The first time I read this book I thought it absolutely absurd. At the time I really didn’t not know what to think about the inconceivably ludicrous situations. Rereading it I at least know WHY everything is so strange but it is still just as weird. Take this section for example: “It was a wise custom established by his father ever since one morning when a servant girl had shaken the case to get the pillow out and the pistol went off as it hit the floor and the bullet wrecked the cupboard in the room, went through the living room wall, passed through the dining room of the house next door with the thunder of war, and turned a life-size saint on the altar of the church on the opposite side of the square to plaster dust” (Márquez 6). The context here is a description of why Santiago Nasar makes sure his gun is never loaded at an unsafe time. Supposedly this happened to his father’s gun and he had witnessed it and used this as a valuable lesson. It also seems to be right out of the blue, with Santiago and the narrator taking it as a completely normal thing to learn from. But the reason for this bit of bizarreness right at the start is of course to establish this book’s genre of magical realism, outlining a real life event equally as strange. This background info is indeed useful to me and I can finally take this unusual book semi-seriously. But even for one without the background this should at least catch their attention and begin their questioning… of EVERYTHING.
When picking up this book to read Chapter 1 again, something immediately stood out to me. This book started off with a very strong few words. “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar….” (Márquez 1). This phrase alone, sets up the entire book. As readers, it is immediately clear who this book focuses on, and how it will end. We know exactly what will happen to Santiago Nasar, without knowing anything else about him. This can lead some readers to being very confused. Most times, they save the big event, whether it is a secret coming out, a romance, or in this book’s case a death, until the end of the book to keep the readers on their toes and to continue reading until the end. But in this case, Márquez challenges this traditional approach by putting the big “surprise” at the beginning of the book. We later find out in chapter one that nearly everyone in the town knew of Santiago’s impending death, other than Santiago himself, and a few select others. Throughout the rest of the chapter, the keep implying that he will die soon. Starting in the first chapter, the book already lives up to its title. The narrator, who is unnamed yet speaks in the first person, describes how everyone considered Santiago Nasar cheerful that morning, and they all knew about his death. There was a lot of foreshadowing mentioned, but since the event being narrated occurred in the past, it is not actually foreshadowing. The curious thing that many people may ask, is that if everyone supposedly knew about Santiago Nasar’s death, why did they not tell him about it? If Santiago Nasar was a widely hated figure, the audience would likely be able to reason why this premeditated murder went unspoken of. As we learn, this is not the case. Santiago had many friends in town and even people who tried to convince the Vicario brothers, who were Santiago’s murderers, not to kill him. The chapter abruptly ends, as Luisa Santiaga, the mother the narrator, and also one of his friends who had just learned about the planned murder was going to warn Santiago’s mother of what was going to happen. On her way to inform her, “somebody who was running in the opposite direction took pity.../’Don’t bother yourself Luisa Santiaga,’ he shouted as he went by. ‘They’ve already killed him,’” (Márquez 26). This introductory chapter to the book truly makes it hard to ignore how different the writing style is from most books.
This book certainly has a different writing style from most. But why exactly is the style so different? I believe there are two main reasons. The first is to draw the reader’s attention to various bizarre points, such as no one informing Santiago Nasar or the many coincidences leading to his death. This illuminates the theme of the book quite clearly and causes the reader to ask many questions about society, human nature, honor and other things. The second reason is that this strange style can act as a replacement hook for the reader to latch onto as opposed to the regular unknown that is revealed at the end of the story. The style intrigues, and spurs one on to read more.
In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses visual imagery to create a surreal, dreamlike mood. The novel begins with a description of one of Santiago Nasar’s dreams from the night before he was killed: “He dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling…” (Márquez 1). The phrase “gentle drizzle” creates the image of a foggy, hazy state of being because a light drizzle would obscure the landscape. The haziness of the dream is compounded when inhabitants of the town recall the weather on the day of Santiago’s death: “…most agreed that the weather was funereal, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters, and that at the moment of the misfortune a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago Nasar had seen in his dream grove” (2). A “cloudy, low sky” and “thin drizzle” would obscure the crime, and this hazy imagery contributes to the dreamlike mood. Other details about Santiago’s death also contribute to a surreal and disconnected tone. Everyone remembered Santiago “as being a little sleepy…” (2). This sleepiness suggests a lack of mental alertness that could impede one’s perception of the world around him. Márquez writes that Santiago’s mother’s last sight of him was “his fleeting passage through the bedroom” (4). The word “fleeting” suggests a blurriness or hazy perception. The dreamlike mood that Márquez creates during the opening chapter of the novel suggests the fallibility of collective memory and that this chronicle might not be as authoritative as the title would have the reader believe. The diction that Márquez uses suggests that the inhabitants of the town in which Santiago died are not the most reliable of witnesses to his murder. The hazy tone shrouds the novel in mystery even though the climax of the narrative is revealed in the first sentence, which begins “On the day they were going to kill him…” The reader knows that Santiago is dead, but little else in the novel is clear or certain—it’s all shrouded in a fine mist.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses the motif of community to explore the idea of diffused responsibility. In the first act, when the narrator's mother hears of the news she immediately leaves to go tell Santiago’s mother that he will be killed,”My father, who had heard everything from his bed, appeared in the dining room in his pajamas and asked in alarm where she was going.’To warn my dear friend Placida,’ she answered. ‘It isn’t right that everybody should know that they’re going to kill her son and she the only one that doesn’t.’”(1.22). This dialogue creates a strange sense of community where the inhabitants are very close and compassionate towards one another as one can see in how the narrator's mother goes to console Santiago’s mother even before he is killed. But also illustrates how the characters already assume someone else has taken care of informing Santiago that he is in danger. There is also a reference to the magic in how his mother can predict that Santiago’s mother still doesn’t know, yet this brings up the error of the magic predictions because she can not see that Santiago has not been warned. The narrator also describes a scene in which a worker on a dock gives his account of the whole event,”’When i saw him safe and sound i thought it was all a fib.’ he told me. No one even wondered if Santiago Nasar had been warned, because it seemed so impossible to all that he hadn’t”(1.20). The investigative style of writing in conjunction with these frank, almost apathetic, statements makes them seem more believable. Again, Marquez uses the idea of a tight knit community to suggest diffused responsibility. The man knows that the town is so small that there’s no way that Nasar wouldn’t had known he was in trouble, and seeing him walking around in the middle of the day only confirmed that thought.
I like that you noticed this idea of community throughout the book. I found it very interesting and think that they used their sense of community almost as a scapegoat for their wrong-doings. To me it seemed like the whole book everyone hid behind an excuse or a reason, or pointed the blame elsewhere when they feared that it might be placed on them. This is one way that community negatively affected the story, because people felt as if it was not their own fault, but rather the fault of the others who surrounded them, or a shared guilt. This causes problems when no one can own up to their mistakes and also reversely makes it difficult when trying to figure out who really is at blame, as everyone will point to someone else, or the community as a whole. I think that in most cases people would see community as a good thing, but in the case of Santiago Nasar's murder, community ended up doing more bad than good.
In the first chapter of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the author Gabriel Garcia Marquez illustrates the angelic perception of Santiago Nassar through color imagery. When the narrator visits Nassar’s mother, Placida Linero, she recalls the last thing her son was wearing before he died, “he was dressed in white linen” (Marquez 7). The color of his clothes depicts him as pure and holy, as well as ghostly. The haunting hue foreshadows his imminent death and crafts an eerie tone that simultaneously makes the audience empathize with Santiago and grow wary of him. Marque continues on to describe him , through the narrator’s perspective, as “pale” (7). This physical characteristic paints him as someone to pity or a person who doesn’t do anything wrong. In contrast, the murderers, Pedro and Pablo Vicario are dressed in “dark wedding suits” contrasting the light imagery used to characterize Santiago (15). The color or their garb foreshadows the ominous act they are going to commit. The darkness of their apparel represents death and it sets a sinister tone. The darkness also signifies the unknown way that the main character will die. Through the clothing choices made by Marquez, he manifests the common theme of dark versus light. It’s interesting to see how Marquez initially depict s Santiago Nassar, considering his abominable actions concerning Divina Flor. To his mother and everyone in the town, he is a great person, but with the housemaids he is grotesque and inappropriate. His physical appearance contradicts his true demeanor and personality.
In the book, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the author uses the irony to dream imagery to foreshadow Santiago Nasar’s death to show the lack of attention his family paid to the signs of his coming death. The author begins the novel describing Santiago Nasar’s morning before his death. He writes, “He’d dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit” (Marquez 1). In this passage, Marquez uses soft diction through the words grove and gentle, illustrating a peaceful state of mind that Santiago finds in his dream. A grove is often used to describe a meadow, usually associated with positive connotations. However, his dream ends with the feeling of “bird shit”. This juxtaposition of a peaceful, calm bird to the rude tone of “shit” displays the shock Nasar felt when he awoke without the same peace he’d experienced in his dream. However, his mother is also in shock by the tragic outcome of the dream, stating, “‘Any dream about trees means good health,” ironically showing her lack of attention to the true meaning of his dream as a dream interpreter (Marquez 4). However, his mother also points out that “‘He was always dreaming about trees’” (Marquez 1). In dreams, a group, or grove, of trees standing together is symbolic of “people who keep an eye out for others but don't interfere in a situation unless they are called upon” (dreams.konji.com). Similar to the Kitty Genovese case where a group of neighbors witnessed her murder, yet not a single one attempted to call the police or help her, Santiago Nasar is abandoned by his family. His dreams of trees represent his lack of support from his family as they stand witnesses in his murder. A note revealing, “the place, the motive, and other precise details of the plot” was left on the floor of his home the morning of the murder (Marquez 15). However, “he [Santiago Nasar] didn’t see it, nor did Davina Flor or anyone else until long after the crime had been consummated” (Marquez 15). As shown in the title and by many events and symbols throughout the story, Santiago’s murder was not a secret. However, due to his family’s ironic sense of oblivion to the foretellings of his death, Nasar was unable to be saved.
In A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez misleads the readers with the title. A chronicle is a telling of a story in chronological order. However, he writes in a journalistic style that seems to have no particular order of events and interviews of people. This investigative journalistic narration emphasizes the motif of mystery. The story of this day is repeated throughout the chapters. There is no order to the story as the narrator is trying to learn the true events, “ I returned to this forgotten village, trying to put the broken mirror of memory back together” (Marquez 6). Marquez writes this “mystery” novel about a murder in a non-mysterious way. The reader is aware of the death before it occurs, similar to the characters within the novel. Rather than using literary techniques to foreshadow This allows the reader to understand the Kitty-Genovese syndrome the characters were going through. It is shown that all the characters discussed were aware of Santiago’s imminent death. However, no one made any attempt to stop the murder or tell Santiago of it, besides the mysterious note left under the door. Marquez often discusses the weather of the day, which seems irrelevant and rarely discusses the note left under the door which would be a huge clue in this murder, where the question is not who done it but rather, why did nobody stop it? In chapter one, this note is rarely mentioned in comparison to something as irrelevant as the weather.
In chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold we are introduced to Bayardo San Román. The town takes an immediate liking to him even entertaining the “legend that Bayardo San Román not only was capable of doing everything, and doing it quite well, but also had access to endless resources” (Márquez 27). The narrator's mother also adds: “‘People like him a lot,’ she told me, ‘because he’s honest and has a good heart” (27). But I do not believe that Bayardo is really as generous or respectable as the townspeople believe. One of the prime examples of Bayardo’s selfishness is when he talks to the widower Xius. Bayardo relentlessly confronts Xius about buying his house until he forces him into accepting. Dr. Dionisio Iguarán describes Xius after being presented with the large sum of ten thousand pesos as such: “He was weeping with rage” and judges Xius’ decision to refuse: “Just imagine: an amount like that within reach and having to say no from a simple weakness of the spirit” (37). Bayardo makes Xius out to be a fool and forces him to give in to his unfair proposition by presenting even more money. Xius has to accept or be humiliated. A short two months after giving in Xius dies of grief with Dr. Dionisio describing him as: “healthier than the rest of us, but when you listened with the stethoscope you could hear the tears bubbling inside his heart” (37). What despicable gall Bayardo has! This alone is enough to convince me Bayardo is selfish at heart, but the whole reason he did this is perhaps equally bad: for the benefit of his fiancée, whom was forced into engagement! The narrator states: “It was Angela who didn’t want to marry him” (as opposed to the rest of her family) and that: “Bayardo San Román hadn’t even tried to court her, but had bewitched the family with his charm” (34). The last statement here is especially important, revealing that Bayardo uses his specious allure to trick the family into allowing him to marry Angela even though he has done nothing to deserve it. I therefore think all of Bayardo’s seemingly kind and pleasant actions are all a facade to allow him to get his own selfish way.
In Chapter 2 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” the plot was mostly focused on Bayardo San Román. The audience learns that he had only arrived in the town a short 6 months before his wedding. From the way the narrator describes, it seems as though everyone is fascinated with Bayardo, besides the narrator’s mother. As we learned in Chapter 1, the narrator’s mother claims to have the ability to see into the future. She says in a letter to the narrator, her son, “‘People like him a lot,’ she told me, ‘because he’s honest and has a good heart, and last Sunday he received communion on his knees and helped with the mass in Latin,’” (Márquez 29). This seems as though she is trying to give reasoning on why people like her, or convince herself to try and like him. Later she admits in a complete contrast of this example she gave that “his golden eyes had cause the shudder of a fear in her./‘He reminded me of the devil,’ she told me,” (Márquez 30). This is an odd way that she contradicts what she had previously said. Due to her seemingly supernatural way of being able to sense things, it seems strange that if she had the sense that he was similar to the devil, that she would specifically mention that he took communion at mass. Not only does this relate to the magical realism aspect of this book, but it also goes to show how people held back on the truth, or what they were really feeling often times in order to protect others, This can be seen other times in the book when people neglect to inform Santiago of his impending murder because they don’t want to be the one who has to tell him.
I’m not sure who the narrator’s mother is protecting by claiming that she agrees that Bayardo San Román is a good guy… I kind of think the reason she does this is in order to simply be agreeable among everyone else in the town, who think Bayardo is great. And the reason she mentioned that Bayardo took communion was, as the narrator put is: “my mother is accustomed to noting that kind of superfluous detail when she wants to get to the heart of the matter” (27). In order to get to the heart of matter the narrator’s mother tells of many of Bayardo’s deeds (regardless of how trivial they may be) to emphasize how much he shows off his goodness to the town. At first she doesn’t want anyone to think she doesn’t see Bayardo as a good guy but a long while later after it is less important she is perfectly alright with admitting to the narrator that she did not think Bayardo so good after all.
In chapter 2 of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez emphasizes the theme of manhood and the duties of women through distinct diction. When describing the family of Angela Vicario, Marquez writes “The brothers were brought up to be men” to display the social context of the book and introduce the idea of what it means to be a man (Marquez 31). The author’s purposeful diction insinuates that the Vicario brothers were raised in a house with strict ideas on what it means to be a man. They are not “reared to get married” as the women were, and thus they were not taught to sew, wash, and weave. The differences in language demonstrate the gender inequality in this setting. “Brought up” has connotations of a happy childhood; they became men through a satisfying upbringing. However, the word to describe how the sisters were raised - “reared” - has negative, less personal and jocund implications. The Vicario sisters were bred to be the epitomes of a perfect wife. The different styles of diction help to distinguish how women and men are treated in the novel’s setting. It crafts an illuminating tone that offers the reader new insight into why the characters in the novel act as they do - especially surrounding Santiago Nassar’s murder.
