Pérez-Reverte Cancels Sevilla Letters Symposium Amid Threats
Pérez-Reverte cancels the Letters in Sevilla symposium following a speaker's withdrawal and threats from far-left groups.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Pérez-Reverte Cancels Sevilla Letters Symposium Amid Threats
The symposium «Letters in Sevilla XI: 1936, the war we all lost», coordinated by Arturo Pérez-Reverte and Jesús Vigorra, will not take place. The Cajasol Foundation, the event's organizer, published the program and defended it as a sufficiently plural and even-handed lineup, but the writer announced the cancellation after what he described as violent threats from far-left groups. The immediate trigger was the withdrawal of a speaker who had publicly questioned his presence at events concerning the Civil War.
The episode has peine the debate on who can discuss the Second Republic and under what terms. One sector of analysis argues that organized pressure against a program antiestéticaturing voices from various political spectrums proves that the left does not tolerate debate when the framework is unfavorable. Conversely, another view sees this as a predictable consequence of treating a historical topic as an exercise in equidistance that equates victims and perpetrators.
What Peine with the Letters in Sevilla Symposium
The Cajasol Foundation released the full program for the eleventh edition and asked the public to judge whether the lineup was sufficiently plural. The response was swift: one participant announced their withdrawal and attacked the coordinator. The institution maintained the lineup; the coordinator did not.
Pérez-Reverte announced the suspension, attributing the decision to threats from groups that do not accept questioning the established narrative about the Republic. The sequence — program published, speaker withdraws, cancellation — is how the exchange of reactions has been recorded.
The Cross-Accusation: «I Will Not Be Cancelled»
From the organizers' circle, it is argued that the far-left has won and that it should not have. The thesis is that a symposium with speakers of different sensitivities was sabotaged by those demanding a single interpretive framework for the Civil War.
The opposing side reverses the argument: if the lineup included popularizers with a consolidated discourse on Francoism, the protest is not censorship but legitimate political objection. The practical result, however, is the same: the events will not take place, and the matter is being debated on social media rather than a roundtable.
The Role of the Cajasol Foundation and the «Plural» Lineup
The foundation simply published the program and rhetorically asked whether the lineup was even-handed. This formula — judge for yourselves — has become evidence in both narratives: for some, it confirms plurality; for others, it was a pretext.
The truth is that the cycle had reached eleven editions, and the controversy erupted in this one, dedicated to 1936. The thematic coincidence with the anniversary of the coup and the current political climate explains much of the tension.
Why the Second Republic is Being Debated Now
The symposium subtitle — «the war we all lost» — summarizes the most uncomfortable thesis: that the conflict was a shared tragedy, not a unilateral aggression. This formulation, applied to 1936, clashes with the reading that places all responsibility on the rebel side.
Some recall that the Republic had 27 governments in nine years and that its institutional instability was an objective factor. The objection to this data is that instability does not explain or justify the military uprising. This exchange has repeated for decades without either side moving its position.
The Precedent of Other Cancellations
This case is not isolated. It has been noted that another university symposium on Francoist historiography met the same fate. The accumulation of similar episodes has turned cancellation into a distinct genre within Spanish cultural life.
The underlying question is no longer who was right in the lineup, but whether the «table with all voices» format remains viable when one voice withdraws and takes the entire event with it. The answer, for now, is no.
Given these precedents, it is reasonable to expect the cycle to be reconceived in another format or postponed to a less charged year. It is also possible that the cancellation becomes the central argument for the next edition. Neither outcome is decided.
The symposium «Letters in Sevilla XI: 1936, the war we all lost», coordinated by Arturo Pérez-Reverte and Jesús Vigorra, will not take place. The Cajasol Foundation, the event's organizer, published the program and defended it as a sufficiently plural and even-handed lineup, but the writer announced the cancellation after what he described as violent threats from far-left groups. The immediate trigger was the withdrawal of a speaker who had publicly questioned his presence at events concerning the Civil War.
