In Tiempo pasado, cultura de la memoria y giro subjetivo. Una discución, Beatriz Sarlo questions the historical accuracy of Argentinean testimonials stemming from the period of state terrorism in the 1970's. Her perspectives regarding memory and, in her view, its unreliability, are contrasted with the testimonial writings of Nora Strejilevich, who depends on the recollection of her experiences in the crafting of her work. This study explores the writings of Strejilevich, including El arte de no olvidar and Una sola muerte numerosa, as a counterpoint and refutation of Sarlo's position. The conflict between the views of Sarlo and Strejilevich generates a discussion of such themes as the nature of trauma and its effect on memory, the search for objectivity, and the purpose behind testimonial discourse as well as the rhetorical strategies used in its creation. Sarlo's failure to distinguish between post-traumatic discourse and other testimonial styles, such as historical narrative, produces an ambiguity that suggests the lack of an appropriate paradigm with which to distinguish among various types of testimonial modes. Strejilevich's views on post-traumatic discourse are considered in their principal components and compared to those of theorists such as Cathy Caruth, John Beverley and James Booth. Areas such as historical subjectivity and objectivity are analyzed through the writings of Jacques Le Goff, Paul Ricouer and Michele de Certeau. The premises of these theorists are also compared to corresponding points in Sarlo's analysis. In addition, Strejilevich's conceptual framing of the distinct features that constitute the first person narrator in survivor testimony are contrasted with Sarlo's notion of the reconstructed self. By examining opposing theoretical schemes, this study seeks to accentuate the distinguishing features that frame post-traumatic discourse.