Marquez also demonstrates the duty of women during this time, writing in reference to Purisima del Carmen,“She devoted herself with such spirit of sacrifice to the care of her husband and the rearing of her children that at times one forgot she still existed” (31). Illustrating the lack of appreciation for women, the author writes on how little women are respected for their hardship and care. A doting, hard working woman is invisible in this town; she is not thanked for anything that she does. Del Carmen sacrifices everything she has for her family, this is what a good wife does. This is reiterated through the narrator’s mother’s jarring words concerning the Vicario daughters, “Any man will be happy with them because they’ve been raised to suffer” (31). Women cannot expect a lot out of their life and society, so they are raised to endure the endless mistreatment and unappreciation.
The treatment of women in this work, helps to characterize the men in the novel; they are mostly domineering and privileged.
In chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold it is remarkable how ignored or brushed-off the Vicario twins and their scheme are! It is simply ridiculous how big the extent of this is! The thing that surprised me the most was that even Colonel Aponte, one involved with law enforcement in the town, couldn’t take the twins seriously! He simply says: “No one is arrested just on suspicion”(57). Even though they said it themselves, and that would mean Santiago would most likely have to die for them to be arrested, but then he would be already dead… and that defeats the purpose of arresting them. He also justifies himself by taking the twin’s knives and saying: “Now they haven’t got anything to kill anybody with” (57). But the Vicario twins are known animal slaughters and so could easily get another of their knives… which is exactly what they do. The Colonel seems much more surprised by the twins drunken state than their scheme to kill Santiago: “What will the bishop say if he finds you in that state!” (56). The fact of the matter is this is just absolutely impossible and could never happen except that this is magical reali— waitaminute. Something like this DID happen. And it seemed like such an impossible event… which is exactly what this book means to show. Sometimes we are unaware of the inner workings of human nature, and just how people behave.
In Chapter Two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Márquez explores the concept of virginity with the following passage:
“They assured her that almost all women lost their virginity in childhood accidents. They insisted that even the most difficult of husbands resigned themselves to anything as long as nobody knew about it. They convinced her, finally, that most men came to their wedding night so frightened that they were incapable of doing anything without the woman’s help, and at the moment of truth they couldn’t answer for their own acts. “They only thing they believe is what they see on the sheet,” they told her. And they taught her old wives’ tricks to feign her lost possession, so that on her first morning as a newlywed she could display open under the sun in the courtyard of her house the linen sheet with the stain of honor” (42).
The influence of Catholicism in the town where Angela lives makes it so that premarital sex is seen as sin and that all women are supposed to be virgins when they marry. The definition of virginity, to the citizens of this town, is an intact hymen, suggesting that a woman’s first time having sex would tear the hymen and cause her to bleed, leaving “the stain of honor” on the sheet (42). This bloody stain was supposedly proof that the woman was a virgin. The idea that “almost all women lost their virginity in childhood accidents” (that tore the hymen) presents a contradiction: the social construction of virginity is seemingly of little importance if it is acknowledged that women can lose their virginity without having sex, yet to Angela and her family, it is imperative that she remain a virgin until marrying Bayardo San Román. In this passage, Márquez emphasizes the power that men supposedly hold over women. A husband supposedly only believes “what [he sees] on the sheet,” suggesting that he trusts a mark that could be easily faked (“they taught her old wives’ tricks to feign her lost possession”) more than the word of his own wife, showing that women could not be trusted (42). The description of virginity as a possession that can be lost implies that a woman who has had sex is inherently less than a woman who has not, just because after having sex, she is now missing a piece of herself. Something interesting to note about the passage is that Márquez concedes that men aren’t always able to fit into their masculine gender roles: “most men came to their wedding night so frightened that they were incapable of doing anything without the woman’s help” (42). Men are much more nuanced and complex than any one description of masculinity. However, Márquez doesn’t suggest that women can be anything other than submissive, even if they have to “help” their husbands. Angela was still expected to pour fake blood onto her sheets so that she could appear as a helpless victim of a violent conquest.
At the beginning of Chapter Three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the Vicario brothers surrendered to the church: “‘We killed him openly,’ Pedro Vicario said, ‘but we’re innocent’” (55). When describing this scene, Márquez uses violent, active diction: “They burst panting into the parish house, closely pursued by a group of roused-up Arabs…Both were exhausted from the barbarous work of death, and their clothes and arms were soaked and their faces smeared with wet and still living blood, but the priest recalled the surrender as an act of great dignity” (55). This contradiction is interesting. Words and phrases such as “burst,” “exhausted,” “soaked,” and “still living blood” create a very undignified image of the brothers. They are not described as the way typical churchgoers are described, so it is interesting that the priest sees the surrender as an act of dignity. Additionally, it appears, to a reader unacquainted with the concept of honor, that it isn’t very dignified for Pedro Vicario to claim innocence while at the same time admitting to killing Santiago Nasar. Father Amador responds to Pedro’s claim by saying that he is innocent “perhaps before God,” to which Pablo replies, “Before God and before men...It was a matter of honor” (56). The Vicario brothers killed Santiago Nasar to protect Angela’s honor even though they had no real way of knowing that Santiago took Angela’s virginity: by most accounts, he did not. The idea that the brothers should be absolved of their crimes simply because they were protecting their sister’s honor is a chauvinistic one, suggesting that women always need protecting and are incapable of defending themselves or having any agency over their own bodies.
I enjoy your insight on the role of honor in this novel. However, do you think the brothers were proud to participate in this murder? In chapter 3, Clotilde Armenta suggests, "the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them" (Marquez 65). Based on this quote, I believe if the family was not so devoted to protecting their honor and the brothers weren't put under so much pressure, they would not of carried out the deed of killing Santiago Nasar. This explains the irony of defending one's honor. Although the brother's are determined to kill Nasar in order to prove their family honorable, they don't feel moral at heart. Even though honor is put on a pedestal in this society, the shame and guilt of murder still outweighs their pride.
In chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez utilized the setting of the novel, a town of Catholic belief in Columbia by the Caribbean coast, to justify the murder of Santiago Nasar. In the beginning of the chapter, as the twins are on trial for their murder of Nasar, “the priest recalled the surrender as an act of great dignity” (Marquez 55). In today’s society, the murder of an innocent man would contribute to either life in prison or a death sentence. As seen in the Kitty Genovese case, a murderer must be held accountable for his crimes. However, in Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the twins felony is seen as, “a matter of honor” (Marquez 56). Due to the setting of this town, the society accepts this crime as a help to the town. Yet, Nasar’s acquisition as taking the virginity of Angela Vicario becomes worthy of death by sword. Through this acceptance by society, the author adds to the illusion of magical realism. Although a crime such as this would be criticized today, the town accepts the nobility of the twins’ action. This symbolizes the juxtaposition of bad and good and the fine line between them. Even though some things, such as murder, may be seen as evidently evil, Marquez chooses to challenge this belief. Through the dedication and pride of his characters, he creates an aura of death being acceptable. Because of this, the Vicardo brothers have a justification for killing Santiago Nasar in defense of their defenseless sister.
In Chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, there is a lot of repetition of the word honor. This is interesting, because it is the supposed reason for the murder of the main character Santiago Nasar. The Vicario brothers set out the morning after their sister was returned from her wedding by Bayardo to kill Santiago, because Angela (falsely) said that he was the one who had taken her virginity. The brothers want to defend their family’s honor, and they come to the conclusion in order to preserve this honor, they must kill Santiago, whom they believe is the one who had taken it away. They connect their family honor to their sister, and the fact that she was returned the night of her wedding when the groom found out that she was not a virgin. At this time, nearly everyone viewed premarital sex as a very scandalous and unacceptable act. Once the Vicario brothers find out that their sister has done this, rather than get upset or ashamed at their sister Angela, they decide to blame Santiago, who they think that she had slept with. Throughout this chapter it seemed as though they had not actually wanted to kill him, or wanted someone to convince them out of it. Their approach to finding him on the day of his murder was one without much effort. They even waited for him “at Clotilde Armenta’s place, where they knew that almost everybody would turn up except Santiago Nasar,” (Márquez 57). They also ended up waiting for him at the door of his home that it was least likely he would come out of, they did so knowingly in an attempt to spare his life once more. Unfortunately for Santiago Nasar, he did end up exiting through that door which led to the Vicario brothers, for reasons that no one could quite understand. The chapter ends once again with Santiago Nasar being killed by Pedro and Pablo, the Vicario brothers. This ties back into the idea of honor and creates an ironic situation, as they believed that their family honor was stripped from them when their sister Angela Vicario did not live up to the religious standards that were expected of her by having an extramarital affair, yet Pedro and Pablo Vicario commit murder, a clear breach of religious expectations, and no one sees it as a damage to their family’s honor.
I also noticed how the Vicario family was quick to blame Santiago rather than Angela. I thought that it was illuminating how the Vicario family found it imperative and a matter of honor that they kill him, thus implying that it was his fault Angela’s “virginity” was gone. They completely disregard the idea that a woman can be a sexual being with desires. This inadvertently shows how women were expected to be treated by men. Clearly, if their first conclusion is to blame the man, it must reflect the gender roles during this time; men were the ones who initiated sex and women were expected to go along with it. Knowing that most likely Angela lied about Santiago and her’s relationship, I think that she was protecting her true lover, illustrating that she is not a chaste, Catholic woman with no desire.
I agree with your analysis of Pablo and Pedro’s reluctance. I think their real motive for the murder of Santiago was duty. They felt compelled to commit such violence for the sake of their family and its honor. This demonstrates how foretold Santiago’s death truly was. These twins did not want to partake in Santiago’s brutal death, but they have internalized so much of their culture and society’s values that they forced themselves to do it. Nothing could have truly prevented them from doing the deed. In addition the hypocrisy that you mentioned - regarding religious honor and murder - was an idea that could be applied today. Many radicalized religious groups reinterpret their holy texts in ways that do not reflect the essence of the original beliefs. Some people - like the Vicario brothers - explicate their denomination in ways that support their oppressive ideals, which simultaneously goes against everything their faith believes in.
In chapter three of A Chronicle of A Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez illustrates some of the various excuses for murder that people in the town adopt. After killing Santiago Nasar, the Vicario brothers go to their church and confess their crime saying, “We killed him openly..Before God and before men, It was a matter of honor” (Marquez 49).Demonstrating their religious justification, the author writes that they took Nassar’s life in the name of honor and they believe God would spare judgement and approve. Their prideful diction showcases their lack of regret and complete belief that what they did was just. They believe that honor trumps all; it must be maintained at all costs. This idea goes hand in hand with the concept of image; it’s important to keep up a facade that is consistent with the social standards. Honor needs to be defended because it represents who they, their family, and their ancestry are. The Vicario brothers cannot be perceived as weak or undedicated to their family. In addition, in this novel, the idea of virginity is equated to honor - a woman who has pre marital sex needs to have her honor restored for the sake of her family.
Another justification for murder is shown through the narrator’s interaction with the butchers. After the narrator reminds a butcher of the Vicario’s sacrifices of pigs they named, he replies “but remember that they didn’t give them people’s names but the names of flowers” (52). The raconteur of this novel attempts to show that Pedro and Pablo Vicario may be cold-hearted as they have killed creatures that were close to them before. However, the butcher immediately justifies the murder of their hogs by saying that they didn’t have human names, so therefore they didn’t represent humans. It’s interesting to see how quick the townspeople are to defend the twin brothers. In this case, the brothers were not predisposed to this kind of murder despite their lifestyles. There is an obvious bias in this town towards protecting one’s reputation and one’s way of living. Overall, these justifications come off as mere excuses for not stopping the murder of Santiago Nasar, and the sad tone makes the audience feel empathetic towards him.
I noticed this empathetic tone when the narrator was speaking about the Vicario brothers too. I felt like what we talked about in class today, how the narrator seemed to make everyone feel victimized other than Santiago Nasar was an interesting choice. In the case of the Vicario brothers, who committed the murder of someone who they could not prove to be guilty of the act that they killed him in revenge of, were not looked on in a negative light. The narrator seemed to portray these brothers as people who were helpless, and had no choice other than to kill Santiago Nasar. In reality, it was completely their choice, and even when they got their weapons taken away, which admittedly was a poor attempt at stopping them, they did not go back on the murder, which shows that they were completely aware of what they were doing and knew that others did not want them to follow through. I think that if the narrator had put less emphasis on the Vicario brothers as victims themselves, and less emphasis on the "honor" of the killing, readers would not feel the same way about their crime, and be more angry and blame the brothers more and not see this act as okay in any way.
During the first act two, the narrator describes how the Vicario daughters were raised to be wedded,“Any man will be happy with them because they have been raised to suffer”(2.31). Illustrates how marriage was for status and procreation rather than love and partnership. And also goes to show that it was a man’s choice who he married, usually a man would choose someone that would make him look good or whose family had influence. This also brings into question the idea of human rights. Women are expected to suffer for their husband and children, all the while doing it gracefully and quietly. But we have not advanced much from this idea, as women who choose not to marry or have children are seen as incomplete or unacomplished. Also in the second at, the narrator mentions how women had no say in who they married,“Angela Vicario only dared hint at the inconvenience of a lack of love, but her mother demolished it with a single phrase: ‘love can be learned too’(2.35). This scene is interesting because it illustrates a clash between latin honor culture and catholic marriage ideals. I’m making an assumption but, catholic marriages wouldn’t be allowed after only four months, especially if the two parties involved have not courted each other. The idea of marrying for a reason other than upholding the family honor was not unheard of, but certainly not common as seen in act two, “Bayardo San Roman hadn’t even tried to court her, but had bewitched the family with his charm”(2.34). Again, the latin culture of upholding a family’s honor is conflicting with the catholic marriage traditions.
During the third chapter, Marquez uses the motif of ritual and idea of honor versus human rights to illustrate the internal conflict of the Vicario twins,“The Vicario twins went to the bin in the pigsty where they kept their sacrificial tools and picked out the two best knives”(3.50). The use of the knives used to slaughter pigs is very significant because it shows the disregard for human life they are forced to have in this situation. Also the fact that Marquez uses the word sacrificial rather than slaughter is significant because it introduces the idea of ritual and suggests Santiago’s innocence. That maybe he didn’t do anything wrong, but rather, is a sacrifice to pardon Angela. Again, in chapter three when they've gone out to sharpen the knives Marquez use the motif of ritual,“They sharpened them on the grindstone, the way they always did”(3.51). Even though they are about to kill a man who might be innocent, the twins are calm and go about their normal duties as if it’s just another day of slaughtering pigs for them. But they weren’t all that sangfroid, as noted in chapter three,“she’d sensed it. She was certain that the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them”(3.57). Even though the theme of honor is very important in this play, the Vicario twins feel remorse even before they killed Santiago, and as soon as it was over they immediately sought guidance from their priest. This demonstrates how their culture overrides their religion in some istances.
Throughout Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses situational irony in his recurring motif showing how deception leads to death of it’s victim. In the chapter, the story of Bayardo’s courting of Angela is told. One way he does this is when he convinces the widower Xius to sell his house. Although the widower denies multiple times, Bayardo presents him with 10,000 pesos in hopes of the widower accepting the bribe. Bayardo’s motive in this situation was to win over Angela through providing her a beautiful house. However, “‘He died because of that,” Dr.Dionisio Iguarian said. “‘He was healthier than the rest of us, but when you listened with the stethoscope you could hear the tears bubbling inside his heart” (Marquez 41). Although Bayardo’s true intentions were to woo his maiden, his deception and bribery led to the downfall of one of the town’s healthiest individuals. However, the needs of society came before the wellbeing of a poor individual because of the nature of the culture. In Colombian society, it is natural for a groom to court his bride before marriage. However, by acting on for the needs of one, Bayardo did not acknowledge the harm being done to the rest of the community, therefore, resulting in the death of the widower Xius.
