As expected for a book written focusing in on a genre of magical realism, it opens by stating blatantly the dismal future set for Santiago Nasar. Gabriel Marquez writes “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on” (Gabriel Marquez, 1). It could have said instead “On the day they were going to go bowling...” or “On the day they were going to go eat lunch with friends…,” the so blatant way of putting things made for little mystery. This lack for both suspense and resolution is what for me made this book so...odd. Can’t say I like it or I don’t, but the straightforward diction of just stating the scene how it was, beginning with Santiago feeling as if he was “...spattered with bird shit” (Marquez, 1) on the very first page- maybe it was a bit too real already. The way the narrator tells the story of Santiago Nasar and his tragedy the more a reader hopes. Beginning by saying some guy is going to die, at least for me, is tactless, and personally, I think that is what made the story so unappealing at first. At the same time, it was knowing what was going to happen that made me hope; that maybe, just maybe, because I was reading this book that, Santiago Nasar was NOT going to die. Spoiler alert- that’s not how it works. It’s part of human nature to hope and look towards a better future, and I think that Chronicle of a Death Foretold plays on our tendency as humans to believe and hope. Tactful? Or tactless? I mean basically it’s a narrative recounting the last day of a guy’s life- if we know what’s going to happen why do we care? That’s the thing- by putting the fact of Santiago’s death in the first sentence of the book the author eliminates instantly any reader who feels they know what’s happened. What’s left of the group of readers are those who can take an event and break it down into all the factors that added up to cause it. This may be way too inferring of me to say but, I think Gabriel Marquez is trying to teach people to understand the significance of their actions.
I also was struck and thrown off-balance by the bluntness and winding plot and narration in CODF. There is hardly any suspense set up in this novel, which is a foreign concept in the majority of literature we read. Writing, especially modern writing, grabs your attention with flashy and dramatic characters and plots, and keeps your focus by heightening suspense. If this book was not a required one, I probably would not have made it 10 pages, because my interest never peaked. However, one of my favorite books of all time -Catch 22-, is similar to CODF in its extremely confusing, fragmented, and stream-of-conscious like narration. While reading and comprehending CODF is more difficult than most other books I've read, the very same challenge interests me and makes the reader look past plot progression and suspension in terms of enjoyment of a story. While Gabriel Garcia's writing is heavily influenced by his Latin American roots, his stream of consciousness approach to narration and plot progression is one shared by many authors such as James Joyce (Ulysses). I'd also like to talk about symbols, especially because symbols are often tied directly to magical realism. The reader is thrown into a chaotic, foreign world where a man is destined for death and while timing and logical exposition isn't portrayed by our unknown narrator, a great deal of symbols are. There are many, some significant, and a lot that seem to simply be thrown out there because the narrator likes misdirection, but most notable are bird, weaponry, and dreamlike diction. For bird diction, the initial maxim 'flight is freedom' comes to mind, provided by Santiago's loving mother- "Any dream about birds means good health" (pg. 6). Santiago has an affinity for falconry, which is interesting and ironic because of the nature and premise of falcon-taming. As we all know from The Taming of the Shrew, falconry is entirely contingent on dependence, and this dependence keeps the falcon from its freedom. In Santiago’s dream he is “alone in a tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into them.” (pg. 4). Santiago’s mother doesn’t notice any omens in this, nor does Santiago, but the narrator points this out in a way that seems as if there was an obvious omen to be seen in Santiago’s dreams. The irony from Santiago’s love of falconry and his own dreams of flying comes from his inability to see the omens in his dreams, and his lack of freedom, and eventual death. The almond trees symbolize youthful impetuousness, and because he didn’t hit them in his dream, it can be inferred that even though he didn’t butt heads with his 21 year old rash nature, his death still came. Or you can simply believe that his dream had some other ominous quality to it and that he might have dreamt about drowning the town in his tears, magical realism is pretty hard to evaluate and comprehend. Lastly, the mention of his father’s pistol falling out of a pillowcase and hitting the floor and obliterating half of the house is another subtle nod at magical realism. The magical bullet that causes Santiago to carry his gun unloaded probably wouldn’t actually do the damage it ended up doing, but the line between reality and magic is danced upon, so we might as well dance with them and enjoy ourselves some.
