‘Todos miran como miro yo’ [They all look on the world as I do]. So states Arturo Pérez-Reverte in an interview in 2002. In this one sentence, he creates a link between author and created character that, as will be seen, has ramifications for how his novels may be interpreted. The dilemma faced by critically-aware readers is, we are told, that character and narrator and real author are not to be confused. They are separate entities, only one of which, namely the author, has any existence in real life. What happens, then, when characters in fiction exhibit traits that are shared by their creator? The reaction of readers may be one of confusion, of not knowing whether what is being read is fictional or autobiographical.

This chapter examines the role of characterisation in interpreting Arturo Pérez-Reverte's fiction. We shall see that, while the male protagonists are initially described in heroic terms, it soon transpires that they are in control neither of narrated events nor of their own actions. They share certain character traits, such as deep disillusionment, that eventually counter attempts by readers to see them as anything but ineffectual failures. Conversely, the female characters are seen to ‘read’ events more successfully: they are more powerful, less gullible; they are the manipulators of the stories. This is not to say, however, that Pérez-Reverte's novels are a defence of women, or a feminist reconstruction of the female role, though some may choose to read them as such. Rather, as this chapter concludes, it is through characterization that he explores two methods of reading: the skilled version of reading, symbolised through the female, and the failure to read accurately, as demonstrated by the naïve male. Of course, the male–female binary opposition is not an unusual one, but it is interesting that, in a time when gender issues are of critical interest, we have here an example of texts where gender roles may be seen to inscribe certain ideologies regarding how texts should, and are, being read. This is ironic indeed if we call to mind the various critical theories that are suspicious of just such an opposition.