The motif of deception is also seen in the end of the chapter. When Angela is discovered on her wedding night to not be a virgin, her entire family turns against her. Yet, rather than accepting her punishment, Angela chooses blame to get the eyes off of herself:
She took only the time necessary to say the name. She looked for it in the shadows, she found it at first sight among the many, many easily confused names from this world and the other, and she nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written. “Santiago Nasar,” she said (Marquez 53).
Even though Santiago Nasar is never found guilty for his crime, the blame must go to someone. Although Angela intends only for her to escape trouble, she passes her fate onto Nasar as the author shows through dart imagery. The narrator even implies that Nasar was not confirmed the culprit as the names were “easily confused”. Throughout this work, Marquez’s use of situational irony exemplifies the coming death of an individual due to the deception of another.
Chapter three of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” begins with the trial of the Vicario brothers in which they both plead innocent due to the fact that Santiago Nasar’s murder was “a matter of honor”(56). In this chapter, the impression is given off that Pablo and Pedro are quite proud of their decision, or duty rather, so they want people to know and talk about it. On page 56, the narrator says that they, “had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing him.” This quote seems contradictory to their pridefulness, but I interpret it as their way of changing how the public perceived them. Many times throughout the chapter, characters doubt their claim because they're thought of so highly by so many. In this case, I think the twins are advertising their plans with the intent to receive doubts, so that they may perpetuate their honorable status when they truly go through with it, almost like reverse psychology. Both brothers had doubts about it too, but Pablo Vicario finally says, “There's no way out of this...It’s as if it had already happened” (70). It's apparent at this point that the twins believe this act to be a duty to their sister’s honor, but also to their family name. By spreading the word to every corner of the town, they practically force themselves to do it. Everyone already knows, so backing out now would lose their positive social standing and honorability in the eyes of the community. I find it really interesting that at the beginning of the chapter, the two men go directly to Father Amador after the murder, covered in sweat and blood, to confess their sin, yet, “the priest recalled the surrender as an act of great dignity” (55). I feel like it's somewhat hypocritical to be so prideful in an action, yet know the difference between right and wrong well enough to feel the need to ask God for forgiveness.
In Chapter two magical realism is portrayed throughout this entire chapter. One example is when Bayardo spots Angela for the first time. “[Bayardo] had been napping in a rocking chair in the parlor... when Angela Vicario and her mother crossed the square... Bayardo San Roman half-awoke, saw the two women... and asked who the young one was.”(Marquez, 28). This scene takes place at the start of Bayardo’s journey to win Angela’s heart over, so that she will become his wife, as well as Angela’s misfortunate to marry Bayardo, which doesn’t end well at all. Magical Realism plays a massive role in this scene because it suggests “love at first sight” for Bayardo. I came to this conclusion because as Angela and her mother strolled by his window, he woke up right away. This indicates that Angela’s beauty caused him to immediately wake up and gave him the suggestion that this woman would be the “perfect” woman for me. Another example of magical realism is when the narrator’s mother comments about Bayardo’s incredible swimming ability. The narrator said “One Sunday after mass he challenged the most skillful swimmers, who were many, and left the bets behind by twenty strokes in crossing the river back. My mother told me about it in a letter, and at the end she made a comment that was very much liker her: “It also seems that he’s swimming in gold.” (29) This contributes to magical realism because she describes Bayardo as an extremely handsome man who was highly proficient in anything he did like swimming. Also the comment she makes about him “swimming in gold” gives us a good indication that he comes from a wealthy family, and that he could afford anything luxurious. Not many people see magical realism portrayed in these scenes, but Marquez adds some interesting details as well as a little twist in order to interest the reader and adds more interest to the story and makes it seem like a sad story.
Chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold actually begins to tell a little bit farther in the story, telling some of the events AFTER Santiago’s death. The pieces I found most interesting are what happen to Bayardo and Angela. Bayardo falls into depression, gets very drunk and passes out in Xius’ former home. Dr. Dionisio and some others come to see if he’s okay then the doctor gives him some emergency treatment. “But he recovered in a few hours and as soon as his mind has cleared, he threw them out of the house with the best manners he was capable of. ‘Nobody fucks with me,’ he said” (Márquez 85). Márquez uses irony here to show that Bayardo is indeed depressed, since even his best manners are completely rude. But why is Bayardo so depressed? I personally believed he would have simply moved on after Angela to another wife, or another town, or somewhere. But he doesn’t seem to be able to recover! He even gets drunk a second time and remains in his pit of depression even with the arrival of his family. Perhaps it was because he regrets rejecting Angela. A quote from his family states: “nor did they have the slightest idea of what he came to do in a mislaid town, with no apparent aim than to marry a woman he had never seen” (87). This was perhaps his only goal. On the other side of the spectrum Angela also begins to be mourn about something. But her mourning is not because of her dishonoring, rather because she misses Bayardo. An inexplicable change occurs in her mentality: “Angela Vicario then discovered that hate and love are reciprocal passions” (93). On comes right after another apparently, and nothing else is said other than: “She was reborn” (92). Angela then writes nearly two thousand letter to Bayardo over a course of many years about various things like: greeting him, ridiculing him, loving him. Many years later he finally comes to Angela once more by surprise, with all the letters: “arranged by data in bundles tied with colored ribbons, and they were all unopened” (95). Unopened?? I wondered why they would be unopened then I realized the fact that they are explains Bayardo’s suffering. He truly did love Angela and used her lack of virginity as an excuse to get out of the marriage after he realized Angela despised him even after all his work. He fell into depression after having finally failed at something in his life and having lost Angela in a case of unrequited love. When Bayardo received letters from Angela he likely became further depressed as it became apparent that she may have changed her mind, but refused to read them because returning to Angela would be completely dishonorable now that he knew she was not a virgin. However, after many years he could not take it anymore, and decided to pay her a visit.
Chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold greatly suggests the idea that Santiago’s death was completely meaningless, or rather that he was not the one who robbed Angela Vicario of her virginity. Even the diligent judge who visits the town finds not: “a single clue, not even the most improbable, that Santiago Nasar had been the cause of the wrong” (Márquez 99). Several times Márquez writes of one of Santiago’s reactions to additionally verify this. When Nahir Miguel tells Santiago that the Vicario brothers intend to kill him he is very confused and in regard to Nahir: “He agreed that his manner reflected not so much fear as confusion” (114). Santiago is bewildered because he has no idea why the twins would want to kill him. The reason, obviously, is because Angela lied to her brothers, perhaps to protect someone else: “‘He was my perpetrator.’ That’s the way she swears in the brief, but with no further precision of either how or where” (100). There is absolutely no reason why Márquez would have put in these things would mention these oddities unless they were true, except maybe to create more confusion in this weird book. But I think not, and additionally the reason for revealing this fact is the emphasize the tragicness of this whole incident. A completely innocent man was killed for no good reason and could have easily been saved, if not for the apathetic townsfolk.
I enjoy your insight on the innocence of Santiago Nasar. However, I feel that this death was not meaningless to the characters in the story. For instance, the Vicario family was in need to protect their honor and the only method they could find was killing the person who took their honor away. Although, Santiago Nasar is never proved guilty, and seems pretty innocent for that matter, he is still seen as the offender in the family's eyes. The normality and justification of this killing is displayed by Marquez through magical realism, bringing up the idea of fate. Maybe Santiago was fated to die? After all, he walked through the entire town and was not stopped by anyone. This is ironic because many knew of the twin's plan to murder him, but everyone forgot to warn Santiago. On page 133, Marquez writes, "Fatality makes us invisible", in reference to Nasar's death, making his killing seem all the more necessary to the story.
In chapter four of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez characterizes Santiago Nasar as flawed through the juxtaposition of gruesome and delicate imagery, in order to craft a conflicted tone that makes the reader question if he deserves their empathy. After Nasar was brutally murdered, Colonel Aponte orders the priest, Father Amador, to perform an autopsy on his body. After Father Amador inadvertently dismembered and ruptured the remains of Nasar, he removed his intestines and gave, “an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail” (76). The juxtaposition of something sacred and holy with trash illustrates the torn feeling that the reader has. Nasar appears angelic and adored - through the use of white-color imagery in the previous chapters - yet has an affair with Maria Alejandra Cervantes while engaged to Flora Miguel. He does not act as chaste and honest as he appears. These conflicting images demonstrate that he maintained two different appearances, with most of the town seeing him as charismatic and delightful. The negative diction - “angry” - also casts a shadow of duty, as if the priest only blesses his guts for the sake of tradition. This can be interpreted by the reader as a way of saying that Nasar’s flaws are only overlooked by the majority of the town because of society’s standards.
After attempting to reassemble Nasar’s body after the autopsy, Marquez describes it as, “.. on the point of falling apart when we put it into the new coffin with its silk quilt lining” (77). The imagery detailed in this scene is grotesque and crude, but it is juxtaposed with the delicate, expensive quality of the “silk quilt lining”. Representing the reality of Nasar’s personality, he is laid to rest eternally on a padding that is exquisite, while his body is deteriorating grotesquely. Painting a contradicting scene, Marquez symbolizes the different aspects of the main character’s identity; he appears glamorous and perfect while his actions reveal cruel, misogynistic behavior. He sexually harasses Divina Flor, his maid, and treats her poorly, yet he is charming and loved by most in the town. This imagery is utilized to define Nasar as flawed; the town and the reader struggle over if his good qualities counterbalance his imperfections.
Overall, through contrasting grim and virtuous imagery, Marquez effectively paints Santiago Nasar as an imperfect character that makes the reader torn on whether to empathize with him or not.
In Chapter Four, Márquez describes the ways in which Santiago Nasar’s body was treated after his death. Márquez uses violent, gruesome language to suggest that there is no respite for Santiago—even in death. Márquez writes about the way the dogs prowled around Santiago’s body:
“In addition, the dogs, aroused by the smell of death, increased the uneasiness. They hadn’t stopped howling since I went into the house, when Santiago Nasar was still in his death throes in the kitchen and I found Divina Flor weeping in great howls and holding them off with a stick. “Help me,” she shouted to me. “What they want is to eat his guts” (84-85).
These dogs are a symbol for the lack of justice that Santiago received. Even in death, he cannot rest in peace because the dogs wish to “eat his guts.” They represent a lack of respect for Santiago’s death, suggesting that the people sincerely believe Santiago was fated to die even though he was most likely innocent and did not take Angela’s virginity. Márquez even writes that “until then there hadn’t been any concern at all for the state of the body.” This lack of care manifests itself in the way that “a syrup-colored liquid began to flow from the wounds, drawing flies, and a purple blotch appeared on the upper lip and spread out very slowly, like the shadow of a cloud on water, up to the hairline” (85). Santiago is being treated like a dead animal. The grotesque diction (“wounds,” “flies,” “purple blotch”) creates a grim, neglectful tone. The townspeople feel as though they have nothing to owe Santiago because he was destined for death. Even Father Amador says as much during the autopsy: “Nevertheless, in the final note he pointed out a hypertrophy of the liver that he attributed to a poorly cured case of hepatitis. ‘…he had only a few years of life left to him in any case’” (87). After the hasty, botched autopsy, Santiago’s body is left even more mangled than it was before: “…the priest had pulled out the sliced-up intestines by the roots, but in the end he didn’t know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail” (88). Santiago’s body, already ravaged by knife wounds, was not even permitted to stay in one piece. The way Father Amador treats Santiago after his death is very different from what would be expected of a Catholic priest. It is as though Santiago’s death is a routine occurrence. He has ceased to be a human being worthy of respect.
Your analysis of the dogs prowling around Santiago's corpse is really interesting! In regards to the "angry blessing" Father Amador gives to Santiago's intestines, I interpreted it as him following his duty. The lack of religious devotion to the blessing made me think the priest was doing it simply because he had to, not because he truly believed Santiago was an innocent victim that deserved peace in the afterlife. I also found the imagery of the dogs interesting, for they are often thought of as protective creatures. Their continuous barking symbolized their desire for justice. They want everyone around them to hear and understand their call for change. Later, Placida Linero has them killed to silence their howls. Using the dogs as symbols, Marquez describes the town that the story is set in. Their society is flawed as seen through the harsh treatment of Angela after she has premarital sex and the way her family tries to cover it up. They live in a place where anything that appears to bring dishonor to the family is hidden from everyone.
In Chapter Five, Márquez finally gives a detailed description of Santiago’s death:
Pedro Vicario pulled out his knife with his slaughterer’s iron wrist and dealt him a second thrust almost in the same place. “The strange thing is that the knife kept coming out clean,” Pedro Vicario declared to the investigator…Pablo Vicario, who was on his left, then gave him the only stab in the back and a spurt of blood under high pressure soaked his shirt. “It smelled like him,” he told me” (139).
What is interesting about the way that Pedro and Pablo kill Santiago is that they start out very strong and determined, stabbing him multiple times in rapid succession until they come to their senses: “But they suddenly woke up to reality, because they were exhausted, and yet they thought that Santiago Nasar would never fall” (140). At this point it is as though the act of killing Santiago is less of an act of passion and more of an act of duty. They continue stabbing him because they have to finish the job. It is as though Pedro and Pablo are bringing fate down upon Santiago. Just like in the Kitty Genovese case, the brothers left many opportunities for bystanders to do something to save Santiago even after they had begun stabbing him: “…Pedro Vicario sought his heart, but he looked for it almost in the armpit, where pigs have it. Actually, Santiago Nasar wasn’t falling because they themselves were bolding him up with stabs against the door” (141). The brothers made mistakes when killing Santiago, and these mistakes seem to suggest that they are only human and perhaps it was not Santiago’s destiny to die. Perhaps he was just unlucky and Pablo and Pedro were just persistent. The responses of the bystanders were similar to the responses of those in the Kitty Genovese case: “After looking and shouting for him in the bedroom, hearing other shouts that weren’t hers and not knowing where they were coming from, Placida Linero went to the window facing the square and saw the Vicario twins running toward the church” (141). She thought that the danger had passed when she saw them running away. Poncho Lanao and his wife had also heard the shouts, but they thought it was related to the bishop’s visit. So many people failed to save Santiago even though the twins were hesitant at times and even though Pablo said to his brother, “You can’t imagine how hard it is to kill a man!” (141). Santiago may have been hard to kill, but his death was ultimately easy to ignore until he lay on the ground, bleeding out.
In the final chapter of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the author Gabriel Garcia Marquez emphasizes that sense perception can yield false knowledge through the use of specific diction that shapes Santiago Nasar’s fate. Cristo Bedoya and Santiago were walking arm in arm along the dock so unperturbed that Meme Loiza misses an opportunity to warn the dead man walking. Marquez illustrates this manipulation of sight through, “‘They were both going along so contentedly,’ Meme Loiza told me, ‘that I gave thanks to God, because I thought the matter had been cleared up’” (Marquez 100). Since, the two men didn’t appear to be riddled with worry and paranoia, this townswoman assumed that they had been warned or the threat had been dismissed. Meme Loiza’s visual perception of them had caused her not to act which inadvertently led to Santiago Nasar’s death. Her grateful, religious diction demonstrates that she truly believed what she saw. She thought that the sight before her had been the work of a Divine being, when in fact she had misinterpreted Santiago and Cristo’s body language. Her thankful diction was not deserved.
In addition, one’s knowledge based on hearing can prove wrong as shown through Sara Noriega’s interaction with Santiago Nasar. When she sees him, she is frightened by his paleness but he calms her down saying, “‘You can imagine, Missy Sara,’ he told her without stopping, ‘with this hangover!’” (103). Sara believed him because he sounded calm and sure of himself. Listening to him, she genuinely thought that he was going to be fine. Her sense perception created untrue knowledge that prevented her from stopping Santiago’s death. His kind, endearing diction makes him appear unconcerned or even like nothing bad could ever possibly come to him. His charming humor - “with this hangover” - made Sara assume that he was right, and that he would still be alive by the end of the morning. Her acceptance of hearing as knowledge proved tragic as her flawed perception helped engender Santiago’s death.
