Like the group that presented on Chapter 1, I also found the idea of fate in this story to be a very interesting topic. From the very start of the story, it seems a number of things are out of the ordinary that eventually lead to Santiago’s death. Santiago has some premonitions about his death in his dream the night before where, “He’d dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees were a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered in bird shit” (3). This dream itself seems to be a bad omen to the reader, but Santiago’s own mother who is known to be “an accurate interpreter of other people’s dreams” (4), casually overlooked Santiago’s dream as not being ominous. The next foreboding warning that we see of Santiago’s fate comes when he’s talking to the girl who is gutting the rabbits. For some reason, Santiago finds the sight to be frightening, despite the fact that Santiago is accustomed to hunting. Due to the nature of Santiago’s death, him finding the sight of the rabbit guts repulsive adds to the foreshadowing in this chapter. Another out of the ordinary thing that happened was Santiago leaving out the front door instead of the rear, where he normally leaves. Because of this, Santiago never saw the note under the door that was left for him in order to warn him of the plot to kill him. All these out of the ordinary things that occurred makes Santiago’s death seem as if it was fated to happen. Santiago missed every single warning sign of his death, and his unusual actions on the morning of his death eventually lead to his killing. All of this makes it seem as if there was nothing at all that could have been done to stop Santiago’s death. It was really like Murphy’s Law the murder; everything that could go wrong did go wrong.
This is an interesting insight. Furthermore, I think this idea of fate is entwined with Catholicism and general religion, as many of the unusual things you mentioned happened due to the Bishop's visit. Do you think Marquez is attempting to make a commentary on his own personal views that fate is controlled by God? If this is true, it is intriguing that the thing that is fated is a rather negative event: the murder of Santiago. It may be that Marquez does not have the happiest view on religion, and that is why the bishop's visit is so predominant in the "fated" death of Santiago Nasar.
I agree with your points on the foreshadowing of Santiago’s death. (Although, can it even be called foreshadowing when the book says what’s going to happen in the first sentence?) Also, as Kate pointed out, I think religion and fate are very intertwined in this novella. Relating back to foreshadowing, I think the specific references to Jesus in the Christian faith also clue the reader into what is going to happen to Santiago. In response to Kate’s question, I think that religion has a larger role in the theme that one should not act only because they are “supposed to,” whether dictated by religion or honor. Do you have examples of how the bishop’s visit caused/allowed Santiago’s death? I’m not really sure what you mean when you say that those two events are closely related.
Santiago acts unusually because of the bishop's visit, e.g. wearing different clothes, going out a different door, etc. Although these are maybe not main points, it is definitely still part of his story. I suppose it is true, however, that Santiago's death was in no way caused by the bishop's visit.
Mia Kimura In chapter 1, I found the relationship between faith and fate interesting. In this culture faith and fate is entangled. The dream, juxtaposition, characterization and foreshadowing show how Santiago’s death and the lack of action from the bystanders was fate. Religion has an important role in this story and in the culture. The bishop is one of the first characters introduced and continue to appear throughout the story. This set the religious traditions of the area and the importance of beliefs. The theme of religion and fate also commentates on parallels between Catholicism and Santiago’s death. The use of colors and imagery show how Santiago’s death is almost like a crucifixion.
I like how you have discussed faith and fate individually, and how each one plays a role in Santiago's death, symbolically or otherwise. However, are there any instances in which the two work together? For example, you mentioned the Bishop as a faith figure, however do you think he could also represent the idea of fate at the same time, thus causing the two ideas to work as one?
The presentation today highlighted many literary features that I had not previously noted. Two of these were juxtaposition and dream interpretation. In the chapter one group presentation, they mentioned that Santiago’s dream in the very beginning was symbolic of his life. I was particularly interested in their interpretation of this line: “‘The week before, he’d dreamed that he was alone in a tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything.’” (1). The group suggested that Santiago was the airplane and that the trees are the village people. In this interpretation, the dream juxtaposes reality, where the village people convince themselves that Santiago’s death will not affect them. In reality, near the end of the book, Marquez describes the malodorous scent of Santiago that permeates the entire town: “Everything continued smelling of Santiago Nasar that day. The Vicario brothers could smell him in the jail cell where the mayor had locked them up…‘No matter how much I scrubbed with soaps and rags, I couldn’t get rid of the smell’” (90). Marquez utilizes the unlimited power of his chosen genre, magical realism, to imply that everything smelled of Nasar in the days following his death; this is symbolic of the guilt to which almost everyone fell victim. In the dream, the tinfoil plane that was Santiago didn’t hit any of the village people; in reality, his death was on the heads of many of the almond trees who stood idly by as trees do, and allowed Santiago to die without revealing the plot to him.
In part one of Chronicle of Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez includes a myriad of biblical allusions. I first noticed religious references in the description of Santiago Nasar’s clothing: “‘He was dressed in white linen that had been washed in plain water because his skin was so delicate that it couldn’t stand the noise of starch’” (Márquez 7). Not only do the clothes’ white color represent purity, but the fact that the clothes are washed in water also symbolises baptism. Furthermore, Márquez uses the name of Ibrahim Nasar, Santiago’s father, specifically in reference to Abraham, a prophet and messenger character present in several religions. After that, I found many more allusions made more specifically to Jesus in the Christian faith. Victoria Guzmán purportedly “had been quartering three rabbits for lunch, surrounded by panting dogs, when Santiago Nasar entered the kitchen” that morning (9). Here, the three rabbits actually represent Jesus and the two others who were crucified with him on the night of Good Friday. This analogy seems far-fetched, but is supported by Nasar’s dream in the very beginning of the play, in which Santiago “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” (3). The timber trees represent the cross of Christ (so I guess the bird shit symbolizes crucifixion??). In fact, Plácida Linero notes that “[h]e was always dreaming about trees,” and, additionally, the narrator refers to the trees as an “ominous augury” (3, 4). The recurring dreams serve to create a sense of inevitability about Santiago’s death, analogous to the inevitability of the death of Jesus Christ.
I like the points you make here, Sam. When I was writing my blog I also wanted to write about the parallels between Jesus and Santiago, but I was struggling to find enough connections in this chapter. I also thought that Santiago’s white clothing seemed very religious, especially when considering that we often picture Jesus wearing white cloth when he was crucified. In the context of the Catholic church, the white linens also evoke papal images. I hadn’t yet considered your point about the three rabbits being symbolic of Jesus’s Crucifixion, but it certainly does seem to be a fairly strong connection. However, I feel like you could elaborate more on the religious connection to Santiago's dreams. I kinda see where you’re going with it, but I need more to be convinced.
There were many things I found intriguing in chapter 1. For instance, the Bishop’s passing, to me, seemed to be representative of Santiago Nasar’s situation. Not only was Nasar wearing white, typically symbolic of purity and holiness (as is a Bishop), but the belief in the fate of the Bishop passing without stepping foot in their town was emblematic of Santiago’s death. In addition, the Bishop was described as impartial, as would fate be. Something else I found intriguing was how the belief in fate lead to that fate. The mere belief that it was fated to happen, caused no one to really try to stop it from happening, or at least not enough or the right people. No one even bothered to warn Santiago. While this could be a comment on fate itself, to me it seems to more be of a comment on how one’s beliefs can affect an outcome, especially in reference to the idea of fate. As Pedro Vicario told Indalecio awhile before he killed Santiago, “Don't bother. No matter what, he's as good as dead already.”
Mia Kimura I agree with this idea that believing in fate leads to fate. Santiago's death happened because people believed that his death was fate and that if people did not believe that to be fate, the bystanders would have done more to try to stop a murder from happening. Do you think it was more their belief in fate or that some people wanted Santiago dead?
There were many interesting aspects of Chapter 1 that convinced me Gabriel Garcia Marquez was attempting to make a point about the importance of faith in Colombian culture and how this belief impacts the actions of characters in the story. Marquez especially emphasized this point through various literary devices in the description of the setting and the contextualization of the culture of the story. One literary devices Marquez especially uses is dramatic irony. The first example of this is on page 11 with “Nevertheless, it was there, and not at the rear door that the men who were going to kill him waited for Santiago Nasar...despite the fact that he would have to walk completely around the house…” This quote showcases how the Vicario brothers’ trust in faith influenced them in their actions. Santiago almost always left his house from the rear door, yet the brothers waited to kill him at the front. This is dramatic irony as the reader knows that he will be killed at the front, yet the brothers have no certainty or previous evidence to base their hunch of waiting at the front of Santiago’s house. The brothers’ belief in fate is influenced by the culture of the town. Marquez stresses the importance of honor many times in the book. This scene is another example of this. Killing Santiago at the rear door would hold less significance than killing him at the ceremonious front door. Despite it being much less likely that Santiago would exit his front door, the culture of the town dictated the brothers’ to wait at the front and believe in faith that they would eventually be rewarded with an opportunity. Another literary device that Marquez uses is synecdoche to describe many of the characters as a whole of the town. “Father Carmen Amador wasn’t worried either...No one even wondered whether Santiago Nasar had been warned, because it seemed impossible that he hadn’t. (22)” Marquez uses the thoughts of Father Amador to represent passive mindset of all the town’s residents and how every citizen assumed it was not their immediate responsibility to warn a person of his impending fate. Marquez uses synecdoche to take one citizen and imply they represent the whole of the town. This is effective in stressing how the townspeople believed in fate and how it would eventually warn Santiago, despite it never actually warning him until it was too late.
I agree with your points. Good insights on how Colombian culture impacts their actions. I did not notice that the passiveness of the town and assumption that Santiago had already been warned was part of a cultural attribute. However, I wonder if that is human nature rather than setting and culture since in the US, a woman named Kitten I believed also suffered from the bystander effect, which is what happened in the story. However, for the most part, good job!
While doing the presentation for Chapter 1, I realized how strongly Santiago is tied to the idea of fate. Marquez characterizes Santiago as very similar to his father. Stating that from his father, he “learned..the manipulation of the firearms, his love for horses, and the mastery of high-flying birds of prey… also learned the good arts of valor and prudence.” (7) While in contrast, he only learned his sixth sense from his mom. As readers can tell, he is a father’s son. But not only that, his father was his light and happiness as the mother describes him as “He was the only child of a marriage of convenience without a single moment of happiness, but he seemed happy with his father …” Showing that even in dark times, he really connects strongly to his father. This may appear normal, however, his father dies young. And similarly he died young also, showing that since he connected so strongly with his father, his fate is also tied strongly with his father. It is also an inevitable young death also as the book later on states that he will die of tuberculosis despite the murder event. In addition, the author also characterizes Santiago as a dreamer, and he always attempts to dissect his dreams and interpret them as an insight to the future. For example, he dreamed his was in a tranquil grove of timber trees, and he was happy, however, “when he awake he felt completely splattered in bird shit” (3) While characters such as his mother interpreted as his dream as a good thing since bird means good health, the actually dream is a sign from fate telling that he is happily oblivious to the situation: his near death. The qualities that Marques utilizes to characterize Santiago shows how strongly he is connected to his inevitable fate.
I agree that Santiago is strongly tied to the idea of fate. In fact, I think that the whole culture, at least, the culture of this village at this specific time, fosters a strong belief in fate and superstitious things. They obviously believe in ghosts, which can be seen when Clotilde Armenta says that Santiago, in his white-on-white clothing, "already looked like a ghost (16)." They also believe in angels, which is shown on page 20 when the narrator talks about his sister feeling one's presence pass by. I thought that the many parallels drawn between Santiago and his father were really interesting and I wonder if they will have even more impact later on in the story or if they were only important in chapter one.
Very insightful analysis about Santiago’s connection both with his father and with fate itself. I was especially interested in the parallels you drew between Santiago and his father. Indeed, they share many physical characteristics such as speaking Arab, his love of firearms and horses, and his interest in falconry. It comes as no surprise then that Ibrahim, Santiago’s father, dying early may symbolize and signify Santiago’s early death as well. Thus, it was destined by fate for Santiago to be slaughtered in his young age. Similarly, your points about Santiago’s dreams and his interpretations of them supports the idea that Santiago is deeply connected with fate. Good work!
One of the first things that I noticed upon reading chapter one of a Chronicle Of A Death Foretold was the symbols and the parallels between characters and events that foreshadow Santiago’s death. The chapter begins with a description of the dream he had just had that night and then another that he had several days earlier. In one, he dreams about trees and drizzly rain and in the other, he dreams of flying alone in a tinfoil airplane through a forest without hitting anything (p. 1). I think that these dreams are foreshadowing of his death (which is soon to come) and the way in which he will be all alone in his misery while the village people stand around like unmoving trees in a forest. A short while later, when he goes to eat his breakfast, he has a ominous encounter with Victoria Guzmán, his family cook, and her daughter, Divina Flor. Victoria is in the process of gutting some rabbits while he eats, and at one point, he grabs her daughter and she threatens him with her knife. This is an indication of the tools that will be used for his murder: butcher knives. When Victoria takes the guts from a rabbit and throws them to the dogs, Santiago is horrified at her actions, which is surprising because he enjoys hunting and falconry. I think that Márquez was showing that even though Santiago didn’t know he was going to be killed, his sixth sense (that he had inherited from his mother (p. 6)) was working somewhat and he realized that there was something wrong with what he was seeing (because it would soon happen to him). I also find it interesting that almost the entire village knew about what the Vicario brothers were planning but somehow, even with all the signs and foreshadowing, Santiago managed not to find out. That’s some real dramatic irony right there. It is also ironic that two of the very few people who had no idea about the upcoming murder (Santiago and his mother) were supposed to have the sixth sense. Maybe Márquez was making a point that fate is inescapable (even for those with extra powers).
Something I found interesting while re-reading part two was the simultaneous facade of purity and reality of inner dirtiness held within most characters in the book. Márquez illustrates this most clearly with the character of Angela, who attempts to hide all traces of her premarital sexual encounters. Although she attempts to come clean to her mother before her marriage with Bayardo San Román, her confidantes convince her to stay quiet during a conversation in which they work to make cloth flowers, presumably for her upcoming wedding (Márquez 38). Natural flowers typically symbolize sexual purity; in the case of Angela Vicario, the cloth flowers represent her attempt that follows to create an artificial semblance of sexual purity for her husband-to-be. However, these attempts to hide what is shameful are not exclusive to Angela: her whole family puts a great deal of effort into maintaining appearances. The Vicario house, although modest, displays a “terrace almost completely covered with flowerpots” in front, while hiding the pigsty, sacrificial stone, and disemboweling table in the back yard, away from public view (40). Here, the flowerpots represent purity and beauty, which the Vicario family proudly displays to the outside world. Behind the scenes, however, they live a dirty life removed from the front view in order to maintain a strong outward appearance. In fact, when the family realizes that they will have to open up their backyard for the marital celebrations, Pedro and Pablo Vicario immediately get to work in carting off the family pigs and sanitizing the area with quicklime (40). Of course, the family could never show anything but their best to the public. This reminded me of when your mom tells you to clean your room because friends are coming over. I always thought that you should just leave the house the way it is, because you shouldn’t pretend to be better than you are—which is what the Vicario family is doing, essentially. Additionally, Márquez draws associations between shame and dark imagery. When Bayardo San Roman returns Angela to her house after finding out that she had already been deflowered, she initially stays behind in the shadows before Bayardo brings her into the light to reveal her impurity to Angela’s mother (46). This imagery agrees with previous points on how people often hide dirty secrets away where they think that others can’t see them. Pura Vicario then beats Angela in the darkness to punish her for being returned, careful not to wake anybody up. Neither the father nor the older sisters knew about this act: they “didn’t find out about anything until dawn” (47). Again, the light comes to reveal the secrets that both Angela and Pura had hidden in the dark. Through these symbols, Márquez comments that everyone has shameful secrets, but that we shouldn’t lie in order to hide them, or it might come back around to bite us.
Mia Kimura In chapter 2, I thought that the symbolism and characterization of Bayardo San Roman was interesting. Bayardo is characterized as the devil by the mother. This symbolizes temptation, persuasiveness, desire and outward appearances. His status and wealth is tempting to the Vicario family who is not rich. His money also represents the persuasive nature of the devil which is shown when Bayardo is buying many gifts for Angela. Other people described him as a beautiful and rich man which symbolizes desirability. The difference between how other perceive and the reality of who he is can be seen when most people saw him as a strong, beautiful, multi-talented rich man when he was actually deceptive and beat Angela. The mother could see the evil in him before anyone else.
What I found interesting about this dynamic as well is that he decided to marry a woman named Angela, despite being described as the devil. Literally it is an angel vs the devil, thus bound to clash and for conflict to ensue. It makes me curious as to why he would name her Angela to begin with. While Bayardo certainly isn't a great guy, neither is she completely perfect either, yet the name implies that she is. It possibly could be for the use of irony, however that then kind of negates the impact of the name in association with Bayardo, the devil. So, why do you think the author named her Angela?
I too find it interesting that Márquez named the girl Angela as it does seem like she does have some qualities of impurity. Márquez could be using juxtaposition to further emphasize Angela's characteristics.
In chapter 2, the exploration of the relationship between Bayardo and Angela, as well as the representation of Bayardo, particularly caught my interest. The representation of Bayardo as the devil, through the letters and his actions, and Angela as an angel, as implied by her name, is an interesting contrast, especially since their relationship ends quite quickly. However, this was also one part I didn’t quite agree with when it came to the group’s presentation. To me, the chapter represents the two characters as relative opposites, that is clear and I agree with. Angela wants a marriage of love and depth, and Bayardo simply wants a marriage built on shallow understandings. Yet, in many ways Angela is the devil and Bayardo is the angel. Angela is the one to have lost her virginity, to have lied to Bayardo about this, and most likely even lied about Santiago, thus resulting in him being killed. On the other side, Bayardo is constantly being portrayed as perfect, and he is absolutely above generous when it comes to Angela, with the gifts and the house. In this way, the author now brings even more contrast between the two characters, and now provides an intriguing level of irony when it comes to Angela’s name.
This is certainly an interesting point. I do agree than Angela could also be the devil. However, I think the point could be made that she went from being Lucifer to the devil. If we're assuming that Santiago is Christ, based on him wearing white clothes along with other things, Angela could be Lucifer at this point. Even though she doesn't have her virginity, she does end up betraying Santiago, as he probably wasn't the one who made her lose her virginity. This is similar to Lucifer betraying God in Christianity.
As the group that presented pointed out, Chapter 2 is full of wonderful bits exploring what lovers value in a relationship, especially in the historical and cultural context of this book. The main conflict in Chronicle of a Death Foretold is between the Vicaro brothers and the unexpecting Santiago Nasar. However, the event that kicked all of this off was the wealthy and powerful Bayardo returning his bride, Angela, because he discovered that she was not a virgin when they married. While Chronicle of a Death Foretold is not alone in terms of historical or cultural precedent for a woman’s virginity to be treated so importantly, but the extent to which Gabriel García Márquez explores this idea is interesting. In Chapter 2, we see virginity referred to as a “lost possession” and women should “display open under the sun in the courtyard of her house the linen sheet with the stain of honor” (38). This quote, coupled with Bayardo returning Angela after their wedding night demonstrates the level at which virginity was valued in women. Historically speaking, this has always been true until recently, however, within the context of Christianity that this book can be viewed in it also becomes more poignant. Virgin Mary is highly revered in Catholicism and in Latin American culture, and she often represents the inaccessible “ideal” woman. Without her virginity, Angela is seen by society to no longer be good or valuable, and she also hurts her family’s honor which ultimately leads to the mostly-tragic death of Santiago Nasar. I think that Márquez wanted to shine a light on the strange and unfair cultural standards that women were, and still are put up against. Also, he challenges ideas about what is most important in a marriage. Instead of valuing dependability, intimacy, or the connection that two people have, the people in this book find honor and purity based on arbitrary societal guidelines to be most important.