I also saw Marquez' use of bird symbolism when he talks about falconry. He then later refers to Victoria Guzman, Santiago's fathers former mistress, as needing to be tamed. This is also a connection to Taming of the Shrew when Petruchio tries to tame Kate throughout the entire play.
Reply to Julia's post: I also agree with you. The end of the first chapter when they hear that he was killed makes you almost want to stop reading, because what more is their to write? Although the writing style of first telling the whole story and the flashing back is effective for some readers. It makes the reader want to know things that weren't talked about, which in a way adds its own suspense. For example one question I had was who is the bride and what's her side of the story?
I have to agree with you about not making it ten pages if it wasn't required... it's hard to want to read something where we already know what "happens." But, after about ten times, I got into it--hopefully you will, too! :) :)
One thing that stood out to me while reading chapter one of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, was how everyone who knew that Santiago was going to get killed, did not do anything to prevent his death. Margot states, If I’d known, I would have taken him home with me even if I had to hog-tie him” (20). This line symbolizes what the people in the town decided to do when they found out about killing. Margot says what she would have done, although this is false. She would like to think she would try to prevent it, but in reality she would just act like everyone else in the town and leave it up to the next person. The events leading up to his death all come from individual’s perspectives. These perspectives do not match up with each other, and at one point cannot even agree on what the weather was like on that day. This fragmentation of social responsibility also corresponds with the fragmentation of social responsibility. This social responsibility plays out when Pedro and Pablo do not actually want to kill Santiago, but they feel it is their duty in defending the family honor to attempt the murder. Marquez says, “...had been returned to the house of her parents, because her husband had discovered that she wasn’t a virgin” (21). He later states, “The only thing they knew for sure was that Angela Vicario’s brothers were waiting for him to kill him” (21). The brothers seem to do everything they can to inspire the townsfolk to prevent them from killing him. Each member in the society instead of helping, leaves it up to the next person to prevent the murder. The failure to prevent Santiago's death is a failure of every individual within the society. Even the priest and mayor are too self-absorbed to stop a simple, unjust, easily preventable killing.
One interesting thing that I noticed in the first chapter is how calm these people who knew about Santiago’s murder seemed. One of the witnesses was Victoria Guzman who didn't admit she knew about the planned murder until a few years later. She says ¨They (her and her daughter) had been told it by a woman who had passed by after five o’clock to beg a bit of milk, and who in addition had revealed the motives and the place where they were waiting¨ (Marquez 12-13). She then said that she didn't warn him because she thought it was drunkards’ talk. The magical realism is huge right here! A normal person would think it was strange that a random woman is giving them exact details about a planned murder. Most people wouldn't shake this off, especially if the motives could possibly be a reason that someone would kill someone or maybe go to that location and see if the men are waiting there. Another person who knew about the planned murder was the mayor. He said that he figured it was a fib since Santiago seemed safe and sound. It is crazy for even the mayor to know this and do nothing about it. This whole first chapter perfectly illustrates a human's tendency to neglect a rising problem until something bad happens. Magical realism portrays this to an extreme because most people would not ignore a murder. The way Marquez wrote this chapter is interesting because every little detail foreshadows Santiago dying. For example, his mother misinterprets his dream, which seemed to never happen since she was a famous dream interpreter. Also him leaving his bullets and gun at home, barely missed the letter that explain everything about the murder, and leaving out the wrong door. The whole story is told in the first chapter, but there seems to be missing information and parts that don’t fit together, so the rest of the book should piece things together.