Marquez illustrates that knowledge based on sense perception can be faulty. While simultaneously crafting an unsettling tone, this novel illuminates that the joint errors in sense perception of a few can lead to brutal murder.
Marquez uses religious imagery to describe the dismembered body of Nasar in order to evoke a feeling of remorse and guilt. “He had a deep stab in the right hand. the report says:’It looked like a stigma of the crucified christ.’”(4.75). This illustrates how deeply rooted their schema for religion is. This is shown in how religious imagery is used even in a formal report of an autopsy. It also depicts the sympathy the townspeople had for Nasar. By referring to him as a crucified christ who they hold very highly it connotates a feeling of guilt and reverence. Also creating a feeling of innocence for Nasar, as though he died to save Angela from what was done to her. Marquez also uses tactile imagery to allow the reader to have a reaction to the hurt that Nasar experienced.
Marquez also uses brief character introductions towards the end to give his Colombian audience an emotional connection to the cultural setting. “The mayor was a former troop commander with no experience in matters of law, and he was too conceited to ask anyone who knew where he should begin”(4.73). This brief characterization would have a very strong emotional connotation for Colombians, being as civilians have been victimized by the many militant groups present in the country since its independence. characterizing the mayor as an ignorant ex-militant illustrates the corrupt chain of power in Colombia of the alpha male exploiting the land and its people. For me this is a very important cultural detail that might get glossed over by its foreign audience because it is a translated book.
Again, Marquez conveys power dynamics through use of authoritative diction juxtaposed with crude diction when describing authority figures. “But it was an order from the mayor, and orders from that barbarian, stupid as they might have been, had to be obeyed”(4.72). This description of the mayor's incompetence is from a very personal perspective which contrasts with the journalist style of narration. Also tying in the cultural element of begrudgingly following authority figures due to an omnipresent military and Catholic influence.
Along with your mention of religious imagery, I thought it was interesting that the priest was the one performing the autopsy. This suggests that the townspeople allow their religion to guide them and bring them truth while relying very little on science. Father Amador says in the report that Santiago "had only a few years of life left to him in any case" due to a "poorly cured case of hepatitis." The priest is attempting to justify Santiago's death, saying that it was destined to happen soon even though he lacks medical expertise. Dr. Iguraran disagrees with Amador's assessment: "Dr. Dionisio Iguaran, who in fact had treated Santiago Nasar for hepatitis at the age of twelve, recalled that autopsy with indignation. 'Only a priest could be so dumb'" (87). Religion is used over and over again to justify questionable events and actions even when religion has no place in those situations.
Something that I found very interesting in Chapter 4 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” was the love letters that Angela wrote to Bayardo. They symbolized the love that she kept for him over the years, even though he returned her rather than marrying her, and the fact that she did not see him for many years. It is interesting that the narrator chose to include this aspect of the story, as it does not directly relate to the plot, and is a tangent when looked at in terms of the main focus of the story: Santiago Nasar’s murder. The fact that he chooses to include this piece about Angela and Bayardo rekindling their love, but not a real conclusion to the story leaves many audience members (especially me) confused. The love letters that Angela wrote Bayardo varied greatly. She wrote a letter every week for years and years, with no letters in return from Bayardo. When asked about what the letters said she told the narrator “‘Sometimes I couldn’t think of what to say,’ she told me, dying with laughter, ‘but it was enough for me to know that he was getting them.’ At first they were a fiancee’s notes, then they were little messages from a secret lover, perfumed cards form a furtive sweetheart, business papers, love documents, and lastly they were the indignant letters of an abandoned wife who invented cruel illness to make him return, (Márquez 109). This shows that she hopelessly wrote him letters of varying natures, regardless to the fact that she never got a reply. This can be seen as her desperate attempt to win Bayardo back through these letter expressing her feelings towards him, no matter whether the letters were actually written to express love, or just to write a letter. At the end of the chapter, when Bayardo come for Angela, we see that he has received all of the letters. “He was carrying a suitcase with clothing in order to stay and another just like it with almost two thousand letters that she had written him. They were arranged by date in bundles tied with colored ribbons and they were all unopened,” (Márquez 111). This shows that the physical letters themselves, and the idea of the very romantic love letters were what brought him back to Angela, not the content of the actual letters. This can be translated into their marriage, if it can be called that, as well. Bayardo returned Angela back to her family when he found out that she was a virgin because of the idea that she had slept with someone, and the fact that ritual was not performed the way it was supposed to be in Bayardo’s mind. This goes to show that in this society, the ritual and the outside look of something, and steps taken to get there, or the motive behind something is more important than the actual act itself. This shows why many people were not upset by the Vicario brothers murdering Santiago Nasar.
During chapter five, Marquez uses the motif of fatalism to describe the actions of the townspeople. “The people had stationed themselves on the square the way they did on a parade day. they all saw him come out, and they all understood now that he knew they were going to kill him,”(5.115). Marquez describes Nasar’s foretold murder as a festive event that people have prepared themselves for. The word stationed implies the motif of fatalism as though that were the spot they were destined to be in, not assisting Nasar avoid his fate. Merely watching as a bystander. I also found it interesting how ambiguous the use of the word ‘they’ is. When Marquez writes,”he knew they were going to kill him”, he doesn’t refer specifically to the Vicario brothers or the towns people. But it is implied that he means the townspeople even though they aren’t the ones directly killing Nasar. Rather, it means that although they aren’t the ones killing him, they are directly responsible for him dying because they don’t do anything to prevent him dying and giving into the idea of fate.
The motif of ritual and religion is also used to characterize the town. “The version that went around was that the whole family slept until twelve o’clock on orders from Nahir Miguel, the wise man of the community”(5.111). Despite the heavy catholic influence in the culture, the original magic and tribal elements of the culture can still be seen. The cultural context of a wise man is more inclined towards pre-colonized Colombian spiritual practice. But this motif of domestic ritual combines the two fatalistic cultures of catholicism and pre-Columbus spiritual practices.
In the dialogue, these religious and fatalistic ideas show up between characters. “‘I warn you. He’s armed with a Magnum that can go through an engine block,” he shouted. pablo Vicario knew it wasn't true…’Dead men can’t shoot,’ he shouted”(5.108). Although the Vicario twins were terrified of dying and knew they weren’t prepared to go up against an armed Nasar, they had made up their minds that defending their sister’s honor was their fate. Pablo confidently responds ‘Dead men can’t shoot” because he believes it is Nasar’s fate to die and there is no other way it can turn out because of their determination to restore their family's honor.
One quote that really stood out to me in Chapter 5 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” was where it said “Besides, when he finally learned at the last moment that the Vicario brothers were waiting for him to kill him, his reaction was not one of panic, as has so often been said, but rather the bewilderment of innocence,” (Márquez 118). This statement is very bold, and likely makes a lasting impression on the person who receives it, in this case, the audience. Most people who find out that they are going to be killed would likely respond in shock, fear, horror, or panic. This was not the case for Santiago Nasar as the narrator noticed. He noticed that Santiago was mostly confused at what was happening. This implies that Santiago had no guilt in the matter, and was innocent in terms of taking Angela’s virginity. The narrator goes on to say: “My personal impression is that he died without understanding his death,” (Márquez 118). This further attests to the fact that Santiago may not even know what the accusations against him are, and even that he may not know why he was even murdered. These statements help Santiago’s case for innocence, but also raise the important question of narrator liability. Most of the information in this story is given to be factual, and matter-of-fact. In the case of this statement, the narrator makes it clear that what he is saying is only his opinion. This makes us remember that we do not know whether all of this information is true, or if it is or could have been biased by the narrator, who seemed to be friends with Santiago Nasar. Books written in the first person where the narrator is a part of the story can often be a unique perspective on a situation or event, because it is the way that the narrator saw it happen. In this case, the narrator being a friend of Santiago Nasar’s, he thought of Santiago to be innocent. Though most of the evidence gathered throughout the story seemed to point to a similar conclusion, it is to be noted that not everything the narrator says can be considered fact, and that some of his own opinions are mentioned in the text.
The dynamic characterization of Angela Vicario is prominently depicted throughout Chapter Four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Gabriel Garcia Marquez utilizes the motif of the reciprocal passions of love and hate to illustrate the change in feelings Angela shows for Bayardo San Roman. Angela’s hatred of her destined marriage with Bayardo is clearly shown throughout the novel as the narrator references her. In Chapter Four, he refers to her as, “the person who’d been obliged to marry without love at the age of twenty” (Marquez 103). The author puts an emphasis on Angela’s age at the end of this phrase to show her dynamic change throughout the novel. Although she begins hating her forced relationship with Bayardo, the author states, “she was reborn” (Marquez 108). After seeing Bayardo in a hotel, Angela, “‘went crazy over him,’” as she began a series of letters to Bayardo over a period of 17 years (108). This displays the dynamic characterization of Angela as she changes from an angry bride to an obsessive wife. Through this change, the author brings to light the motif of love and hatred. As Angela becomes a, “Mistress of her fate”, she soon discovers that, “hate and love are reciprocal passions” (108). When the narrator describes Angela as a “Mistress of her fate”, he displays how she has gained control over her situation and relationship. When she was arranged to marry Bayardo, she had no choice as a woman in her culture. However, her authority changes as she gains a passion for their relationship, taking matters into her own hands. Garcia Marquez illustrates the immense change from Angela’s intense hatred for her husband, saying she was plotting her death throughout their engagement, to sending him love letters on a weekly basis. Throughout his novel, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Garcia Marquez utilizes the arcing characterization of Angela and Bayardo’s relationship to illustrate the juxtaposition, yet corresponding attributes of love and hate.
“Trying to finish it once and for all, Pedro Vicario sought his heart, but he looked for it almost in the armpit where pigs have it” (Marquez 141).
In Chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I find this quote interesting because it illustrates the dehumanization of Santiago Nasar as he was being killed. Rather than stabbing the heart, commonly known as lying behind in the left chest area, the brothers stab him off to the side, where a pig’s heart would be. This makes Nasar’s murder symbolize that of a sacrifice.To preserve their sister’s dignity, they must sacrifice another’s. In this case, since Nasar is perceived as guilty for a crime he most likely didn’t commit, he must be sacrifice in order to make things right. The author makes this clear earlier in the novel in Chapter 3, the author writes, “‘When you sacrifice a steer you don’t dare look into it’s eyes’...the Vicario brothers sacrificed the same hogs they raised” (Marquez 60). Santiago Nasar’s comparison to a hog makes the Vicario brothers more willing to kill him. When they exclaim to the whole town their plans for murder, it seems as if they are hoping someone will stop them. However, by seeing Nasar as a pig to be sacrificed, they are able to murder him without the guilt. They avoid his eyes, taking away the little humanity he has left as they sacrifice him for the honor of their sister. The knives are also referenced as “pig-killing knives” several times, showing the intent the brothers had to sacrifice Nasar. By comparing Santiago to a pig being sacrifice, Gabriel Garcia MArquez is able to demonstrate the determination of the brothers to sacrifice Nasar through his dehumanization in his final minutes.
I also saw this quote as a portrayal of the twins' incompetence because they struggle many times to kill Santiago. Marquez writes, "Actually, Santiago Nasar wasn't falling because they themselves were holding him up with stabs against the door" (141). Pablo even says, "you can't imagine how hard it is to kill a man!" (140-141). The difficulty that Pedro and Pablo had in killing Santiago suggests that perhaps Nasar was not fated to die. It seemed to me that if Santiago were truly destined to die, killing him would have been easy. The twins had to work to kill him because Santiago did not take Angela's virginity, and he was not the one to blame for both Angela's and Bayardo's misfortune.
"Help me,' she shouted to me. 'What [the dogs] want is to eat his guts" (73) "His mother covered [his face] with a handkerchief" (74) "It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ" (75) "She would recount it... except for one item that would never be cleared up: who was the real cause of her damage... because no one believed that it had really been Santiago Nasar" (89)
The fourth chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold not only focuses on the untold love story between Angela Vicario and Bayardo San Roman, but the beginning talks about the autopsy conducted on Santiago Nasar. This grisly autopsy wasn't very humane, but continues the biblical allusion sprinkled throughout the rest of the novel, especially with the Christ being represented by Santiago Nasar. This is exemplary in this passage with the mirroring occurring between Christ's last days and the end of Santiago. Starting with the dogs eating his guts, the comparison to the bible would be a metaphorical situation, with the King's guard torturing Jesus and wanting to see him hurt, mocking him in his lowest hours, placing a crown of thorns on his head. The covering of the face with a handkerchief is an iconic Christian item, after Jesus was placed in his tomb, but before his resurrection, a cloth was covering his face. This led to his face being imprinted on this cloth after his resurrection, proving his miraculous existence and having evidence for him being the son of God. Although this may be superficial, and done to most people with disfiguring a=post-mortem attributes, the similarities between the rest of the cases make this one stronger. The stabbing areas seemed similar when reading, and when this was uttered, I thought of the same thing. Jesus was stabbed in both hands, on his feet, and on the sides of his abdomen when he was crucified, and Santiago Nasar bore many of these wounds on his body as well. Finally, the main similarity between Nasar and Christ would be the denial of Angela Vicario's lack of involvement with Nasar. Jesus died for sins he didn't commit, since he was a man born without original sin and living without any sinful actions either. In theory, no one believed that Santiago Nasar was the one to deflower Angela Vicario, so the whole town allowed the tragedy of his murder to pass knowing that the innocent one was the one suffering the consequences.
In chapter 5 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Marquez uses excuses to show that fate would eventually cause Santiago Nasar to die. The narrator frequently tells the accounts of those who knew Santiago’s death was going to take place. All of these people’s words and stories share one thing, and that is they never told Santiago he was going to die. In my opinion, their excuses, and not telling Santiago show that his death was inevitable, and brought by fate. Although we are never sure whether or not Santiago really did something to deserve this punishment, we know no one was so against it that they stopped it. Marquez writes, “he thought that Santiago Nasar had decided at the last moment to have breakfast at our house before changing his clothes” (110). Here, Cristo Bedoya tell his reasoning for not warning Santiago of his death. This doesn’t make very much sense in my opinion because no one told Cristo that Santiago wasn’t going home, because Santiago never said that. He had said he must go home before having breakfast at their house, even after his sister insisted he go right away, he refused. Along with this, Celeste Dangond says, “because it suddenly seemed to me that they couldn’t be killing him if he was so sure of what he was going to do” (103). One again, Celeste Dangond does not step in to save santiago by telling him about the murder plans. Her excuse is that Santiago seemed like he already had his day planned, so he couldn’t actually be killed. This excuse does not make sense because whether or not he knew about his death, his day would still be planned. Both Cristo and Celeste failed to warn Santiago, resulting in his violent death. This shows how Santiago’s death really could not have been prevented. Although it seems as though if one person told him he wouldn’t have died, the reality is no one would have/no one did tell him. Each and every person in the community had some reason for keeping the plan for Santiago. Although no one intentionally was trying to kill Santiago, they all ended up helping kill him. I think this goes along with fate, and how no one told him because his death was all a matter of fate. Unintentionally not telling Santiago he was about to be killed played on the theme of fate because his death could not be stopped. It became inevitable because everyone made up excuses or made mistakes and assumptions. Because every single person chose not to tell him, it became more evident that it was fate related.
