How a footnote in a Dominican history textbook became an obsession, and how that obsession became a novel about power, complicity, and the mourning after a tyrant falls.
It began with a footnote.
Not a revelation. Not a secret document. Not even a dramatic scene. Just a brief reference buried near the bottom of a page in a Dominican history textbook. A name. A date. A passing mention of an event that seemed far too large to occupy so little space.
Most readers would have moved on.
I couldn't.
The more I read about the final years of Rafael Trujillo's dictatorship, the more I became aware of an unsettling pattern. The official story was clear. Too clear. There were heroes, villains, victims, conspirators, martyrs. The narrative had already been arranged. Its moral lessons had already been assigned.
Yet beneath that apparent certainty there existed a second history.
A history of contradictions.
A history of people who occupied uncomfortable spaces between courage and fear, resistance and collaboration, guilt and survival.
The men who plotted against Trujillo had often served him. The families who suffered under the regime had sometimes benefited from it. Those who celebrated his death were forced to confront the fact that thirty-one years of dictatorship do not disappear in a single night. A dictator can fall. The system that produced him often remains.
That realization became the true origin of the novel.
At first, I imagined I was researching a historical event. Soon I discovered I was researching a landscape of absences. Documents contradicted one another. Witnesses remembered different versions of the same incident. Entire episodes appeared in one source and vanished from another. Some archives were incomplete. Others seemed almost suspiciously complete.
The deeper I went, the more the novel changed.
What interested me was no longer Trujillo himself. Dictators eventually become monuments, symbols, caricatures of power. What fascinated me were the people left behind after the monument collapsed.
How does a nation remember a tyrant?
How does it remember those who served him?
How does it remember those who resisted too late?
And perhaps most importantly: who gets to tell that story?
Those questions eventually led me toward a form that was neither pure history nor pure fiction. The novel became an investigation conducted by a narrator who distrusts both official narratives and his own conclusions. A writer searching through archives. A son confronting the possibility that his father was not who he believed him to be. A voice constantly interrupted by documents, testimonies, doubts, and competing versions of the past.
In other words, the book became about the act of searching itself.
Writers often speak about discovering their subjects.
My experience was the opposite.
The subject discovered me.
For years, I read historians, memoirs, official reports, biographies, testimonies, and government documents. Each new source seemed to repeat the same assumptions, the same convenient certainties, the same moral architecture imposed upon a far more complicated reality. Yet the final push came from an unexpected place: literature itself.
Reading The Feast of the Goat was the last straw.
The novel is a remarkable literary achievement and undoubtedly one of the most influential books ever written about Trujillo's dictatorship. Yet what troubled me was not the novel itself but the authority it acquired almost immediately. It seemed that many historians, journalists, and commentators were eager to embrace it not merely as fiction but as a confirmation of an already established narrative.
The irony was difficult to ignore.
For decades, Dominican historiography had struggled with contradictions, omissions, political loyalties, and competing interpretations. Yet many of those same uncertainties appeared to vanish once they were filtered through the imagination of Mario Vargas Llosa. It was as if the traditional narrative needed the prestige of a writer of his stature to legitimize assumptions that had long escaped serious scrutiny.
The more I compared accepted accounts with archival material, testimonies, declassified documents, and forgotten sources, the more questions emerged. Certain figures seemed reduced to symbols. Ambiguities disappeared. Contradictions were resolved too neatly. Complex human beings became characters serving a predetermined interpretation of history.
That realization altered the course of the project.
I was no longer interested in writing another novel about Trujillo.
I became interested in investigating the stories told about Trujillo.
Who created them?
Why had they become dominant?
What evidence supported them?
What evidence had been ignored?
And what happens when fiction, history, memory, and political necessity become impossible to separate?
What began as curiosity slowly became obsession.
One document led to another. A declassified memorandum pointed toward a forgotten witness. An obscure newspaper article raised questions that dozens of academic books failed to answer. The story expanded outward until it touched not only Trujillo but also Cold War politics, foreign intervention, propaganda, memory, and the uneasy relationship between history and storytelling.
Years later, I no longer believe that novels exist to solve historical mysteries.
The best they can do is illuminate them.
History often seeks closure. Literature is free to acknowledge uncertainty. Where the archive ends, imagination begins—not to replace the facts but to confront the silences surrounding them.
Perhaps that is what this novel ultimately became: an attempt to listen to those silences.
The footnote remains where I first found it, buried in a textbook that most readers will never remember. Yet from that small fragment emerged a question large enough to occupy years of reading, writing, doubt, and research.
A question that continues to haunt every page of the book:
What survives after power dies?
Not the dictator.
Not the monuments.
Not even the official story.
What survives are the memories people carry, the secrets they inherit, the lies they learn to live with, and the narratives they construct to make sense of a past that refuses to remain buried.
That, more than the rise or fall of any regime, is the true subject of this novel. And perhaps of every novel written in the shadow of history.
Milton Amador — November 2023
Back to Essays