While listening to the presentation on chapter two, an interesting idea popped into my head. The group focused mainly on Marquez’s characterization of Angela and Bayardo, and while highlighting different quotes, the theory developed. Consider this: Angela was a virgin. Instead of trying and failing to fake her virginity, resulting in her getting released from the pressure of marriage and allowing her to live her free life. This desire to get out of marriage started with her mother’s oppressive nature; the quotes “The girls had been reared to get married” and “‘Any man will be happy with them because they’ve been raised to suffer.” (34) illustrate the mother’s control over her daughters life, particularly in bringing them up to be married. Angela was also most likely depressed: “she had a...poverty of spirit” “her penury of spirit had been aggravated with the years”, “I would see her again year after year during my Christmas vacations, and every time she seemed more destitute in the window of her house, where she would sit in the afternoon making cloth flowers and singing songs about single women with her neighbors.” (35). Angela was not happy, and, according to the narrator, at least once desired to be single. The narrator also makes mention of Angela’s birth being similar to those of the “great queens of history” (35). This could be in reference to two queens, Victoria of England and Cleopatra, who were famously single. Although the author could mean anything with this callout, this interpretation supports the idea of Angela wishing to not be married. Angela, seeing no other option besides marriage in her life, discovers a loophole: if she is not a virgin, she will not be able to be married honourably. Hence, she asks how to fake her virginity in order to start the rumor, while actually learning how to fake her loss of virginity. As the group yesterday mentioned, she had negative feelings for Bayardo as he had not courted her but had instead won the favor of her family, and had unduly declared his love for her through grand gestures based on her looks. This would be enough to make anyone crazy, and it causes Angela to decide she most definitely does not want to marry Bayardo. Why did Santiago die, then? Because Angela is awesome, and had heard of Santiago’s rather unpleasant actions with Divina Flor, and so decided to rid the world of an unnecessary evil. Although a bit harsh, it is understandable that she who was taking such steps to maintain her freedom would want to help another woman in a difficult position. The final action that points to Angela being willing to go to any length for her freedom, is what happens after she is freed from marriage. She is found in a different village, Guajira, far from her old life. She had a “sense of humor” (102) and “was so mature and witty that it was difficult to believe that she was the same person” (103). And, perhaps most telling, “she had nothing in common with the person who’d been obliged to marry without love at the age of twenty.” Because she was able to escape the confines of marriage, she was freed from the weight that she had carried her entire childhood, and so became a beautiful and mature woman who lived her life to the fullest. Although some may argue that her writing Santiago negates this fact, her writing may have been proof that after all was said and done, she realized she did want some romance in her life, and writing to him was the way to achieve that. It could be possible that she felt some regret, which explains why she seemed to fall for the idea of Santiago and was ready to welcome him when he returned, twenty three years later. She hated the idea of being forced into marriage, but if it came with a choice, she was not wholly unopposed to the idea. In conclusion, the death foretold in this book is not that of Santiago, but is that of the young, reared-for-marriage Angela Vicario, who is replaced with a free woman, and Santiago simply happens to be a casualty along the way.
I really like your interpretation of Angela’s motivations. I think you have a lot of great evidence to back your points up, particularly your references to Cleopatra and Queen Victoria. However, I am somewhat suspicious of your claim that Angela said Santiago Nasar’s name in order to “rid the world of an unnecessary evil.” How would she have known about Santiago and Divina’s secret interactions? Maybe Divina could have told her, but I am highly circumspect. After all, the narrator mentions that Divina had a bit of a thing for Santiago, didn’t he? Even if she did somehow know, Angela didn’t take the opportunity to accuse him until two hours into her own beating. Why wouldn’t she just say his name outright, and avoid the physical pain? You could say that maybe she was having an ethical dilemma, but at that point, it just seems like a weak argument. If anything, I think that maybe she said Santiago’s name out of spite for the rich, since Angela had grown up in a poor family her entire life, and so not many people would have paid attention to her. Take Xius, for example: when he dies, nobody bothers investigating his death or writing a chronicle, but when Santiago, a fairly wealthy man, dies, everyone makes a big deal about it. If this is the case, and Angela said Santiago’s name out of spite for the rich, I think it would be an interesting addition to the novella’s motif of the difference in treatment between the rich and the poor. In general, though, I think you have some great interpretations of the book. I agree with you that Angela Vicario plays an integral role in the development of the book, perhaps even more so that Santiago Nasar.
Blog Addendum: Another point that can be looked at to prove this theory is the characterization of Bayardo as the devil and Santiago as a Christ figure. Santiago's death liberates Angela from Bayardo, and all other future marriage. Religiously, it is believed that Christ's death liberates the saints from the devil, even though he is innocent. Santiago is innocent, and the loss of his innocent life leads to Angela's liberation from the devil.
Sam-That also makes sense! That would be interesting if Marquez was trying to make some sort of commentary on economic differences. With the unnecessary evil idea, although Angela may not have known explicitly about Divina Flor's experience with Santiago, it is clear that Santiago is a promiscuous character in his general relations with people in the town, i.e. Maria Alejandro Cervantes. I find it hard to believe that Divina Flor is the only young girl Santiago has shown predatory intentions towards; his descriptions seem to show that he is a man of low honor, and so it is not hard to stretch to his actions being generally of the unsavory nature.
Something I found interesting about the chapter 1 presentation was the mention of the multiple areas of juxtaposition throughout the first chapter. One thing they mentioned was the juxtaposition of feeling happy in a dream and feeling like bird poop in real life. They mentioned that he knew he was going to die in his dreams, and in real life he was already dead. This was very interesting to me because it’s not something that I thought of at first when I was reading it. Now that I’ve realized this, it dramatically changes my point of view when reading the book. They also mentioned the different perceptions of how the day was. Some people said it was a “fine February” while other said it was a “funereal day”. This ended up being related to whether or not they wanted Santiago Nasar to die. The final point of juxtaposition that they mentioned was the difference in the clothes Santiago wore that day vs the clothes that he normally wore on Mondays. The reason they listed for why this was important was to emphasize the wedding that occurred on the previous day. They also mentioned how it was ironic how he was wearing white considering that it typically represents purity. This is related to how Santiago Nasar could have been innocent as white is used to represent virginity.
Something that was interesting about chapter 2 was the comparison if Bayardo San Román to the Devil. This is something that I noticed when I was first reading the book. The thing that made me realize this first was the mention of him having golden eyes. This is what made me think about it because the devil typically has golden eyes, and I’ve heard other instances of someone having golden eyes and turning out to be the devil. Other parts of the book that characterized Bayardo San Román as the devil was the mention that he could do anything and had unlimited resources. This makes sense because the devil has a lot of power in the Bible. He is also capable of doing a lot of things. He also seemed to know things that he should not know. One example of this is him knowing how to reuse dead batteries. He went on to share this knowledge with a telegrapher. Since the large majority of people don’t know how to reuse dead batteries in modern times, unless they’re rechargable, I highly doubt that anyone at that time would know how to reuse dead batteries. This also shows how he is characterized as the devil. Another example of this is him knowing about Angela’s birthday. Not only does he have enough money to buy all the raffle tickets for the music box, but he also knows that it’s Angela’s birthday and sneaks the music box into her house as a gift.
I agree with you that Bayardo being characterized was an interesting choice for Márquez to make. Describing him as having golden eyes gives of some seriously sinister vibes, in an almost snake-like way. However, I still am wondering why exactly Márquez chose to characterize Bayardo as being devilish. I think this is especially interesting when you compare Bayardo to Santiago, who we’ve already seen is heavily cloaked in Jesus imagery. One possible explanation is that maybe Márquez wanted to highlight the fact that the line between good and evil isn’t always as clear as we want it to be. Humans are not creatures that exist as morally black and white, but rather in shades of grey.
In the group presentation for Chapter 2, the symbolism of Bayardo, Angelo, and Santiago intrigued me. Marquez characterizes Bayardo as having “the waist of a novice bullfighter, golden eyes, and a skin slowly roasted by saltpeter.” (25) All of these qualities are seen as beautiful and desirable. Which is something the devil is connected to as the group referenced to “Paradise Lost,” a poem written by John Milton which described the Devil as very beautiful. Similarly, he is also characterized as “he’s swimming in gold” (27) and easily offers “ten thousand” (36) pesos for Xius’s house. Being rich also represents another trait of the devil. While on the other hand, Angelo, is almost an angel in comparison to Bayardo as she is being described as “the prettiest of the four” (32) sisters, and “born like the great queens..with the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck..” (32). The air around Angelo appears regal despite not being born into a rich family unlike Bayardo. That led to the interesting tie with Santiago where she named him as the one who took her virginity. Santiago does not really know what is going on and is sacrificed. Which could be a reference to the Biblical Jesus, where Jesus is sacrificed for another’s cause. Perhaps Angelo represents one of Jesus’s disciples that betrayed him in exchange for money, however in this case, she betrayed him in order to protect her past lover. Bayardo could represent the Devil, which tempts Angelo lie because after she is sent home, she is in love with him as later in the story, she continuously writes Bayardo letters.
Very good analysis on the juxtaposition of Bayardo’s characteristics in Chapter two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Like I said in my own blogspot, Marquez uses many different details to describe Bayardo with devilish characteristics, for example with diction “He reminded me of the devil (30).” Similarly, you brought up his personality traits as well and their possible connections. I particularly enjoyed your analysis on his actions with the widower Xius. I agree that his persistence in urging the widower to sell her house can be seen as a quality of the devil. His insistence on buying the house eventually caused the widower to die of sadness. Good analysis!
The group presentation on Chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold exposed me to many keen characterizations of Bayardo San Roman that I had not noticed on my first read through. Previously, I had shallowly thought of Bayardo as merely a rich suitor who was unfortunate to have picked Angela Vicario as his bride to be. The group brought up many good points about how various characters, especially the narrator’s mother, described Bayardo with devilish characteristics and diction. “He reminded me of the devil (30).” Similarly, the narrator himself felt somewhat uneasy with him: “He seemed more serious to me than his antics would have led one to believe, and with a hidden tension that was barely concealed by his excessive good manners. (30)” His own actions also displayed his similarities with the devil; he said “When I wake up...remind me that I’m going to marry her. (31)” His absolute confidence in getting what he wanted was further supported with his encounter with the widower Xius: “Widower...I’ll buy your house. (39)” This confidence displayed by his lack of courtship with Angela before their marriage and his bold and unwavering attitude with the widower shows how similar he is to the meticulous, unwavering nature of the devil. Even though Angela Vicario “didn’t want to marry him”, it did not matter as “Bayardo San Roman hadn’t even tried to court her, but had bewitched the family with his charm.” Marquez choice of diction of the verb “bewitched” further enhances the idea that Bayardo San Roman had many devil-like qualities with him in Chapter two of Chronicle of Death Foretold. This was most likely to foreshadow the imminent breakup of Bayardo and Angela on their wedding night.
I totally agree with your points! The fact that their break up was a result of Barnyardo's devilish characteristics. His confidence and self-entitled traits as the devil was the reason why he did not even think twice whether or not to send Angela back. Good choice on quotes and how they directly stated that he was the devil. Good job!
I like your points and I also noticed these things in the presentation. I think it's ironic that the person who is compared to the devil is the one that marries the angel(a). It's also interesting that they — as symbolic opposites — are both described as very attractive people and that he is the rich one and she is the poor one. Maybe the author was making a point about how what people generally think of as good/right or bad/wrong is not that as clear cut as it seems and can actually be hard to discern. Or maybe he was thinking more along the lines of how demons are fallen angels and so they are almost the same thing. I also thought it was interesting how the narrator presents the characters and events. Even though he was a good friend of Santiago's, he wrote about both Santiago's more admirable (or at least neutral) qualities and his bad qualities (how he's a player, how he sexually harasses Divina Flor). He talks about the whole murder with an aloof manner, it's almost as if he doesn't really care. Maybe that's his professional journalistic behavior coming out..
Chapter 2 begins with Bayardo San Román’s first appearance in the village and the people’s impressions of him, all of which the narrator learned through his correspondence with his mother while he was away at school. Bayardo is described as a very attractive man who is talented in many different areas and “swimming in gold (29).” The narrator’s mother later tells him that Bayardo’s golden eyes had “reminded (her) of the devil (30),” which is very different from the other villagers’ opinions, who for the most part thought very highly of Bayardo. When the narrator himself meets Bayardo, he does not think that he is as attractive as he was reported to be and that he seems like “a very sad man (30).” Next in the chapter is the courtship and wedding of Angela and Bayardo, which would ultimately lead to Santiago’s death. Apparently, it had “never been too well established how they (Angela and Bayardo) had met (31)” and there was a sort of vague obscurity surrounding the event. Some people who had been at the same boarding house all agreed on one account but others weren’t so sure about it. I think that these events fall into the theme of conflicting and confused stories and memories that was begun in chapter 1 with people’s impressions of the weather and the rumors surrounding the Vicario brothers’ plan. Ever since the presentation on Wednesday, I’ve been thinking about similarities between A Chronicle of a Death Foretold and some of the other works that we have read in class this year. I think that the relationship of Bayardo and Angela has some parallels to the Taming of the Shrew in that both of the women didn’t want to marry the men but they are pressured from everyone around them. Petruchio and Bayardo also both arrive late to their own weddings. In Taming of the Shrew however, Petruchio (at least in the beginning) wanted Kate’s money and in A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Angela is the one who will benefit from Bayardo's riches. Also, I’ve noticed that all of our books and plays so far this year have had messed up relationships in them. There was Tita and Pedro (Like Water for Chocolate), Siddhartha and Kamala (Siddhartha), Kate and Petruchio (Taming of the Shrew), Nora and Torvald (A Doll’s House), and now Bayardo and Angela. Hmmm...
Blog Addendum: Another point that can be looked at to prove this theory is the characterization of Bayardo as the devil and Santiago as a Christ figure. Santiago's death liberates Angela from Bayardo, and all other future marriage. Religiously, it is believed that Christ's death liberates the saints from the devil, even though he is innocent. Santiago is innocent, and the loss of his innocent life leads to Angela's liberation from the devil.
This group’s presentation on the impact of motives on the legality and reasonability of an action was particular impactful as this chapter focused extensively on the ideas of honor with regards to the Vicario brothers’ murder of Santiago Nasar. Their investigative question asked if motive was important in assessing whether an action was right or wrong. Regarding Chronicle of a Death Foretold, this was focused on whether Honor was a valid justification for killing Santiago Nasar. Support for this idea is prevalent in chapter 3 as Marquez often uses details that describe the importance of honor to certain people. Indeed, when Father Amador asked the Vicario brothers about the crime, Pedro replied “We killed him openly...but we’re innocent. (55)” This shows how the brothers believed that honor was a valid justification for their actions. Their next sentence confirms this as Pablo says “Before God and before men...it was a matter of honor. (56)” Marquez uses religious diction to draw a connection between the devotion to honor and the widespread devotion to religion in the town. Marquez attempts to describe how one’s blind devotion to a specific cause or ideal can cause one to perform actions that seem illogical in retrospect. The Vicario brothers believed themselves validated with their actions as honor was extremely important to them. In fact, they were not the only ones who believed in the importance of honor. Prudencia Cotes, the fiancee to Pablo, said “I never would have married him if he hadn’t done what a man should do. (72)” Prudencia is willing to disregard her own love for Pablo in favor of her devotion to the ideal of honor. This exemplifies the influence of how cultural norms dictate one’s actions. Marquez introduces this idea with details regarding the actions of the Vicario brothers, and then attempts to make a point about the impact of motive on one’s actions and this similarity with devotion to a religion with religious diction.
Good points: I especially like your point on Prudencia Cotes. I noticed this too when I was reading through the chapter. One thing that you didn’t point out was the scene with the dogs surrounding the Vicario brothers as they entered Prudencia’s house. As I mentioned in my blog post, I think that the dogs represent the townspeople. This scene, while it seems meaningless, actually symbolizes how most people in the town encourage the Vicario brothers to continue with their plans—either directly or by virtue of their inaction. Furthermore, I think that the fact that the dogs appear in front of Prudencia’s house isn’t a mistake: Márquez likely includes this detail to show that Prudencia is a bloodthirsty dog herself, which she herself demonstrates in her encouragement of her fiancée, Pablo. I don’t think that Pablo would have gone through with his actions if it weren’t for Prudencia giving him the final push.
Throughout part three, whenever the Vicario brothers mention their plans to kill Santiago Nasar, the townspeople’s responses seem so nonchalant and jaded. In fact, while some townspeople make small efforts to help Santiago, most just watch in the sidelines, egging the Vicario brothers on by virtue of their inaction. Márquez often describes the townspeople’s inaction by likening them to dogs. The first instance of this appears in part one, where Victoria Guzmán is found “quartering three rabbits for lunch, surrounded by panting dogs” (Márquez 9). As I discussed in a previous blog, the rabbits symbolize Santiago Nasar himself. The “panting dogs,” meanwhile, just stand by and watch as Victoria butchers the rabbits. Márquez includes a similar scene in part three: when the Vicario brothers are at Clotilde Armenta’s store drinking booze and advertising their plans, several “fake customers buying milk they didn’t need and asking for food items that didn’t exist went in and out with the purpose of seeing whether it was true that they were waiting for Santiago Nasar to kill him” (63-64). Instead of attempting to stop them or warn Santiago, the townspeople are more interested in watching the show—just like the dogs watching Victoria butcher the rabbits. Another interesting thing in part three is Márquez’s characterization of María Alejandrina Cervantes. Although most female characters in the book are portrayed as dependent and secondary, Márquez interestingly paints María as a powerful woman in her own right. When we are first introduced to her character, Márquez describes her lap as “apostolic” (5). Religious characters in the book often act passively or fail to do their duty, but I think that the religious reference here does not necessarily imply those things for María—instead, they empower her character. As far as I could find, she is the only female character referred to in a religious context (besides the eighty-proof hangover nun). In part three, the narrator mentions that María “did away with my generation’s virginity” and that she “taught us much more than we should have learned” (64-65). In contrast to Angela, who has her virginity taken away from her, María takes away people’s virginities. Instead of being taught lessons of tradition by others, she teaches them her own lessons. while the narrator also refers to her as having been “reared,” she is overwhelmingly referred to as independent. One thing I couldn’t figure out though, is why exactly Márquez attributes these characteristics to a prostitute.
I think Marquez characterizes her in that way to further the motif that society's expectations of a person usually don't follow that person's true personality. Although society mostly views prostitutes negatively, Maria's personality counters those views and juxtaposes Angela, who actually doesn't act like the perfect bride. In fact, Maria performs her duties much better than Angela, who doesn’t even make it past the first night with Bayardo. This also represents a theme about how one should perform their duties of their own volition.
The idea of honor being used as a justification for murder is certainly an interesting idea, and ties in very nicely with whether motive should be taken into account when determining a punishment. Pedro and Pablo Vicaro many years later during their trial showed no remorse for their actions, considering the murder to simply be “a matter of honor” (49). The honor they are referring to in this case is their family honor, which they saw as being taken by Santiago Nasar. It’s clear that the Vicaro brothers did not truly want to kill Santiago, which is displayed by the fact they go around telling everyone about what they are planning to do. They want someone to try to stop them before they commit the deed. Infact, Clotilde Armenta says in the chapter that she took their knives in order to “spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that’s fallen on them” (57). The narrator goes on to state 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” (57). This idea that the brothers felt a sense of duty to carry out the murder says a lot about the culture they live in, and ultimately how much we can blame them for Santiago’s murder. Most of the townspeople saw the brothers as being justified in their actions, and because of the duty that the society they live in placed on them the brothers truly felt as if they had no choice but to kill Santiago. By most modern moral standards, they twins are surely at fault for the death of Santiago. However, it is unfair to judge the brothers by our rules and morals. I think the point that Gabriel Márquez was trying to make with this novella was a cultural one. He was trying to point out that a society that treats murder so indifferently for the sake of honor is not a society to aspire to be. While the brothers should be at fault for Santiago’s death, it is really society that is the one to blame.
Your analysis on the possible implications of Marquez’s writing on the culture of the book ties nicely with what I wrote in my own blog post about the possible commentary Marquez is saying about the role of the church. Marquez definitely shows in many places in chapter 3 that the brothers, while committing this act in the name of honor, may not truly believe or want to perform the murder. The fact that the brothers performed certain actions that would normally implicate or stop suspects from committing a crime yet very few townspeople actually tried to stop them speaks volumes about the cultural attitude towards honor killings. Good work!