Before I start, I must admit that I have not read the book entirely. (sorry Mrs. Ballard!) I’ll try to read ahead of the class for now on so everything that is typed is speculations I have made. The first thing I noticed is that it seems that the 1st person narrator does not have a set name. He goes around collecting information about the murder from others who witnessed the event. This leads me to hypothesize that the different chapters will tell the story from different perspectives, because Mrs. Ballard stated how it also is weird that the times seem to jump between chapters, so I figure the perspective may vary as well. Also, I noticed the color white as a symbol. Santiago wore a white hat today and a lady also said he “looked like a ghost” (page 15). I think the term white or ghost symbolizes death and you don’t know when your time is up. This mentioning could let the audience know to watch out how color foreshadows different meanings. In terms of importance, just like Dolls house, the complexity of names matter. I mean, look at the people who killed him- Pablo and Pedro.
In Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the ideas of realism are already shown. In real life, the memories of people are often flawed and little details are often forgotten about a setting. Given a long enough time, even the major details of a setting can be distorted and forgotten. In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Santiago’s mother thought that it was raining. The author writes, “The only thing that interested his mother about the bishop’s arrival, on the other hand, was for her son not to get soaked in the rain, since she’d heard him sneeze while he was sleeping” (Marquez 8). On the same page is written, “Victoria Guzman, the cook, was sure that it hadn’t rained that day, or during the whole month of February” (Marquez 8). Just like in real life, memory is not perfect, and major things like the weather on the day that the bishop arrived and a man was killed can be forgotten or skewed. Both Victoria and Santiago’s mother are convinced that their version of the weather was correct. On this same page, elements of magical realism also start to appear. Santiago’s mother is very superstitious and believes that there are signals and signs that can be seen to predict the future. The fact that Santiago’s mother is worried about him getting soaked because he sneezed in his sleep rather than actually seeing the rain shows that she believes in these magical occurrences.
While reading chapter two, I noticed the specific characterization techniques Marquez uses when describing Angela Vicario’s family. This characterization creates sympathy amongst the readers. Marquez writes that, “her father was a poor man's goldsmith, and he had lost his sight from working to keep the honor of the house"(33). Angela’s father is blind, and sacrificed his eye sight for his family's sake. This characterization creates sympathy not only for her father, but also Angela as she was raised in a family accustomed to suffering. The reader can also draw conclusions about Angela based on how her parents are described and act. For example, she is raised with a selfless father, which means she is also selfless and have the spirit for sacrifice. Marquez characterizes Angela’s mother as a women who, "devoted herself with such spirit of sacrifice to the care of her husband and the rearing of her children that at times she forgot she still existed"(33). Much like the father, Marquez portrays Angela’s mother as a very selfless, devoted person who willingly sacrifices herself for the good of the family. The mother has many duties including taking care of the children and aiding her blind husband, therefore, she does not have time to spend on herself. Ultimately, this means that Angela is raised to think there is very little room for herself when she gets married and has a family. This means she must also sacrifice for her family, and go marry a rich man who she does not really love. Marquez justifies her family’s pushy nature by telling the reader their entire history of poverty and suffering, trying to make it justifiable that their daughter sacrifice her happiness and marry a wealthy man. I also found it interesting how Marquez does not portray Bayardo positively. He describes him as a ‘devil’ and ‘concealed’.
Do you have pity on the Vicario family? I have to agree when you say that the "characterization creates sympathy not only for her father, but also Angela as she was raised in a family accustomed to suffering," however I do not feel any sympathy for Angela. She has been raised to become a wife- she didn't want to marry Bayardo but does because he's rich. Although Pura doesn't like Bayardo and creates the condition "that Bayardo San Roman should identify himself properly" (Marquez 35), she must also give into societal expectations and norms- to marry her daughter off to someone that could support her financially. In any case her mother is painted as a decent, logical person for her daughter to look up to, but in my opinion, Angela has learned nothing of honesty and integrity. Afterall, Pura beats up Angela, and yet she drags Santiago into her situation by telling Pedro he had beat her. I just don't see how Angela could be so selfish as to only think of herself and drag an innocent person into her affairs. In anycase, I think that Bayardo is portrayed blatantly as a bad dude just as you mentioned, but in addition, Marquez also characterizes Angela as a conceited, selfish person but through her actions rather than through words.
