Auyero's general argument is convincing, as is his assertion that there is a gray zone in politics that is shot through with ambiguity and exercised by other than official means. However, I wonder about the use of [Primo Levi]. In particular, the passage Auyero quotes from Levi describes the experience of a victim entering a Nazi concentration camp. Levi describes how confusing and disarming it is to find, rather than solidarity among victims and clarity about the perpetrators, "many confused, perhaps innumerable frontiers" (Levi 1988 in Auyero, 31). Levi goes on to describe hierarchies among victims, the ways in which victims were made into perpetrators, and the almost complete death of solidarity and fellow feeling (Levi 1988). One might read the adoption of Levi's "gray zone" as somehow suggesting that the poor Argentines engaged in looting have been turned into the perpetrators of their own victimization. This is a troubling, if thought-provoking, implication, one which it is not clear Auyero intends.