The first time I read this book I thought it absolutely absurd. At the time I really didn’t not know what to think about the inconceivably ludicrous situations. Rereading it I at least know WHY everything is so strange but it is still just as weird. Take this section for example: “It was a wise custom established by his father ever since one morning when a servant girl had shaken the case to get the pillow out and the pistol went off as it hit the floor and the bullet wrecked the cupboard in the room, went through the living room wall, passed through the dining room of the house next door with the thunder of war, and turned a life-size saint on the altar of the church on the opposite side of the square to plaster dust” (Márquez 6). The context here is a description of why Santiago Nasar makes sure his gun is never loaded at an unsafe time. Supposedly this happened to his father’s gun and he had witnessed it and used this as a valuable lesson. It also seems to be right out of the blue, with Santiago and the narrator taking it as a completely normal thing to learn from. But the reason for this bit of bizarreness right at the start is of course to establish this book’s genre of magical realism, outlining a real life event equally as strange. This background info is indeed useful to me and I can finally take this unusual book semi-seriously. But even for one without the background this should at least catch their attention and begin their questioning… of EVERYTHING.
ReplyDeleteYay, Loren! Thanks for posting so early!
ReplyDeleteWhen picking up this book to read Chapter 1 again, something immediately stood out to me. This book started off with a very strong few words. “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar….” (Márquez 1). This phrase alone, sets up the entire book. As readers, it is immediately clear who this book focuses on, and how it will end. We know exactly what will happen to Santiago Nasar, without knowing anything else about him. This can lead some readers to being very confused. Most times, they save the big event, whether it is a secret coming out, a romance, or in this book’s case a death, until the end of the book to keep the readers on their toes and to continue reading until the end. But in this case, Márquez challenges this traditional approach by putting the big “surprise” at the beginning of the book. We later find out in chapter one that nearly everyone in the town knew of Santiago’s impending death, other than Santiago himself, and a few select others.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the rest of the chapter, the keep implying that he will die soon. Starting in the first chapter, the book already lives up to its title. The narrator, who is unnamed yet speaks in the first person, describes how everyone considered Santiago Nasar cheerful that morning, and they all knew about his death. There was a lot of foreshadowing mentioned, but since the event being narrated occurred in the past, it is not actually foreshadowing. The curious thing that many people may ask, is that if everyone supposedly knew about Santiago Nasar’s death, why did they not tell him about it? If Santiago Nasar was a widely hated figure, the audience would likely be able to reason why this premeditated murder went unspoken of. As we learn, this is not the case. Santiago had many friends in town and even people who tried to convince the Vicario brothers, who were Santiago’s murderers, not to kill him.
The chapter abruptly ends, as Luisa Santiaga, the mother the narrator, and also one of his friends who had just learned about the planned murder was going to warn Santiago’s mother of what was going to happen. On her way to inform her, “somebody who was running in the opposite direction took pity.../’Don’t bother yourself Luisa Santiaga,’ he shouted as he went by. ‘They’ve already killed him,’” (Márquez 26). This introductory chapter to the book truly makes it hard to ignore how different the writing style is from most books.
This book certainly has a different writing style from most. But why exactly is the style so different? I believe there are two main reasons. The first is to draw the reader’s attention to various bizarre points, such as no one informing Santiago Nasar or the many coincidences leading to his death. This illuminates the theme of the book quite clearly and causes the reader to ask many questions about society, human nature, honor and other things. The second reason is that this strange style can act as a replacement hook for the reader to latch onto as opposed to the regular unknown that is revealed at the end of the story. The style intrigues, and spurs one on to read more.
DeleteIn the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses visual imagery to create a surreal, dreamlike mood. The novel begins with a description of one of Santiago Nasar’s dreams from the night before he was killed: “He dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling…” (Márquez 1). The phrase “gentle drizzle” creates the image of a foggy, hazy state of being because a light drizzle would obscure the landscape. The haziness of the dream is compounded when inhabitants of the town recall the weather on the day of Santiago’s death: “…most agreed that the weather was funereal, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters, and that at the moment of the misfortune a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago Nasar had seen in his dream grove” (2). A “cloudy, low sky” and “thin drizzle” would obscure the crime, and this hazy imagery contributes to the dreamlike mood. Other details about Santiago’s death also contribute to a surreal and disconnected tone. Everyone remembered Santiago “as being a little sleepy…” (2). This sleepiness suggests a lack of mental alertness that could impede one’s perception of the world around him. Márquez writes that Santiago’s mother’s last sight of him was “his fleeting passage through the bedroom” (4). The word “fleeting” suggests a blurriness or hazy perception. The dreamlike mood that Márquez creates during the opening chapter of the novel suggests the fallibility of collective memory and that this chronicle might not be as authoritative as the title would have the reader believe. The diction that Márquez uses suggests that the inhabitants of the town in which Santiago died are not the most reliable of witnesses to his murder. The hazy tone shrouds the novel in mystery even though the climax of the narrative is revealed in the first sentence, which begins “On the day they were going to kill him…” The reader knows that Santiago is dead, but little else in the novel is clear or certain—it’s all shrouded in a fine mist.
ReplyDeleteGabriel Garcia Marquez uses the motif of community to explore the idea of diffused responsibility. In the first act, when the narrator's mother hears of the news she immediately leaves to go tell Santiago’s mother that he will be killed,”My father, who had heard everything from his bed, appeared in the dining room in his pajamas and asked in alarm where she was going.’To warn my dear friend Placida,’ she answered. ‘It isn’t right that everybody should know that they’re going to kill her son and she the only one that doesn’t.’”(1.22). This dialogue creates a strange sense of community where the inhabitants are very close and compassionate towards one another as one can see in how the narrator's mother goes to console Santiago’s mother even before he is killed. But also illustrates how the characters already assume someone else has taken care of informing Santiago that he is in danger. There is also a reference to the magic in how his mother can predict that Santiago’s mother still doesn’t know, yet this brings up the error of the magic predictions because she can not see that Santiago has not been warned. The narrator also describes a scene in which a worker on a dock gives his account of the whole event,”’When i saw him safe and sound i thought it was all a fib.’ he told me. No one even wondered if Santiago Nasar had been warned, because it seemed so impossible to all that he hadn’t”(1.20). The investigative style of writing in conjunction with these frank, almost apathetic, statements makes them seem more believable. Again, Marquez uses the idea of a tight knit community to suggest diffused responsibility. The man knows that the town is so small that there’s no way that Nasar wouldn’t had known he was in trouble, and seeing him walking around in the middle of the day only confirmed that thought.
ReplyDeleteI like that you noticed this idea of community throughout the book. I found it very interesting and think that they used their sense of community almost as a scapegoat for their wrong-doings. To me it seemed like the whole book everyone hid behind an excuse or a reason, or pointed the blame elsewhere when they feared that it might be placed on them. This is one way that community negatively affected the story, because people felt as if it was not their own fault, but rather the fault of the others who surrounded them, or a shared guilt. This causes problems when no one can own up to their mistakes and also reversely makes it difficult when trying to figure out who really is at blame, as everyone will point to someone else, or the community as a whole. I think that in most cases people would see community as a good thing, but in the case of Santiago Nasar's murder, community ended up doing more bad than good.
DeleteIn the first chapter of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the author Gabriel Garcia Marquez illustrates the angelic perception of Santiago Nassar through color imagery. When the narrator visits Nassar’s mother, Placida Linero, she recalls the last thing her son was wearing before he died, “he was dressed in white linen” (Marquez 7). The color of his clothes depicts him as pure and holy, as well as ghostly. The haunting hue foreshadows his imminent death and crafts an eerie tone that simultaneously makes the audience empathize with Santiago and grow wary of him. Marque continues on to describe him , through the narrator’s perspective, as “pale” (7). This physical characteristic paints him as someone to pity or a person who doesn’t do anything wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, the murderers, Pedro and Pablo Vicario are dressed in “dark wedding suits” contrasting the light imagery used to characterize Santiago (15). The color or their garb foreshadows the ominous act they are going to commit. The darkness of their apparel represents death and it sets a sinister tone. The darkness also signifies the unknown way that the main character will die. Through the clothing choices made by Marquez, he manifests the common theme of dark versus light.
It’s interesting to see how Marquez initially depict s Santiago Nassar, considering his abominable actions concerning Divina Flor. To his mother and everyone in the town, he is a great person, but with the housemaids he is grotesque and inappropriate. His physical appearance contradicts his true demeanor and personality.
In the book, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the author uses the irony to dream imagery to foreshadow Santiago Nasar’s death to show the lack of attention his family paid to the signs of his coming death. The author begins the novel describing Santiago Nasar’s morning before his death. He writes, “He’d dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit” (Marquez 1). In this passage, Marquez uses soft diction through the words grove and gentle, illustrating a peaceful state of mind that Santiago finds in his dream. A grove is often used to describe a meadow, usually associated with positive connotations. However, his dream ends with the feeling of “bird shit”. This juxtaposition of a peaceful, calm bird to the rude tone of “shit” displays the shock Nasar felt when he awoke without the same peace he’d experienced in his dream. However, his mother is also in shock by the tragic outcome of the dream, stating, “‘Any dream about trees means good health,” ironically showing her lack of attention to the true meaning of his dream as a dream interpreter (Marquez 4). However, his mother also points out that “‘He was always dreaming about trees’” (Marquez 1). In dreams, a group, or grove, of trees standing together is symbolic of “people who keep an eye out for others but don't interfere in a situation unless they are called upon” (dreams.konji.com). Similar to the Kitty Genovese case where a group of neighbors witnessed her murder, yet not a single one attempted to call the police or help her, Santiago Nasar is abandoned by his family. His dreams of trees represent his lack of support from his family as they stand witnesses in his murder. A note revealing, “the place, the motive, and other precise details of the plot” was left on the floor of his home the morning of the murder (Marquez 15). However, “he [Santiago Nasar] didn’t see it, nor did Davina Flor or anyone else until long after the crime had been consummated” (Marquez 15). As shown in the title and by many events and symbols throughout the story, Santiago’s murder was not a secret. However, due to his family’s ironic sense of oblivion to the foretellings of his death, Nasar was unable to be saved.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez misleads the readers with the title. A chronicle is a telling of a story in chronological order. However, he writes in a journalistic style that seems to have no particular order of events and interviews of people. This investigative journalistic narration emphasizes the motif of mystery. The story of this day is repeated throughout the chapters. There is no order to the story as the narrator is trying to learn the true events, “ I returned to this forgotten village, trying to put the broken mirror of memory back together” (Marquez 6). Marquez writes this “mystery” novel about a murder in a non-mysterious way. The reader is aware of the death before it occurs, similar to the characters within the novel. Rather than using literary techniques to foreshadow This allows the reader to understand the Kitty-Genovese syndrome the characters were going through. It is shown that all the characters discussed were aware of Santiago’s imminent death. However, no one made any attempt to stop the murder or tell Santiago of it, besides the mysterious note left under the door. Marquez often discusses the weather of the day, which seems irrelevant and rarely discusses the note left under the door which would be a huge clue in this murder, where the question is not who done it but rather, why did nobody stop it? In chapter one, this note is rarely mentioned in comparison to something as irrelevant as the weather.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold we are introduced to Bayardo San Román. The town takes an immediate liking to him even entertaining the “legend that Bayardo San Román not only was capable of doing everything, and doing it quite well, but also had access to endless resources” (Márquez 27). The narrator's mother also adds: “‘People like him a lot,’ she told me, ‘because he’s honest and has a good heart” (27). But I do not believe that Bayardo is really as generous or respectable as the townspeople believe. One of the prime examples of Bayardo’s selfishness is when he talks to the widower Xius. Bayardo relentlessly confronts Xius about buying his house until he forces him into accepting. Dr. Dionisio Iguarán describes Xius after being presented with the large sum of ten thousand pesos as such: “He was weeping with rage” and judges Xius’ decision to refuse: “Just imagine: an amount like that within reach and having to say no from a simple weakness of the spirit” (37). Bayardo makes Xius out to be a fool and forces him to give in to his unfair proposition by presenting even more money. Xius has to accept or be humiliated. A short two months after giving in Xius dies of grief with Dr. Dionisio describing him as: “healthier than the rest of us, but when you listened with the stethoscope you could hear the tears bubbling inside his heart” (37). What despicable gall Bayardo has! This alone is enough to convince me Bayardo is selfish at heart, but the whole reason he did this is perhaps equally bad: for the benefit of his fiancée, whom was forced into engagement! The narrator states: “It was Angela who didn’t want to marry him” (as opposed to the rest of her family) and that: “Bayardo San Román hadn’t even tried to court her, but had bewitched the family with his charm” (34). The last statement here is especially important, revealing that Bayardo uses his specious allure to trick the family into allowing him to marry Angela even though he has done nothing to deserve it. I therefore think all of Bayardo’s seemingly kind and pleasant actions are all a facade to allow him to get his own selfish way.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 2 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” the plot was mostly focused on Bayardo San Román. The audience learns that he had only arrived in the town a short 6 months before his wedding. From the way the narrator describes, it seems as though everyone is fascinated with Bayardo, besides the narrator’s mother. As we learned in Chapter 1, the narrator’s mother claims to have the ability to see into the future. She says in a letter to the narrator, her son, “‘People like him a lot,’ she told me, ‘because he’s honest and has a good heart, and last Sunday he received communion on his knees and helped with the mass in Latin,’” (Márquez 29). This seems as though she is trying to give reasoning on why people like her, or convince herself to try and like him. Later she admits in a complete contrast of this example she gave that “his golden eyes had cause the shudder of a fear in her./‘He reminded me of the devil,’ she told me,” (Márquez 30). This is an odd way that she contradicts what she had previously said. Due to her seemingly supernatural way of being able to sense things, it seems strange that if she had the sense that he was similar to the devil, that she would specifically mention that he took communion at mass. Not only does this relate to the magical realism aspect of this book, but it also goes to show how people held back on the truth, or what they were really feeling often times in order to protect others, This can be seen other times in the book when people neglect to inform Santiago of his impending murder because they don’t want to be the one who has to tell him.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure who the narrator’s mother is protecting by claiming that she agrees that Bayardo San Román is a good guy… I kind of think the reason she does this is in order to simply be agreeable among everyone else in the town, who think Bayardo is great. And the reason she mentioned that Bayardo took communion was, as the narrator put is: “my mother is accustomed to noting that kind of superfluous detail when she wants to get to the heart of the matter” (27). In order to get to the heart of matter the narrator’s mother tells of many of Bayardo’s deeds (regardless of how trivial they may be) to emphasize how much he shows off his goodness to the town. At first she doesn’t want anyone to think she doesn’t see Bayardo as a good guy but a long while later after it is less important she is perfectly alright with admitting to the narrator that she did not think Bayardo so good after all.
DeleteIn chapter 2 of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez emphasizes the theme of manhood and the duties of women through distinct diction. When describing the family of Angela Vicario, Marquez writes “The brothers were brought up to be men” to display the social context of the book and introduce the idea of what it means to be a man (Marquez 31). The author’s purposeful diction insinuates that the Vicario brothers were raised in a house with strict ideas on what it means to be a man. They are not “reared to get married” as the women were, and thus they were not taught to sew, wash, and weave. The differences in language demonstrate the gender inequality in this setting. “Brought up” has connotations of a happy childhood; they became men through a satisfying upbringing. However, the word to describe how the sisters were raised - “reared” - has negative, less personal and jocund implications. The Vicario sisters were bred to be the epitomes of a perfect wife. The different styles of diction help to distinguish how women and men are treated in the novel’s setting. It crafts an illuminating tone that offers the reader new insight into why the characters in the novel act as they do - especially surrounding Santiago Nassar’s murder.