I think that the relationship between Angela and her mother is one that you would have to understand at the time. I agree with Julia when she says that Angela is selfish to drag someone else into her problems but she was originally put in this whole situation because of her mother. Angela is distressed because she cant choose her own life and she has no control, so throwing someone under the bus was probably all she could do to get the attention off of her.
So chapter 2 threw me for quite a few loops- Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario and their whole situation... Very odd. Bayardo San Roman is someone with a very peculiar personality- he arrives in the town “Nobody knew what he’d come for. Someone who couldn’t resist the temptation of asking him, a little before the wedding, received the answer: ‘I’ve been going from town to town looking for someone to marry’” (Gabriel Marquez, 28). I mean who’s got the time to do that? I think Gabriel Marquez was being a bit more magical than realistic. Okay moving on from that, the woman he wants to marry, Angela Vicario, is equally interesting, and by that I mean strange. I was merrily reading along and came upon this line, “...She had been born like the great queens of history…” and I was like ‘uh huh sure’ and then the sentence finishes “...with the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck” (Marquez 35). What the hecky- is that some sort of sign of nobility; everyone should strive to be born strangled by their umbilical cord? How very odd. It took me a while to understand what that could’ve meant, but I think it was just a metaphor, it’s like Angela’s mother said on page 34- “They’re perfect… Any man will be happy with them because they’ve been raised to suffer” (Marquez 34). In other words, growing up with struggle, will give you a thicker skin. How true was that for those sisters who “...had been reared to get married” I’m not sure. In any case, Bayardo San Roman wants to marry Angela Vicario, Angela doesn’t want to marry Bayardo, but no one cares what she thinks; they get married, and she’s not a virgin; she get’s beat up by Pura and when asked who beat her up by her brother Pedro, she says it was Santiago Nasar. That’s how the chapter ends leaving a lingering suspense that looms over the reader. Up until now, Santiago Nasar up until now, has been depicted as some status quo guy, who likes to talk about how great the weather is and have happy dreams about a light drizzle in the woods. And then in a sudden turn of events wake up and feel like he’s being pooped on by a bird. I mean the guy is seen as so human, has dreams, and then things just don’t go his way. I remember reading this chapter the first time around- ending the chapter with Angela blaming Santiago made me wonder- what did he ever do to her?
I love your monologue and interactions with the characters and what they say, I do pretty much the same thing. The most shocking and overarching quote that envelops the oddities of this chapter for me is "The Vicario boys were raised to be men, and the daughters were raised to be married". Sexism and other societal garbage behind, this quote made me stop and realize that this isn't a story about some magical Colombian town where dreams and reality interplay, but it's a world that has existed, with all of its ugly and unequal ways, and then the reason for Santiago's murder goes from one that we disregard because of all of the magical connotations to one that deals with honor and pride. This chapter took the story, at least for me, from one that didn't have much point and seemed to be floating in limbo to one where double standards for women lead to a wife being beaten on the night of her wedding. This chapter changed the way I saw CODF.
