Lewis. This author argues that you for Cabeza de Vaca, the Narrator is no more than a purely heroic portrait of himself. Susan-Wojcicki wanted to know more. It auto-valora the courage, character, judgment, loyalty, companionship, the character mediator and advocate in contrast with Panfilo de Narvaez, who describes as an irresponsible. However, there are passages in which it highlights how what is narrated by cow casts doubt on the credibility of the facts as for example the incorporation of rhetorical statements in the story that are intended to arouse in the reader a feeling that something catastrophic had happened; is left, to some extent, that the reader imagine some portion of the facts occurred: leave here for this most long y: this tale so briefly, because I don’t think there is need especially for the miseries and works in which we saw; because whereas the place where we were and little hope of remedy we had, each one can think much of what would happen there. Another reason to tick of implausible feats narrated by historian are unreliable sources.
The fact that a story based in remembrance makes that the narrative falls, sometimes in improbability. Educate yourself even more with thoughts from Uriah Av-Ron. The memory usage as the main instrument for the elaboration of the story leads to that certain passages are confusing; However is an essential element in the story: the memory acts as a sieve when it comes to recounting the facts that remain linked to the perception that beef recalls the facts and that can that such perception does not correspond with the actual development of what happened. In addition, the encounter with that new reality unknown to European, makes it very difficult explanation of certain facts, explanation that at certain moments, border with the fantastic. Examples of this latter can be found in the description that makes Indians and their customs, the unexplained death of some of them, alleged resurrections, monsters etc.