ReplyDeleteMarquez also demonstrates the duty of women during this time, writing in reference to Purisima del Carmen,“She devoted herself with such spirit of sacrifice to the care of her husband and the rearing of her children that at times one forgot she still existed” (31). Illustrating the lack of appreciation for women, the author writes on how little women are respected for their hardship and care. A doting, hard working woman is invisible in this town; she is not thanked for anything that she does. Del Carmen sacrifices everything she has for her family, this is what a good wife does. This is reiterated through the narrator’s mother’s jarring words concerning the Vicario daughters, “Any man will be happy with them because they’ve been raised to suffer” (31). Women cannot expect a lot out of their life and society, so they are raised to endure the endless mistreatment and unappreciation.
The treatment of women in this work, helps to characterize the men in the novel; they are mostly domineering and privileged.
In chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold it is remarkable how ignored or brushed-off the Vicario twins and their scheme are! It is simply ridiculous how big the extent of this is! The thing that surprised me the most was that even Colonel Aponte, one involved with law enforcement in the town, couldn’t take the twins seriously! He simply says: “No one is arrested just on suspicion”(57). Even though they said it themselves, and that would mean Santiago would most likely have to die for them to be arrested, but then he would be already dead… and that defeats the purpose of arresting them. He also justifies himself by taking the twin’s knives and saying: “Now they haven’t got anything to kill anybody with” (57). But the Vicario twins are known animal slaughters and so could easily get another of their knives… which is exactly what they do. The Colonel seems much more surprised by the twins drunken state than their scheme to kill Santiago: “What will the bishop say if he finds you in that state!” (56). The fact of the matter is this is just absolutely impossible and could never happen except that this is magical reali— waitaminute. Something like this DID happen. And it seemed like such an impossible event… which is exactly what this book means to show. Sometimes we are unaware of the inner workings of human nature, and just how people behave.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter Two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Márquez explores the concept of virginity with the following passage:
ReplyDelete“They assured her that almost all women lost their virginity in childhood accidents. They insisted that even the most difficult of husbands resigned themselves to anything as long as nobody knew about it. They convinced her, finally, that most men came to their wedding night so frightened that they were incapable of doing anything without the woman’s help, and at the moment of truth they couldn’t answer for their own acts. “They only thing they believe is what they see on the sheet,” they told her. And they taught her old wives’ tricks to feign her lost possession, so that on her first morning as a newlywed she could display open under the sun in the courtyard of her house the linen sheet with the stain of honor” (42).
The influence of Catholicism in the town where Angela lives makes it so that premarital sex is seen as sin and that all women are supposed to be virgins when they marry. The definition of virginity, to the citizens of this town, is an intact hymen, suggesting that a woman’s first time having sex would tear the hymen and cause her to bleed, leaving “the stain of honor” on the sheet (42). This bloody stain was supposedly proof that the woman was a virgin. The idea that “almost all women lost their virginity in childhood accidents” (that tore the hymen) presents a contradiction: the social construction of virginity is seemingly of little importance if it is acknowledged that women can lose their virginity without having sex, yet to Angela and her family, it is imperative that she remain a virgin until marrying Bayardo San Román. In this passage, Márquez emphasizes the power that men supposedly hold over women. A husband supposedly only believes “what [he sees] on the sheet,” suggesting that he trusts a mark that could be easily faked (“they taught her old wives’ tricks to feign her lost possession”) more than the word of his own wife, showing that women could not be trusted (42). The description of virginity as a possession that can be lost implies that a woman who has had sex is inherently less than a woman who has not, just because after having sex, she is now missing a piece of herself. Something interesting to note about the passage is that Márquez concedes that men aren’t always able to fit into their masculine gender roles: “most men came to their wedding night so frightened that they were incapable of doing anything without the woman’s help” (42). Men are much more nuanced and complex than any one description of masculinity. However, Márquez doesn’t suggest that women can be anything other than submissive, even if they have to “help” their husbands. Angela was still expected to pour fake blood onto her sheets so that she could appear as a helpless victim of a violent conquest.
At the beginning of Chapter Three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the Vicario brothers surrendered to the church: “‘We killed him openly,’ Pedro Vicario said, ‘but we’re innocent’” (55). When describing this scene, Márquez uses violent, active diction: “They burst panting into the parish house, closely pursued by a group of roused-up Arabs…Both were exhausted from the barbarous work of death, and their clothes and arms were soaked and their faces smeared with wet and still living blood, but the priest recalled the surrender as an act of great dignity” (55). This contradiction is interesting. Words and phrases such as “burst,” “exhausted,” “soaked,” and “still living blood” create a very undignified image of the brothers. They are not described as the way typical churchgoers are described, so it is interesting that the priest sees the surrender as an act of dignity. Additionally, it appears, to a reader unacquainted with the concept of honor, that it isn’t very dignified for Pedro Vicario to claim innocence while at the same time admitting to killing Santiago Nasar. Father Amador responds to Pedro’s claim by saying that he is innocent “perhaps before God,” to which Pablo replies, “Before God and before men...It was a matter of honor” (56). The Vicario brothers killed Santiago Nasar to protect Angela’s honor even though they had no real way of knowing that Santiago took Angela’s virginity: by most accounts, he did not. The idea that the brothers should be absolved of their crimes simply because they were protecting their sister’s honor is a chauvinistic one, suggesting that women always need protecting and are incapable of defending themselves or having any agency over their own bodies.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy your insight on the role of honor in this novel. However, do you think the brothers were proud to participate in this murder? In chapter 3, Clotilde Armenta suggests, "the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them" (Marquez 65). Based on this quote, I believe if the family was not so devoted to protecting their honor and the brothers weren't put under so much pressure, they would not of carried out the deed of killing Santiago Nasar. This explains the irony of defending one's honor. Although the brother's are determined to kill Nasar in order to prove their family honorable, they don't feel moral at heart. Even though honor is put on a pedestal in this society, the shame and guilt of murder still outweighs their pride.
DeleteIn chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez utilized the setting of the novel, a town of Catholic belief in Columbia by the Caribbean coast, to justify the murder of Santiago Nasar. In the beginning of the chapter, as the twins are on trial for their murder of Nasar, “the priest recalled the surrender as an act of great dignity” (Marquez 55). In today’s society, the murder of an innocent man would contribute to either life in prison or a death sentence. As seen in the Kitty Genovese case, a murderer must be held accountable for his crimes. However, in Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the twins felony is seen as, “a matter of honor” (Marquez 56). Due to the setting of this town, the society accepts this crime as a help to the town. Yet, Nasar’s acquisition as taking the virginity of Angela Vicario becomes worthy of death by sword. Through this acceptance by society, the author adds to the illusion of magical realism. Although a crime such as this would be criticized today, the town accepts the nobility of the twins’ action. This symbolizes the juxtaposition of bad and good and the fine line between them. Even though some things, such as murder, may be seen as evidently evil, Marquez chooses to challenge this belief. Through the dedication and pride of his characters, he creates an aura of death being acceptable. Because of this, the Vicardo brothers have a justification for killing Santiago Nasar in defense of their defenseless sister.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, there is a lot of repetition of the word honor. This is interesting, because it is the supposed reason for the murder of the main character Santiago Nasar. The Vicario brothers set out the morning after their sister was returned from her wedding by Bayardo to kill Santiago, because Angela (falsely) said that he was the one who had taken her virginity. The brothers want to defend their family’s honor, and they come to the conclusion in order to preserve this honor, they must kill Santiago, whom they believe is the one who had taken it away. They connect their family honor to their sister, and the fact that she was returned the night of her wedding when the groom found out that she was not a virgin. At this time, nearly everyone viewed premarital sex as a very scandalous and unacceptable act. Once the Vicario brothers find out that their sister has done this, rather than get upset or ashamed at their sister Angela, they decide to blame Santiago, who they think that she had slept with. Throughout this chapter it seemed as though they had not actually wanted to kill him, or wanted someone to convince them out of it. Their approach to finding him on the day of his murder was one without much effort. They even waited for him “at Clotilde Armenta’s place, where they knew that almost everybody would turn up except Santiago Nasar,” (Márquez 57). They also ended up waiting for him at the door of his home that it was least likely he would come out of, they did so knowingly in an attempt to spare his life once more. Unfortunately for Santiago Nasar, he did end up exiting through that door which led to the Vicario brothers, for reasons that no one could quite understand. The chapter ends once again with Santiago Nasar being killed by Pedro and Pablo, the Vicario brothers. This ties back into the idea of honor and creates an ironic situation, as they believed that their family honor was stripped from them when their sister Angela Vicario did not live up to the religious standards that were expected of her by having an extramarital affair, yet Pedro and Pablo Vicario commit murder, a clear breach of religious expectations, and no one sees it as a damage to their family’s honor.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed how the Vicario family was quick to blame Santiago rather than Angela. I thought that it was illuminating how the Vicario family found it imperative and a matter of honor that they kill him, thus implying that it was his fault Angela’s “virginity” was gone. They completely disregard the idea that a woman can be a sexual being with desires. This inadvertently shows how women were expected to be treated by men. Clearly, if their first conclusion is to blame the man, it must reflect the gender roles during this time; men were the ones who initiated sex and women were expected to go along with it. Knowing that most likely Angela lied about Santiago and her’s relationship, I think that she was protecting her true lover, illustrating that she is not a chaste, Catholic woman with no desire.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of Pablo and Pedro’s reluctance. I think their real motive for the murder of Santiago was duty. They felt compelled to commit such violence for the sake of their family and its honor. This demonstrates how foretold Santiago’s death truly was. These twins did not want to partake in Santiago’s brutal death, but they have internalized so much of their culture and society’s values that they forced themselves to do it. Nothing could have truly prevented them from doing the deed. In addition the hypocrisy that you mentioned - regarding religious honor and murder - was an idea that could be applied today. Many radicalized religious groups reinterpret their holy texts in ways that do not reflect the essence of the original beliefs. Some people - like the Vicario brothers - explicate their denomination in ways that support their oppressive ideals, which simultaneously goes against everything their faith believes in.
In chapter three of A Chronicle of A Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez illustrates some of the various excuses for murder that people in the town adopt. After killing Santiago Nasar, the Vicario brothers go to their church and confess their crime saying, “We killed him openly..Before God and before men, It was a matter of honor” (Marquez 49).Demonstrating their religious justification, the author writes that they took Nassar’s life in the name of honor and they believe God would spare judgement and approve. Their prideful diction showcases their lack of regret and complete belief that what they did was just. They believe that honor trumps all; it must be maintained at all costs. This idea goes hand in hand with the concept of image; it’s important to keep up a facade that is consistent with the social standards. Honor needs to be defended because it represents who they, their family, and their ancestry are. The Vicario brothers cannot be perceived as weak or undedicated to their family. In addition, in this novel, the idea of virginity is equated to honor - a woman who has pre marital sex needs to have her honor restored for the sake of her family.
ReplyDeleteAnother justification for murder is shown through the narrator’s interaction with the butchers. After the narrator reminds a butcher of the Vicario’s sacrifices of pigs they named, he replies
“but remember that they didn’t give them people’s names but the names of flowers” (52). The raconteur of this novel attempts to show that Pedro and Pablo Vicario may be cold-hearted as they have killed creatures that were close to them before. However, the butcher immediately justifies the murder of their hogs by saying that they didn’t have human names, so therefore they didn’t represent humans. It’s interesting to see how quick the townspeople are to defend the twin brothers. In this case, the brothers were not predisposed to this kind of murder despite their lifestyles. There is an obvious bias in this town towards protecting one’s reputation and one’s way of living. Overall, these justifications come off as mere excuses for not stopping the murder of Santiago Nasar, and the sad tone makes the audience feel empathetic towards him.
I noticed this empathetic tone when the narrator was speaking about the Vicario brothers too. I felt like what we talked about in class today, how the narrator seemed to make everyone feel victimized other than Santiago Nasar was an interesting choice. In the case of the Vicario brothers, who committed the murder of someone who they could not prove to be guilty of the act that they killed him in revenge of, were not looked on in a negative light. The narrator seemed to portray these brothers as people who were helpless, and had no choice other than to kill Santiago Nasar. In reality, it was completely their choice, and even when they got their weapons taken away, which admittedly was a poor attempt at stopping them, they did not go back on the murder, which shows that they were completely aware of what they were doing and knew that others did not want them to follow through. I think that if the narrator had put less emphasis on the Vicario brothers as victims themselves, and less emphasis on the "honor" of the killing, readers would not feel the same way about their crime, and be more angry and blame the brothers more and not see this act as okay in any way.
DeleteDuring the first act two, the narrator describes how the Vicario daughters were raised to be wedded,“Any man will be happy with them because they have been raised to suffer”(2.31). Illustrates how marriage was for status and procreation rather than love and partnership. And also goes to show that it was a man’s choice who he married, usually a man would choose someone that would make him look good or whose family had influence. This also brings into question the idea of human rights. Women are expected to suffer for their husband and children, all the while doing it gracefully and quietly. But we have not advanced much from this idea, as women who choose not to marry or have children are seen as incomplete or unacomplished. Also in the second at, the narrator mentions how women had no say in who they married,“Angela Vicario only dared hint at the inconvenience of a lack of love, but her mother demolished it with a single phrase: ‘love can be learned too’(2.35). This scene is interesting because it illustrates a clash between latin honor culture and catholic marriage ideals. I’m making an assumption but, catholic marriages wouldn’t be allowed after only four months, especially if the two parties involved have not courted each other. The idea of marrying for a reason other than upholding the family honor was not unheard of, but certainly not common as seen in act two, “Bayardo San Roman hadn’t even tried to court her, but had bewitched the family with his charm”(2.34). Again, the latin culture of upholding a family’s honor is conflicting with the catholic marriage traditions.
ReplyDeleteDuring the third chapter, Marquez uses the motif of ritual and idea of honor versus human rights to illustrate the internal conflict of the Vicario twins,“The Vicario twins went to the bin in the pigsty where they kept their sacrificial tools and picked out the two best knives”(3.50). The use of the knives used to slaughter pigs is very significant because it shows the disregard for human life they are forced to have in this situation. Also the fact that Marquez uses the word sacrificial rather than slaughter is significant because it introduces the idea of ritual and suggests Santiago’s innocence. That maybe he didn’t do anything wrong, but rather, is a sacrifice to pardon Angela.
ReplyDeleteAgain, in chapter three when they've gone out to sharpen the knives Marquez use the motif of ritual,“They sharpened them on the grindstone, the way they always did”(3.51). Even though they are about to kill a man who might be innocent, the twins are calm and go about their normal duties as if it’s just another day of slaughtering pigs for them. But they weren’t all that sangfroid, as noted in chapter three,“she’d sensed it. She was certain that the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them”(3.57). Even though the theme of honor is very important in this play, the Vicario twins feel remorse even before they killed Santiago, and as soon as it was over they immediately sought guidance from their priest. This demonstrates how their culture overrides their religion in some istances.
Throughout Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses situational irony in his recurring motif showing how deception leads to death of it’s victim. In the chapter, the story of Bayardo’s courting of Angela is told. One way he does this is when he convinces the widower Xius to sell his house. Although the widower denies multiple times, Bayardo presents him with 10,000 pesos in hopes of the widower accepting the bribe. Bayardo’s motive in this situation was to win over Angela through providing her a beautiful house. However, “‘He died because of that,” Dr.Dionisio Iguarian said. “‘He was healthier than the rest of us, but when you listened with the stethoscope you could hear the tears bubbling inside his heart” (Marquez 41). Although Bayardo’s true intentions were to woo his maiden, his deception and bribery led to the downfall of one of the town’s healthiest individuals. However, the needs of society came before the wellbeing of a poor individual because of the nature of the culture. In Colombian society, it is natural for a groom to court his bride before marriage. However, by acting on for the needs of one, Bayardo did not acknowledge the harm being done to the rest of the community, therefore, resulting in the death of the widower Xius.