In chapter 2, Gabriel Garcia, Marquez mentions gold many times. Gold is a color that signifies wisdom and wealth. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, it is used as an attention grabber and a way to attract people. In the beginning of the chapter Bayardo San Roman is described by having ¨golden eyes¨. Eyes are one of the first features people notice when they look someone, so we see right from the start that Bayardo attracts many people. Bayardo’s father is introduced as a man of high power. He was a hero of civil wars and was recognized because of his fame in pictures. He is described with wearing ¨gold-rimmed glasses held by a clasp on the bridge of his nose¨. Gold is used here to signify power. We also see gold used in a different way when Marquez says, ¨Her father, Poncio Vicario, was a poor man’s goldsmith, and he lost his sight from doing so much fine work in gold in order to maintain the honor of the house¨ (Marquez 30). Here gold is used when talking about a very poor, low status person (Angela’s father). Poncio lost sight from working with gold in order to keep his honor, which is ironic because gold was used to describe Bayardos eyes and general Pertronio San Roman’s expensive glasses in order to draw attention and signify wealth. Gold is used when talking about eyes and sight, which can symbolize how people view each other throughout the book. I believe gold is used to represent social power and the status of the characters.
The fact that Poncio Vicario was blinded by gold is not only ironic, but I believe that it shows how people of the lower class are often used and hurt by people of higher classes. While the wealthy benefit from the gold made by the lower class, the lower class sacrifice themselves for people of a wealthier class. In this society, it is clear that poor people are subservient to wealthy people.
I also saw Marquez's constant use of gold throughout the chapter. I really liked your connection between people noticing someones eyes first and Bayardo attracting many people because of this. I also noticed that Angela realizes in order to move up in the social latter, she must marry someone rich, and Bayardo is the perfect man for that, except that she does not love him.
In chapter two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, similarities between Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew become evident. Taming of the Shrew was all about how women were treated, especially in regards to marriage. In chapter two, the exact same social ideas are used against Angela Vicario. Gabriel García Márquez writes, “The brothers were brought up to be men. The girls had been reared to be married” (Marquez 31). Gender roles had a large part in the lives of everyone. The Vicario brothers are expected to act like men and were raised as such while the sole purpose of the being of Angela Vicario is to be married off to whoever offers enough money. The difference in word choice between men and women and how they are raised shows even further divide between the sexes. For men, they are brought up, which has connotations of someone helping them along as they grew up. Angela was reared, which also means raised, has more of a forceful connotation to it, as if the parents had to forcefully keep her in line. This difference in word choice portrays the view of society on men and women. Men are praised more than women are and as a result, they might receive a better upbringing. While both men and women had to conform to strict societal constructs, it would be easier to be a man since they are granted more freedom and power along with better treatment. The parallels between Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew are prevalent. The fact that these two different stories occur on timelines that exist hundreds of years apart is not very comforting. Little has changed in that time.
In chapter 3, Gabriel García Marquez uses the symbol of doors. The doors throughout this chapter represent the secrecy throughout the town. Just like in A Doll’s House, where Nora closed doors to create a perfect image, the characters in Chronicle of a Death Foretold close doors to act like nothing is wrong in the town. Everyone seems very self involved and the doors are used as barriers between them. A door of a home is the separation between the outside world and the dangers. One house that always has closed doors is Santiago’s. We see this clearly in the first chapter when Marquez says, ¨the front door, except on festive occasions, remained closed and barred” (Marquez, 12). Another example in chapter 3 was when Marquez says Placida Linero’s house was always barred on the inside, even during the daytime..¨ (Marquez 50). Santiago's house is also the only house who didn't know about the murder which makes sense because his door were always closed. The barred doors in his house ultimately determine his fate. On the flip side María Alejandrina Cervantes, always keeps her doors open. ¨She’d been born and reared here, and she lived in a house with open doors, with several rooms for rent...¨ (Marquez 64). María Alejandrina is the opposite of secretive and is a prostitute that is very open to the outside world. She represents the opposite of Santiago’s family. Not only is she very welcoming, but she also keeps all with doors open.
In chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I actually started to get a little annoyed with this recurring theme of people not doing anything. In the first chapter, everyone assumed that Santiago Nasar already knew of the plot against him, so no one thought to tell him or ask. In chapter three, a similar idea occurs where everyone assumes that what the Vicario brothers are just spewing, “drunkards’ baloney” (Marquez 52). Even if the brothers were drunk, they were still sharpening their knives and drunk people with knives might even be worse than sober people with knives. People also did not think much of it because the Vicario brothers were generally perceived as being good people. Again, if they thought that the brothers were drunk, they probably will not be behaving normally either, so why did no one help? I would talk about the police officer also not doing or barely doing anything, but I am done ranting. One interesting thing that I had noticed was when Pedro went to pee under the tamarind tree. Being under a tamarind tree is bad luck in some cultures and its leaves are corrosive. Pedro has a condition that causes him great pain when he urinates, “like pissing ground glass” (Marquez 61). The idea of corrosiveness is also seen in one of the murder weapons as it is described as being rusty. This idea of corrosiveness might be the author’s way of demonstrating how Pedro Vicario wants Santiago to feel the pain he feels as a form of revenge for his sister’s lost honor.
I certainly agree with your commentary; I found myself quite annoyed with the characters in the book by this point as well. And when you said "Even if the brothers were drunk, they were still sharpening their knives and drunk people with knives might even be worse than sober people with knives." Ha! Good point! The characters in this book lacked any sort of competence, I don't think I have enough fingers to count the number of times Santiago Nasar's death could have been avoided had the people in the town bothered to use their brain for a minute. Also, cool explanation of the symbolism/meaning of the tamarind tree, I didn't catch that.
Who can we blame for Santiago Nasar’s death? While reading chapter three, this question kept popping up in my head. Chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold goes more in depth to Santiago Nasar’s death. The chapter also focuses on the possibility that the Vicario brothers do not actually want to kill Santiago Nasar, they feel obligated to because it is their family's honor to uphold. The narrator writes, "The Vicario brothers...had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing [Santiago], and they had failed (56). At every turn in their quest to kill Santiago, the brothers do everything in their power to prevent themselves from having to kill him. The Vicario brothers first hang out at the milk shop much longer than they need to, more or less trying to be stopped. They then wait outside of Santiago’s door, which is the last place that everyone thought he would leave through. They also try and tell anyone they run into about how they plan on killing Santiago, hoping someone will do something to prevent them from exacting revenge. The brothers are acting as performers of a public/social expectation to avenge their family honor. Some characters carry more of the blame for Santiago’s death than the actual killers, for example, the mayor. The mayor, who is a very large figurehead in the city and is supposed to be a role model to citizens, refuses to detain the twins after he gets word of their plans. Clotilde says he should, “he should "spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that's fallen on them” (64). I found it very odd that even the mayor decided not to prevent the murder. The mayor's case comes down to everyone in the town waiting for it to be someone else's problem. Everyone believes someone else will prevent it, someone will come along. If the mayor chooses to not stop the murder, the head of the city, who will?
I also found it interesting how especially in this chapter honor killings were justified. The Vicario brothers, while they where involved in a brutal occupation as butchers, they weren't mean spirited people, which lead many people to not believe that they were actually going to kill Santiago. If they had been bloodthirsty people, then the mayor and other officials in legal prosecutors would have had a much easier time in convicting the Vicario brothers, but since they killed Santiago to uphold their sister's honor and not out of brutality, their case, and the nature of the killing, was much harder to label.
In Chapter 3, we see a really strong sense of magical realism when the book describes that Maria Alejandrina Cervantes has had a lot of sexual experience and isn’t downcasted by others for the most part. in this time period, women were expected to stay virgins until marriage, however, men were supposed to experience sex before getting married like we talked about in class, creating a double standard that contradicts each other. With this creating a problem, it creates a lot of judgement and suspicion between characters and their relationships when individuals do not conform to these standards. Maria is seen as a beautiful woman who has taught men the community about sex when normally she’d be looked down upon most of the community. Moreover, with the narrator’s repeated mentioning of the Vicario brothers being “good people” I sense that Márquez is trying to portray the idea that there is no difference in the morals of people in the book, and virtually anyone at any given time could have ideas of murder. This also shows how status isn’t prevalent throughout the book; it seems that all characters are significant in the story. When we were making our “what+how=why” in class last time, we were surprised that everyone in the book was referred to by their full names. Unlike Doll’s house, where every single character was referred to in a unique way by the narrator, the narrator describes and refers to people by their full name, signifying that the narrator is remembering details of the story/case, so one person can’t receive more praise than another.
