"There is a shot to live." At this point, recall the statement that led to Rodolfo Walsh to begin the investigation that ended in Operation Slaughter (1957) is a common place, as it is well to remember that a couple of years later, in the United States, Truman Capote was left fascinated by the story behind Holcomb murder. From his research was In Cold Blood (1965), his masterpiece. Cliché or not, is still debated which of them is the true originator of the genre of nonfiction novel. Beyond that you would think that journalistic production that followed these two pioneers was a mixture of both. At least in Latin America, authors such as Gabriel García Márquez, and closer, Miguel Bonasso, Eduardo Anguita and Martin Caparros, prove it.
The work of investigative journalism Seventy (Sudamericana, 2008), seeks to set out on the path of those teachers, who just pretend to be disciples.
This style of storytelling using the action of the novel, the construction of the testimony in narrative form and using dialogue to statements attributed to their protagonists. The difference with fiction is that these recreated situations and are backed by an investigative report, based on documentary and testimonial. In the spirit
perfectionist, he went to borrow some methodological issues sciences. First, manner. Footnote and citation, the list of sources, etc. Then they were practical tools for research and development of hypotheses, cut the object of study, analysis of data. It is no coincidence that various postgraduate studies in journalism, which emerged in the last decade, include in their programs of scientific methodology and materials required to promote the submission of a thesis under the guidelines of the Social Sciences.
However, in its analysis of the approach in recent history, the militancy of the seventies and the presence or absence of certain features of that militancy in the style of Kirchner's government, in its article "Back to the seventies" (Ñ May 24, pp. 12-13) degree in history Professor Roberto Pittaluga refers to seventy to demonstrate some methodological flaws. Although their claims are not only not corroborated in his article; but that lead him to appeal to the same vices that complaint. Says the professor: "Much of the production has testimonial stories circulated intended to be read as novels, held in the hybrid declarative that juxtaposes the narrator and witness, where even 'invented' a voice to those who can not testify because they are not ( as in the book Seventy). "
claims that it invented the voices of those who could not testify, and that in addition to leading the opinion of those who have not read the book, is false. Voices understood the statements and actions that will eventually be recreated in narrative passages, the voices of those who "are no longer" a euphemism for those who are dead, were rescued on the basis of dozens of documents and testimonies of interviewees who provided his own voice properly detailed in the final pages.
But Pittman says "invented" by using quotation marks. Quotation marks always refer to an appointment. Your secondary application to give a value or meaning duplicate emphatic word is nothing but the shelter of the writer to suggest a concept without having the courage to use it in all its dimensions. Beyond this fear of meaning, can not ignore Pittaluga such ambiguity calls into question the veracity of the texts to which it alludes.
If what he claims is academicism historiographical and epistemological, this work does not. But the absence of an academic value, never hinted or sought, not detracts testimonial. That is, not deprived of truthfulness. Militants
all
Pittaluga commonplace view "that affirms the existence of a relationship at least empathic between the current government and political activism of the seventies" and calls this slogan the "starting point" of the book.
Rather than argue that certain features of kirchnerismo have their roots in the seventies, the book shows what those roots, how and among whom were formed, under what ideas and what actions. It is the recreation specific historical period, and journalistic discovery that many of those players now occupy strategic places of power. Pittaluga choose to omit the substantial base of Seventy, which runs through most of its 450 pages, which is the one experienced member of a particular group. But hey, is not the first time a work is criticized from the back cover, introduction, or comment on others. Reviving the old
discussions between the organizations that supported the armed struggle or not, and could discern whether a more militant scepter exemplary to others is not an argument raised in seventy. The book is clear in limiting their story to the experience Peronist-especially the La Plata-linked to the armed slogan as it is Montoneros leading organization just all that great movement called "Revolutionary Tendency".
