Reflection : Money to Burn by Ricardo Piglia

 When I was reading the book, the events seemed very farfetched, so I was surprised that at the end of the novel, in the epilogue to find out that these events had actually happened and this wasn’t a work of fiction. I thought that the way of communicating the deaths of characters who were killed as if it were from a news report was more of a stylistic choice rather than the fact that it was probably the way that the author himself was able to adapt the story from the actual events. However, learning that the novel was not fiction has not really taken away from the experience I had when reading it, I felt like the changes in giving the characters more depth (by potentially having invented things) benefited the story since we already know the characters are not good people but now they can also be interesting (and still bad of course).

I also sometimes question whether the “true crime” genre should even be a thing, on one hand, they usually succeed in showing us how depraved and messed up the individuals who commit these kinds of acts are but they also show dramatic reenactments of real people being killed whose families may still be coping from the loss. Even though I know the genre can offer more than just entertainment, something feels wrong about being invested in a story like this and consuming this kind of media for enjoyment. The novel sort of explores this, where spectators are gathered around the house that is under siege by the police or watching the events unfold through one of the news broadcasts. Are some of them watching because they are directly affected by the events of the robbery, or do they treat it as some sort of drama (Maybe some do both)?    

I also found it quite bizarre that the bystanders and news reporters viewed the burning of the stolen money to be a more deplorable and disgusting act than all of the murders the robbers had committed. I guess you could argue that by burning the money it shows that the members of the gang had killed all those people for essentially nothing, but I mean they were already trapped and facing certain death so it makes sense that they did not want anyone from the police to get any of the money. It also seems like the citizens are unaware of how corrupt the police and the government are, “If they agreed with the police to hand it over to a charitable foundation, everything would have gone differently for them” (170) they believe that the police somehow lack the same greed and motivations that the robbers have when the Argentine police officers were directly involved in the robbery and had also cooperated with the perpetrators.

My question for everyone:
What are your thoughts on the “true crime” genre? Do you view it (favourably/indifferently/ unfavourably)?

Reflection - ' Mad Toy' By Roberto Artl

 Mad Toy by Roberto Artl is about a teenage boy named Silvio who is an avid inventor and idolizes outlaws and bandits. The first part of the novel follows Silvio and his friends Lucio and Enrique and their adventures which mostly consist of committing burglaries with aspirations of being heroic outlaws and being able to give back to the poor. After a close call, as a result of committing a robbery, both Silvio and Lucio decide that it would be best for them to disband and lay low for a while, however, Enrique says he will continue even if he is the only one left. The second part follows Silvio who in an attempt to do the right thing and help out his mother, decides to get a job at a bookstore, however after witnessing the horrible conditions and trying to burn the store down (but ultimately failing) he decides to quit. After. In the fourth and final part of the novel, Silvio turns in his friend Rengo to the authorities after he learns that Rengo intends to commit a robbery and has seemingly done the ‘right’ thing.

Throughout the novel, we witness Silvio getting older and constantly struggling to do the ‘right’ thing. We witness his family's struggle with poverty and Silvio who wants to be an inventor and his aspirations of making something out of himself. As soon as Silvio seems to be making progress towards his goals it suddenly all falls apart and he ends up back at square one. The novel has you constantly wondering which path Silvio will end up taking and how long will his determination last.

The part that stuck the most for me was when Silvio met his friend Lucio a couple of years after their group disbanded. Lucio, who is now a police investigator, then tells Silvio that Enrique never stopped committing burglaries and has now found himself in jail as a result. I found this interesting as Silvio himself was constantly having trouble choosing which path to follow and could see firsthand the results of his friend's choices. 

The novel also makes you rethink what is considered ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Even though we can declare one side as being ‘right and the other one ‘wrong’, both Enrique and Lucio have ultimately gone down different paths with the same goal of survival. Also, when Silvio turns Rengo in after having done something that is deemed ‘right’, he himself thinks that he has done something unforgivable.

My question for everyone:

At the end of the novel, Silvio states his reasoning for turning Rengo in is that  ‘There are times in life when we need to be pigs, to wallow in filth till it seeps inside us, to do some vile deed, I don’t know . . . to destroy a man’s life forever . . . and having done that, we can go calmly on our way’’. Do you think Silvio really turned Rengo in order to ruin his life? Or did he have another reason for doing so?