I found Santiago Nasar’s dogs very interesting in chapter four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. His dogs are first seen in chapter one, begging for the rabbit's intestines while Victoria Guzman cooks. The dogs make another memorable appearance when Santiago Nasar is gutted on his front steps. Divina Flor screams, “Help me, she shouted to me. ‘What they want is to eat his guts”’ (73). Time has looped back on itself and the reader is in current time. Repetition of the rabbit guts and Santiago’s guts emphasize the deaths ‘foretold’ nature. As the people in the book explain, no one could have prevented the innocent from dying. I could also see how his own dogs turning on their master, by eating his guts, is similar to the people in the town not doing anything to prevent the murder and letting their fellow neighbor be slashed down on the front steps of his own home. The dogs are not the only ones obsessed with guts in the fourth chapter. Another main event of the chapter was Father Amador’s botched autopsy of Santiago Nasar’s corpse, whose gore and wounds evoke a lot of the meaning in the passage. For most of the book, Santiago Nasar is referred to as an idea. Someone who was misremembered by the community that had failed him. Although in chapter four, Marquez shows Santiago as a human being. He does this by going into descriptive, horrific detail when speaking on his autopsy. Marquez writes, “...the priest had pulled out the sliced-up intestines by the roots, but in the end he didn't know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail” (76). Marquez even makes several comparisons of Santiago Nasar to Jesus, by explaining the stigma in his left hand and saying he had been sacrificed for a sin that he most likely did not even commit. He is a scapegoat, a sacrificial lamb in white linen.
Hmmm. Interesting comment about Santiago's dogs- I didn't catch that when I read it. Also when you say "...his own dogs turning on their master, by eating his guts is similar to the people in the town not doing anything to prevent the murder and letting their fellow neighbor be slashed down on the front steps of his own home," I totally agree with you. Dogs are symbols of loyalty and the fact that even they betrayed him really shows how betrayed Santiago was. Also the reference you made to Santiago Nasar and Jesus are fascinating, I don't know a whole lot about that reference, but since we'll be discussing it in class, I guess I'll find out. In any case, cool blog
The connection about Santiago and Jesus seems very interesting! There is already the theme of religion throughout the book especially with characters like the bishop and Father Amador. I also find it very interesting how Father Amador seems to excuse Pedro and Pablo from their crimes while Santiago pays for a sin he did not even commit (or at least there is no evidence that he did commit it, which means that he probably did not commit it, but everyone thinks he did). I look forward to hearing more about it in class
The autopsy of Santiago Nasar is a very descriptive part in chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. At the time the doctor is absent so the mayor makes Father Carmen to do the autopsy. First off the mayor thought he could refrigerate the body but couldn't find a big enough fridge so he leaves it in the center of the living room and just pushes back the chairs. The way the characters talk about Santiago's dead body makes him seem like roadkill and not an actual human. For example Divina Flor yells, ¨what they want is to eat his guts¨ (Marquez 73), when the dogs are barking at the dead body in the house. This line really grossed me out especially since they are talking about a human. Father Amador is ordered to carry out the autopsy with limited medical background or legal standing. It is done in a public school with minimal materials. The intestines were given an angry blessing and then thrown in the garbage. Over all, they completely destroyed his body. This whole part adds to the magical realism because actions taken by all the people to downgrade a dead human like this seems so normal. I think a lot of the negalating of the body has to do with the guilt everyone is feeling. I think the people are thinking that if they get rid of the body, as fast as they can, they can all go back to their normal lives and forget about what happened. Marquez also uses the symbol of smell after the narrator goes to Maria Alejandrina Cervantes house. She won't sleep with him because he smells of Santiago. Also while in prison, the Vicario brothers say they can't get rid of the smell of Santiago. Pedro says “No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn't get rid of the smell¨ (Marquez 78). The smell could literally mean the smell of the gross dead body but I think it symbolizes the guilt that is hanging over the town. It’s a constant reminder that they could have done something but never did.