ReplyDeleteThe motif of deception is also seen in the end of the chapter. When Angela is discovered on her wedding night to not be a virgin, her entire family turns against her. Yet, rather than accepting her punishment, Angela chooses blame to get the eyes off of herself:
She took only the time necessary to say the name. She looked for it in the shadows, she
found it at first sight among the many, many easily confused names from this world and
the other, and she nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will
whose sentence has always been written. “Santiago Nasar,” she said (Marquez 53).
Even though Santiago Nasar is never found guilty for his crime, the blame must go to someone. Although Angela intends only for her to escape trouble, she passes her fate onto Nasar as the author shows through dart imagery. The narrator even implies that Nasar was not confirmed the culprit as the names were “easily confused”. Throughout this work, Marquez’s use of situational irony exemplifies the coming death of an individual due to the deception of another.
Chapter three of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” begins with the trial of the Vicario brothers in which they both plead innocent due to the fact that Santiago Nasar’s murder was “a matter of honor”(56). In this chapter, the impression is given off that Pablo and Pedro are quite proud of their decision, or duty rather, so they want people to know and talk about it. On page 56, the narrator says that they, “had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing him.” This quote seems contradictory to their pridefulness, but I interpret it as their way of changing how the public perceived them. Many times throughout the chapter, characters doubt their claim because they're thought of so highly by so many. In this case, I think the twins are advertising their plans with the intent to receive doubts, so that they may perpetuate their honorable status when they truly go through with it, almost like reverse psychology. Both brothers had doubts about it too, but Pablo Vicario finally says, “There's no way out of this...It’s as if it had already happened” (70). It's apparent at this point that the twins believe this act to be a duty to their sister’s honor, but also to their family name. By spreading the word to every corner of the town, they practically force themselves to do it. Everyone already knows, so backing out now would lose their positive social standing and honorability in the eyes of the community. I find it really interesting that at the beginning of the chapter, the two men go directly to Father Amador after the murder, covered in sweat and blood, to confess their sin, yet, “the priest recalled the surrender as an act of great dignity” (55). I feel like it's somewhat hypocritical to be so prideful in an action, yet know the difference between right and wrong well enough to feel the need to ask God for forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter two magical realism is portrayed throughout this entire chapter. One example is when Bayardo spots Angela for the first time. “[Bayardo] had been napping in a rocking chair in the parlor... when Angela Vicario and her mother crossed the square... Bayardo San Roman half-awoke, saw the two women... and asked who the young one was.”(Marquez, 28). This scene takes place at the start of Bayardo’s journey to win Angela’s heart over, so that she will become his wife, as well as Angela’s misfortunate to marry Bayardo, which doesn’t end well at all. Magical Realism plays a massive role in this scene because it suggests “love at first sight” for Bayardo. I came to this conclusion because as Angela and her mother strolled by his window, he woke up right away. This indicates that Angela’s beauty caused him to immediately wake up and gave him the suggestion that this woman would be the “perfect” woman for me. Another example of magical realism is when the narrator’s mother comments about Bayardo’s incredible swimming ability. The narrator said “One Sunday after mass he challenged the most skillful swimmers, who were many, and left the bets behind by twenty strokes in crossing the river back. My mother told me about it in a letter, and at the end she made a comment that was very much liker her: “It also seems that he’s swimming in gold.” (29) This contributes to magical realism because she describes Bayardo as an extremely handsome man who was highly proficient in anything he did like swimming. Also the comment she makes about him “swimming in gold” gives us a good indication that he comes from a wealthy family, and that he could afford anything luxurious. Not many people see magical realism portrayed in these scenes, but Marquez adds some interesting details as well as a little twist in order to interest the reader and adds more interest to the story and makes it seem like a sad story.
ReplyDeleteChapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold actually begins to tell a little bit farther in the story, telling some of the events AFTER Santiago’s death. The pieces I found most interesting are what happen to Bayardo and Angela. Bayardo falls into depression, gets very drunk and passes out in Xius’ former home. Dr. Dionisio and some others come to see if he’s okay then the doctor gives him some emergency treatment. “But he recovered in a few hours and as soon as his mind has cleared, he threw them out of the house with the best manners he was capable of. ‘Nobody fucks with me,’ he said” (Márquez 85). Márquez uses irony here to show that Bayardo is indeed depressed, since even his best manners are completely rude. But why is Bayardo so depressed? I personally believed he would have simply moved on after Angela to another wife, or another town, or somewhere. But he doesn’t seem to be able to recover! He even gets drunk a second time and remains in his pit of depression even with the arrival of his family. Perhaps it was because he regrets rejecting Angela. A quote from his family states: “nor did they have the slightest idea of what he came to do in a mislaid town, with no apparent aim than to marry a woman he had never seen” (87). This was perhaps his only goal. On the other side of the spectrum Angela also begins to be mourn about something. But her mourning is not because of her dishonoring, rather because she misses Bayardo. An inexplicable change occurs in her mentality: “Angela Vicario then discovered that hate and love are reciprocal passions” (93). On comes right after another apparently, and nothing else is said other than: “She was reborn” (92). Angela then writes nearly two thousand letter to Bayardo over a course of many years about various things like: greeting him, ridiculing him, loving him. Many years later he finally comes to Angela once more by surprise, with all the letters: “arranged by data in bundles tied with colored ribbons, and they were all unopened” (95). Unopened?? I wondered why they would be unopened then I realized the fact that they are explains Bayardo’s suffering. He truly did love Angela and used her lack of virginity as an excuse to get out of the marriage after he realized Angela despised him even after all his work. He fell into depression after having finally failed at something in his life and having lost Angela in a case of unrequited love. When Bayardo received letters from Angela he likely became further depressed as it became apparent that she may have changed her mind, but refused to read them because returning to Angela would be completely dishonorable now that he knew she was not a virgin. However, after many years he could not take it anymore, and decided to pay her a visit.
ReplyDeleteChapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold greatly suggests the idea that Santiago’s death was completely meaningless, or rather that he was not the one who robbed Angela Vicario of her virginity. Even the diligent judge who visits the town finds not: “a single clue, not even the most improbable, that Santiago Nasar had been the cause of the wrong” (Márquez 99). Several times Márquez writes of one of Santiago’s reactions to additionally verify this. When Nahir Miguel tells Santiago that the Vicario brothers intend to kill him he is very confused and in regard to Nahir: “He agreed that his manner reflected not so much fear as confusion” (114). Santiago is bewildered because he has no idea why the twins would want to kill him. The reason, obviously, is because Angela lied to her brothers, perhaps to protect someone else: “‘He was my perpetrator.’ That’s the way she swears in the brief, but with no further precision of either how or where” (100). There is absolutely no reason why Márquez would have put in these things would mention these oddities unless they were true, except maybe to create more confusion in this weird book. But I think not, and additionally the reason for revealing this fact is the emphasize the tragicness of this whole incident. A completely innocent man was killed for no good reason and could have easily been saved, if not for the apathetic townsfolk.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy your insight on the innocence of Santiago Nasar. However, I feel that this death was not meaningless to the characters in the story. For instance, the Vicario family was in need to protect their honor and the only method they could find was killing the person who took their honor away. Although, Santiago Nasar is never proved guilty, and seems pretty innocent for that matter, he is still seen as the offender in the family's eyes. The normality and justification of this killing is displayed by Marquez through magical realism, bringing up the idea of fate. Maybe Santiago was fated to die? After all, he walked through the entire town and was not stopped by anyone. This is ironic because many knew of the twin's plan to murder him, but everyone forgot to warn Santiago. On page 133, Marquez writes, "Fatality makes us invisible", in reference to Nasar's death, making his killing seem all the more necessary to the story.
DeleteIn chapter four of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez characterizes Santiago Nasar as flawed through the juxtaposition of gruesome and delicate imagery, in order to craft a conflicted tone that makes the reader question if he deserves their empathy. After Nasar was brutally murdered, Colonel Aponte orders the priest, Father Amador, to perform an autopsy on his body. After Father Amador inadvertently dismembered and ruptured the remains of Nasar, he removed his intestines and gave, “an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail” (76). The juxtaposition of something sacred and holy with trash illustrates the torn feeling that the reader has. Nasar appears angelic and adored - through the use of white-color imagery in the previous chapters - yet has an affair with Maria Alejandra Cervantes while engaged to Flora Miguel. He does not act as chaste and honest as he appears. These conflicting images demonstrate that he maintained two different appearances, with most of the town seeing him as charismatic and delightful. The negative diction - “angry” - also casts a shadow of duty, as if the priest only blesses his guts for the sake of tradition. This can be interpreted by the reader as a way of saying that Nasar’s flaws are only overlooked by the majority of the town because of society’s standards.
ReplyDeleteAfter attempting to reassemble Nasar’s body after the autopsy, Marquez describes it as, “.. on the point of falling apart when we put it into the new coffin with its silk quilt lining” (77). The imagery detailed in this scene is grotesque and crude, but it is juxtaposed with the delicate, expensive quality of the “silk quilt lining”. Representing the reality of Nasar’s personality, he is laid to rest eternally on a padding that is exquisite, while his body is deteriorating grotesquely. Painting a contradicting scene, Marquez symbolizes the different aspects of the main character’s identity; he appears glamorous and perfect while his actions reveal cruel, misogynistic behavior. He sexually harasses Divina Flor, his maid, and treats her poorly, yet he is charming and loved by most in the town. This imagery is utilized to define Nasar as flawed; the town and the reader struggle over if his good qualities counterbalance his imperfections.
Overall, through contrasting grim and virtuous imagery, Marquez effectively paints Santiago Nasar as an imperfect character that makes the reader torn on whether to empathize with him or not.
In Chapter Four, Márquez describes the ways in which Santiago Nasar’s body was treated after his death. Márquez uses violent, gruesome language to suggest that there is no respite for Santiago—even in death. Márquez writes about the way the dogs prowled around Santiago’s body:
ReplyDelete“In addition, the dogs, aroused by the smell of death, increased the uneasiness. They hadn’t stopped howling since I went into the house, when Santiago Nasar was still in his death throes in the kitchen and I found Divina Flor weeping in great howls and holding them off with a stick.
“Help me,” she shouted to me. “What they want is to eat his guts”
(84-85).
These dogs are a symbol for the lack of justice that Santiago received. Even in death, he cannot rest in peace because the dogs wish to “eat his guts.” They represent a lack of respect for Santiago’s death, suggesting that the people sincerely believe Santiago was fated to die even though he was most likely innocent and did not take Angela’s virginity. Márquez even writes that “until then there hadn’t been any concern at all for the state of the body.” This lack of care manifests itself in the way that “a syrup-colored liquid began to flow from the wounds, drawing flies, and a purple blotch appeared on the upper lip and spread out very slowly, like the shadow of a cloud on water, up to the hairline” (85). Santiago is being treated like a dead animal. The grotesque diction (“wounds,” “flies,” “purple blotch”) creates a grim, neglectful tone. The townspeople feel as though they have nothing to owe Santiago because he was destined for death. Even Father Amador says as much during the autopsy: “Nevertheless, in the final note he pointed out a hypertrophy of the liver that he attributed to a poorly cured case of hepatitis. ‘…he had only a few years of life left to him in any case’” (87). After the hasty, botched autopsy, Santiago’s body is left even more mangled than it was before: “…the priest had pulled out the sliced-up intestines by the roots, but in the end he didn’t know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail” (88). Santiago’s body, already ravaged by knife wounds, was not even permitted to stay in one piece. The way Father Amador treats Santiago after his death is very different from what would be expected of a Catholic priest. It is as though Santiago’s death is a routine occurrence. He has ceased to be a human being worthy of respect.
Your analysis of the dogs prowling around Santiago's corpse is really interesting! In regards to the "angry blessing" Father Amador gives to Santiago's intestines, I interpreted it as him following his duty. The lack of religious devotion to the blessing made me think the priest was doing it simply because he had to, not because he truly believed Santiago was an innocent victim that deserved peace in the afterlife.
DeleteI also found the imagery of the dogs interesting, for they are often thought of as protective creatures. Their continuous barking symbolized their desire for justice. They want everyone around them to hear and understand their call for change. Later, Placida Linero has them killed to silence their howls. Using the dogs as symbols, Marquez describes the town that the story is set in. Their society is flawed as seen through the harsh treatment of Angela after she has premarital sex and the way her family tries to cover it up. They live in a place where anything that appears to bring dishonor to the family is hidden from everyone.
In Chapter Five, Márquez finally gives a detailed description of Santiago’s death:
ReplyDeletePedro Vicario pulled out his knife with his slaughterer’s iron wrist and dealt him a second thrust almost in the same place. “The strange thing is that the knife kept coming out clean,” Pedro Vicario declared to the investigator…Pablo Vicario, who was on his left, then gave him the only stab in the back and a spurt of blood under high pressure soaked his shirt. “It smelled like him,” he told me” (139).
What is interesting about the way that Pedro and Pablo kill Santiago is that they start out very strong and determined, stabbing him multiple times in rapid succession until they come to their senses: “But they suddenly woke up to reality, because they were exhausted, and yet they thought that Santiago Nasar would never fall” (140). At this point it is as though the act of killing Santiago is less of an act of passion and more of an act of duty. They continue stabbing him because they have to finish the job. It is as though Pedro and Pablo are bringing fate down upon Santiago. Just like in the Kitty Genovese case, the brothers left many opportunities for bystanders to do something to save Santiago even after they had begun stabbing him: “…Pedro Vicario sought his heart, but he looked for it almost in the armpit, where pigs have it. Actually, Santiago Nasar wasn’t falling because they themselves were bolding him up with stabs against the door” (141). The brothers made mistakes when killing Santiago, and these mistakes seem to suggest that they are only human and perhaps it was not Santiago’s destiny to die. Perhaps he was just unlucky and Pablo and Pedro were just persistent. The responses of the bystanders were similar to the responses of those in the Kitty Genovese case: “After looking and shouting for him in the bedroom, hearing other shouts that weren’t hers and not knowing where they were coming from, Placida Linero went to the window facing the square and saw the Vicario twins running toward the church” (141). She thought that the danger had passed when she saw them running away. Poncho Lanao and his wife had also heard the shouts, but they thought it was related to the bishop’s visit. So many people failed to save Santiago even though the twins were hesitant at times and even though Pablo said to his brother, “You can’t imagine how hard it is to kill a man!” (141). Santiago may have been hard to kill, but his death was ultimately easy to ignore until he lay on the ground, bleeding out.
In the final chapter of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the author Gabriel Garcia Marquez emphasizes that sense perception can yield false knowledge through the use of specific diction that shapes Santiago Nasar’s fate. Cristo Bedoya and Santiago were walking arm in arm along the dock so unperturbed that Meme Loiza misses an opportunity to warn the dead man walking. Marquez illustrates this manipulation of sight through, “‘They were both going along so contentedly,’ Meme Loiza told me, ‘that I gave thanks to God, because I thought the matter had been cleared up’” (Marquez 100). Since, the two men didn’t appear to be riddled with worry and paranoia, this townswoman assumed that they had been warned or the threat had been dismissed. Meme Loiza’s visual perception of them had caused her not to act which inadvertently led to Santiago Nasar’s death. Her grateful, religious diction demonstrates that she truly believed what she saw. She thought that the sight before her had been the work of a Divine being, when in fact she had misinterpreted Santiago and Cristo’s body language. Her thankful diction was not deserved.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, one’s knowledge based on hearing can prove wrong as shown through Sara Noriega’s interaction with Santiago Nasar. When she sees him, she is frightened by his paleness but he calms her down saying, “‘You can imagine, Missy Sara,’ he told her without stopping, ‘with this hangover!’” (103). Sara believed him because he sounded calm and sure of himself. Listening to him, she genuinely thought that he was going to be fine. Her sense perception created untrue knowledge that prevented her from stopping Santiago’s death. His kind, endearing diction makes him appear unconcerned or even like nothing bad could ever possibly come to him. His charming humor - “with this hangover” - made Sara assume that he was right, and that he would still be alive by the end of the morning. Her acceptance of hearing as knowledge proved tragic as her flawed perception helped engender Santiago’s death.