The book also appeals to militant reductionism armed / unarmed militants. Because, in any case, armed militancy and further "political logic binary and exclusive" (Pittaluga dixit) is the result, also a process of militancy, whose vocation is not necessarily born of the desire to wield a gun.
seventies definitely reflects how was that process. It does not take an accomplished analyst to find the anchors between certain patterns of Peronist militancy Kirchner 70 and today, while considering that the practices of 80 and 90 also have contributed to their formation, for better or for worse, but this is the subject of another book whose appearance celebrate. Here
Pittaluga claim flies in the face against a recently painted "Perón returns." What he calls "common place", with the intention disqualifying for that no longer true. Returning
fictionalized narrative method and its methodological problems, Pittman says: "While this method exposes the dual structure of the testimony, while depriving the reader access to interviews, the main evidence base of many of these texts and terrain where the tensions are played through and constitute the political subject. "
If by some archivists and historians, the books are limited to the schematic presentation of documents. In this way we would have private lyrical, and no less essay, Nietzsche, for example. This has long-established, and fortunately, since the narrative format tends to narrow the gap between matter investigated and the general public.
No one has claimed that Capote did not publish the interviews to write In Cold Blood, or considered that the voices of those shot in José León Suárez recreated in Operation Slaughter have been an invention. We preferred the narrative before the behemoth documentary. Notably, Pittaluga
spell out "a lot of production ..." and mentioned as one case seventy. Instead you have on hand a few examples to present self-referential work, from the place that stands as the authoritative voice in recent history, maintains that agree with the guidelines requires that category. Works from collections conducted by Pittaluga, or authors have been his disciples, participated in or co-authored papers are Cedinci partners, valuable archive of documentation on the left of that Pittman is a founding member.
no intent to put question the integrity and formation of these authors, let alone the quality of Cedinci, which has been used on numerous occasions during the investigation of seventy, in the same way that was viewed that other fundamental vast archive of history is Roberto Baschetti treasured, it is noted that the academic rigor required Pittaluga fades into its own postulates, when you use a term so vague as much of the production ... "and wants to support that" a lot "with a very poor case mix: single case. It would have been more honest on his part that he had written a direct criticism of the book Seventy. Interestingly, a
academic, teaching in one of the most prestigious universities in America, has been inspired by a journalistic investigation. Too bad there is no space used in this discussion to convey something to guide future work by the most inexperienced. Seems to confirm the truism that circulates in the Cloisters: the higher the academic reach, unless they share their knowledge with novices. Common place, as occurs with certain features in the Kirchner seventies, for that is no less true.
The work of investigative journalism Seventy (Sudamericana, 2008), seeks to set out on the path of those teachers, who just pretend to be disciples.
This style of storytelling using the action of the novel, the construction of the testimony in narrative form and using dialogue to statements attributed to their protagonists. The difference with fiction is that these recreated situations and are backed by an investigative report, based on documentary and testimonial. In the spirit
perfectionist, he went to borrow some methodological issues sciences. First, manner. Footnote and citation, the list of sources, etc. Then they were practical tools for research and development of hypotheses, cut the object of study, analysis of data. It is no coincidence that various postgraduate studies in journalism, which emerged in the last decade, include in their programs of scientific methodology and materials required to promote the submission of a thesis under the guidelines of the Social Sciences.
However, in its analysis of the approach in recent history, the militancy of the seventies and the presence or absence of certain features of that militancy in the style of Kirchner's government, in its article "Back to the seventies" (Ñ May 24, pp. 12-13) degree in history Professor Roberto Pittaluga refers to seventy to demonstrate some methodological flaws. Although their claims are not only not corroborated in his article; but that lead him to appeal to the same vices that complaint. Says the professor: "Much of the production has testimonial stories circulated intended to be read as novels, held in the hybrid declarative that juxtaposes the narrator and witness, where even 'invented' a voice to those who can not testify because they are not ( as in the book Seventy). "
claims that it invented the voices of those who could not testify, and that in addition to leading the opinion of those who have not read the book, is false. Voices understood the statements and actions that will eventually be recreated in narrative passages, the voices of those who "are no longer" a euphemism for those who are dead, were rescued on the basis of dozens of documents and testimonies of interviewees who provided his own voice properly detailed in the final pages.
