Soldiers of Salamis - I have questions
This novel confused me from the moment I read its title. Mainly because I couldn't see the link between Dictatorship-era Spain and the actual Battle of Salamis. I still can't, to be honest. The Battle of Salamis was a naval battle between the Persians and the Greeks like 2500 years ago. When I look it up to try and find an answer to my question, all I get is that it's a "metaphorical allusion". If anyone has any ideas as to why the title of the novel is what it is, please let me know.
Otherwise, I really enjoy the blend of fact and fiction, though I often have to remind myself that it isn't meant to be taken literally; kind of like when I watch a biopic and then find out later that lots of the movie was just dramatised and doesn't actually reflect reality. I find the unreliable narrator more likeable in this novel than others we have read with unreliable narrators (such as W, Or The Memory Of Childhood). Maybe because the narrative voice feels stronger here, I'm not sure. Either way, the process of reading this book felt like I was actively trying to suss out the reality from the fabricated, which made me feel like a more active participant in the telling of the story.
I found some of the political takes to be quite interesting. A line that piqued my interest was 'I don't know what you think, sir, but to me a civilised country is one where people don't have to waste their time on politics.' (p21 of my pdf). This line made me think about the scope of politics and what exactly it means. My guess is that Aguirre (the guy who said the line) was talking more about political parties and who is in government, to which I don't entirely disagree. But politics isn't just that, it permeates every level of our society. I guess the statement also depends on who we are counting as "people". If "people" means everyone who has historically been able to turn a blind eye to the reality of the politics around them in society, that is leaving out a huge chunk of the population. I don't know, truthfully my thoughts on this sentence are still a little half-baked and I need to think through all of the possible scenarios and combinations before I can claim to understand my own opinion and where I stand.
With all that said, my question to you is: do you think a civilised country is one where people don't waste their time with politics? Do you agree with Aguirre?
Bonus question: do you know why the title is Soldiers of Salamis?
I don't have an easy or quick answer to the question about the title (which is a good one), but we should note that Cercas tells us--not that he can always be believed--that this is not his title, but the title that Sánchez Mazas would have put on his memoirs of the war, or of this incident from the war, that Cercas here reconstructs.
ReplyDeleteOK, google, google...
The Spanish Wikipedia has a whole entry on the title in its article on the book:
"Como es lo usual en Cercas, el título de la obra es ambiguo y solo fue escrito cuando la novela ya estaba prácticamente finalizada. El nombre Soldados de Salamina alude a la famosa batalla de Salamina en la que los griegos, comandados por Temístocles, vencieron en un combate naval al imperio persa, comandado por Jerjes I, y lograron así salvar su nación, y con ello la democracia y la civilización occidental como entonces se conocían. Aunque el argumento de la novela no tiene que ver directamente con este episodio histórico, dicha batalla era uno de los tantos y variados temas de interés de Sánchez Mazas.15
"Asimismo, el autor ha comentado que para el narrador de la novela y su generación, la guerra civil española es algo tan distante como la batalla de Salamina, pero al mismo tiempo, las consecuencias de ambos conflictos persisten hasta el presente. Así, el título se abre a distintas lecturas, pues para Sánchez Mazas, es el ejército falangista el que salva la civilización de la barbarie; mientras que en la novela quienes la salvan son Miralles y sus soldados de la resistencia; o bien simplemente lo es un hombre que salva a otro hombre.15
"En la obra se dice que Sánchez Mazas pretendía escribir un libro titulado Soldados de Salamina. Sin embargo, el título real de la obra que pretendía escribir sería Los amigos del bosque, nombre que a Cercas no le parecía atractivo, y que no calzaba con la idea de su novela, pues en la historia de «Los amigos del bosque» no figuraba el personaje clave de Miralles.15"
Most of the references in the Wikipedia article are to a book that includes conversations or interviews with Cercas: Cercas, Javier; Trueba, David (2003). Alegre, Luis, ed. Diálogos de Salamina: Un paseo por el cine y la literatura (I edición). Madrid y Barcelona: Plot Ediciones y Tusquets Editores. ISBN 84-8310-809-7.
Hi Deeba, thanks for your post.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the name of the novel is confusing and is never specified. We can talk about that in class, no doubt.
Regarding your question, I take it that Aguirre contrasts the civil war era with the current one (in the following line of the quote that you bring, Cercas replies, "just the opposite of what happened in '36", and Aguirre says, "Exactly").
In the civil war, practically everyone took politics into their hands (or was involved in political circumstances) and was willing to go to the last consequences (war) to defend their ideals. A bit further, Aguirre says, "that was a collective madness."
This is for discussion in class, but I think Cercas sees civil war as an excess of politics (or morality, perhaps).
Carl Von Clausewitz famously defined war as "the continuation of politics with other means." For example, let´s think of the utopian Falangist model of Sánchez Mazas that required the imposition of a war. But it can also be any other political ideology taken to the extreme.
Very interesting questions to discuss in class!
Hi Deeba! I really enjoyed reading your post.
ReplyDelete"If "people" means everyone who has historically been able to turn a blind eye to the reality of the politics around them in society, that is leaving out a huge chunk of the population." <-- I completely agree with this sentiment. Aguirre's statement is a privileged one when examining it keeping your point in mind. That said, I don't think I have an answer to your question; I'll have to ponder it more. You've given me a lot to think about! Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Hi Deeba, great blog post! To answer your question, I think yes, a civilised country is one where people don't waste their time with politics. Take China and Canada as an example, in Canada people can choose and vote for the political party they think can best represent their values, and political affiliation is optional. In China however, students are required to spend lot of their time learn about Marxist-Leninist ideology since kindergarten and you'll have to be a CCP party member to get a decently-paid job in the country. In other words, a civilised country is not somewhere people waste too much time on politics that had no use but to strengthen the authority's leadership position.
ReplyDeleteHi Deeba,
ReplyDeleteI found your blog post really interesting and insightful. In response to your question, I think a civilized country is one with order and structure. That being said, politics is required to uphold order and structure. Decisions need to be made about the way a country is ruled and governed in order to have some form of stability and consequences. However, not everyone should have to be concerned about politics - only those who wish to be more involved.
- Aliyah Khan