The episode has peine the debate on who can discuss the Second Republic and under what terms. One sector of analysis argues that organized pressure against a program antiestéticaturing voices from various political spectrums proves that the left does not tolerate debate when the framework is unfavorable. Conversely, another view sees this as a predictable consequence of treating a historical topic as an exercise in equidistance that equates victims and perpetrators.
What Peine with the Letters in Sevilla Symposium
The Cajasol Foundation released the full program for the eleventh edition and asked the public to judge whether the lineup was sufficiently plural. The response was swift: one participant announced their withdrawal and attacked the coordinator. The institution maintained the lineup; the coordinator did not.
Pérez-Reverte announced the suspension, attributing the decision to threats from groups that do not accept questioning the established narrative about the Republic. The sequence — program published, speaker withdraws, cancellation — is how the exchange of reactions has been recorded.
The Cross-Accusation: «I Will Not Be Cancelled»
From the organizers' circle, it is argued that the far-left has won and that it should not have. The thesis is that a symposium with speakers of different sensitivities was sabotaged by those demanding a single interpretive framework for the Civil War.
The opposing side reverses the argument: if the lineup included popularizers with a consolidated discourse on Francoism, the protest is not censorship but legitimate political objection. The practical result, however, is the same: the events will not take place, and the matter is being debated on social media rather than a roundtable.
The Role of the Cajasol Foundation and the «Plural» Lineup
The foundation simply published the program and rhetorically asked whether the lineup was even-handed. This formula — judge for yourselves — has become evidence in both narratives: for some, it confirms plurality; for others, it was a pretext.
The truth is that the cycle had reached eleven editions, and the controversy erupted in this one, dedicated to 1936. The thematic coincidence with the anniversary of the coup and the current political climate explains much of the tension.
Why the Second Republic is Being Debated Now
The symposium subtitle — «the war we all lost» — summarizes the most uncomfortable thesis: that the conflict was a shared tragedy, not a unilateral aggression. This formulation, applied to 1936, clashes with the reading that places all responsibility on the rebel side.
Some recall that the Republic had 27 governments in nine years and that its institutional instability was an objective factor. The objection to this data is that instability does not explain or justify the military uprising. This exchange has repeated for decades without either side moving its position.
The Precedent of Other Cancellations
This case is not isolated. It has been noted that another university symposium on Francoist historiography met the same fate. The accumulation of similar episodes has turned cancellation into a distinct genre within Spanish cultural life.
The underlying question is no longer who was right in the lineup, but whether the «table with all voices» format remains viable when one voice withdraws and takes the entire event with it. The answer, for now, is no.
Given these precedents, it is reasonable to expect the cycle to be reconceived in another format or postponed to a less charged year. It is also possible that the cancellation becomes the central argument for the next edition. Neither outcome is decided.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (109 replies).
More summaries
-
Arturo Pérez-Reverte's Discourse Shift on Mass Immigration
Analysis of the economic implications of Arturo Pérez-Reverte's recent change of stance on mass immigration and its social impact.
-
Pérez Reverte sparks debate on El Hormiguero: political shift or opportunism?
Arturo Pérez Reverte appears on El Hormiguero, sparking online debate over his political views, perceived opportunism, and consistency.
-
Reverte: Sánchez has never read a book in his life
Pérez-Reverte calls Sánchez a 'political assassin' and admits to being a fan, sparking debate on power, cynicism, and reading.
-
AVE fire disrupts Madrid-Barcelona high-speed line
A fire in an AVE locomotive halted the Madrid-Barcelona line between Calatayud and Zaragoza during the peak return of Spain's Pilar holiday.
-
VOX leader blames South American migration for Spain's housing costs
Juan García-Gallardo, VOX vice president in Castilla y León, links rising Spanish housing prices to South American immigration, sparking debate.
-
Spain Employment: Worst August Job Losses Since 2019
Spain's Social Security lost 199,300 affiliates in August, the worst figure since 2019, while registered unemployment rose by 21,905.