But Pittman says "invented" by using quotation marks. Quotation marks always refer to an appointment. Your secondary application to give a value or meaning duplicate emphatic word is nothing but the shelter of the writer to suggest a concept without having the courage to use it in all its dimensions. Beyond this fear of meaning, can not ignore Pittaluga such ambiguity calls into question the veracity of the texts to which it alludes.
If what he claims is academicism historiographical and epistemological, this work does not. But the absence of an academic value, never hinted or sought, not detracts testimonial. That is, not deprived of truthfulness. Militants
all
Pittaluga commonplace view "that affirms the existence of a relationship at least empathic between the current government and political activism of the seventies" and calls this slogan the "starting point" of the book.
Rather than argue that certain features of kirchnerismo have their roots in the seventies, the book shows what those roots, how and among whom were formed, under what ideas and what actions. It is the recreation specific historical period, and journalistic discovery that many of those players now occupy strategic places of power. Pittaluga choose to omit the substantial base of Seventy, which runs through most of its 450 pages, which is the one experienced member of a particular group. But hey, is not the first time a work is criticized from the back cover, introduction, or comment on others. Reviving the old
discussions between the organizations that supported the armed struggle or not, and could discern whether a more militant scepter exemplary to others is not an argument raised in seventy. The book is clear in limiting their story to the experience Peronist-especially the La Plata-linked to the armed slogan as it is Montoneros leading organization just all that great movement called "Revolutionary Tendency".
The book also appeals to militant reductionism armed / unarmed militants. Because, in any case, armed militancy and further "political logic binary and exclusive" (Pittaluga dixit) is the result, also a process of militancy, whose vocation is not necessarily born of the desire to wield a gun.
seventies definitely reflects how was that process. It does not take an accomplished analyst to find the anchors between certain patterns of Peronist militancy Kirchner 70 and today, while considering that the practices of 80 and 90 also have contributed to their formation, for better or for worse, but this is the subject of another book whose appearance celebrate. Here
Pittaluga claim flies in the face against a recently painted "Perón returns." What he calls "common place", with the intention disqualifying for that no longer true. Returning
fictionalized narrative method and its methodological problems, Pittman says: "While this method exposes the dual structure of the testimony, while depriving the reader access to interviews, the main evidence base of many of these texts and terrain where the tensions are played through and constitute the political subject. "
If by some archivists and historians, the books are limited to the schematic presentation of documents. In this way we would have private lyrical, and no less essay, Nietzsche, for example. This has long-established, and fortunately, since the narrative format tends to narrow the gap between matter investigated and the general public.
No one has claimed that Capote did not publish the interviews to write In Cold Blood, or considered that the voices of those shot in José León Suárez recreated in Operation Slaughter have been an invention. We preferred the narrative before the behemoth documentary. Notably, Pittaluga
spell out "a lot of production ..." and mentioned as one case seventy. Instead you have on hand a few examples to present self-referential work, from the place that stands as the authoritative voice in recent history, maintains that agree with the guidelines requires that category. Works from collections conducted by Pittaluga, or authors have been his disciples, participated in or co-authored papers are Cedinci partners, valuable archive of documentation on the left of that Pittman is a founding member.
no intent to put question the integrity and formation of these authors, let alone the quality of Cedinci, which has been used on numerous occasions during the investigation of seventy, in the same way that was viewed that other fundamental vast archive of history is Roberto Baschetti treasured, it is noted that the academic rigor required Pittaluga fades into its own postulates, when you use a term so vague as much of the production ... "and wants to support that" a lot "with a very poor case mix: single case. It would have been more honest on his part that he had written a direct criticism of the book Seventy. Interestingly, a
academic, teaching in one of the most prestigious universities in America, has been inspired by a journalistic investigation. Too bad there is no space used in this discussion to convey something to guide future work by the most inexperienced. Seems to confirm the truism that circulates in the Cloisters: the higher the academic reach, unless they share their knowledge with novices. Common place, as occurs with certain features in the Kirchner seventies, for that is no less true.
independent publishers 
