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?

This hands down is my favourite of the books we’ve read so far. Black Shack Alley is the story of a boy named Jose who lives on the French Caribbean island of Martinique. In three parts we are showing his youth on a plantation, his time in a local school and eventually his journey into the adult world and all its injustices. I think what made the first two parts of the novel especially powerful for me was that the innocence of our characters was perfectly intertwined with moments of heartbreaking injustice. In the initial section the children basically run free all day while their parents work in the field. We experience the joys of running free and exploration yet when their antics run too wild many of José’s friends are forced into the child labour group on this plantation. José doesn’t face that same fate with his grandmother not putting him to work like some of the parents yet we still feel the distance and the alienation that will be a continuing theme throughout. This continues into the second part of the novel as José is exposed to the other children of the small town they now live in. Specifically with the character of Jojo is the mixed race son of the nearby factories foreman. Although Jojo lives in the largest house his days are full of beatings and discipline at the hands of his parents and teachers. the conversations that these boys have are the highlight of this section to me with jojo’s position in society seeming so contrary to young José as this misery and position do not line up. The most poignant of these conversations to me is Jojo & Jose discuss the future and jose says he will eventually own a huge piece of land and pay all his workers a lot of money. Even when Jojo essentially tells Jose that this couldn’t be possible because they are black and low paying manual labour is all they’re for Jose doesn’t hate Jojo for his prejudice, even through this slight Jose shows great youthful compassion for Jojo. Jose innocence is finally ripped away when he gains a scholarship and moves to the big city with his mother. The third in my opinion is the real adult world finally catching up with Jose, and i don’t mean that in a negative way I think that from his situation it is impressive he has lived so joyfully for so long in both poverty and discrimination. Overall this was an excellent book with some very touching and powerful moments.

Honestly overall I don’t really know what I think about this book, there was a lot that I found really cool and interesting but also there was portions that were really disconcerting as a modern reader. Maria Luisa Bombal’s novel The Shrouded Woman has us confront the myriad of layers that encompass a person’s life and their interactions throughout that life. This is achieved primarily through the use of a narrator that has recently died and is ruminating on her life as her family and friends visit and subsequently lay her to rest. I thought that this was one of the biggest bright spots in the whole novel. It was an interesting subversion of a traditional narrator that allowed interesting perspectives and reflections from Ana Maria. She takes us through her life as a young girl growing up and then back through the relationships of her children and lovers. We are presented with a perspective that is inherently tied to the events and yet is disconnected which Bombal to explore the different layers of her journey to find fulfillment in her upper class life. The majority of the commentary revolves around the restrictions of life as a woman at this time and how this leads to an inability to find a contented and meaningful place in society. Her relationship with Antonio is probably the most clear example of this. Well first off we already see that her romantic life isn’t exactly great with her failed love with Ricardo. But after her rejection and subsequent marriage with Antonio things seem to be going better, after a rocky start and a little visit home it seems like Ana Maria can finally come to terms with her life. Yet turns out Antonio is a serial cheater and although he confesses his love to her in many scenes he cannot be contented with his current situation and is subsequently has a distant and unpleasant marriage for all involved. The issues that I have with this text are the seeming incongruity of the themes, subject matter, and commentary. First I would preface this by saying that it is definitely not my place to discuss feminist issues. Yet I felt that the combination of upper class characters with an emphasis on exploring the differing lenses and perspectives of her life really undercut the underlying feminist stance. I feel like without addressing the issues of class that are hidden under the hacienda system it feels like there is a hole in this story. I’m not saying that every piece of literature has to address its issues from an intersectional stance but rather when you include the theme of layers of meaning and experience I believe that a discussion of class was missing.