The question of rather motive should be taken into account in this story is an interesting one. Personally, I think motive should always be taken into account. In this sense, I don’t think that honor can be used to justify the murder of Santiago Nasar. The problem is that I know next to nothing when it comes to the culture in Colombia during the middle of the 20th century. Even someone who knows about the culture of Colombia at this time might not be able to say if it was justifiable or not. This is because Márquez says that the town in which this takes place is a very different town from others. This means that Márquez is more likely to know if it would be justified or not. My best guess would be that the murder was justifiable by honor at that time in that town. This is a result of the major motif of honor throughout the story, and the fact that they are acquitted in the book. One example of honor being incredibly important to them is Pedro and Pablo wanting everyone to see Santiago be killed. This supports honor being important because they knew that everyone would know who did it if the murder was done this way, but Pedro and Pablo knew that it would be worth it as long as honor was restored to Angela.
I agree with your interpretation, the fact that they also got off from any punishment and cleared of their crime shows that at least the local area finds these actions justifiable. However, I wonder if their form of punishment came in some other sense. For example, Pedro went back into the military only to die soon after. Possibly this was a comment on the justifiability of their actions and society as a whole. Maybe while it was justified to the law, it wasn't something that will go without punishment.
In chapter 3, a central focus of the chapter was honor. The honor of Bayardo and Angela, and most importantly the upholding of Angela’s honor through the killing of Santiago Nasar. This is a subject up for constant debate, even the two brothers are uncertain about their justification. At one point, one even attempts to try to call it off, saying that they had tried hard enough, yet the other convinced him to continue their pursuit of honor. This idea really made me think about the justifiability of honor, especially pertaining to this particular crime. Sure there is a different culture in Colombia, one that values honor much higher than place like the United States, but when looking at the reactions of people within the book when they hear Pablo and Pedro are going to kill Santiago, they react as if honor isn’t reason enough. Many people that hear the news think that it will never happen, that it isn’t reasonable, that the Vicario brothers won’t go through with it. On the other hand, those that do at least somewhat believe it, don’t take it seriously enough in order to truly warn Santiago and his family. In fact, those that do take action, take very little for they don’t truly think that the Vicario brothers intend to go through with the killing. To me, this shows that even the culture didn’t accept the Vicario brother’s use of honor as a just motive, yet in the end they are let free. This, to me, begs a question of what the author truly intends to get across from these actions.
I find your comments interesting about the question of honor justifying a murder. It is true that a lot of people didn't believe that the Vicario brothers would actually go through with killing Santiago Nasar, but I think that the people who did believe it would happen assumed that Santiago already knew. This is shown early in the book when it mentions that pretty much everyone in the town knew. The exceptions being Santiago and his mother.
Mia Kimura In chapter 3, I thought that honor being a justified legitimate motive for murder was interesting. The focus of this chapter was defending a family’s honor. This is an interesting concept as killing for honor is usually seen as an unjustified crime in our culture. Even though it may be more common in Colombia, the twins are hesitant to kill Santiago. This is shown by the amount of people they tell. It is as if they are purposely hoping to be caught before they actually take a man’s life. The twins reluctance is a moral struggle between defending the honor of their family and sister but also the fact that they are going to kill someone.
This is an interesting idea: where cultural values and personal values conflict. I totally agree with your analysis. The townspeople's reaction to this event as casual, shows that killing for honor is more or less accepted. However, the twin's reluctance shows that their personal, human values are at test. However, since the none of the town's people really tried to stop them, exemplifies that cultural values here rule over personal values. Good job.
3.19.2018 The group presentation of chapter 3 really opened my eyes of how much the idea of honor was prevalent. The parallels with The Doll’s House were especially interesting. For example, in A Doll’s house, when Torvald found out Nora’s IOU, his first reaction was the other people’s reaction and their perception of their family as a result of the instance. And in The Chronicles of the Death Foretold, the Vicario brothers solely tried to murder Santiago to restore their family honor stating, “It was a matter of honor.” (49) After all, not being a virgin when married is already a disgrace. However, when a rich man such as Bayardo sends the bride back on the wedding night, that is even worse. Preceding the line, Pablo said, “Before God and before men.” (49) Which means that the Vicario brothers cared about honor more than religion, showing the their culture’s values. Which also leads to the event of the Bishop event. On the day of, most people of the town looked forward to seeing the Bishop come. However, the attention did not span for a long time after the Bishop came. The topic that stuck with the town for years was the topic of the murder of Santiago: “For years we couldn’t talk about anything else.” Which exemplifies that the town cared about honor more than religion.
I like your points about the parallels between A Chronicle of A Death Foretold and A Doll's House. I definitely think that a lot of similarities can be seen between all of the works we've read so far this year. I thought that the extreme importance of honor was interesting and that it was strange that for the Vicario brothers', restoring their sister's honor in the manner that they did, overrode the fact that they were killing a defenseless and untried man. Maybe, similarly to A Doll's House, the appearance of honor is more important than anything else. This is could be supported by the fact that Pedro, upon being disarmed by the mayor, considered their duty fulfilled (69). It's the thought that counts, right? After that, his brother had to force him to continue on with their mission. I also thought it was interesting what was considered honorable and what was not. For example, if I was a nun, I don't think it would be very honorable to miss the Bishop's coming because I was to hungover. However, that's probably all part of the cultural thing...
I fully agree with the idea around the parallels between Chronicle of A Death Foretold and A Doll's House. I wonder if these parallels can be extended beyond that to other things we've read this year such as Taming of the Shrew. I can see the parallels between the importance of honor from Chronicle of A Death Foretold and A Doll's House in the form of familial obligation that also exists in Taming of the Shrew.
By chapter 3 of a A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Márquez has established a commentary on gender roles in society. He points out the inequalities between men and women and how women’s voices are not regarded as significant in this era in Colombia, orm as Clotilde Armenta puts it, "how alone we women are in the world! (72)” In his tale, Márquez shows several examples of the inability of women to make their own choices and change things because of the attitudes towards them. Angela Vicario did not want to marry Bayardo and did not love him, but her arguments were overcome by her parents’ choice and the expectations of the entire village. The inequality between the sexes is also illustrated by the fact that Angela is expected to be a virgin when she is married, to have her “honor” intact, but for young unmarried men like the narrator and Santiago, it is acceptable for them to have lost their virginity long ago and keep constant company with the town prostitutes. Perhaps, Márquez was also making a commentary on the power of the rich and their ability to do anything without opposition. This is seen when Clotilde Armenta’s husband, upon hearing of the Vicario brothers’ scheme, says, “Those two aren’t about to kill anybody, much less someone rich (63).” This shows how the rich are perceived by the people who aren't rich: powerful and untouchable. Another example of both this issue and that of the gender roles is seen in Santiago’s interactions with Divina Flor. It seems that he is constantly harassing her, but she can’t or won’t stop him and she is resigned to the thought that she is “destined for (his) furtive bed (9).” One last example of the author’s commentary is how Clotilde Armenta tries to stop Santiago’s death. She tries in many different ways: she tells her husband, she tries to get Pedro and Pablo drunk, and she sends a messenger to Santiago’s house. However, she is either not successful in her endeavors or she is ignored. This shows both her lack of power and influence and the idea that fate is not something that we can escape. Several other people (men as well) made efforts to stop the murder but no one was successful in the end. Fate can't be changed.
In chapter three of chronicle of a death foretold there is some heavy underlying commentary on the culture surrounding the importance of honor. It was interesting to see how the Pedro and Pablo could genuinely believe the value of honor is greater than that of the value of another human life and thus act on those beliefs and kill Santiago to supposedly restore Angela's honor. There was no other reason for them to try and kill him outside of restoring honor, as they say, "It was a matter of honor." It becomes more interesting because of the fact that killing Santiago doesn't actually change what happened to Angela yet somehow it restores honor. To me it would make more sense if it was out of revenge instead of restoring honor. It's not like after killing him, Angela can go back and marry Bayardo.
I felt like part four had a lot of interesting symbols and details, some of which confused me, to be honest. If anyone has an idea on what the significance of the “medal of gold” in Santiago’s abdomen is (75) or if María Alejandrina Cervantes’ gluttony symbolizes anything (77), I would love to hear your thoughts as a response to this post. Two interesting things I did notice, however, were the prejudice against Arabs and Angela’s internal romantic struggle.
Although prejudice is not the most prevalent motif in the book, Márquez still uses it in order to make social commentary. Several characters display various prejudices throughout the novella, implying that they are an integral part to the society of that town as a whole. In part five, for instance, the narrator takes note of Fausta Lopez’s comment that Santiago thought his money made him untouchable, “[j]ust like all Turks” (101). In part four, Pedro Vicario also comments that he suspected that his brother’s diarrhea was “some trick of the Turks” (80). These examples of derogatory diction directed at the Arab community in the town make them seem as if they are arrogant and dishonorable. However, the narrator’s personal description of Arabs fits none of these qualities. Instead, he describes them as “peaceful” and “hard-working,” going on to elaborate on their perseverance and their respect for tradition (81). Nevertheless, nobody other than the narrator seems to share his view—the townspeople still were wary of possible attempts by Arabs to immolate the Vicario brothers in revenge of Santiago’s death despite the fact that Santiago Nasar’s family on his mother’s side “had bred more than two barroom killers who had been preserved by the salt of their name” (81). Through the public’s reluctance to believe in the character of the Arab community, Márquez comments that society is too quick to make negative judgements about people.
Part four also gives Angela a fresh start from her previous failed marriage. The narrator reveals Angela’s heartbreak, demonstrated by her tears and her “heart in shreds” (92). In describing her so, Márquez draws direct comparisons between Angela and Xius the widower, whose tears were “bubbling inside his heart” (37). As Xius represents love-based marriage, as opposed to the convenience-based found in other characters in the book, Márquez hints that maybe Angela and Bayardo San Román could have a real romance. As the chapter approaches its end, Márquez continues to build the tone into one of crazed desperation through increasingly intense diction. For instance, the narrator’s description of Angela’s notes to Bayardo over the years evolve from “a fiancée’s notes” to “perfumed cards from a furtive sweetheart” to “love documents” to “the indignant letters of an abandoned wife who invented cruel illnesses to make him return” (94). Each description adds an air of yearning for Bayardo through desperate diction such as “indignant” and “abandoned.” The tone culminates with Angela’s “feverish” twenty-page letter to him, in which she mentions “the eternal scars he had left on her body, the salt of his tongue, the fiery furrow of his African tool” (94). Here, the sharp diction in “eternal scars” and “fiery furrow” demonstrate the intensity of Angela’s absolute need for Bayardo. In demonstrating Angela’s newfound romantic passion, Márquez claims that people should marry for love and not for convenience.
Gold is often associated with value as well as purity and wealth. I feel as though when they discovered Santiago's medal of gold that he had eaten from a childhood, not only did it show that since he was a child he was destined to become wealthy and held in high esteem by his neighbors and friends, but also furthers the idea of him being related to a Christ figure. The purity of the gold being found within him represents his pure spirit that resided within, possibly also being an indication of his innocence in terms of his accused affair with Angela. What do you think?
I agree with you that the medal of gold is a symbol for Santiago's wealth. I still don't get why it's in been his abdomen from the age of four though—why couldn’t Márquez just have put the gold medal on Santiago’s nightstand along with his watch or something? Maybe it signifies that wealth is that deeply embedded into his character? Assuming this is true, it brings up some interesting discussion about prejudice against the rich in this book.
Not really much to say on chapter 4 to be completely honest. Oh wait, yes there is. While I was creating my part of my groups presentation, there was an idea that I couldn’t shake. The chapter seems to be split into two parts. The first part dealt with Santiago’s autopsy and the immediate aftermath of his death. The second part dealt mainly with Angela’s letters and the return of Bayardo. Kate sort of touched on this, however I did find this aspect completely intriguing. Why wouldn’t Marquez just start a new chapter? Well, each chapter tends to focus on a main idea and everytime the author starts a new chapter, generally a new idea or theme comes with it. Now chapter 4 is clearly centered on the guilt of the town, yet the second part seems far from related to the first. On a second, possibly third glance, however, when speaking of an overarching idea, the first and second part of the chapter are connected by the idea of guilt, as well as the aftermath of Santiago’s death (just the second part takes place 23 years after). The first part obviously dealt with the initial guilt of Pedro and Pablo (as well as their curing) and the guilt of the town manifested through the dogs and smell of Santiago. In the second part, it dealt more with Angela’s manifestation of guilt. As it is highly implied that Santiago wasn’t the one she had sex with, and even if he was, Angela holds this sense of shame and guilt of being the cause of his death, not even looking into the Narrator’s eyes 23 years later when asked if he was the one. In addition, the idea that she wrote those letters out of love for Bayardo also doesn’t quite fully add up. She never loved Bayardo before, and she even sabotaged her relationship with him by not faking her virginity, so why after Santiago was killed did she decide to write the letters? It seems to me, as mentioned previously, as an outlet and manifestation of her guilt. Thus, the two parts of the chapter aren’t quite as different as they initially seem. The overarching idea of guilt still remains prevalent throughout.
It seems that we had different interpretations of Angela’s behavior at the end. I think that you have some good ideas, and to your credit, the book doesn’t mention outright that Angela loved Bayardo, often referring to the one she loves as “him.” Building off of your ideas, I think that it’s possible that Angela fell in love with Santiago and feels posthumous guilt, and is actually writing accusational letters to Bayardo. In fact, the narrator’s description of her “feverish letter” (the one that’s twenty pages long) uses some interesting diction such as “bitter truths that she had carried rotting in her heart” and “eternal scars he had left on her body” (94). The angry, bitter diction that Márquez includes in this section contrasts from what the reader is supposed to think about how Angela feels with regards to Bayardo. Of course, we’ll never know what her true motives are, since Márquez never reveals to us exactly what is hidden in those letters, but I think this at least deserves a conversation. Very nice points, you made me reconsider what I thought about the second half of chapter four. I do want to pose a question though: you mentioned that each chapter seems to have its own distinct ideas. If chapter four’s main idea is guilt, then what other main ideas do you see present in the other chapters?
One of the most interesting aspects of Group four’s presentation was their notes on magical realism in the chapter and how it helped answer their investigate question of “To what extent should one feel guilt over their actions, especially if they are justified?” The group provided some fantastic evidence of how Marquez demonstrates the guilt that the Vicario brothers felt after killing Santiago through the magical stench of Santiago. “I can’t… you smell of him. (90)” The Vicario brothers attempted to wash themselves of the stench, but like their guilt, “No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn’t get rid of the smell. (90)” Besides the Vicario brothers continually reeking of Santiago’s stench, the guilt is seen to be present among all the townspeople. “Not just I. Everything continued smelling of Santiago Nasar that day. (90)” Besides the unrealistic and magically realistic stench of Santiago, the bowel troubles of Pablo Vicario also added to the idea that the brothers were conflicted and guilty of their actions. Pedro Vicario recounts “He was turning into water right in front of me...Up till then he’d overflowed the portable latrine twice... (92)” This guilt afflicted Pedro as well as he “couldn’t stay there lying on the bed, but the same weariness prevented him from standing...he suffered the frightful certainty he wouldn’t sleep ever again for the rest of his life. (92)” The magical aspects of the afflictions that the Vicario brothers and townspeople suffered after Santiago’s murder represents their guilt. Marquez uses hyperbole to dramatize and emphasize the impact of Santiago’s murder on the people of the town, whether they were directly affected or not.
I like your analysis of the points brought up during group four's presentation. Do you think that there was a reason the Vicario brothers had different bowel problems? Perhaps it could have had to do with what they did before the murder, trying to stop it or not. It could also be representative of how they dealt with the guilt.
Chapter four was full of interesting things. One motif that the group found was guilt. This is definitely a prominent motif in the book as it shows up all the time. One example of guilt was the smell of Santiago. The entire town can smell Santiago, and I think that the entire town is guilty for the death of Santiago, some people more than others. Pedro also says, “‘No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn’t get rid of the smell.’” This shows that Pedro is more guilty for the death of Santiago than the rest of the village, which makes sense. The rest of the village only smells him, but Pedro smells of him. Another thing I found interesting about the chapter 4 presentation was the comparison of Santiago to Christ. Not only does Santo mean Saint in Spanish, but his last name is similar to Nazareth, where Jesus was born. In addition to this, the group mentioned that Santiago had a wound in his side, which is very similar to when Jesus had his side pierced. This wound along with others that were similar to the Christ do show how much Gabriel García Márquez wanted to emphasize Santiago as representing Jesus. Just in case someone still didn’t recognize this comparison, Márquez practically slaps the reader in the face with this quote, “The report says: ;It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ.’” This part makes it incredibly obvious that Márquez wanted to compare Santiago to Jesus.
I also agree with your points about guilt. The guilt shows the humane aspect of the Vicario brothers even though they killed a person. I also thought that was interesting. Why do you think Marquez intended for Santiago to represent Jesus? Do you think that it was to make his death more as a sacrifice, as if he was a good man who died at the cost of other "sinners" or something else?
Like we presented in our presentation, guilt is the most important motif that we see throughout chapter 4. While there are certainly some other prominent motifs that present themselves throughout the chapter such as love, fate, and religion, ideas about guilt still seem to underpin the meaning of the whole chapter. As I mentioned in the presentation, this chapter is chronologically the last chapter of the story, meaning the events described in the chapter happen closest to the time of the narrator writing. Because of this fact, it stands to reason that this is the chapter that would focus the most on guilt. The entire chapter takes place in the days, weeks, and years after Santiago’s murder and it chronicles the feelings of everyone involved over time. I think one of the most interesting events in this chapter was Susana Abdala arriving and curing the Vicario brothers of their illnesses. The illnesses that they had both were symbolic of the guilt that they felt after the murder they committed, so them being cured of them makes it seem as if they are absolved of all their guilt. This idea is supported by the fact that later in the brother’s trial they seemed remorseless about the incident. I think Márquez made the choice of releasing the Vicarios from their guilt in order to emphasize the guilt of the rest of the townspeople. After all, the brothers committ the murder simply because the society and culture they live in is backwards enough to expect them to commit murder in order to restore their families honor. The brothers seemed to try everything they could to get somebody to stop them before they had to murder Santiago, yet the town stood idly by. Márquez absolves the brothers of their guilt in order to shift the blame for the murder towards the townspeople who did nothing to stop the murder, and even encouraged it in some cases.
In Chapter 4, Marquez associates magical realism with guilt in order to exhibit that even though their Vicario brother’s actions were justified, they felt a tremendous amount of guilt. For example, Pedro Vicario said: "No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn't get rid of the smell,” (78)showing that he suffered with the guilt of killing Santiago. After all, killing a human being has to have an effect on someone’s moral even if it is accepted in the culture to a degree. Of course, in reality, one would feel guilt, however they wouldn’t actually smell this guilt. The hyperbolic description through magical realism emphasizes to readers to show that the Vicario brothers retained somewhat humane aspects despite killing another human being. Similarly, as a result of the guilt, Pablo suffered from diarrhea. His brother said: "he’d overflowed the portable latrine twice...taken him to the town hall washroom another six times," (80) which is also another instance of magical realism. The overflowingness of the water represents the amount of guilt he felt - it overflowed. Killing a person, no matter what the reason, will cause some amount of trauma to a person.
Really good points on the magical realism in the chapter. I agree with most of your points on the point and impact of magical realism on the themes in the chapter. Just like how I talked about it in my own blog post, I agree that the fact that the Vicario brothers could not rid themselves of Santiago’s stench was symbolic of the guilt that they felt. Also like in my blog post, the idea of diarrhea being magically realistic in symbolism is also something I agree with. After all, a person in real life wouldn’t feel that affected by diarrhea would they? Good analysis!
I agree with your interpretation of the meaning and purpose behind Márquez’s use of magical realism in this chapter of the book. Using magical realism in this scenario certainly helps to extend the guilt that the brothers were feeling to a hyperbolic extent. The elements of magical realism also give a way for their guilt to manifest itself in physical form for the readers to see. My question to you would be why does that woman Susana come and cure them of their illnesses? Why does Márquez choose to eliminate their guilt?
