I also love the title because a gecko is kind of similar to a chameleon, but more than that. The whole novel is about changing identities, which is exactly what a chameleon does. It shifts how it appears to blend into its surroundings. That parallel is so cool to me.

Something else I found really interesting is Felix’s business from a totally entrepreneurial standpoint. He identifies something that’s genuinely lacking in the world  which is the weight people place on family lineage and history  and realizes that people who have a lacking family background in any way are likely to miss out on opportunities because of it. So he finds this loophole which is just creating a new identity for them. It uniquely solves a real problem, and I thought that was so creative.

This book also made me think about how we assume we’re bound to our identities when in reality we have more control over them than we think. This might not be in every way, but in more ways than we usually give ourselves credit for. In the novel, José doesn’t just adopt a new identity, he almost shifts timelines and fully transforms into it. There’s a line on page 55: “Now, I’ve been studying Jose Buchmann for weeks. Watching him change. He isn’t the same man who came into this house six, seven months ago.” That hit me, because even in our own lives, we can choose who we become. Like if I decided to identify as extroverted despite having been reserved my whole life and genuinely committed to that identity it would start to shift how I act, how I show up, and eventually that energy would become real. We have more autonomy than we believe, and we can choose to align with certain paths even if they don’t feel like “us” yet.

Discussion Question; how much autonomy do you think we actually have in deciding our identities?

Starting off, Dorda is described as “very superstitious, forever spotting negative signals, and engaged in numerous secret rituals, which tended to complicate his life” (pg 2). Honestly this instantly made him feel so real to me? Like we all know someone like that or maybe we are that person a little bit who has habits which dont make sense really but are still real to the person.  The way the characters are introduced in general is really interesting, Kid and Dorda are basically called twins but they’re also super different from each other which I thought was a cool dynamic. And then theres Malito who is described as “the invisible man, the magical brain, operating at a distance, with his own strange set of circuits and contacts and connections” (pg 3).

Also kind of a random observation but I actually really liked the font used in the pdf version of the novel. Small detail but it added something to the reading experience idk it just felt right for the story.

Now onto something that actually had me thinking a lot. Money to Burn is based on a true story, Piglia supposedly had a chance encounter with a character named Bianca Galaeno, but he also admits to making many “literary falsifications.” So is it actually fully true or does he just want us to believe that? I think some of the things that probably aren’t fully true, like the homosexual relationship between Kid and Dorda, were added as artistic liberties and honestly they made the book way more interesting and fun to read. But what I find kind of strange is how insistent Piglia was on making readers believe the whole thing was real. It makes me wonder why that mattered so much to him. Thats genuinely my question because I keep coming back to it.

Something else I really loved was how the consumption of media and literature is reflected through the characters. Kid and Malito read, Dorda watches movies, yet they are also gangsters. That contrast is what ties them to the reader I think because thats what Im doing right now while reading – consuming media.

The deepest part for me of the story was the money aspect (its in the title) They did ALL of that, the whole heist, all the chaos, all the violence, just to in the end die AND blow up the money. Which is almost nonsensical when you think about it. But then again in reality money literally controls our lives, shelter, food, basic human necessities. And its so weird because money isnt even really a physical thing anymore, its just theoretical numbers on a screen. So why does something so conceptual get to prevail over actual human life? Like animals dont rely on money, plants dont either, unless they get brought into the human world where they too become dependant on it. Like you need money to feed a dog you own versus a wild dog that just catches its own food. In the lecture video it was mentioned that betraying money is kind of like betraying society itself and I thought that was so insightful because our entire society is literally built on this concept that is kind of stupid when you zoom out. Can we not just live? Is it not enough to simply be born? But then again who would make the coffee you want to enjoy in the morning if no one needed money to harvest the beans or bother showing up to work. Concept of money has me occasionally spiriling.

Last thing, the lecture video mentioned genre rules and it honestly reminded me so much of Wattpad. Like Wattpad has so many tropes, the “one bed” situation, the enemies to lovers thing, and readers go in fully expecting and wanting those tropes. I think Money to Burn plays with genre expectations in a similar way which made it a really interesting read on that level too.

