Relato novelado del intento de golpe de estado del 23-F. A partir de entrevistas, de la prensa de la época y de numerosas lecturas, Javier Cercas nos descubre su visión de uno de los acontecimientos que más ha marcado la actual historia de España. Una visión lo más próxima a la verdad que ha podido llegar dado el secretismo de alguno de los implicados, pero que posiblemente sea lo más próximo que se pueda llegar. El estilo ágil de Javier Cercas hace que las repeticiones contínuas del texto, narrando varias veces la misma anécdota de distintas formas o la manera de contar un acontecimiento con pequeñas variaciones de matíces no sean tan pesadas como podrían haber sido pero aún así lastran el libro en mi humilde opinión. Un punto muy a favor de la novela es la aludida falta de simpatía del autor por Suarez que hace más creible todo el relato. High praise.Why bother with a book about the 1981 Spanish coup d'état? Before reading Javier Cercas everything I knew about modern Spain I learned from Chevy Chase and Garrett Morris: “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!” Only a little bit is the book about Spain and a little bit is it about the push for democracy. More than a little bit is it about a coup d'état and being about one coup d'état it may be about all of them. Certainly having read the book I feel a better acquainted with what needs to happen for one to be possible and with the coup in Egypt playing out as I read the book, it may have been different pieces and places but it looks like the same game of chess.The book brought two questions I have not resolved. Cercas asks outright: can one be a successful politician without betrayal and dishonesty and lies? Has every successful politician sold a part of their soul to the devil? (And a side question, in politics at least, does the end justify the means? Backed by Weber he answers that question in the affirmative.) Don’t we all complain of the dishonesty of politicians (always the other guy or girl, not our guy or girl) quickly forgetting that our most favored broke promises, cut corners, tricked and connived?The second question, coming as an American and the fervor with which we hail the Founding Fathers, the second question developed as I read the book: great men, at least, great men of politics, did they take the right action because they saw that the action itself was beneficial to society, or was it simply fortuitous that a decision made out of self interest was in harmony with the interests of a lasting public good? Are some people intrinsically good men and women who acted to benefit society and others not so much good men but very good politicians who, in serving themselves fortuitously helped everyone else?It’s a very good book, well written, well told. The book is not an easy breezy read, neither is it difficult and thick. It is written with repetitive phrases and long sentences that bend around and around, spiraling ever closer to the truth without ever arriving. It is a good style, well fitted to the material and Anne McLean deserves accolades for a smooth translation into English.
What do You think about Anatomía De Un Instante (2000)?
Es curioso leer algo que hemos vivido y que visto ahora parece ciencia ficción.
—mr_achilles1
Fascinating backdrop of the 23-F coup d'état in Spain.
—Brewsandstews