During the group presentation of Chapter 5, I thought it was interesting when they brought up the idea of fate, and how Santiago was not able to escape that. It is known that Cristo Bedoya never shot a gun before, yet he "decided to take the revolver and bring it to Santiago Nasar”(106) in order help protect him. Unfortunately, the gun was not loaded, thus it would deem as a useless tool. In addition to this, the gun acted as a hindrance to Santiago’s attempt to survive. “He tried to run but was hindered by the revolved, which clumsily stuck in his belt.” (110) It is ironic how the gun’s purpose was to save him ultimately led him to his death. Either way, he would have died anyways, gun or no gun. Cristo Bedoya's attempt to save Santiago with the gun shows that even though one attempts to fight their fate, they cannot escape it because it was predetermined.
Good work! Reading your blog post finally allowed me to realize what I was missing in my own analysis. Irony! What I was trying to say about the symbolism of the revolver and it being an obstacle to Cristo was a perfect example of situational irony. Marquez used situational irony here to showcase how something that Cristo brought along to help Santiago Nasar ironically turned out to hinder his attempts to help. I believe Marquez used situational irony here to show how even when a person tries to save someone else, fate cannot be changed and the events bound to happen will still happen.
You had some great points about the irony of Cristo's actions. I think that there were a lot of instances of this kind of irony that led his (Santiago's) death in other ways as well and it does seem that the author is making a point that fate is inescapable. I wonder if this can be seen in other characters' lives in the book. Maybe Bayardo, in that he was fated to be with Angela (and that's why he came back)? Throughout the book, I've thought it was interesting that Santiago, whose fate it was to die, did not realize it and therefore did not fight to escape it. Most other people didn't fight it either, but the ones who did failed. Maybe the author was saying that one cannot change someone else's fate for them. It makes me wonder if Santiago would have been able to escape his death if he had realized it was coming.
The investigative question of Group 5 “How do societies react to events that they are responsible for?” was very interesting and exposed me to the many different symbols present throughout chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. For example, I had never considered Santiago Nasar’s revolver as especially symbolic or important, but this group brought up many good points about it. For example, Cristo Bedoya says “ I’d never shot a gun, but I decided to take the revolver and bring it to Santiago Nasar (126).” Then on page 128, Cristo Bedoya says “If I’d known how to shoot a revolver, Santiago nasar would be alive today.” Finally on page 131, Cristo Bedoya was described with “He tried to run but was hindered by the revolver, which was clumsily stuck in his belt.” These quotes support the idea that revolver is symbolic of the obstacles in between Cristo saving Santiago. Cristo Bedoya did not know how to shoot a gun, which symbolizes one failure of his attempt to save Santiago Nasar. Furthermore, even though Cristo had no idea had to shoot the revolver, he still brought the weapon with him which would eventually contribute to his failure to prevent Santiago’s murder. The revolver hindered his movement and made it harder for Cristo to warn Santiago. Overall, Cristo’s recounting of the revolver hindering his attempts is symbolic of his guilt towards the situation. While he may explicitly believe he did all he could to save Santiago, his mind may blame circumstances such as the revolver to hide the implicit truth that he may be guilty in Santiago’s death.
The whole town's actions created a great example of dramatic irony. Although they did nothing to warn Santiago, which screws him over, their attempts to rescue him end up accomplishing nothing and represent how he's fated to die. Instead of only trying to help him during the murder, they should have done so before. These incidents provide great examples for the motif that society's expectations often fail to portray reality accurately.
I enjoyed your blog because it looks specifically at one symbol within the chapter. Christo Bedoya’s conscience weighs him down in the years after the murder just as the gun had weighed him down while trying to save Santiago Nasar. This chapter is full of other great examples of peoples guilty conscience staying with them almost indefinitely. While the townspeople may never be punished by the law for their failure to save Santiago, their conscience certainly will.
I especially enjoyed how Chapter 5 of this Chronicle of a Death Foretold describes the collective guilt that the townspeople experience after the death of Santiago. It seems that for each person, their guilt manifests itself in a different, and mostly hyperbolic way. At the very beginning of Chapter 5, the narrator writes “...none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (96). Just before, the narrator also mentions that the townspeople “couldn’t talk about anything else.” Together, these sentences help to set the tone for the entire chapter, chronicling the guilt of various townspeople. Every townsperson that the narrator talks about feels in some way that they could have done something to stop Santiago’s death. It is because of this that the townspeople feel that they themselves are fated to be punished for not stopping the murder. This obsession over their own guilt and fate drives many of the townspeople to become afflicted in strange ways. Hortensia Baute ends up running “naked into the street” (97), and Flora Miguel “ran away out of spite with a lieutenant of the border patrol” (97). There is also Aura Villeros, who had to use a catheter to urinate for the rest of her life due to the shock of Santiago’s death. Much of the rest of the Chapter is spent describing the various fates of the townspeople as they try to come to terms with their role in Santiago’s death. In most cases, the effects of this guilt is very hyperbolic. The hyperbole is very much so a part of the magical realism that is found throughout this book. It certainly is not normal for somebody to have to use a catheter for the rest of their life out of shock and guilt, yet Márquez includes this detail in order to demonstrate the townspeople’s guilt in a physical way. In a way, because the townspeople can’t be held legally responsible the various afflictions they gain as a result of the murder serve as their form of punishment. The point Márquez is making that even if people don’t directly receive punishment for not helping others, ultimately the punishment will come from within.
You have some great examples; what about Victoria Guzman, though? She hates on Santiago throughout the book, showing no remorse for his death. Notably, when Cristo asks her where he is in order to warn him, Victoria attempts to brush aside his concerns, claiming that “Those poor boys won’t kill anybody” (105). What effect do you think it had to have Victoria secretly rooting for his death while everyone else seems to be feeling guilty? My pet theory is that most neutral townspeople only feel bad about his death because it’s polite (and maybe even a little bit because Santiago is respected due to his wealth)—as seen in their half-hearted attempts to stop the murder. Victoria, on the other hand, who is familiar with his personal life and what he does to her daughter, doesn’t play along with this game.
Something I found interesting about the chapter 5 presentation was the idea of whether or not Santiago was Jesus. On one hand, there are many passages that lead the reader to believe that Santiago is indeed Jesus. One example of this is, “The knife went through the palm of his right hand” (139). This passage is from the part of the book where the Vicario brothers are killing Santiago Nasar. For some reason Santiago is stabbed through the palm of his hand. The reason for this happening is probably a representation of how Santiago is portrayed as the Christ because Jesus had nails go through the palms of his hands. Another example that points to Santiago being represented as Jesus is him waking up the day he would be murdered with a headache. This is similar to the crown of thorns that Jesus had to wear before he was crucified. However, there is also parts of the book where Santiago does things that aren’t what Jesus would do. On page 139, Santiago says, “Sons of bitches!” Since it is common practice among Christians to not swear, it does seem odd that Santiago would swear considering he is portrayed as being Jesus. Another interesting point that is brought up is that he seems to have affairs with other women, which breaks one of the ten commandments. There’s no definitive answer as to whether or not Santiago is a Christ figure, but there are points to be made on both sides of the discussion.
I agree with your points. This led to think of the effect of Jesus parallels with Santiago on his characterization. Perhaps because Jesus was crucified unjustly, it could be a hint that Santiago was unjustifiably accused of taking Angela's virginity and being murdered. However, the evidence pointing against his image as a Jesus figure adds to the ambiguity of whether or not he actually did deserve his crime. What do you think the purpose of the conflicting evidence serves as?
In chapter 5, I found the conflict and strong suggestion of Santiago’s innocence quite intriguing. In many ways, Santiago was thought to be quite innocent. The narrator notes that “...when he finally learned at the last moment that the Vicario brothers were waiting for him to kill him, his reaction was… bewilderment of innocence.” (118). The author even says that his “personal impression is that he died without understanding his death.” (118). Obviously this cannot be understated. While it is the supposed opinion of the narrator as well as coming from his perspective on the situation, the author did not include these details for no reason. Every detail has a reason, in this instance, the author included the narrator’s suggestion of innocence in order to strongly suggest the true nature of the situation. Furthermore, Santiago is also described as Christ like and even the way he died was fairly innocent. On page 139 “I’d given it to him [knife stabs] at least three times and there wasn’t a drop of blood.” The clean knives and lack of blood are symbolic of his innocence. However, it is never completely resolved if Santiago was truly innocent. In the end, he did bleed, and Angela always insisted it was him. Furthermore, not everyone thought Santiago was innocent, Polo Carrillo “thought that his serenity wasn’t innocence but cynicism.” In the end, we will never truly know if Santiago was innocent, but an inference can be strongly supported that he was.
I like your points about how Santiago didn't even know why he was killed, assuming he was innocent. It does makes it seem odd that the Vicario brothers would go after Santiago without any proof that he was the actual one who took Angela's virginity.
When finishing the last chapter of this book, I felt an overwhelming sense of finality. Maybe it’s because the ending’s been beaten into us five times, but I think that Marquez also includes several elements that add to that inescapable feeling. My group presentation touched upon certain symbols such as the revolver and the note which tie in to the motif of fate, but one thing that we didn’t mention was the motif of time. The narrator often notes the time of day seemingly without purpose throughout the novella, but in fact, Marquez intentionally includes this in order to build tension up until Santiago’s death. Ibsen also included a similar element in A Doll’s House, but to a different effect: Nora’s internal countdown to the dance in his play intensifies the frenetic mood, like when you’re trying to rush to turn in your supervised write on time, while in Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the periodic mentions of the time of day bring a sense of inevitability, like when you know you bombed your supervised write and just sit there, thinking, Oh well. In chapter five, for instance, when Cristo Bedoya makes his rounds around the town in search of Santiago Nasar to warn him on page 106, Marquez chooses to mention the time, 6:56, to create a subtle tension within the reader. Halfway down the page, Marquez again notes the time, this time 6:58. This may seem like a small difference, but by including these small details, the author builds tension until Santiago’s death. In the last line of the final page, the narrator indicates that “[Santiago] went into his house through the back door that had been open since six and fell on his face in the kitchen” (120). By saying that the back door had been open since six, Marquez both releases tension as the story comes down from the climax, as well as emphasizes the inevitability of it all: almost as if the doorframe had been waiting for him to stagger through since before Santiago knew he would die. I also think it’s important that Santiago left his watch on his nightstand before he went out. Without it, Santiago is left without a clear sense of time, which corresponds to a lack of awareness about his death.
I agree with your sense of finality about this chapter. For me, it definitely felt like this was it; it was over. On top of your points, I also think that the detail the narrator goes into about actual killing lends to this feeling. A lot of details are described about his death and the events leading up to it in this book, but this chapter is the one that finally explicitly describes Santiago's final moments. I also thought that it was interesting how the book ends with Santiago falling on his face in the kitchen. It is a very abrupt ending and maybe is supposed to reflect how Santiago's life was also cut off so suddenly. The author was able to tell us about what happened in the years after the murder and also end the book along with the end of Santiago's life by writing in the strange non-chronological way that he did. So it's interesting that there's so much detail about time in the book because the author/narrator, in a way, writes without regard for it (or least without regard for chronological order).
In chapter 5, the themes of guilt and honor/reputation are again very central just as they were in chapter 4. The very first line says that “for years (they, the townspeople) couldn't talk about anything else (113).” The entire town dwelt on that event; their “daily conduct...began to spin around a single common anxiety(113).” The narrator says that they tried to “give order to the chain of many chance events that had made absurdity possible (113).” They felt guilty for the death of Santiago and explained the events that happened as a bunch of coincidences. People consoled themselves by saying that matters of honor like this were not their business. Almost everyone felt some level of guilt. Some had health problems, went insane, or died. Santiago’s mother never forgave herself for missing the bad omens in his dreams. An interesting parallel that the author creates is that of Santiago’s relationship with his fiancé and Angela and Bayardo’s relationship. Both of these girls were engaged by their families more than by their own choice. The chest of “loveless letters (134)” that Flora Miguel returns to Santiago contrasts the briefcase of letters that Bayardo has from Angela after she falls in love with him. Angela’s honor has supposedly been taken by Santiago and that is what makes Flora so angry at him because she feels that his (supposed) actions have brought shame upon him and maybe herself as well.
One thing that I thought was interesting in this chapter was the explicit and aloof manner in which the narrator describes the murder. It seems strange that even after years and years, the narrator is willing to describe every gruesome detail of the killing (not to mention the killing of an old friend). This could reflect the apathetic attitude of the people as they watched the murder and did nothing to stop it.
I really like your insights into the narrator. It is interesting to think of the narrator as a general representation of the town. They have the feeling that he is innocent, they didn't stop the murder, but they were aware of it. This could be a very interesting literary device that Marquez decided to use to show the feelings of the town.
The most intriguing passage found in chapter five, found on page 118, discusses Santiago’s attitude the morning of the murder. The narrator seems to point to the conclusion that there is no way Santiago couldn’t have inferred his own coming death. This line in particular confuses me: “So the murdered man’s refusal to worry could have been suicide.” This whole convoluted story full of miscommunication and disputed honor ends still in confusion, and the motives of any character remain unclear. Possibly Santiago considered himself too wealthy or significant, or even insignificant, to be killed. He completely underestimates the twins’ reaction to their sister’s loss of virginity, supposedly at his hands. It is interesting that he knew Angela had named him as the perpetrator and yet made no attempt to either clear his name or make reparations. It is unfortunate that this story is clouded with the fallibility of memory, and therefore that one is unable to know the motives and truths behind every character.
Commonality between passages seem hard to uncover at first. My passage, about the guilt the Vicario brothers felt after killing Santiago, seems hardly similar to the previous two passages shown to us. Besides the continuation of the plot, what similarities do these passages have? In reality these passages have a common idea, or more accurately, a person in mind: Santiago Nasar. All of these passages (the ones we have seen so far that is) deal with Santiago in some form or another. Passage 1, for instance, deals with the character of Santiago. With the incident between Divina Flor and him, it establishes the kind of character Santiago is. He is a rich man that gets almost anything he wants, and people accept this idea and even take it as a truth In addition it also deals with the idea of his innocence. As the group mentioned, a lot of the animal imagery associated with Santiago might hint at his character, and his association with Divina Flor, may show that he is capable of having an affair with a woman (in this case Angela Vicario). This idea of his innocence is continued in my passage, passage 3, in which it deals with the conflict the brothers have over his death, yet inevitably they feel guilt free of their actions. Possibly this shows that they had made the right choice, and he was, in fact, the perpetrator as Angela said he was. Overall, while commonality between passages may seem obscure at first, when taking a deeper look at the passages, it becomes clear there are similarities through and through.
Man, I wish I knew what page your passage was on! In passage one, though, you mentioned how the narrator characterizes Santiago as having this rich, cool boy attitude. However, most everybody in the town seems to like him as a person, save for Victoria Guzman, who very much hates the man. Actually, I think this sentiment carries down to her daughter too—that is, Divina Flor may carry some quiet inner hatred of him. Clue number one is that the narrator notes that her reason for not warning Santiago of his impending death was that “she was nothing but a frightened child at the time, incapable of a decision on her own” (13). I think this is a pretty flimsy answer—I mean, the girl’s not seven years old, she definitely could have told him (at least, I really, really hope that she’s not seven). Clue number two comes right before Santiago approaches her physically: she tries to get ahead of him in order to open the door, and ostensibly to avoid getting trapped. She clearly doesn’t like the sensation, but instead may just have to tolerate it because of the fact that her mom is Santiago’s cook—which brings me to my theory: that Divina Flor takes after her mother and actually purposely avoided telling Santiago, because at least a small part of her inside, consciously or not, wanted him to go away. Maybe it’s because he’s rich, or because of the way he swaggers about like he owns everything, or a combination. I think the book mentions somewhere that Divina has some sort of attraction to Santiago, but I think that, rather than defining her relationship with him, it only muddies her opinions of him. Something I found interesting, though, was why exactly Marquez made Santiago an Arab. He could have easily excluded that fact and made him into the trope of a rich jerk, but I think he added the fact that he’s a minority in the town to be a humanizing factor, and to prove that not everything is so black-and-white.
Although both the presented passage which detailed the events of Angela Vicario’s wedding (pp. 40-41) and my passage which described the flooded Palace of Justice in Riohacha (p.98-99) comment on the corruption of virtue, they ultimately give different messages. In passage two (the presented passage), the narrator speaks of how Angela dressed up in her bridal gown, veil, and orange blossoms—which signified purity—despite having confessed to her family earlier that she had lost her virginity to Santiago Nasar. When this news became public, however, the townspeople purportedly saw this as a “profanation of the symbols of purity” (Marquez 41). Similarly, passage five (my passage) delineates the Palace of Justice in Riohacha where the murder report was stored. The area had flooded over, and was in disrepair, which the narrator evidences through his description of the place as “squalid,” “decrepit,” and “deserted” (98-99). With the Palace as a symbol for Justice itself, the passage illustrates how, in that town, justice had been neglected and left to deteriorate. Thus, both passages contain examples of perversions of virtue. However, this is not to say that the two share a common message. The narrator commends the “profanation” of purity on Angela’s part, commenting that she “dared to put on the veil and the orange blossoms” (41). Marquez’s decision to use the verb “dare” indicates that the narrator regards Angela to be both justified and respectable. Further, the narrator later refers to the action as an “act of courage” (41). Through such diction, the narrator again supports Angela’s actions to preserve her own dignity. In contrast, the narrator condemns rather than commends the debasement of justice in passage five.While he avoids making direct commentary on the flooded Palace, he refers to the building as a “lagoon of lost causes” (99). The use of lamentable diction reveals the narrator’s hidden opinion on the Palace: it is a shame that the place has fallen into such disrepair. As the Palace symbolizes the idea of justice itself, this opinion extends to how the townspeople have failed to respect justice in their society. Thus, although the two passages both include instances of corruptions of virtue, they have different arguments as to whether that “corruption” is justified in each case.
I too find it interesting the relatively same ideas, yet different messages portrayed in the different passages. I think Marquez is trying to point out the lack of consensus there is on any one idea, especially when it comes from personal accounts of an event, or opinions on a topic. As there are many hot button topics of today, so were there back then.
One thing that I noticed in common between the first passage and the second passage was the usage of characterization to suggest characters’ relationships with the murder of Santiago. For example, I noticed that Marquez used lots of weak and fear diction when describing Divina Flor to implicate that she justified her failure to warn Santiago with her fear of him. For example, Divina Flor described herself as “nothing but a frightened child at the time, incapable of a decision of her own. (13)” Divina Flor describes herself as a child, as inexperienced and unknowing of what to do in such a stressful situation. This is further described with “she didn’t have the courage to look at anything else. (14)” Diction supports the idea that fear and inexperienced prevented Divina Flor from helping out Santiago. I found this characterization using diction as similar to what Marquez did in Chapter 2 when describing Angela and Bayardo before and after the wedding. The group in charge of chapter 2 brought up an interesting point about the change of diction Marquez uses to describe Angela before and after the wedding. Marquez uses the word “angel” to describe Angela before and then “creature” after the wedding. This change of diction, while subtle, effects the reader by suggesting a change in the innocence and morality of Angela. Before the wedding, while she had her lost her virginity, this was no crime as she was not bethrotled to any man. After the wedding however, this became a crime as a wife was expected to be pure for her husband.
Like the group that presented on Chapter 1, I also found the idea of fate in this story to be a very interesting topic. From the very start of the story, it seems a number of things are out of the ordinary that eventually lead to Santiago’s death. Santiago has some premonitions about his death in his dream the night before where, “He’d dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees were a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered in bird shit” (3). This dream itself seems to be a bad omen to the reader, but Santiago’s own mother who is known to be “an accurate interpreter of other people’s dreams” (4), casually overlooked Santiago’s dream as not being ominous. The next foreboding warning that we see of Santiago’s fate comes when he’s talking to the girl who is gutting the rabbits. For some reason, Santiago finds the sight to be frightening, despite the fact that Santiago is accustomed to hunting. Due to the nature of Santiago’s death, him finding the sight of the rabbit guts repulsive adds to the foreshadowing in this chapter. Another out of the ordinary thing that happened was Santiago leaving out the front door instead of the rear, where he normally leaves. Because of this, Santiago never saw the note under the door that was left for him in order to warn him of the plot to kill him. All these out of the ordinary things that occurred makes Santiago’s death seem as if it was fated to happen. Santiago missed every single warning sign of his death, and his unusual actions on the morning of his death eventually lead to his killing. All of this makes it seem as if there was nothing at all that could have been done to stop Santiago’s death. It was really like Murphy’s Law the murder; everything that could go wrong did go wrong.