Marquez illustrates that knowledge based on sense perception can be faulty. While simultaneously crafting an unsettling tone, this novel illuminates that the joint errors in sense perception of a few can lead to brutal murder.
Marquez uses religious imagery to describe the dismembered body of Nasar in order to evoke a feeling of remorse and guilt. “He had a deep stab in the right hand. the report says:’It looked like a stigma of the crucified christ.’”(4.75). This illustrates how deeply rooted their schema for religion is. This is shown in how religious imagery is used even in a formal report of an autopsy. It also depicts the sympathy the townspeople had for Nasar. By referring to him as a crucified christ who they hold very highly it connotates a feeling of guilt and reverence. Also creating a feeling of innocence for Nasar, as though he died to save Angela from what was done to her. Marquez also uses tactile imagery to allow the reader to have a reaction to the hurt that Nasar experienced.
ReplyDeleteMarquez also uses brief character introductions towards the end to give his Colombian audience an emotional connection to the cultural setting. “The mayor was a former troop commander with no experience in matters of law, and he was too conceited to ask anyone who knew where he should begin”(4.73). This brief characterization would have a very strong emotional connotation for Colombians, being as civilians have been victimized by the many militant groups present in the country since its independence. characterizing the mayor as an ignorant ex-militant illustrates the corrupt chain of power in Colombia of the alpha male exploiting the land and its people. For me this is a very important cultural detail that might get glossed over by its foreign audience because it is a translated book.
Again, Marquez conveys power dynamics through use of authoritative diction juxtaposed with crude diction when describing authority figures. “But it was an order from the mayor, and orders from that barbarian, stupid as they might have been, had to be obeyed”(4.72). This description of the mayor's incompetence is from a very personal perspective which contrasts with the journalist style of narration. Also tying in the cultural element of begrudgingly following authority figures due to an omnipresent military and Catholic influence.
Along with your mention of religious imagery, I thought it was interesting that the priest was the one performing the autopsy. This suggests that the townspeople allow their religion to guide them and bring them truth while relying very little on science. Father Amador says in the report that Santiago "had only a few years of life left to him in any case" due to a "poorly cured case of hepatitis." The priest is attempting to justify Santiago's death, saying that it was destined to happen soon even though he lacks medical expertise. Dr. Iguraran disagrees with Amador's assessment: "Dr. Dionisio Iguaran, who in fact had treated Santiago Nasar for hepatitis at the age of twelve, recalled that autopsy with indignation. 'Only a priest could be so dumb'" (87). Religion is used over and over again to justify questionable events and actions even when religion has no place in those situations.
DeleteSomething that I found very interesting in Chapter 4 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” was the love letters that Angela wrote to Bayardo. They symbolized the love that she kept for him over the years, even though he returned her rather than marrying her, and the fact that she did not see him for many years. It is interesting that the narrator chose to include this aspect of the story, as it does not directly relate to the plot, and is a tangent when looked at in terms of the main focus of the story: Santiago Nasar’s murder. The fact that he chooses to include this piece about Angela and Bayardo rekindling their love, but not a real conclusion to the story leaves many audience members (especially me) confused. The love letters that Angela wrote Bayardo varied greatly. She wrote a letter every week for years and years, with no letters in return from Bayardo. When asked about what the letters said she told the narrator “‘Sometimes I couldn’t think of what to say,’ she told me, dying with laughter, ‘but it was enough for me to know that he was getting them.’ At first they were a fiancee’s notes, then they were little messages from a secret lover, perfumed cards form a furtive sweetheart, business papers, love documents, and lastly they were the indignant letters of an abandoned wife who invented cruel illness to make him return, (Márquez 109). This shows that she hopelessly wrote him letters of varying natures, regardless to the fact that she never got a reply. This can be seen as her desperate attempt to win Bayardo back through these letter expressing her feelings towards him, no matter whether the letters were actually written to express love, or just to write a letter. At the end of the chapter, when Bayardo come for Angela, we see that he has received all of the letters. “He was carrying a suitcase with clothing in order to stay and another just like it with almost two thousand letters that she had written him. They were arranged by date in bundles tied with colored ribbons and they were all unopened,” (Márquez 111). This shows that the physical letters themselves, and the idea of the very romantic love letters were what brought him back to Angela, not the content of the actual letters. This can be translated into their marriage, if it can be called that, as well. Bayardo returned Angela back to her family when he found out that she was a virgin because of the idea that she had slept with someone, and the fact that ritual was not performed the way it was supposed to be in Bayardo’s mind. This goes to show that in this society, the ritual and the outside look of something, and steps taken to get there, or the motive behind something is more important than the actual act itself. This shows why many people were not upset by the Vicario brothers murdering Santiago Nasar.
ReplyDeleteDuring chapter five, Marquez uses the motif of fatalism to describe the actions of the townspeople. “The people had stationed themselves on the square the way they did on a parade day. they all saw him come out, and they all understood now that he knew they were going to kill him,”(5.115). Marquez describes Nasar’s foretold murder as a festive event that people have prepared themselves for. The word stationed implies the motif of fatalism as though that were the spot they were destined to be in, not assisting Nasar avoid his fate. Merely watching as a bystander. I also found it interesting how ambiguous the use of the word ‘they’ is. When Marquez writes,”he knew they were going to kill him”, he doesn’t refer specifically to the Vicario brothers or the towns people. But it is implied that he means the townspeople even though they aren’t the ones directly killing Nasar. Rather, it means that although they aren’t the ones killing him, they are directly responsible for him dying because they don’t do anything to prevent him dying and giving into the idea of fate.
ReplyDeleteThe motif of ritual and religion is also used to characterize the town. “The version that went around was that the whole family slept until twelve o’clock on orders from Nahir Miguel, the wise man of the community”(5.111). Despite the heavy catholic influence in the culture, the original magic and tribal elements of the culture can still be seen. The cultural context of a wise man is more inclined towards pre-colonized Colombian spiritual practice. But this motif of domestic ritual combines the two fatalistic cultures of catholicism and pre-Columbus spiritual practices.
In the dialogue, these religious and fatalistic ideas show up between characters. “‘I warn you. He’s armed with a Magnum that can go through an engine block,” he shouted. pablo Vicario knew it wasn't true…’Dead men can’t shoot,’ he shouted”(5.108). Although the Vicario twins were terrified of dying and knew they weren’t prepared to go up against an armed Nasar, they had made up their minds that defending their sister’s honor was their fate. Pablo confidently responds ‘Dead men can’t shoot” because he believes it is Nasar’s fate to die and there is no other way it can turn out because of their determination to restore their family's honor.
One quote that really stood out to me in Chapter 5 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” was where it said “Besides, when he finally learned at the last moment that the Vicario brothers were waiting for him to kill him, his reaction was not one of panic, as has so often been said, but rather the bewilderment of innocence,” (Márquez 118). This statement is very bold, and likely makes a lasting impression on the person who receives it, in this case, the audience. Most people who find out that they are going to be killed would likely respond in shock, fear, horror, or panic. This was not the case for Santiago Nasar as the narrator noticed. He noticed that Santiago was mostly confused at what was happening. This implies that Santiago had no guilt in the matter, and was innocent in terms of taking Angela’s virginity. The narrator goes on to say: “My personal impression is that he died without understanding his death,” (Márquez 118). This further attests to the fact that Santiago may not even know what the accusations against him are, and even that he may not know why he was even murdered. These statements help Santiago’s case for innocence, but also raise the important question of narrator liability. Most of the information in this story is given to be factual, and matter-of-fact. In the case of this statement, the narrator makes it clear that what he is saying is only his opinion. This makes us remember that we do not know whether all of this information is true, or if it is or could have been biased by the narrator, who seemed to be friends with Santiago Nasar. Books written in the first person where the narrator is a part of the story can often be a unique perspective on a situation or event, because it is the way that the narrator saw it happen. In this case, the narrator being a friend of Santiago Nasar’s, he thought of Santiago to be innocent. Though most of the evidence gathered throughout the story seemed to point to a similar conclusion, it is to be noted that not everything the narrator says can be considered fact, and that some of his own opinions are mentioned in the text.
ReplyDeleteThe dynamic characterization of Angela Vicario is prominently depicted throughout Chapter Four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Gabriel Garcia Marquez utilizes the motif of the reciprocal passions of love and hate to illustrate the change in feelings Angela shows for Bayardo San Roman. Angela’s hatred of her destined marriage with Bayardo is clearly shown throughout the novel as the narrator references her. In Chapter Four, he refers to her as, “the person who’d been obliged to marry without love at the age of twenty” (Marquez 103). The author puts an emphasis on Angela’s age at the end of this phrase to show her dynamic change throughout the novel. Although she begins hating her forced relationship with Bayardo, the author states, “she was reborn” (Marquez 108). After seeing Bayardo in a hotel, Angela, “‘went crazy over him,’” as she began a series of letters to Bayardo over a period of 17 years (108). This displays the dynamic characterization of Angela as she changes from an angry bride to an obsessive wife. Through this change, the author brings to light the motif of love and hatred. As Angela becomes a, “Mistress of her fate”, she soon discovers that, “hate and love are reciprocal passions” (108). When the narrator describes Angela as a “Mistress of her fate”, he displays how she has gained control over her situation and relationship. When she was arranged to marry Bayardo, she had no choice as a woman in her culture. However, her authority changes as she gains a passion for their relationship, taking matters into her own hands. Garcia Marquez illustrates the immense change from Angela’s intense hatred for her husband, saying she was plotting her death throughout their engagement, to sending him love letters on a weekly basis. Throughout his novel, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Garcia Marquez utilizes the arcing characterization of Angela and Bayardo’s relationship to illustrate the juxtaposition, yet corresponding attributes of love and hate.
ReplyDelete“Trying to finish it once and for all, Pedro Vicario sought his heart, but he looked for it almost in the armpit where pigs have it” (Marquez 141).
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I find this quote interesting because it illustrates the dehumanization of Santiago Nasar as he was being killed. Rather than stabbing the heart, commonly known as lying behind in the left chest area, the brothers stab him off to the side, where a pig’s heart would be. This makes Nasar’s murder symbolize that of a sacrifice.To preserve their sister’s dignity, they must sacrifice another’s. In this case, since Nasar is perceived as guilty for a crime he most likely didn’t commit, he must be sacrifice in order to make things right. The author makes this clear earlier in the novel in Chapter 3, the author writes, “‘When you sacrifice a steer you don’t dare look into it’s eyes’...the Vicario brothers sacrificed the same hogs they raised” (Marquez 60). Santiago Nasar’s comparison to a hog makes the Vicario brothers more willing to kill him. When they exclaim to the whole town their plans for murder, it seems as if they are hoping someone will stop them. However, by seeing Nasar as a pig to be sacrificed, they are able to murder him without the guilt. They avoid his eyes, taking away the little humanity he has left as they sacrifice him for the honor of their sister. The knives are also referenced as “pig-killing knives” several times, showing the intent the brothers had to sacrifice Nasar. By comparing Santiago to a pig being sacrifice, Gabriel Garcia MArquez is able to demonstrate the determination of the brothers to sacrifice Nasar through his dehumanization in his final minutes.
I also saw this quote as a portrayal of the twins' incompetence because they struggle many times to kill Santiago. Marquez writes, "Actually, Santiago Nasar wasn't falling because they themselves were holding him up with stabs against the door" (141). Pablo even says, "you can't imagine how hard it is to kill a man!" (140-141). The difficulty that Pedro and Pablo had in killing Santiago suggests that perhaps Nasar was not fated to die. It seemed to me that if Santiago were truly destined to die, killing him would have been easy. The twins had to work to kill him because Santiago did not take Angela's virginity, and he was not the one to blame for both Angela's and Bayardo's misfortune.
Delete"Help me,' she shouted to me. 'What [the dogs] want is to eat his guts" (73)
ReplyDelete"His mother covered [his face] with a handkerchief" (74)
"It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ" (75)
"She would recount it... except for one item that would never be cleared up: who was the real cause of her damage... because no one believed that it had really been Santiago Nasar" (89)
The fourth chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold not only focuses on the untold love story between Angela Vicario and Bayardo San Roman, but the beginning talks about the autopsy conducted on Santiago Nasar.
This grisly autopsy wasn't very humane, but continues the biblical allusion sprinkled throughout the rest of the novel, especially with the Christ being represented by Santiago Nasar. This is exemplary in this passage with the mirroring occurring between Christ's last days and the end of Santiago.
Starting with the dogs eating his guts, the comparison to the bible would be a metaphorical situation, with the King's guard torturing Jesus and wanting to see him hurt, mocking him in his lowest hours, placing a crown of thorns on his head.
The covering of the face with a handkerchief is an iconic Christian item, after Jesus was placed in his tomb, but before his resurrection, a cloth was covering his face. This led to his face being imprinted on this cloth after his resurrection, proving his miraculous existence and having evidence for him being the son of God. Although this may be superficial, and done to most people with disfiguring a=post-mortem attributes, the similarities between the rest of the cases make this one stronger.
The stabbing areas seemed similar when reading, and when this was uttered, I thought of the same thing. Jesus was stabbed in both hands, on his feet, and on the sides of his abdomen when he was crucified, and Santiago Nasar bore many of these wounds on his body as well.
Finally, the main similarity between Nasar and Christ would be the denial of Angela Vicario's lack of involvement with Nasar. Jesus died for sins he didn't commit, since he was a man born without original sin and living without any sinful actions either. In theory, no one believed that Santiago Nasar was the one to deflower Angela Vicario, so the whole town allowed the tragedy of his murder to pass knowing that the innocent one was the one suffering the consequences.
In chapter 5 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Marquez uses excuses to show that fate would eventually cause Santiago Nasar to die. The narrator frequently tells the accounts of those who knew Santiago’s death was going to take place. All of these people’s words and stories share one thing, and that is they never told Santiago he was going to die. In my opinion, their excuses, and not telling Santiago show that his death was inevitable, and brought by fate. Although we are never sure whether or not Santiago really did something to deserve this punishment, we know no one was so against it that they stopped it. Marquez writes, “he thought that Santiago Nasar had decided at the last moment to have breakfast at our house before changing his clothes” (110). Here, Cristo Bedoya tell his reasoning for not warning Santiago of his death. This doesn’t make very much sense in my opinion because no one told Cristo that Santiago wasn’t going home, because Santiago never said that. He had said he must go home before having breakfast at their house, even after his sister insisted he go right away, he refused. Along with this, Celeste Dangond says, “because it suddenly seemed to me that they couldn’t be killing him if he was so sure of what he was going to do”
ReplyDelete(103). One again, Celeste Dangond does not step in to save santiago by telling him about the murder plans. Her excuse is that Santiago seemed like he already had his day planned, so he couldn’t actually be killed. This excuse does not make sense because whether or not he knew about his death, his day would still be planned. Both Cristo and Celeste failed to warn Santiago, resulting in his violent death. This shows how Santiago’s death really could not have been prevented. Although it seems as though if one person told him he wouldn’t have died, the reality is no one would have/no one did tell him. Each and every person in the community had some reason for keeping the plan for Santiago. Although no one intentionally was trying to kill Santiago, they all ended up helping kill him. I think this goes along with fate, and how no one told him because his death was all a matter of fate. Unintentionally not telling Santiago he was about to be killed played on the theme of fate because his death could not be stopped. It became inevitable because everyone made up excuses or made mistakes and assumptions. Because every single person chose not to tell him, it became more evident that it was fate related.