I must admit that I like to write reviews. The truth is that I have neither the talent nor the patience, and reveal or discuss the tricks and skullduggery that the author has used seems to me, always a difficult task. To elaborate on my refusal, my tendency to over-pompous prose helps my complete analysis of clunkers become extremely poorly clarifiers and pedantic, so I prefer not lavish on such exercises and devote my poor literary skills to other tasks. Despite the above, "The Man Who Killed Durruti", the writer Pedro de Paz Madrid, well worth to give up my reservation and to rush this titanic effort, for me, is the perpetration of criticism. God forbid, of course, because the book deserves it, that the work goes well and does not result in an undeserved kick to it.
Let us begin, though not really know how and the result is chaotic.
Before that, however, I must clarify one thing.
happens that I never know where to start. Accustomed to beating around the bush, constantly spinning around on one side to another, as would a sick bug or without head, to concoct speculations that claim to brilliance, which are instantly dismissed by stupid and generate other equally absurd or fools. And so ad nauseum, until I get bored and, finally, now convinced of my worthlessness, left the company, crestfallen and crippled. Today, however, do something different, because I want because I peta and because I can not think of a better way to do it. So, pull, to gloss over the image I formed of the author.
While my relationship with Pedro de Paz is limited to those two exchanged comments on blogs, Facebooks and trifles of that sort, the fact remains that this sort of tech communication links ends to create strange, not far away , with which it achieves secure a strong and loving relationships, and therefore, without more, well, bluntly, I can say that I like Pedro de Paz nice.
do not know. Perhaps because of his intransigence that exacerbated the deception and arrogance, perhaps, for this gritty sense of humor that seems to possess, sly and bad-looking, or, perhaps, by that character and raging bully to me like a glimpse in their speeches bloggers , who pushes him, I believe, to circumvent restrictions and warmth and ridicule in prose, those who abuse or violate what he considered fair or what is particularly concerned, the English way of being so courageous as forgotten, that moves to defend the alien at the expense of the proper, even if it means a lesson, a bad "direto" or a slap.
And that character is his, or so I believed him, "what Peter has turned in his" The Man Who Killed Durruti ", awarded the José Saramago back in 2003 and now, Fortunately for his readers, the publisher has kindly Aladena reprint.
In his novel, Pedro de Paz shells investigation to discover who and what lay behind the death of Buenaventura Durruti, syndicalist leader and Republican militiaman died in Madrid in November 1936 during an alleged scuffle at the front of the university city of Madrid. To designate such a great task Commander and Lieutenant Fernández Durán Alcázar, who, like the Peace Peter himself confesses, no more than mere transcripts of the famous characters in the novels of Conan Doyle, which is confessed admirer. So, the honest and dedicated Fernández Durán, commander of the Republican army and former policeman, will assume the role of Sherlock Holmes, while Alcazar, a smart lieutenant conseguidor halo, representing the Watson.
In the play, through interrogation and subsequent reflections on them, Pedro de Paz outlines the circumstances surrounding the death of Durruti during, the testimony offered, the contradictions detected and inevitable assumptions and assumptions that arise therefrom. All this makes an admirable narrative rhythm, without fuss or fanfare, and with an accurate and sensible language that makes the reader gripped to the novel and it does not come off until you have eaten.
The author's ability is unquestionable. Everything important is hidden in the background that is intertwined with lies and conspiracies, and this lets the reader to devise new theories that make the event even more unreasonable and unattainable. Everyone lies, everyone is saying the truth, and the reader, who is angry and offended, he has no choice but to turn more and more reading. Pedro
falls further into temptation historicist and manipulative, but it has all the necessary assets and used for the benefit of the plot, without focusing on sympathies and claims or to demonstrate partisan loyalties. She acknowledged, however, in many ways, his admiration for Durruti and consistency that he showed throughout his life, but insists it is show us what it is, elevating it to the status of myth or parapet behind false excuses, but also shows its meanness and misery, certainly abundant in the character.