ReplyDeleteOh I'm Cole Jones btw.
DeleteThis is an interesting insight. Furthermore, I think this idea of fate is entwined with Catholicism and general religion, as many of the unusual things you mentioned happened due to the Bishop's visit. Do you think Marquez is attempting to make a commentary on his own personal views that fate is controlled by God? If this is true, it is intriguing that the thing that is fated is a rather negative event: the murder of Santiago. It may be that Marquez does not have the happiest view on religion, and that is why the bishop's visit is so predominant in the "fated" death of Santiago Nasar.
DeleteSam Kwak
DeleteI agree with your points on the foreshadowing of Santiago’s death. (Although, can it even be called foreshadowing when the book says what’s going to happen in the first sentence?) Also, as Kate pointed out, I think religion and fate are very intertwined in this novella. Relating back to foreshadowing, I think the specific references to Jesus in the Christian faith also clue the reader into what is going to happen to Santiago.
In response to Kate’s question, I think that religion has a larger role in the theme that one should not act only because they are “supposed to,” whether dictated by religion or honor. Do you have examples of how the bishop’s visit caused/allowed Santiago’s death? I’m not really sure what you mean when you say that those two events are closely related.
Santiago acts unusually because of the bishop's visit, e.g. wearing different clothes, going out a different door, etc. Although these are maybe not main points, it is definitely still part of his story. I suppose it is true, however, that Santiago's death was in no way caused by the bishop's visit.
DeleteMia Kimura
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 1, I found the relationship between faith and fate interesting. In this culture faith and fate is entangled. The dream, juxtaposition, characterization and foreshadowing show how Santiago’s death and the lack of action from the bystanders was fate. Religion has an important role in this story and in the culture. The bishop is one of the first characters introduced and continue to appear throughout the story. This set the religious traditions of the area and the importance of beliefs. The theme of religion and fate also commentates on parallels between Catholicism and Santiago’s death. The use of colors and imagery show how Santiago’s death is almost like a crucifixion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI like how you have discussed faith and fate individually, and how each one plays a role in Santiago's death, symbolically or otherwise. However, are there any instances in which the two work together? For example, you mentioned the Bishop as a faith figure, however do you think he could also represent the idea of fate at the same time, thus causing the two ideas to work as one?
DeleteThe presentation today highlighted many literary features that I had not previously noted. Two of these were juxtaposition and dream interpretation. In the chapter one group presentation, they mentioned that Santiago’s dream in the very beginning was symbolic of his life. I was particularly interested in their interpretation of this line: “‘The week before, he’d dreamed that he was alone in a tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything.’” (1). The group suggested that Santiago was the airplane and that the trees are the village people. In this interpretation, the dream juxtaposes reality, where the village people convince themselves that Santiago’s death will not affect them. In reality, near the end of the book, Marquez describes the malodorous scent of Santiago that permeates the entire town: “Everything continued smelling of Santiago Nasar that day. The Vicario brothers could smell him in the jail cell where the mayor had locked them up…‘No matter how much I scrubbed with soaps and rags, I couldn’t get rid of the smell’” (90). Marquez utilizes the unlimited power of his chosen genre, magical realism, to imply that everything smelled of Nasar in the days following his death; this is symbolic of the guilt to which almost everyone fell victim. In the dream, the tinfoil plane that was Santiago didn’t hit any of the village people; in reality, his death was on the heads of many of the almond trees who stood idly by as trees do, and allowed Santiago to die without revealing the plot to him.
ReplyDeleteSam Kwak
ReplyDeleteIn part one of Chronicle of Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez includes a myriad of biblical allusions. I first noticed religious references in the description of Santiago Nasar’s clothing: “‘He was dressed in white linen that had been washed in plain water because his skin was so delicate that it couldn’t stand the noise of starch’” (Márquez 7). Not only do the clothes’ white color represent purity, but the fact that the clothes are washed in water also symbolises baptism. Furthermore, Márquez uses the name of Ibrahim Nasar, Santiago’s father, specifically in reference to Abraham, a prophet and messenger character present in several religions.
After that, I found many more allusions made more specifically to Jesus in the Christian faith. Victoria Guzmán purportedly “had been quartering three rabbits for lunch, surrounded by panting dogs, when Santiago Nasar entered the kitchen” that morning (9). Here, the three rabbits actually represent Jesus and the two others who were crucified with him on the night of Good Friday. This analogy seems far-fetched, but is supported by Nasar’s dream in the very beginning of the play, in which Santiago “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” (3). The timber trees represent the cross of Christ (so I guess the bird shit symbolizes crucifixion??). In fact, Plácida Linero notes that “[h]e was always dreaming about trees,” and, additionally, the narrator refers to the trees as an “ominous augury” (3, 4). The recurring dreams serve to create a sense of inevitability about Santiago’s death, analogous to the inevitability of the death of Jesus Christ.
Cole Jones
DeleteI like the points you make here, Sam. When I was writing my blog I also wanted to write about the parallels between Jesus and Santiago, but I was struggling to find enough connections in this chapter. I also thought that Santiago’s white clothing seemed very religious, especially when considering that we often picture Jesus wearing white cloth when he was crucified. In the context of the Catholic church, the white linens also evoke papal images. I hadn’t yet considered your point about the three rabbits being symbolic of Jesus’s Crucifixion, but it certainly does seem to be a fairly strong connection. However, I feel like you could elaborate more on the religious connection to Santiago's dreams. I kinda see where you’re going with it, but I need more to be convinced.
Nice discussion so far, Group Two! Keep looking at those ideas of fate and faith throughout the rest of the book!!
ReplyDeleteThere were many things I found intriguing in chapter 1. For instance, the Bishop’s passing, to me, seemed to be representative of Santiago Nasar’s situation. Not only was Nasar wearing white, typically symbolic of purity and holiness (as is a Bishop), but the belief in the fate of the Bishop passing without stepping foot in their town was emblematic of Santiago’s death. In addition, the Bishop was described as impartial, as would fate be. Something else I found intriguing was how the belief in fate lead to that fate. The mere belief that it was fated to happen, caused no one to really try to stop it from happening, or at least not enough or the right people. No one even bothered to warn Santiago. While this could be a comment on fate itself, to me it seems to more be of a comment on how one’s beliefs can affect an outcome, especially in reference to the idea of fate. As Pedro Vicario told Indalecio awhile before he killed Santiago, “Don't bother. No matter what, he's as good as dead already.”
ReplyDeleteMia Kimura
DeleteI agree with this idea that believing in fate leads to fate. Santiago's death happened because people believed that his death was fate and that if people did not believe that to be fate, the bystanders would have done more to try to stop a murder from happening. Do you think it was more their belief in fate or that some people wanted Santiago dead?
Patrick Huang
ReplyDeleteThere were many interesting aspects of Chapter 1 that convinced me Gabriel Garcia Marquez was attempting to make a point about the importance of faith in Colombian culture and how this belief impacts the actions of characters in the story. Marquez especially emphasized this point through various literary devices in the description of the setting and the contextualization of the culture of the story. One literary devices Marquez especially uses is dramatic irony. The first example of this is on page 11 with “Nevertheless, it was there, and not at the rear door that the men who were going to kill him waited for Santiago Nasar...despite the fact that he would have to walk completely around the house…” This quote showcases how the Vicario brothers’ trust in faith influenced them in their actions. Santiago almost always left his house from the rear door, yet the brothers waited to kill him at the front. This is dramatic irony as the reader knows that he will be killed at the front, yet the brothers have no certainty or previous evidence to base their hunch of waiting at the front of Santiago’s house. The brothers’ belief in fate is influenced by the culture of the town. Marquez stresses the importance of honor many times in the book. This scene is another example of this. Killing Santiago at the rear door would hold less significance than killing him at the ceremonious front door. Despite it being much less likely that Santiago would exit his front door, the culture of the town dictated the brothers’ to wait at the front and believe in faith that they would eventually be rewarded with an opportunity. Another literary device that Marquez uses is synecdoche to describe many of the characters as a whole of the town. “Father Carmen Amador wasn’t worried either...No one even wondered whether Santiago Nasar had been warned, because it seemed impossible that he hadn’t. (22)” Marquez uses the thoughts of Father Amador to represent passive mindset of all the town’s residents and how every citizen assumed it was not their immediate responsibility to warn a person of his impending fate. Marquez uses synecdoche to take one citizen and imply they represent the whole of the town. This is effective in stressing how the townspeople believed in fate and how it would eventually warn Santiago, despite it never actually warning him until it was too late.
I agree with your points. Good insights on how Colombian culture impacts their actions. I did not notice that the passiveness of the town and assumption that Santiago had already been warned was part of a cultural attribute. However, I wonder if that is human nature rather than setting and culture since in the US, a woman named Kitten I believed also suffered from the bystander effect, which is what happened in the story. However, for the most part, good job!
DeleteWhile doing the presentation for Chapter 1, I realized how strongly Santiago is tied to the idea of fate. Marquez characterizes Santiago as very similar to his father. Stating that from his father, he “learned..the manipulation of the firearms, his love for horses, and the mastery of high-flying birds of prey… also learned the good arts of valor and prudence.” (7) While in contrast, he only learned his sixth sense from his mom. As readers can tell, he is a father’s son. But not only that, his father was his light and happiness as the mother describes him as “He was the only child of a marriage of convenience without a single moment of happiness, but he seemed happy with his father …” Showing that even in dark times, he really connects strongly to his father. This may appear normal, however, his father dies young. And similarly he died young also, showing that since he connected so strongly with his father, his fate is also tied strongly with his father. It is also an inevitable young death also as the book later on states that he will die of tuberculosis despite the murder event. In addition, the author also characterizes Santiago as a dreamer, and he always attempts to dissect his dreams and interpret them as an insight to the future. For example, he dreamed his was in a tranquil grove of timber trees, and he was happy, however, “when he awake he felt completely splattered in bird shit” (3) While characters such as his mother interpreted as his dream as a good thing since bird means good health, the actually dream is a sign from fate telling that he is happily oblivious to the situation: his near death. The qualities that Marques utilizes to characterize Santiago shows how strongly he is connected to his inevitable fate.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Santiago is strongly tied to the idea of fate. In fact, I think that the whole culture, at least, the culture of this village at this specific time, fosters a strong belief in fate and superstitious things. They obviously believe in ghosts, which can be seen when Clotilde Armenta says that Santiago, in his white-on-white clothing, "already looked like a ghost (16)." They also believe in angels, which is shown on page 20 when the narrator talks about his sister feeling one's presence pass by. I thought that the many parallels drawn between Santiago and his father were really interesting and I wonder if they will have even more impact later on in the story or if they were only important in chapter one.
DeletePatrick Huang
DeleteVery insightful analysis about Santiago’s connection both with his father and with fate itself. I was especially interested in the parallels you drew between Santiago and his father. Indeed, they share many physical characteristics such as speaking Arab, his love of firearms and horses, and his interest in falconry. It comes as no surprise then that Ibrahim, Santiago’s father, dying early may symbolize and signify Santiago’s early death as well. Thus, it was destined by fate for Santiago to be slaughtered in his young age. Similarly, your points about Santiago’s dreams and his interpretations of them supports the idea that Santiago is deeply connected with fate. Good work!
One of the first things that I noticed upon reading chapter one of a Chronicle Of A Death Foretold was the symbols and the parallels between characters and events that foreshadow Santiago’s death. The chapter begins with a description of the dream he had just had that night and then another that he had several days earlier. In one, he dreams about trees and drizzly rain and in the other, he dreams of flying alone in a tinfoil airplane through a forest without hitting anything (p. 1). I think that these dreams are foreshadowing of his death (which is soon to come) and the way in which he will be all alone in his misery while the village people stand around like unmoving trees in a forest.
ReplyDeleteA short while later, when he goes to eat his breakfast, he has a ominous encounter with Victoria Guzmán, his family cook, and her daughter, Divina Flor. Victoria is in the process of gutting some rabbits while he eats, and at one point, he grabs her daughter and she threatens him with her knife. This is an indication of the tools that will be used for his murder: butcher knives. When Victoria takes the guts from a rabbit and throws them to the dogs, Santiago is horrified at her actions, which is surprising because he enjoys hunting and falconry. I think that Márquez was showing that even though Santiago didn’t know he was going to be killed, his sixth sense (that he had inherited from his mother (p. 6)) was working somewhat and he realized that there was something wrong with what he was seeing (because it would soon happen to him). I also find it interesting that almost the entire village knew about what the Vicario brothers were planning but somehow, even with all the signs and foreshadowing, Santiago managed not to find out. That’s some real dramatic irony right there. It is also ironic that two of the very few people who had no idea about the upcoming murder (Santiago and his mother) were supposed to have the sixth sense. Maybe Márquez was making a point that fate is inescapable (even for those with extra powers).
Sam Kwak
ReplyDeleteSomething I found interesting while re-reading part two was the simultaneous facade of purity and reality of inner dirtiness held within most characters in the book.
Márquez illustrates this most clearly with the character of Angela, who attempts to hide all traces of her premarital sexual encounters. Although she attempts to come clean to her mother before her marriage with Bayardo San Román, her confidantes convince her to stay quiet during a conversation in which they work to make cloth flowers, presumably for her upcoming wedding (Márquez 38). Natural flowers typically symbolize sexual purity; in the case of Angela Vicario, the cloth flowers represent her attempt that follows to create an artificial semblance of sexual purity for her husband-to-be.
However, these attempts to hide what is shameful are not exclusive to Angela: her whole family puts a great deal of effort into maintaining appearances. The Vicario house, although modest, displays a “terrace almost completely covered with flowerpots” in front, while hiding the pigsty, sacrificial stone, and disemboweling table in the back yard, away from public view (40). Here, the flowerpots represent purity and beauty, which the Vicario family proudly displays to the outside world. Behind the scenes, however, they live a dirty life removed from the front view in order to maintain a strong outward appearance. In fact, when the family realizes that they will have to open up their backyard for the marital celebrations, Pedro and Pablo Vicario immediately get to work in carting off the family pigs and sanitizing the area with quicklime (40). Of course, the family could never show anything but their best to the public. This reminded me of when your mom tells you to clean your room because friends are coming over. I always thought that you should just leave the house the way it is, because you shouldn’t pretend to be better than you are—which is what the Vicario family is doing, essentially.
Additionally, Márquez draws associations between shame and dark imagery. When Bayardo San Roman returns Angela to her house after finding out that she had already been deflowered, she initially stays behind in the shadows before Bayardo brings her into the light to reveal her impurity to Angela’s mother (46). This imagery agrees with previous points on how people often hide dirty secrets away where they think that others can’t see them. Pura Vicario then beats Angela in the darkness to punish her for being returned, careful not to wake anybody up. Neither the father nor the older sisters knew about this act: they “didn’t find out about anything until dawn” (47). Again, the light comes to reveal the secrets that both Angela and Pura had hidden in the dark.
Through these symbols, Márquez comments that everyone has shameful secrets, but that we shouldn’t lie in order to hide them, or it might come back around to bite us.
Mia Kimura
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 2, I thought that the symbolism and characterization of Bayardo San Roman was interesting. Bayardo is characterized as the devil by the mother. This symbolizes temptation, persuasiveness, desire and outward appearances. His status and wealth is tempting to the Vicario family who is not rich. His money also represents the persuasive nature of the devil which is shown when Bayardo is buying many gifts for Angela. Other people described him as a beautiful and rich man which symbolizes desirability. The difference between how other perceive and the reality of who he is can be seen when most people saw him as a strong, beautiful, multi-talented rich man when he was actually deceptive and beat Angela. The mother could see the evil in him before anyone else.
Jeremiah Hammerberg
DeleteWhat I found interesting about this dynamic as well is that he decided to marry a woman named Angela, despite being described as the devil. Literally it is an angel vs the devil, thus bound to clash and for conflict to ensue. It makes me curious as to why he would name her Angela to begin with. While Bayardo certainly isn't a great guy, neither is she completely perfect either, yet the name implies that she is. It possibly could be for the use of irony, however that then kind of negates the impact of the name in association with Bayardo, the devil. So, why do you think the author named her Angela?
Nathan Mercer
DeleteI too find it interesting that Márquez named the girl Angela as it does seem like she does have some qualities of impurity. Márquez could be using juxtaposition to further emphasize Angela's characteristics.
Jeremiah Hammerberg
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 2, the exploration of the relationship between Bayardo and Angela, as well as the representation of Bayardo, particularly caught my interest. The representation of Bayardo as the devil, through the letters and his actions, and Angela as an angel, as implied by her name, is an interesting contrast, especially since their relationship ends quite quickly. However, this was also one part I didn’t quite agree with when it came to the group’s presentation. To me, the chapter represents the two characters as relative opposites, that is clear and I agree with. Angela wants a marriage of love and depth, and Bayardo simply wants a marriage built on shallow understandings. Yet, in many ways Angela is the devil and Bayardo is the angel. Angela is the one to have lost her virginity, to have lied to Bayardo about this, and most likely even lied about Santiago, thus resulting in him being killed. On the other side, Bayardo is constantly being portrayed as perfect, and he is absolutely above generous when it comes to Angela, with the gifts and the house. In this way, the author now brings even more contrast between the two characters, and now provides an intriguing level of irony when it comes to Angela’s name.
Nathan Mercer
DeleteThis is certainly an interesting point. I do agree than Angela could also be the devil. However, I think the point could be made that she went from being Lucifer to the devil. If we're assuming that Santiago is Christ, based on him wearing white clothes along with other things, Angela could be Lucifer at this point. Even though she doesn't have her virginity, she does end up betraying Santiago, as he probably wasn't the one who made her lose her virginity. This is similar to Lucifer betraying God in Christianity.
Cole Jones
ReplyDeleteAs the group that presented pointed out, Chapter 2 is full of wonderful bits exploring what lovers value in a relationship, especially in the historical and cultural context of this book. The main conflict in Chronicle of a Death Foretold is between the Vicaro brothers and the unexpecting Santiago Nasar. However, the event that kicked all of this off was the wealthy and powerful Bayardo returning his bride, Angela, because he discovered that she was not a virgin when they married. While Chronicle of a Death Foretold is not alone in terms of historical or cultural precedent for a woman’s virginity to be treated so importantly, but the extent to which Gabriel García Márquez explores this idea is interesting. In Chapter 2, we see virginity referred to as a “lost possession” and women should “display open under the sun in the courtyard of her house the linen sheet with the stain of honor” (38). This quote, coupled with Bayardo returning Angela after their wedding night demonstrates the level at which virginity was valued in women. Historically speaking, this has always been true until recently, however, within the context of Christianity that this book can be viewed in it also becomes more poignant. Virgin Mary is highly revered in Catholicism and in Latin American culture, and she often represents the inaccessible “ideal” woman. Without her virginity, Angela is seen by society to no longer be good or valuable, and she also hurts her family’s honor which ultimately leads to the mostly-tragic death of Santiago Nasar. I think that Márquez wanted to shine a light on the strange and unfair cultural standards that women were, and still are put up against. Also, he challenges ideas about what is most important in a marriage. Instead of valuing dependability, intimacy, or the connection that two people have, the people in this book find honor and purity based on arbitrary societal guidelines to be most important.
