Javier Cercas’ novel Soldiers of Salamis to me raised some of the most interesting questions of all the novel that we have read so far. Specifically I think through this work of part investigative journalism part prose fiction Cercas ask us to consider the truth of writing, history and legacy through an anecdote about right-wing author and politician Rafael Sanchez Mazas and his near death and escape in the Spanish civil war. More than just a retelling of an interesting footnote in the history of Spain Cercas brings us on a fictional-ish tale of the exploration of the history of Mazas, his writing, and just what really happened in that forest. I’m frankly not the hugest fan of this interview style narrative that Cercas uses mostly because some of it felt unnecessary and bland. Yet at other times the anecdotes are very interesting and endearing, such as the death tempting car rides in his girlfriends Volkswagen or the discussions of the true nitty-gritty chaos and particulars that come around with large scale war and disorder. Although the anecdote is important for context it really has little to do with the overall point in my opinion. Yes this event does contain a startlingly real and intense tableau of Mazas drenched, covered in mud, and filled with terror and shame facing down a man who holds his life in his hands. That startling moment of eye contact that in which the decision to let him go was a powerful example of a shared human compassion. But i digress, in essence our character attaches to this anecdote and figure in Mazas, and we are given the tale of a truly romantic writer meeting intellectuals in European bars and following the story. And I think the reason Soldiers of Salamis is about the writing of itself is exactly because we should ask if these things should be written. Cercas throughout the novel continually mentions that he believes that Mazas is both and excellent writer and poet. Yet this same man was also a fascist, who in my opinion held abhorrent views on women, nationality, etc., as we as was directly involved in supporting a coup against a legitimately elected government. Furthermore he was active in the Franco government and therefore in my eyes partially responsible for the crimes that were commited. So I guess the main question that come to me when reading this is, is there a proper way to discuss good writers who did horrible things? And if so how do we approach discussing their work in the context of the creators life?