Discussion question: Why do you think Piglia was so insistent on making readers believe Money to Burn was based entirely on reality, and what does that do to the way we read and interpret the story?

First of all, I really liked how fast this book was to get through compared to last week’s read. Like genuinely flew through it. Now onto the actual reflection.The title of this novel immediately made me think of secrets, and honestly a trench coat is kind of the perfect symbol for that. Think about it, every mystery movie, every detective story, the guy in the trench coat. Inspector Gadget vibes, lowkey.

A trench coat literally covers what’s underneath, and I think that’s exactly what’s going on here. The title gives you one expectation but the book ends up being way more political than I anticipated. It’s simpler on the surface but also more nuanced than I expected, if that makes sense.

The story kicks off with a dinner party, and the atmosphere is immediately stuffy and uncomfortable. What really stood out to me was the fixation on food, the way it’s described is almost luxurious, borderline excessive. Ex; ” A mouthful, thats how long the miracle lasts, a mouthful. Short, savory, sinful, a brief but exquisite pleasure. Have another, why don’t you, do have another, no one can resist, yum, the cries of delight are convincing, yes indeed they flow as freely as everyone’s mouth is watering full of appetizer and saliva. All help themselves, again, again, and again (202). I really enjoyed the descriptiveness of this section!

So after all the weird awkward dinner party energy, one of the guests leaves behind a trench coat. In literally any other context this would be completely normal, as someone who is very forgetful and has absolutely left my stuff at people’s places multiple times, I get it. But the characters become completely hyperfixated and obsessed with figuring out who left the damn coat. This is where it gets interesting. Because of the setting, communist Romania, constant surveillance, secret police, something as small as an abandoned jacket becomes super tension full. The trench coat works as a symbol of that constant watchfulness and political pressure (atleast in my understanding). The ambiguity of the ending really drives that feeling home, like how something as meaningless as a forgotten jacket at a dinner party could represent a constant threat. I also thought it was kind of funny but also really sad when Dina starts becoming genuinely unstable over the coat. It felt like a real representation of what living under that kind of surveillance does to your psychology over time.

Discussion question: How do you think living under a strict regime where you constantly feel watched could impact your psychology, and how might that look different depending on the individual? How is this shown in the novel through the different characters?

This was my first time reading a novel written in this style, and as is with all new experiences, at first it felt jarring and almost uncomfortable, but I gradually grew to like the style as I kept progressing throughout the book. In this novel I (yes, me) keep getting incomplete novels. In some ways, it could be said to be a novel about novels and reading.

It was very interesting how the novel is written mostly in second person along with first person. In each story, the reader (me) stays, I, but also seems to embody a different character. Also, the transitions between I and you (first and second person) seem to indicate when something should be thought of as my own thoughts vs when something is being said to me.

Throughout the novel, the author tries to give insight into techniques used by authors to manipulate the reader or convey a certain feeling. For example; “Watch out: it is surely a method of involving you gradually, capturing you in the story before you realize it—a trap. Or perhaps the author still has not made up his mind” (page 12). Another example of this can be seen on page 25 “You are the sort of reader who is sensitive to such refinements; you are quick to catch the author’s intentions and nothing escapes you.” The author also tries to guide the readers or almost teach the readers how they should be reading. For example on page 18;  “To read properly you must take in both the murmuring effect and the effect of the hidden intention, which you (and I, too) are as yet in no position to perceive. In reading, therefore, you must remain both oblivious and highly alert”.

While reading, I also noticed how in the writing style the author uses a lot of descriptive words to describe something. The words almost seemed to be stacked in order to really emphasize the feeling the author wants to convey. This can be seen on page 27;  “The thing that most exasperates you is to find yourself at the mercy of the fortuitous, the aleatory, the random, in things and in human actions—carelessness, approximation, imprecision, whether your own or others’”.The author uses random, carelessness, imprecision all in a sentence stacked together to really nail down that feeling as all those words are in some way synonyms but still convey slightly different meanings of the same thing.

The novel also has the romance plot, which I thought was kind of interesting, just because it works to show how books can also be used as a method of connecting people to each other and don’t always have to be done in isolation.