While listening to the presentation on chapter two, an interesting idea popped into my head. The group focused mainly on Marquez’s characterization of Angela and Bayardo, and while highlighting different quotes, the theory developed. Consider this: Angela was a virgin. Instead of trying and failing to fake her virginity, resulting in her getting released from the pressure of marriage and allowing her to live her free life. This desire to get out of marriage started with her mother’s oppressive nature; the quotes “The girls had been reared to get married” and “‘Any man will be happy with them because they’ve been raised to suffer.” (34) illustrate the mother’s control over her daughters life, particularly in bringing them up to be married. Angela was also most likely depressed: “she had a...poverty of spirit” “her penury of spirit had been aggravated with the years”, “I would see her again year after year during my Christmas vacations, and every time she seemed more destitute in the window of her house, where she would sit in the afternoon making cloth flowers and singing songs about single women with her neighbors.” (35). Angela was not happy, and, according to the narrator, at least once desired to be single. The narrator also makes mention of Angela’s birth being similar to those of the “great queens of history” (35). This could be in reference to two queens, Victoria of England and Cleopatra, who were famously single. Although the author could mean anything with this callout, this interpretation supports the idea of Angela wishing to not be married. Angela, seeing no other option besides marriage in her life, discovers a loophole: if she is not a virgin, she will not be able to be married honourably. Hence, she asks how to fake her virginity in order to start the rumor, while actually learning how to fake her loss of virginity. As the group yesterday mentioned, she had negative feelings for Bayardo as he had not courted her but had instead won the favor of her family, and had unduly declared his love for her through grand gestures based on her looks. This would be enough to make anyone crazy, and it causes Angela to decide she most definitely does not want to marry Bayardo. Why did Santiago die, then? Because Angela is awesome, and had heard of Santiago’s rather unpleasant actions with Divina Flor, and so decided to rid the world of an unnecessary evil. Although a bit harsh, it is understandable that she who was taking such steps to maintain her freedom would want to help another woman in a difficult position. The final action that points to Angela being willing to go to any length for her freedom, is what happens after she is freed from marriage. She is found in a different village, Guajira, far from her old life. She had a “sense of humor” (102) and “was so mature and witty that it was difficult to believe that she was the same person” (103). And, perhaps most telling, “she had nothing in common with the person who’d been obliged to marry without love at the age of twenty.” Because she was able to escape the confines of marriage, she was freed from the weight that she had carried her entire childhood, and so became a beautiful and mature woman who lived her life to the fullest. Although some may argue that her writing Santiago negates this fact, her writing may have been proof that after all was said and done, she realized she did want some romance in her life, and writing to him was the way to achieve that. It could be possible that she felt some regret, which explains why she seemed to fall for the idea of Santiago and was ready to welcome him when he returned, twenty three years later. She hated the idea of being forced into marriage, but if it came with a choice, she was not wholly unopposed to the idea. In conclusion, the death foretold in this book is not that of Santiago, but is that of the young, reared-for-marriage Angela Vicario, who is replaced with a free woman, and Santiago simply happens to be a casualty along the way.
ReplyDeleteSam Kwak
DeleteI really like your interpretation of Angela’s motivations. I think you have a lot of great evidence to back your points up, particularly your references to Cleopatra and Queen Victoria.
However, I am somewhat suspicious of your claim that Angela said Santiago Nasar’s name in order to “rid the world of an unnecessary evil.” How would she have known about Santiago and Divina’s secret interactions? Maybe Divina could have told her, but I am highly circumspect. After all, the narrator mentions that Divina had a bit of a thing for Santiago, didn’t he? Even if she did somehow know, Angela didn’t take the opportunity to accuse him until two hours into her own beating. Why wouldn’t she just say his name outright, and avoid the physical pain? You could say that maybe she was having an ethical dilemma, but at that point, it just seems like a weak argument.
If anything, I think that maybe she said Santiago’s name out of spite for the rich, since Angela had grown up in a poor family her entire life, and so not many people would have paid attention to her. Take Xius, for example: when he dies, nobody bothers investigating his death or writing a chronicle, but when Santiago, a fairly wealthy man, dies, everyone makes a big deal about it. If this is the case, and Angela said Santiago’s name out of spite for the rich, I think it would be an interesting addition to the novella’s motif of the difference in treatment between the rich and the poor.
In general, though, I think you have some great interpretations of the book. I agree with you that Angela Vicario plays an integral role in the development of the book, perhaps even more so that Santiago Nasar.
Blog Addendum: Another point that can be looked at to prove this theory is the characterization of Bayardo as the devil and Santiago as a Christ figure. Santiago's death liberates Angela from Bayardo, and all other future marriage. Religiously, it is believed that Christ's death liberates the saints from the devil, even though he is innocent. Santiago is innocent, and the loss of his innocent life leads to Angela's liberation from the devil.
DeleteSam-That also makes sense! That would be interesting if Marquez was trying to make some sort of commentary on economic differences. With the unnecessary evil idea, although Angela may not have known explicitly about Divina Flor's experience with Santiago, it is clear that Santiago is a promiscuous character in his general relations with people in the town, i.e. Maria Alejandro Cervantes. I find it hard to believe that Divina Flor is the only young girl Santiago has shown predatory intentions towards; his descriptions seem to show that he is a man of low honor, and so it is not hard to stretch to his actions being generally of the unsavory nature.
DeleteNathan Mercer
ReplyDeleteSomething I found interesting about the chapter 1 presentation was the mention of the multiple areas of juxtaposition throughout the first chapter. One thing they mentioned was the juxtaposition of feeling happy in a dream and feeling like bird poop in real life. They mentioned that he knew he was going to die in his dreams, and in real life he was already dead. This was very interesting to me because it’s not something that I thought of at first when I was reading it. Now that I’ve realized this, it dramatically changes my point of view when reading the book. They also mentioned the different perceptions of how the day was. Some people said it was a “fine February” while other said it was a “funereal day”. This ended up being related to whether or not they wanted Santiago Nasar to die. The final point of juxtaposition that they mentioned was the difference in the clothes Santiago wore that day vs the clothes that he normally wore on Mondays. The reason they listed for why this was important was to emphasize the wedding that occurred on the previous day. They also mentioned how it was ironic how he was wearing white considering that it typically represents purity. This is related to how Santiago Nasar could have been innocent as white is used to represent virginity.
Nathan Mercer
ReplyDeleteSomething that was interesting about chapter 2 was the comparison if Bayardo San Román to the Devil. This is something that I noticed when I was first reading the book. The thing that made me realize this first was the mention of him having golden eyes. This is what made me think about it because the devil typically has golden eyes, and I’ve heard other instances of someone having golden eyes and turning out to be the devil. Other parts of the book that characterized Bayardo San Román as the devil was the mention that he could do anything and had unlimited resources. This makes sense because the devil has a lot of power in the Bible. He is also capable of doing a lot of things. He also seemed to know things that he should not know. One example of this is him knowing how to reuse dead batteries. He went on to share this knowledge with a telegrapher. Since the large majority of people don’t know how to reuse dead batteries in modern times, unless they’re rechargable, I highly doubt that anyone at that time would know how to reuse dead batteries. This also shows how he is characterized as the devil. Another example of this is him knowing about Angela’s birthday. Not only does he have enough money to buy all the raffle tickets for the music box, but he also knows that it’s Angela’s birthday and sneaks the music box into her house as a gift.
Cole Jones
DeleteI agree with you that Bayardo being characterized was an interesting choice for Márquez to make. Describing him as having golden eyes gives of some seriously sinister vibes, in an almost snake-like way. However, I still am wondering why exactly Márquez chose to characterize Bayardo as being devilish. I think this is especially interesting when you compare Bayardo to Santiago, who we’ve already seen is heavily cloaked in Jesus imagery. One possible explanation is that maybe Márquez wanted to highlight the fact that the line between good and evil isn’t always as clear as we want it to be. Humans are not creatures that exist as morally black and white, but rather in shades of grey.
In the group presentation for Chapter 2, the symbolism of Bayardo, Angelo, and Santiago intrigued me. Marquez characterizes Bayardo as having “the waist of a novice bullfighter, golden eyes, and a skin slowly roasted by saltpeter.” (25) All of these qualities are seen as beautiful and desirable. Which is something the devil is connected to as the group referenced to “Paradise Lost,” a poem written by John Milton which described the Devil as very beautiful. Similarly, he is also characterized as “he’s swimming in gold” (27) and easily offers “ten thousand” (36) pesos for Xius’s house. Being rich also represents another trait of the devil. While on the other hand, Angelo, is almost an angel in comparison to Bayardo as she is being described as “the prettiest of the four” (32) sisters, and “born like the great queens..with the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck..” (32). The air around Angelo appears regal despite not being born into a rich family unlike Bayardo. That led to the interesting tie with Santiago where she named him as the one who took her virginity. Santiago does not really know what is going on and is sacrificed. Which could be a reference to the Biblical Jesus, where Jesus is sacrificed for another’s cause. Perhaps Angelo represents one of Jesus’s disciples that betrayed him in exchange for money, however in this case, she betrayed him in order to protect her past lover. Bayardo could represent the Devil, which tempts Angelo lie because after she is sent home, she is in love with him as later in the story, she continuously writes Bayardo letters.
ReplyDeletePatrick Huang
DeleteVery good analysis on the juxtaposition of Bayardo’s characteristics in Chapter two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Like I said in my own blogspot, Marquez uses many different details to describe Bayardo with devilish characteristics, for example with diction “He reminded me of the devil (30).” Similarly, you brought up his personality traits as well and their possible connections. I particularly enjoyed your analysis on his actions with the widower Xius. I agree that his persistence in urging the widower to sell her house can be seen as a quality of the devil. His insistence on buying the house eventually caused the widower to die of sadness. Good analysis!
Patrick Huang
ReplyDeleteThe group presentation on Chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold exposed me to many keen characterizations of Bayardo San Roman that I had not noticed on my first read through. Previously, I had shallowly thought of Bayardo as merely a rich suitor who was unfortunate to have picked Angela Vicario as his bride to be. The group brought up many good points about how various characters, especially the narrator’s mother, described Bayardo with devilish characteristics and diction. “He reminded me of the devil (30).” Similarly, the narrator himself felt somewhat uneasy with him: “He seemed more serious to me than his antics would have led one to believe, and with a hidden tension that was barely concealed by his excessive good manners. (30)” His own actions also displayed his similarities with the devil; he said “When I wake up...remind me that I’m going to marry her. (31)” His absolute confidence in getting what he wanted was further supported with his encounter with the widower Xius: “Widower...I’ll buy your house. (39)” This confidence displayed by his lack of courtship with Angela before their marriage and his bold and unwavering attitude with the widower shows how similar he is to the meticulous, unwavering nature of the devil. Even though Angela Vicario “didn’t want to marry him”, it did not matter as “Bayardo San Roman hadn’t even tried to court her, but had bewitched the family with his charm.” Marquez choice of diction of the verb “bewitched” further enhances the idea that Bayardo San Roman had many devil-like qualities with him in Chapter two of Chronicle of Death Foretold. This was most likely to foreshadow the imminent breakup of Bayardo and Angela on their wedding night.
I totally agree with your points! The fact that their break up was a result of Barnyardo's devilish characteristics. His confidence and self-entitled traits as the devil was the reason why he did not even think twice whether or not to send Angela back. Good choice on quotes and how they directly stated that he was the devil. Good job!
DeleteI like your points and I also noticed these things in the presentation. I think it's ironic that the person who is compared to the devil is the one that marries the angel(a). It's also interesting that they — as symbolic opposites — are both described as very attractive people and that he is the rich one and she is the poor one. Maybe the author was making a point about how what people generally think of as good/right or bad/wrong is not that as clear cut as it seems and can actually be hard to discern. Or maybe he was thinking more along the lines of how demons are fallen angels and so they are almost the same thing.
DeleteI also thought it was interesting how the narrator presents the characters and events. Even though he was a good friend of Santiago's, he wrote about both Santiago's more admirable (or at least neutral) qualities and his bad qualities (how he's a player, how he sexually harasses Divina Flor). He talks about the whole murder with an aloof manner, it's almost as if he doesn't really care. Maybe that's his professional journalistic behavior coming out..
Chapter 2 begins with Bayardo San Román’s first appearance in the village and the people’s impressions of him, all of which the narrator learned through his correspondence with his mother while he was away at school. Bayardo is described as a very attractive man who is talented in many different areas and “swimming in gold (29).” The narrator’s mother later tells him that Bayardo’s golden eyes had “reminded (her) of the devil (30),” which is very different from the other villagers’ opinions, who for the most part thought very highly of Bayardo. When the narrator himself meets Bayardo, he does not think that he is as attractive as he was reported to be and that he seems like “a very sad man (30).” Next in the chapter is the courtship and wedding of Angela and Bayardo, which would ultimately lead to Santiago’s death. Apparently, it had “never been too well established how they (Angela and Bayardo) had met (31)” and there was a sort of vague obscurity surrounding the event. Some people who had been at the same boarding house all agreed on one account but others weren’t so sure about it. I think that these events fall into the theme of conflicting and confused stories and memories that was begun in chapter 1 with people’s impressions of the weather and the rumors surrounding the Vicario brothers’ plan.
ReplyDeleteEver since the presentation on Wednesday, I’ve been thinking about similarities between A Chronicle of a Death Foretold and some of the other works that we have read in class this year. I think that the relationship of Bayardo and Angela has some parallels to the Taming of the Shrew in that both of the women didn’t want to marry the men but they are pressured from everyone around them. Petruchio and Bayardo also both arrive late to their own weddings. In Taming of the Shrew however, Petruchio (at least in the beginning) wanted Kate’s money and in A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Angela is the one who will benefit from Bayardo's riches.
Also, I’ve noticed that all of our books and plays so far this year have had messed up relationships in them. There was Tita and Pedro (Like Water for Chocolate), Siddhartha and Kamala (Siddhartha), Kate and Petruchio (Taming of the Shrew), Nora and Torvald (A Doll’s House), and now Bayardo and Angela. Hmmm...
Blog Addendum: Another point that can be looked at to prove this theory is the characterization of Bayardo as the devil and Santiago as a Christ figure. Santiago's death liberates Angela from Bayardo, and all other future marriage. Religiously, it is believed that Christ's death liberates the saints from the devil, even though he is innocent. Santiago is innocent, and the loss of his innocent life leads to Angela's liberation from the devil.
ReplyDeleteSorry ignore this it's in the wrong place
DeletePatrick Huang
ReplyDeleteThis group’s presentation on the impact of motives on the legality and reasonability of an action was particular impactful as this chapter focused extensively on the ideas of honor with regards to the Vicario brothers’ murder of Santiago Nasar. Their investigative question asked if motive was important in assessing whether an action was right or wrong. Regarding Chronicle of a Death Foretold, this was focused on whether Honor was a valid justification for killing Santiago Nasar. Support for this idea is prevalent in chapter 3 as Marquez often uses details that describe the importance of honor to certain people. Indeed, when Father Amador asked the Vicario brothers about the crime, Pedro replied “We killed him openly...but we’re innocent. (55)” This shows how the brothers believed that honor was a valid justification for their actions. Their next sentence confirms this as Pablo says “Before God and before men...it was a matter of honor. (56)” Marquez uses religious diction to draw a connection between the devotion to honor and the widespread devotion to religion in the town. Marquez attempts to describe how one’s blind devotion to a specific cause or ideal can cause one to perform actions that seem illogical in retrospect. The Vicario brothers believed themselves validated with their actions as honor was extremely important to them. In fact, they were not the only ones who believed in the importance of honor. Prudencia Cotes, the fiancee to Pablo, said “I never would have married him if he hadn’t done what a man should do. (72)” Prudencia is willing to disregard her own love for Pablo in favor of her devotion to the ideal of honor. This exemplifies the influence of how cultural norms dictate one’s actions. Marquez introduces this idea with details regarding the actions of the Vicario brothers, and then attempts to make a point about the impact of motive on one’s actions and this similarity with devotion to a religion with religious diction.
Sam Kwak
DeleteGood points: I especially like your point on Prudencia Cotes. I noticed this too when I was reading through the chapter. One thing that you didn’t point out was the scene with the dogs surrounding the Vicario brothers as they entered Prudencia’s house. As I mentioned in my blog post, I think that the dogs represent the townspeople. This scene, while it seems meaningless, actually symbolizes how most people in the town encourage the Vicario brothers to continue with their plans—either directly or by virtue of their inaction. Furthermore, I think that the fact that the dogs appear in front of Prudencia’s house isn’t a mistake: Márquez likely includes this detail to show that Prudencia is a bloodthirsty dog herself, which she herself demonstrates in her encouragement of her fiancée, Pablo. I don’t think that Pablo would have gone through with his actions if it weren’t for Prudencia giving him the final push.
Sam Kwak
ReplyDeleteThroughout part three, whenever the Vicario brothers mention their plans to kill Santiago Nasar, the townspeople’s responses seem so nonchalant and jaded. In fact, while some townspeople make small efforts to help Santiago, most just watch in the sidelines, egging the Vicario brothers on by virtue of their inaction.
Márquez often describes the townspeople’s inaction by likening them to dogs. The first instance of this appears in part one, where Victoria Guzmán is found “quartering three rabbits for lunch, surrounded by panting dogs” (Márquez 9). As I discussed in a previous blog, the rabbits symbolize Santiago Nasar himself. The “panting dogs,” meanwhile, just stand by and watch as Victoria butchers the rabbits. Márquez includes a similar scene in part three: when the Vicario brothers are at Clotilde Armenta’s store drinking booze and advertising their plans, several “fake customers buying milk they didn’t need and asking for food items that didn’t exist went in and out with the purpose of seeing whether it was true that they were waiting for Santiago Nasar to kill him” (63-64). Instead of attempting to stop them or warn Santiago, the townspeople are more interested in watching the show—just like the dogs watching Victoria butcher the rabbits.
Another interesting thing in part three is Márquez’s characterization of María Alejandrina Cervantes. Although most female characters in the book are portrayed as dependent and secondary, Márquez interestingly paints María as a powerful woman in her own right. When we are first introduced to her character, Márquez describes her lap as “apostolic” (5). Religious characters in the book often act passively or fail to do their duty, but I think that the religious reference here does not necessarily imply those things for María—instead, they empower her character. As far as I could find, she is the only female character referred to in a religious context (besides the eighty-proof hangover nun). In part three, the narrator mentions that María “did away with my generation’s virginity” and that she “taught us much more than we should have learned” (64-65). In contrast to Angela, who has her virginity taken away from her, María takes away people’s virginities. Instead of being taught lessons of tradition by others, she teaches them her own lessons. while the narrator also refers to her as having been “reared,” she is overwhelmingly referred to as independent. One thing I couldn’t figure out though, is why exactly Márquez attributes these characteristics to a prostitute.
Louis Zhang
DeleteI think Marquez characterizes her in that way to further the motif that society's expectations of a person usually don't follow that person's true personality. Although society mostly views prostitutes negatively, Maria's personality counters those views and juxtaposes Angela, who actually doesn't act like the perfect bride. In fact, Maria performs her duties much better than Angela, who doesn’t even make it past the first night with Bayardo. This also represents a theme about how one should perform their duties of their own volition.
Cole Jones
ReplyDeleteThe idea of honor being used as a justification for murder is certainly an interesting idea, and ties in very nicely with whether motive should be taken into account when determining a punishment. Pedro and Pablo Vicaro many years later during their trial showed no remorse for their actions, considering the murder to simply be “a matter of honor” (49). The honor they are referring to in this case is their family honor, which they saw as being taken by Santiago Nasar. It’s clear that the Vicaro brothers did not truly want to kill Santiago, which is displayed by the fact they go around telling everyone about what they are planning to do. They want someone to try to stop them before they commit the deed. Infact, Clotilde Armenta says in the chapter that she took their knives in order to “spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that’s fallen on them” (57). The narrator goes on to state 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” (57). This idea that the brothers felt a sense of duty to carry out the murder says a lot about the culture they live in, and ultimately how much we can blame them for Santiago’s murder. Most of the townspeople saw the brothers as being justified in their actions, and because of the duty that the society they live in placed on them the brothers truly felt as if they had no choice but to kill Santiago. By most modern moral standards, they twins are surely at fault for the death of Santiago. However, it is unfair to judge the brothers by our rules and morals. I think the point that Gabriel Márquez was trying to make with this novella was a cultural one. He was trying to point out that a society that treats murder so indifferently for the sake of honor is not a society to aspire to be. While the brothers should be at fault for Santiago’s death, it is really society that is the one to blame.
Patrick Huang
DeleteYour analysis on the possible implications of Marquez’s writing on the culture of the book ties nicely with what I wrote in my own blog post about the possible commentary Marquez is saying about the role of the church. Marquez definitely shows in many places in chapter 3 that the brothers, while committing this act in the name of honor, may not truly believe or want to perform the murder. The fact that the brothers performed certain actions that would normally implicate or stop suspects from committing a crime yet very few townspeople actually tried to stop them speaks volumes about the cultural attitude towards honor killings. Good work!