"The Man Who Killed Durruti" is, in short, a wonderful novel, full of stylistic resources and lessons, which has successfully come to terms with a gender, that of the thriller, which had long fled. Therefore go from here, my sincere thanks and heartfelt tribute.
Thank you, Peter, "The Man Who Killed Durruti.
Let us begin, though not really know how and the result is chaotic.
Before that, however, I must clarify one thing.
happens that I never know where to start. Accustomed to beating around the bush, constantly spinning around on one side to another, as would a sick bug or without head, to concoct speculations that claim to brilliance, which are instantly dismissed by stupid and generate other equally absurd or fools. And so ad nauseum, until I get bored and, finally, now convinced of my worthlessness, left the company, crestfallen and crippled. Today, however, do something different, because I want because I peta and because I can not think of a better way to do it. So, pull, to gloss over the image I formed of the author.
While my relationship with Pedro de Paz is limited to those two exchanged comments on blogs, Facebooks and trifles of that sort, the fact remains that this sort of tech communication links ends to create strange, not far away , with which it achieves secure a strong and loving relationships, and therefore, without more, well, bluntly, I can say that I like Pedro de Paz nice.
do not know. Perhaps because of his intransigence that exacerbated the deception and arrogance, perhaps, for this gritty sense of humor that seems to possess, sly and bad-looking, or, perhaps, by that character and raging bully to me like a glimpse in their speeches bloggers , who pushes him, I believe, to circumvent restrictions and warmth and ridicule in prose, those who abuse or violate what he considered fair or what is particularly concerned, the English way of being so courageous as forgotten, that moves to defend the alien at the expense of the proper, even if it means a lesson, a bad "direto" or a slap.
And that character is his, or so I believed him, "what Peter has turned in his" The Man Who Killed Durruti ", awarded the José Saramago back in 2003 and now, Fortunately for his readers, the publisher has kindly Aladena reprint.
In his novel, Pedro de Paz shells investigation to discover who and what lay behind the death of Buenaventura Durruti, syndicalist leader and Republican militiaman died in Madrid in November 1936 during an alleged scuffle at the front of the university city of Madrid. To designate such a great task Commander and Lieutenant Fernández Durán Alcázar, who, like the Peace Peter himself confesses, no more than mere transcripts of the famous characters in the novels of Conan Doyle, which is confessed admirer. So, the honest and dedicated Fernández Durán, commander of the Republican army and former policeman, will assume the role of Sherlock Holmes, while Alcazar, a smart lieutenant conseguidor halo, representing the Watson.
In the play, through interrogation and subsequent reflections on them, Pedro de Paz outlines the circumstances surrounding the death of Durruti during, the testimony offered, the contradictions detected and inevitable assumptions and assumptions that arise therefrom. All this makes an admirable narrative rhythm, without fuss or fanfare, and with an accurate and sensible language that makes the reader gripped to the novel and it does not come off until you have eaten.
The author's ability is unquestionable. Everything important is hidden in the background that is intertwined with lies and conspiracies, and this lets the reader to devise new theories that make the event even more unreasonable and unattainable. Everyone lies, everyone is saying the truth, and the reader, who is angry and offended, he has no choice but to turn more and more reading. Pedro
falls further into temptation historicist and manipulative, but it has all the necessary assets and used for the benefit of the plot, without focusing on sympathies and claims or to demonstrate partisan loyalties. She acknowledged, however, in many ways, his admiration for Durruti and consistency that he showed throughout his life, but insists it is show us what it is, elevating it to the status of myth or parapet behind false excuses, but also shows its meanness and misery, certainly abundant in the character.
"The Man Who Killed Durruti" is, in short, a wonderful novel, full of stylistic resources and lessons, which has successfully come to terms with a gender, that of the thriller, which had long fled. Therefore go from here, my sincere thanks and heartfelt tribute.
Thank you, Peter, "The Man Who Killed Durruti.