Nathan Mercer
ReplyDeleteThe question of rather motive should be taken into account in this story is an interesting one. Personally, I think motive should always be taken into account. In this sense, I don’t think that honor can be used to justify the murder of Santiago Nasar. The problem is that I know next to nothing when it comes to the culture in Colombia during the middle of the 20th century. Even someone who knows about the culture of Colombia at this time might not be able to say if it was justifiable or not. This is because Márquez says that the town in which this takes place is a very different town from others. This means that Márquez is more likely to know if it would be justified or not. My best guess would be that the murder was justifiable by honor at that time in that town. This is a result of the major motif of honor throughout the story, and the fact that they are acquitted in the book. One example of honor being incredibly important to them is Pedro and Pablo wanting everyone to see Santiago be killed. This supports honor being important because they knew that everyone would know who did it if the murder was done this way, but Pedro and Pablo knew that it would be worth it as long as honor was restored to Angela.
I agree with your interpretation, the fact that they also got off from any punishment and cleared of their crime shows that at least the local area finds these actions justifiable. However, I wonder if their form of punishment came in some other sense. For example, Pedro went back into the military only to die soon after. Possibly this was a comment on the justifiability of their actions and society as a whole. Maybe while it was justified to the law, it wasn't something that will go without punishment.
DeleteIn chapter 3, a central focus of the chapter was honor. The honor of Bayardo and Angela, and most importantly the upholding of Angela’s honor through the killing of Santiago Nasar. This is a subject up for constant debate, even the two brothers are uncertain about their justification. At one point, one even attempts to try to call it off, saying that they had tried hard enough, yet the other convinced him to continue their pursuit of honor. This idea really made me think about the justifiability of honor, especially pertaining to this particular crime. Sure there is a different culture in Colombia, one that values honor much higher than place like the United States, but when looking at the reactions of people within the book when they hear Pablo and Pedro are going to kill Santiago, they react as if honor isn’t reason enough. Many people that hear the news think that it will never happen, that it isn’t reasonable, that the Vicario brothers won’t go through with it. On the other hand, those that do at least somewhat believe it, don’t take it seriously enough in order to truly warn Santiago and his family. In fact, those that do take action, take very little for they don’t truly think that the Vicario brothers intend to go through with the killing. To me, this shows that even the culture didn’t accept the Vicario brother’s use of honor as a just motive, yet in the end they are let free. This, to me, begs a question of what the author truly intends to get across from these actions.
ReplyDeleteNathan Mercer
DeleteI find your comments interesting about the question of honor justifying a murder. It is true that a lot of people didn't believe that the Vicario brothers would actually go through with killing Santiago Nasar, but I think that the people who did believe it would happen assumed that Santiago already knew. This is shown early in the book when it mentions that pretty much everyone in the town knew. The exceptions being Santiago and his mother.
Mia Kimura
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 3, I thought that honor being a justified legitimate motive for murder was interesting. The focus of this chapter was defending a family’s honor. This is an interesting concept as killing for honor is usually seen as an unjustified crime in our culture. Even though it may be more common in Colombia, the twins are hesitant to kill Santiago. This is shown by the amount of people they tell. It is as if they are purposely hoping to be caught before they actually take a man’s life. The twins reluctance is a moral struggle between defending the honor of their family and sister but also the fact that they are going to kill someone.
This is an interesting idea: where cultural values and personal values conflict. I totally agree with your analysis. The townspeople's reaction to this event as casual, shows that killing for honor is more or less accepted. However, the twin's reluctance shows that their personal, human values are at test. However, since the none of the town's people really tried to stop them, exemplifies that cultural values here rule over personal values. Good job.
Delete3.19.2018
ReplyDeleteThe group presentation of chapter 3 really opened my eyes of how much the idea of honor was prevalent. The parallels with The Doll’s House were especially interesting. For example, in A Doll’s house, when Torvald found out Nora’s IOU, his first reaction was the other people’s reaction and their perception of their family as a result of the instance. And in The Chronicles of the Death Foretold, the Vicario brothers solely tried to murder Santiago to restore their family honor stating, “It was a matter of honor.” (49) After all, not being a virgin when married is already a disgrace. However, when a rich man such as Bayardo sends the bride back on the wedding night, that is even worse. Preceding the line, Pablo said, “Before God and before men.” (49) Which means that the Vicario brothers cared about honor more than religion, showing the their culture’s values. Which also leads to the event of the Bishop event. On the day of, most people of the town looked forward to seeing the Bishop come. However, the attention did not span for a long time after the Bishop came. The topic that stuck with the town for years was the topic of the murder of Santiago: “For years we couldn’t talk about anything else.” Which exemplifies that the town cared about honor more than religion.
I like your points about the parallels between A Chronicle of A Death Foretold and A Doll's House. I definitely think that a lot of similarities can be seen between all of the works we've read so far this year. I thought that the extreme importance of honor was interesting and that it was strange that for the Vicario brothers', restoring their sister's honor in the manner that they did, overrode the fact that they were killing a defenseless and untried man. Maybe, similarly to A Doll's House, the appearance of honor is more important than anything else. This is could be supported by the fact that Pedro, upon being disarmed by the mayor, considered their duty fulfilled (69). It's the thought that counts, right? After that, his brother had to force him to continue on with their mission. I also thought it was interesting what was considered honorable and what was not. For example, if I was a nun, I don't think it would be very honorable to miss the Bishop's coming because I was to hungover. However, that's probably all part of the cultural thing...
DeleteI fully agree with the idea around the parallels between Chronicle of A Death Foretold and A Doll's House. I wonder if these parallels can be extended beyond that to other things we've read this year such as Taming of the Shrew. I can see the parallels between the importance of honor from Chronicle of A Death Foretold and A Doll's House in the form of familial obligation that also exists in Taming of the Shrew.
DeleteBy chapter 3 of a A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Márquez has established a commentary on gender roles in society. He points out the inequalities between men and women and how women’s voices are not regarded as significant in this era in Colombia, orm as Clotilde Armenta puts it, "how alone we women are in the world! (72)” In his tale, Márquez shows several examples of the inability of women to make their own choices and change things because of the attitudes towards them. Angela Vicario did not want to marry Bayardo and did not love him, but her arguments were overcome by her parents’ choice and the expectations of the entire village. The inequality between the sexes is also illustrated by the fact that Angela is expected to be a virgin when she is married, to have her “honor” intact, but for young unmarried men like the narrator and Santiago, it is acceptable for them to have lost their virginity long ago and keep constant company with the town prostitutes. Perhaps, Márquez was also making a commentary on the power of the rich and their ability to do anything without opposition. This is seen when Clotilde Armenta’s husband, upon hearing of the Vicario brothers’ scheme, says, “Those two aren’t about to kill anybody, much less someone rich (63).” This shows how the rich are perceived by the people who aren't rich: powerful and untouchable. Another example of both this issue and that of the gender roles is seen in Santiago’s interactions with Divina Flor. It seems that he is constantly harassing her, but she can’t or won’t stop him and she is resigned to the thought that she is “destined for (his) furtive bed (9).” One last example of the author’s commentary is how Clotilde Armenta tries to stop Santiago’s death. She tries in many different ways: she tells her husband, she tries to get Pedro and Pablo drunk, and she sends a messenger to Santiago’s house. However, she is either not successful in her endeavors or she is ignored. This shows both her lack of power and influence and the idea that fate is not something that we can escape. Several other people (men as well) made efforts to stop the murder but no one was successful in the end. Fate can't be changed.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter three of chronicle of a death foretold there is some heavy underlying commentary on the culture surrounding the importance of honor. It was interesting to see how the Pedro and Pablo could genuinely believe the value of honor is greater than that of the value of another human life and thus act on those beliefs and kill Santiago to supposedly restore Angela's honor. There was no other reason for them to try and kill him outside of restoring honor, as they say, "It was a matter of honor." It becomes more interesting because of the fact that killing Santiago doesn't actually change what happened to Angela yet somehow it restores honor. To me it would make more sense if it was out of revenge instead of restoring honor. It's not like after killing him, Angela can go back and marry Bayardo.
ReplyDeleteYou guys ARE an awesome group!! I love the discussion. Kate: I had not thought of your conspiracy idea before! I like it! :)
ReplyDeleteSam Kwak
ReplyDeleteI felt like part four had a lot of interesting symbols and details, some of which confused me, to be honest. If anyone has an idea on what the significance of the “medal of gold” in Santiago’s abdomen is (75) or if María Alejandrina Cervantes’ gluttony symbolizes anything (77), I would love to hear your thoughts as a response to this post. Two interesting things I did notice, however, were the prejudice against Arabs and Angela’s internal romantic struggle.
Although prejudice is not the most prevalent motif in the book, Márquez still uses it in order to make social commentary. Several characters display various prejudices throughout the novella, implying that they are an integral part to the society of that town as a whole. In part five, for instance, the narrator takes note of Fausta Lopez’s comment that Santiago thought his money made him untouchable, “[j]ust like all Turks” (101). In part four, Pedro Vicario also comments that he suspected that his brother’s diarrhea was “some trick of the Turks” (80). These examples of derogatory diction directed at the Arab community in the town make them seem as if they are arrogant and dishonorable. However, the narrator’s personal description of Arabs fits none of these qualities. Instead, he describes them as “peaceful” and “hard-working,” going on to elaborate on their perseverance and their respect for tradition (81). Nevertheless, nobody other than the narrator seems to share his view—the townspeople still were wary of possible attempts by Arabs to immolate the Vicario brothers in revenge of Santiago’s death despite the fact that Santiago Nasar’s family on his mother’s side “had bred more than two barroom killers who had been preserved by the salt of their name” (81). Through the public’s reluctance to believe in the character of the Arab community, Márquez comments that society is too quick to make negative judgements about people.
Part four also gives Angela a fresh start from her previous failed marriage. The narrator reveals Angela’s heartbreak, demonstrated by her tears and her “heart in shreds” (92). In describing her so, Márquez draws direct comparisons between Angela and Xius the widower, whose tears were “bubbling inside his heart” (37). As Xius represents love-based marriage, as opposed to the convenience-based found in other characters in the book, Márquez hints that maybe Angela and Bayardo San Román could have a real romance.
As the chapter approaches its end, Márquez continues to build the tone into one of crazed desperation through increasingly intense diction. For instance, the narrator’s description of Angela’s notes to Bayardo over the years evolve from “a fiancée’s notes” to “perfumed cards from a furtive sweetheart” to “love documents” to “the indignant letters of an abandoned wife who invented cruel illnesses to make him return” (94). Each description adds an air of yearning for Bayardo through desperate diction such as “indignant” and “abandoned.” The tone culminates with Angela’s “feverish” twenty-page letter to him, in which she mentions “the eternal scars he had left on her body, the salt of his tongue, the fiery furrow of his African tool” (94). Here, the sharp diction in “eternal scars” and “fiery furrow” demonstrate the intensity of Angela’s absolute need for Bayardo. In demonstrating Angela’s newfound romantic passion, Márquez claims that people should marry for love and not for convenience.
Gold is often associated with value as well as purity and wealth. I feel as though when they discovered Santiago's medal of gold that he had eaten from a childhood, not only did it show that since he was a child he was destined to become wealthy and held in high esteem by his neighbors and friends, but also furthers the idea of him being related to a Christ figure. The purity of the gold being found within him represents his pure spirit that resided within, possibly also being an indication of his innocence in terms of his accused affair with Angela. What do you think?
DeleteSam Kwak
DeleteI agree with you that the medal of gold is a symbol for Santiago's wealth. I still don't get why it's in been his abdomen from the age of four though—why couldn’t Márquez just have put the gold medal on Santiago’s nightstand along with his watch or something? Maybe it signifies that wealth is that deeply embedded into his character? Assuming this is true, it brings up some interesting discussion about prejudice against the rich in this book.
Not really much to say on chapter 4 to be completely honest. Oh wait, yes there is. While I was creating my part of my groups presentation, there was an idea that I couldn’t shake. The chapter seems to be split into two parts. The first part dealt with Santiago’s autopsy and the immediate aftermath of his death. The second part dealt mainly with Angela’s letters and the return of Bayardo. Kate sort of touched on this, however I did find this aspect completely intriguing. Why wouldn’t Marquez just start a new chapter? Well, each chapter tends to focus on a main idea and everytime the author starts a new chapter, generally a new idea or theme comes with it. Now chapter 4 is clearly centered on the guilt of the town, yet the second part seems far from related to the first. On a second, possibly third glance, however, when speaking of an overarching idea, the first and second part of the chapter are connected by the idea of guilt, as well as the aftermath of Santiago’s death (just the second part takes place 23 years after). The first part obviously dealt with the initial guilt of Pedro and Pablo (as well as their curing) and the guilt of the town manifested through the dogs and smell of Santiago. In the second part, it dealt more with Angela’s manifestation of guilt. As it is highly implied that Santiago wasn’t the one she had sex with, and even if he was, Angela holds this sense of shame and guilt of being the cause of his death, not even looking into the Narrator’s eyes 23 years later when asked if he was the one. In addition, the idea that she wrote those letters out of love for Bayardo also doesn’t quite fully add up. She never loved Bayardo before, and she even sabotaged her relationship with him by not faking her virginity, so why after Santiago was killed did she decide to write the letters? It seems to me, as mentioned previously, as an outlet and manifestation of her guilt. Thus, the two parts of the chapter aren’t quite as different as they initially seem. The overarching idea of guilt still remains prevalent throughout.
ReplyDeleteSam Kwak
DeleteIt seems that we had different interpretations of Angela’s behavior at the end. I think that you have some good ideas, and to your credit, the book doesn’t mention outright that Angela loved Bayardo, often referring to the one she loves as “him.” Building off of your ideas, I think that it’s possible that Angela fell in love with Santiago and feels posthumous guilt, and is actually writing accusational letters to Bayardo. In fact, the narrator’s description of her “feverish letter” (the one that’s twenty pages long) uses some interesting diction such as “bitter truths that she had carried rotting in her heart” and “eternal scars he had left on her body” (94). The angry, bitter diction that Márquez includes in this section contrasts from what the reader is supposed to think about how Angela feels with regards to Bayardo. Of course, we’ll never know what her true motives are, since Márquez never reveals to us exactly what is hidden in those letters, but I think this at least deserves a conversation. Very nice points, you made me reconsider what I thought about the second half of chapter four.
I do want to pose a question though: you mentioned that each chapter seems to have its own distinct ideas. If chapter four’s main idea is guilt, then what other main ideas do you see present in the other chapters?
Patrick Huang
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting aspects of Group four’s presentation was their notes on magical realism in the chapter and how it helped answer their investigate question of “To what extent should one feel guilt over their actions, especially if they are justified?” The group provided some fantastic evidence of how Marquez demonstrates the guilt that the Vicario brothers felt after killing Santiago through the magical stench of Santiago. “I can’t… you smell of him. (90)”
The Vicario brothers attempted to wash themselves of the stench, but like their guilt, “No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn’t get rid of the smell. (90)” Besides the Vicario brothers continually reeking of Santiago’s stench, the guilt is seen to be present among all the townspeople. “Not just I. Everything continued smelling of Santiago Nasar that day. (90)” Besides the unrealistic and magically realistic stench of Santiago, the bowel troubles of Pablo Vicario also added to the idea that the brothers were conflicted and guilty of their actions. Pedro Vicario recounts “He was turning into water right in front of me...Up till then he’d overflowed the portable latrine twice... (92)” This guilt afflicted Pedro as well as he “couldn’t stay there lying on the bed, but the same weariness prevented him from standing...he suffered the frightful certainty he wouldn’t sleep ever again for the rest of his life. (92)” The magical aspects of the afflictions that the Vicario brothers and townspeople suffered after Santiago’s murder represents their guilt. Marquez uses hyperbole to dramatize and emphasize the impact of Santiago’s murder on the people of the town, whether they were directly affected or not.
Nathan Mercer
DeleteI like your analysis of the points brought up during group four's presentation. Do you think that there was a reason the Vicario brothers had different bowel problems? Perhaps it could have had to do with what they did before the murder, trying to stop it or not. It could also be representative of how they dealt with the guilt.
Nathan Mercer
ReplyDeleteChapter four was full of interesting things. One motif that the group found was guilt. This is definitely a prominent motif in the book as it shows up all the time. One example of guilt was the smell of Santiago. The entire town can smell Santiago, and I think that the entire town is guilty for the death of Santiago, some people more than others. Pedro also says, “‘No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn’t get rid of the smell.’” This shows that Pedro is more guilty for the death of Santiago than the rest of the village, which makes sense. The rest of the village only smells him, but Pedro smells of him. Another thing I found interesting about the chapter 4 presentation was the comparison of Santiago to Christ. Not only does Santo mean Saint in Spanish, but his last name is similar to Nazareth, where Jesus was born. In addition to this, the group mentioned that Santiago had a wound in his side, which is very similar to when Jesus had his side pierced. This wound along with others that were similar to the Christ do show how much Gabriel García Márquez wanted to emphasize Santiago as representing Jesus. Just in case someone still didn’t recognize this comparison, Márquez practically slaps the reader in the face with this quote, “The report says: ;It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ.’” This part makes it incredibly obvious that Márquez wanted to compare Santiago to Jesus.
I also agree with your points about guilt. The guilt shows the humane aspect of the Vicario brothers even though they killed a person. I also thought that was interesting. Why do you think Marquez intended for Santiago to represent Jesus? Do you think that it was to make his death more as a sacrifice, as if he was a good man who died at the cost of other "sinners" or something else?
DeleteCole Jones
ReplyDeleteLike we presented in our presentation, guilt is the most important motif that we see throughout chapter 4. While there are certainly some other prominent motifs that present themselves throughout the chapter such as love, fate, and religion, ideas about guilt still seem to underpin the meaning of the whole chapter. As I mentioned in the presentation, this chapter is chronologically the last chapter of the story, meaning the events described in the chapter happen closest to the time of the narrator writing. Because of this fact, it stands to reason that this is the chapter that would focus the most on guilt. The entire chapter takes place in the days, weeks, and years after Santiago’s murder and it chronicles the feelings of everyone involved over time. I think one of the most interesting events in this chapter was Susana Abdala arriving and curing the Vicario brothers of their illnesses. The illnesses that they had both were symbolic of the guilt that they felt after the murder they committed, so them being cured of them makes it seem as if they are absolved of all their guilt. This idea is supported by the fact that later in the brother’s trial they seemed remorseless about the incident. I think Márquez made the choice of releasing the Vicarios from their guilt in order to emphasize the guilt of the rest of the townspeople. After all, the brothers committ the murder simply because the society and culture they live in is backwards enough to expect them to commit murder in order to restore their families honor. The brothers seemed to try everything they could to get somebody to stop them before they had to murder Santiago, yet the town stood idly by. Márquez absolves the brothers of their guilt in order to shift the blame for the murder towards the townspeople who did nothing to stop the murder, and even encouraged it in some cases.
In Chapter 4, Marquez associates magical realism with guilt in order to exhibit that even though their Vicario brother’s actions were justified, they felt a tremendous amount of guilt. For example, Pedro Vicario said: "No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn't get rid of the smell,” (78)showing that he suffered with the guilt of killing Santiago. After all, killing a human being has to have an effect on someone’s moral even if it is accepted in the culture to a degree. Of course, in reality, one would feel guilt, however they wouldn’t actually smell this guilt. The hyperbolic description through magical realism emphasizes to readers to show that the Vicario brothers retained somewhat humane aspects despite killing another human being. Similarly, as a result of the guilt, Pablo suffered from diarrhea. His brother said: "he’d overflowed the portable latrine twice...taken him to the town hall washroom another six times," (80) which is also another instance of magical realism. The overflowingness of the water represents the amount of guilt he felt - it overflowed. Killing a person, no matter what the reason, will cause some amount of trauma to a person.
ReplyDeletePatrick Huang
DeleteReally good points on the magical realism in the chapter. I agree with most of your points on the point and impact of magical realism on the themes in the chapter. Just like how I talked about it in my own blog post, I agree that the fact that the Vicario brothers could not rid themselves of Santiago’s stench was symbolic of the guilt that they felt. Also like in my blog post, the idea of diarrhea being magically realistic in symbolism is also something I agree with. After all, a person in real life wouldn’t feel that affected by diarrhea would they? Good analysis!
Cole Jones
ReplyDeleteI agree with your interpretation of the meaning and purpose behind Márquez’s use of magical realism in this chapter of the book. Using magical realism in this scenario certainly helps to extend the guilt that the brothers were feeling to a hyperbolic extent. The elements of magical realism also give a way for their guilt to manifest itself in physical form for the readers to see. My question to you would be why does that woman Susana come and cure them of their illnesses? Why does Márquez choose to eliminate their guilt?
That was supposed to be a reply to Vienyen. Whoops.
DeleteDuring the group presentation of Chapter 5, I thought it was interesting when they brought up the idea of fate, and how Santiago was not able to escape that. It is known that Cristo Bedoya never shot a gun before, yet he "decided to take the revolver and bring it to Santiago Nasar”(106) in order help protect him. Unfortunately, the gun was not loaded, thus it would deem as a useless tool. In addition to this, the gun acted as a hindrance to Santiago’s attempt to survive. “He tried to run but was hindered by the revolved, which clumsily stuck in his belt.” (110) It is ironic how the gun’s purpose was to save him ultimately led him to his death. Either way, he would have died anyways, gun or no gun. Cristo Bedoya's attempt to save Santiago with the gun shows that even though one attempts to fight their fate, they cannot escape it because it was predetermined.
ReplyDeletePatrick Huang
DeleteGood work! Reading your blog post finally allowed me to realize what I was missing in my own analysis. Irony! What I was trying to say about the symbolism of the revolver and it being an obstacle to Cristo was a perfect example of situational irony. Marquez used situational irony here to showcase how something that Cristo brought along to help Santiago Nasar ironically turned out to hinder his attempts to help. I believe Marquez used situational irony here to show how even when a person tries to save someone else, fate cannot be changed and the events bound to happen will still happen.
You had some great points about the irony of Cristo's actions. I think that there were a lot of instances of this kind of irony that led his (Santiago's) death in other ways as well and it does seem that the author is making a point that fate is inescapable. I wonder if this can be seen in other characters' lives in the book. Maybe Bayardo, in that he was fated to be with Angela (and that's why he came back)? Throughout the book, I've thought it was interesting that Santiago, whose fate it was to die, did not realize it and therefore did not fight to escape it. Most other people didn't fight it either, but the ones who did failed. Maybe the author was saying that one cannot change someone else's fate for them. It makes me wonder if Santiago would have been able to escape his death if he had realized it was coming.
DeletePatrick Huang
ReplyDeleteThe investigative question of Group 5 “How do societies react to events that they are responsible for?” was very interesting and exposed me to the many different symbols present throughout chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. For example, I had never considered Santiago Nasar’s revolver as especially symbolic or important, but this group brought up many good points about it. For example, Cristo Bedoya says “ I’d never shot a gun, but I decided to take the revolver and bring it to Santiago Nasar (126).” Then on page 128, Cristo Bedoya says “If I’d known how to shoot a revolver, Santiago nasar would be alive today.” Finally on page 131, Cristo Bedoya was described with “He tried to run but was hindered by the revolver, which was clumsily stuck in his belt.” These quotes support the idea that revolver is symbolic of the obstacles in between Cristo saving Santiago. Cristo Bedoya did not know how to shoot a gun, which symbolizes one failure of his attempt to save Santiago Nasar. Furthermore, even though Cristo had no idea had to shoot the revolver, he still brought the weapon with him which would eventually contribute to his failure to prevent Santiago’s murder. The revolver hindered his movement and made it harder for Cristo to warn Santiago. Overall, Cristo’s recounting of the revolver hindering his attempts is symbolic of his guilt towards the situation. While he may explicitly believe he did all he could to save Santiago, his mind may blame circumstances such as the revolver to hide the implicit truth that he may be guilty in Santiago’s death.
The whole town's actions created a great example of dramatic irony. Although they did nothing to warn Santiago, which screws him over, their attempts to rescue him end up accomplishing nothing and represent how he's fated to die. Instead of only trying to help him during the murder, they should have done so before. These incidents provide great examples for the motif that society's expectations often fail to portray reality accurately.
DeleteCole Jones
DeleteI enjoyed your blog because it looks specifically at one symbol within the chapter. Christo Bedoya’s conscience weighs him down in the years after the murder just as the gun had weighed him down while trying to save Santiago Nasar. This chapter is full of other great examples of peoples guilty conscience staying with them almost indefinitely. While the townspeople may never be punished by the law for their failure to save Santiago, their conscience certainly will.
Cole Jones
ReplyDeleteI especially enjoyed how Chapter 5 of this Chronicle of a Death Foretold describes the collective guilt that the townspeople experience after the death of Santiago. It seems that for each person, their guilt manifests itself in a different, and mostly hyperbolic way. At the very beginning of Chapter 5, the narrator writes “...none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (96). Just before, the narrator also mentions that the townspeople “couldn’t talk about anything else.” Together, these sentences help to set the tone for the entire chapter, chronicling the guilt of various townspeople. Every townsperson that the narrator talks about feels in some way that they could have done something to stop Santiago’s death. It is because of this that the townspeople feel that they themselves are fated to be punished for not stopping the murder. This obsession over their own guilt and fate drives many of the townspeople to become afflicted in strange ways. Hortensia Baute ends up running “naked into the street” (97), and Flora Miguel “ran away out of spite with a lieutenant of the border patrol” (97). There is also Aura Villeros, who had to use a catheter to urinate for the rest of her life due to the shock of Santiago’s death. Much of the rest of the Chapter is spent describing the various fates of the townspeople as they try to come to terms with their role in Santiago’s death. In most cases, the effects of this guilt is very hyperbolic. The hyperbole is very much so a part of the magical realism that is found throughout this book. It certainly is not normal for somebody to have to use a catheter for the rest of their life out of shock and guilt, yet Márquez includes this detail in order to demonstrate the townspeople’s guilt in a physical way. In a way, because the townspeople can’t be held legally responsible the various afflictions they gain as a result of the murder serve as their form of punishment. The point Márquez is making that even if people don’t directly receive punishment for not helping others, ultimately the punishment will come from within.
Sam Kwak
DeleteYou have some great examples; what about Victoria Guzman, though? She hates on Santiago throughout the book, showing no remorse for his death. Notably, when Cristo asks her where he is in order to warn him, Victoria attempts to brush aside his concerns, claiming that “Those poor boys won’t kill anybody” (105). What effect do you think it had to have Victoria secretly rooting for his death while everyone else seems to be feeling guilty? My pet theory is that most neutral townspeople only feel bad about his death because it’s polite (and maybe even a little bit because Santiago is respected due to his wealth)—as seen in their half-hearted attempts to stop the murder. Victoria, on the other hand, who is familiar with his personal life and what he does to her daughter, doesn’t play along with this game.
Nathan Mercer
ReplyDeleteSomething I found interesting about the chapter 5 presentation was the idea of whether or not Santiago was Jesus. On one hand, there are many passages that lead the reader to believe that Santiago is indeed Jesus. One example of this is, “The knife went through the palm of his right hand” (139). This passage is from the part of the book where the Vicario brothers are killing Santiago Nasar. For some reason Santiago is stabbed through the palm of his hand. The reason for this happening is probably a representation of how Santiago is portrayed as the Christ because Jesus had nails go through the palms of his hands. Another example that points to Santiago being represented as Jesus is him waking up the day he would be murdered with a headache. This is similar to the crown of thorns that Jesus had to wear before he was crucified. However, there is also parts of the book where Santiago does things that aren’t what Jesus would do. On page 139, Santiago says, “Sons of bitches!” Since it is common practice among Christians to not swear, it does seem odd that Santiago would swear considering he is portrayed as being Jesus. Another interesting point that is brought up is that he seems to have affairs with other women, which breaks one of the ten commandments. There’s no definitive answer as to whether or not Santiago is a Christ figure, but there are points to be made on both sides of the discussion.
I agree with your points. This led to think of the effect of Jesus parallels with Santiago on his characterization. Perhaps because Jesus was crucified unjustly, it could be a hint that Santiago was unjustifiably accused of taking Angela's virginity and being murdered. However, the evidence pointing against his image as a Jesus figure adds to the ambiguity of whether or not he actually did deserve his crime. What do you think the purpose of the conflicting evidence serves as?
DeleteIn chapter 5, I found the conflict and strong suggestion of Santiago’s innocence quite intriguing. In many ways, Santiago was thought to be quite innocent. The narrator notes that “...when he finally learned at the last moment that the Vicario brothers were waiting for him to kill him, his reaction was… bewilderment of innocence.” (118). The author even says that his “personal impression is that he died without understanding his death.” (118). Obviously this cannot be understated. While it is the supposed opinion of the narrator as well as coming from his perspective on the situation, the author did not include these details for no reason. Every detail has a reason, in this instance, the author included the narrator’s suggestion of innocence in order to strongly suggest the true nature of the situation. Furthermore, Santiago is also described as Christ like and even the way he died was fairly innocent. On page 139 “I’d given it to him [knife stabs] at least three times and there wasn’t a drop of blood.” The clean knives and lack of blood are symbolic of his innocence. However, it is never completely resolved if Santiago was truly innocent. In the end, he did bleed, and Angela always insisted it was him. Furthermore, not everyone thought Santiago was innocent, Polo Carrillo “thought that his serenity wasn’t innocence but cynicism.” In the end, we will never truly know if Santiago was innocent, but an inference can be strongly supported that he was.
ReplyDeleteNathan Mercer
DeleteI like your points about how Santiago didn't even know why he was killed, assuming he was innocent. It does makes it seem odd that the Vicario brothers would go after Santiago without any proof that he was the actual one who took Angela's virginity.
Sam Kwak
ReplyDeleteWhen finishing the last chapter of this book, I felt an overwhelming sense of finality. Maybe it’s because the ending’s been beaten into us five times, but I think that Marquez also includes several elements that add to that inescapable feeling. My group presentation touched upon certain symbols such as the revolver and the note which tie in to the motif of fate, but one thing that we didn’t mention was the motif of time. The narrator often notes the time of day seemingly without purpose throughout the novella, but in fact, Marquez intentionally includes this in order to build tension up until Santiago’s death. Ibsen also included a similar element in A Doll’s House, but to a different effect: Nora’s internal countdown to the dance in his play intensifies the frenetic mood, like when you’re trying to rush to turn in your supervised write on time, while in Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the periodic mentions of the time of day bring a sense of inevitability, like when you know you bombed your supervised write and just sit there, thinking, Oh well.
In chapter five, for instance, when Cristo Bedoya makes his rounds around the town in search of Santiago Nasar to warn him on page 106, Marquez chooses to mention the time, 6:56, to create a subtle tension within the reader. Halfway down the page, Marquez again notes the time, this time 6:58. This may seem like a small difference, but by including these small details, the author builds tension until Santiago’s death. In the last line of the final page, the narrator indicates that “[Santiago] went into his house through the back door that had been open since six and fell on his face in the kitchen” (120). By saying that the back door had been open since six, Marquez both releases tension as the story comes down from the climax, as well as emphasizes the inevitability of it all: almost as if the doorframe had been waiting for him to stagger through since before Santiago knew he would die.
I also think it’s important that Santiago left his watch on his nightstand before he went out. Without it, Santiago is left without a clear sense of time, which corresponds to a lack of awareness about his death.
I agree with your sense of finality about this chapter. For me, it definitely felt like this was it; it was over. On top of your points, I also think that the detail the narrator goes into about actual killing lends to this feeling. A lot of details are described about his death and the events leading up to it in this book, but this chapter is the one that finally explicitly describes Santiago's final moments. I also thought that it was interesting how the book ends with Santiago falling on his face in the kitchen. It is a very abrupt ending and maybe is supposed to reflect how Santiago's life was also cut off so suddenly. The author was able to tell us about what happened in the years after the murder and also end the book along with the end of Santiago's life by writing in the strange non-chronological way that he did. So it's interesting that there's so much detail about time in the book because the author/narrator, in a way, writes without regard for it (or least without regard for chronological order).
DeleteIn chapter 5, the themes of guilt and honor/reputation are again very central just as they were in chapter 4. The very first line says that “for years (they, the townspeople) couldn't talk about anything else (113).” The entire town dwelt on that event; their “daily conduct...began to spin around a single common anxiety(113).” The narrator says that they tried to “give order to the chain of many chance events that had made absurdity possible (113).” They felt guilty for the death of Santiago and explained the events that happened as a bunch of coincidences. People consoled themselves by saying that matters of honor like this were not their business. Almost everyone felt some level of guilt. Some had health problems, went insane, or died. Santiago’s mother never forgave herself for missing the bad omens in his dreams. An interesting parallel that the author creates is that of Santiago’s relationship with his fiancé and Angela and Bayardo’s relationship. Both of these girls were engaged by their families more than by their own choice. The chest of “loveless letters (134)” that Flora Miguel returns to Santiago contrasts the briefcase of letters that Bayardo has from Angela after she falls in love with him. Angela’s honor has supposedly been taken by Santiago and that is what makes Flora so angry at him because she feels that his (supposed) actions have brought shame upon him and maybe herself as well.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I thought was interesting in this chapter was the explicit and aloof manner in which the narrator describes the murder. It seems strange that even after years and years, the narrator is willing to describe every gruesome detail of the killing (not to mention the killing of an old friend). This could reflect the apathetic attitude of the people as they watched the murder and did nothing to stop it.
I really like your insights into the narrator. It is interesting to think of the narrator as a general representation of the town. They have the feeling that he is innocent, they didn't stop the murder, but they were aware of it. This could be a very interesting literary device that Marquez decided to use to show the feelings of the town.
DeleteThe most intriguing passage found in chapter five, found on page 118, discusses Santiago’s attitude the morning of the murder. The narrator seems to point to the conclusion that there is no way Santiago couldn’t have inferred his own coming death. This line in particular confuses me: “So the murdered man’s refusal to worry could have been suicide.” This whole convoluted story full of miscommunication and disputed honor ends still in confusion, and the motives of any character remain unclear. Possibly Santiago considered himself too wealthy or significant, or even insignificant, to be killed. He completely underestimates the twins’ reaction to their sister’s loss of virginity, supposedly at his hands. It is interesting that he knew Angela had named him as the perpetrator and yet made no attempt to either clear his name or make reparations. It is unfortunate that this story is clouded with the fallibility of memory, and therefore that one is unable to know the motives and truths behind every character.
ReplyDeleteJeremiah Hammerberg
ReplyDeleteCommonality between passages seem hard to uncover at first. My passage, about the guilt the Vicario brothers felt after killing Santiago, seems hardly similar to the previous two passages shown to us. Besides the continuation of the plot, what similarities do these passages have? In reality these passages have a common idea, or more accurately, a person in mind: Santiago Nasar. All of these passages (the ones we have seen so far that is) deal with Santiago in some form or another. Passage 1, for instance, deals with the character of Santiago. With the incident between Divina Flor and him, it establishes the kind of character Santiago is. He is a rich man that gets almost anything he wants, and people accept this idea and even take it as a truth In addition it also deals with the idea of his innocence. As the group mentioned, a lot of the animal imagery associated with Santiago might hint at his character, and his association with Divina Flor, may show that he is capable of having an affair with a woman (in this case Angela Vicario). This idea of his innocence is continued in my passage, passage 3, in which it deals with the conflict the brothers have over his death, yet inevitably they feel guilt free of their actions. Possibly this shows that they had made the right choice, and he was, in fact, the perpetrator as Angela said he was. Overall, while commonality between passages may seem obscure at first, when taking a deeper look at the passages, it becomes clear there are similarities through and through.
Sam Kwak
DeleteMan, I wish I knew what page your passage was on! In passage one, though, you mentioned how the narrator characterizes Santiago as having this rich, cool boy attitude. However, most everybody in the town seems to like him as a person, save for Victoria Guzman, who very much hates the man. Actually, I think this sentiment carries down to her daughter too—that is, Divina Flor may carry some quiet inner hatred of him. Clue number one is that the narrator notes that her reason for not warning Santiago of his impending death was that “she was nothing but a frightened child at the time, incapable of a decision on her own” (13). I think this is a pretty flimsy answer—I mean, the girl’s not seven years old, she definitely could have told him (at least, I really, really hope that she’s not seven). Clue number two comes right before Santiago approaches her physically: she tries to get ahead of him in order to open the door, and ostensibly to avoid getting trapped. She clearly doesn’t like the sensation, but instead may just have to tolerate it because of the fact that her mom is Santiago’s cook—which brings me to my theory: that Divina Flor takes after her mother and actually purposely avoided telling Santiago, because at least a small part of her inside, consciously or not, wanted him to go away. Maybe it’s because he’s rich, or because of the way he swaggers about like he owns everything, or a combination. I think the book mentions somewhere that Divina has some sort of attraction to Santiago, but I think that, rather than defining her relationship with him, it only muddies her opinions of him.
Something I found interesting, though, was why exactly Marquez made Santiago an Arab. He could have easily excluded that fact and made him into the trope of a rich jerk, but I think he added the fact that he’s a minority in the town to be a humanizing factor, and to prove that not everything is so black-and-white.
Sam Kwak
ReplyDeleteAlthough both the presented passage which detailed the events of Angela Vicario’s wedding (pp. 40-41) and my passage which described the flooded Palace of Justice in Riohacha (p.98-99) comment on the corruption of virtue, they ultimately give different messages. In passage two (the presented passage), the narrator speaks of how Angela dressed up in her bridal gown, veil, and orange blossoms—which signified purity—despite having confessed to her family earlier that she had lost her virginity to Santiago Nasar. When this news became public, however, the townspeople purportedly saw this as a “profanation of the symbols of purity” (Marquez 41). Similarly, passage five (my passage) delineates the Palace of Justice in Riohacha where the murder report was stored. The area had flooded over, and was in disrepair, which the narrator evidences through his description of the place as “squalid,” “decrepit,” and “deserted” (98-99). With the Palace as a symbol for Justice itself, the passage illustrates how, in that town, justice had been neglected and left to deteriorate. Thus, both passages contain examples of perversions of virtue.
However, this is not to say that the two share a common message. The narrator commends the “profanation” of purity on Angela’s part, commenting that she “dared to put on the veil and the orange blossoms” (41). Marquez’s decision to use the verb “dare” indicates that the narrator regards Angela to be both justified and respectable. Further, the narrator later refers to the action as an “act of courage” (41). Through such diction, the narrator again supports Angela’s actions to preserve her own dignity. In contrast, the narrator condemns rather than commends the debasement of justice in passage five.While he avoids making direct commentary on the flooded Palace, he refers to the building as a “lagoon of lost causes” (99). The use of lamentable diction reveals the narrator’s hidden opinion on the Palace: it is a shame that the place has fallen into such disrepair. As the Palace symbolizes the idea of justice itself, this opinion extends to how the townspeople have failed to respect justice in their society. Thus, although the two passages both include instances of corruptions of virtue, they have different arguments as to whether that “corruption” is justified in each case.
I too find it interesting the relatively same ideas, yet different messages portrayed in the different passages. I think Marquez is trying to point out the lack of consensus there is on any one idea, especially when it comes from personal accounts of an event, or opinions on a topic. As there are many hot button topics of today, so were there back then.
DeletePatrick Huang
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I noticed in common between the first passage and the second passage was the usage of characterization to suggest characters’ relationships with the murder of Santiago. For example, I noticed that Marquez used lots of weak and fear diction when describing Divina Flor to implicate that she justified her failure to warn Santiago with her fear of him. For example, Divina Flor described herself as “nothing but a frightened child at the time, incapable of a decision of her own. (13)” Divina Flor describes herself as a child, as inexperienced and unknowing of what to do in such a stressful situation. This is further described with “she didn’t have the courage to look at anything else. (14)” Diction supports the idea that fear and inexperienced prevented Divina Flor from helping out Santiago. I found this characterization using diction as similar to what Marquez did in Chapter 2 when describing Angela and Bayardo before and after the wedding. The group in charge of chapter 2 brought up an interesting point about the change of diction Marquez uses to describe Angela before and after the wedding. Marquez uses the word “angel” to describe Angela before and then “creature” after the wedding. This change of diction, while subtle, effects the reader by suggesting a change in the innocence and morality of Angela. Before the wedding, while she had her lost her virginity, this was no crime as she was not bethrotled to any man. After the wedding however, this became a crime as a wife was expected to be pure for her husband.