I also found the description of Santiago Nasar's corpse disturbing yet interesting. In my blog post, I talked about how leading up to the autopsy, Santiago had been referred to as an idea of an eventual death. Although, when they get a look at his body, Marquez uses very descriptive imagery to portray Santiago as an actual human being.
I also found the portrayals of guilt in chapter four to be interesting and more detailed than those in previous chapters. Because the guilt and baggage that the entire town feels is represented by the pervasive smell of Santiago's body, no one is free from it. The ugly smell of death, of an unnecessary and preventable death, poisons the town
So this chapter was the epitome of no one doing anything about Santiago Nasar and his killers. Marquez writes, “But most of those who could have done something to prevent the crime and did not consoled themselves with the pretext that affairs of honor are sacred monopolies, giving access only to those who are part of the drama” (Marquez 97). This is a major theme throughout the book and the audience never sees how bad the problem actually is until chapter five. The town seemed to feel more like spectators than people who were actually involved which led them to not do anything when Pedro and Pablo were screaming that they were going to kill Santiago while holding pig-knives... This attitude of spectatorship was also the cause for their excuses later on. Another interesting things about chapter five, but also the book overall is that when starting the book, the reader expects to figure out the truth behind the murder, like most mystery type novels. However, instead of that, the reader gets a recap of the events that took place. The only thing the reader figures out is how the murder could have possibly taken place. This allows for commentary on human nature and themes surrounding this. Without this, the author would have had a harder time discussing elements of human nature, like the complacency of the town and unwillingness to do anything about the murder plans. The only people that bothered to even mention the murder plot to Santiago were people who wanted to help him. Unfortunately, everyone that tries to help him, either is blocked from doing so, or are too late to help.
Santiago’s autopsy in chapter 4 shows how unorganized and brutal the whole situation has been for the town. From the gory autopsy performed by inexperienced people and strange connections back to Santiago’s wealth: “and in the midst of the morass of gastric contents appeared a medal of gold that Santiago Nasar had swallowed at the age of four.” (44), the autopsy was teeming with mistakes and failure. The botched autopsy is representative of the whole town’s failure to recognize the significance of the Vicario brother’s claims to murder Santiago Nasar, and failure to step in to save someone innocent. While it was culturally accepted to kill for the sake of defending honor, no one questioned if Santiago had really taken Angela Vicario’s virginity. The whole innocent until proven guilty philosophy wasn’t applied to Santiago, and the word of a delirious and almost beaten to death rejected bride was taken without doubt. Santiago’s dogs were also symbolic for the town’s failures. They began barking and sought out Santiago’s guts, and Plلcida Linero called for their death. “The order was carried out immediately and the house was silent again” (44), but their yearning for the master’s blood showed how Santiago’s childhood friends and acquaintances turned on him, and even though the dog’s were silenced, the atrocity of indifference and the failure of action cannot be. The guilt that the town deserves is portrayed by the scent of Santiago in death, as pervasive and pungent as his innocence. His scent is an example of magical realism, and the the whole town lives in a waking nightmare. Pedro doesn’t sleep for 11 months, and besides that being impossible, it shows how even though neither of the brothers show remorse for their acts, they still feel the weight of what they have done for the rest of their lives. Is their action truly righteous? The Vicario brothers believed in the validity and even necessary nature of their actions, and believed they were innocent “before God and before men” (29), but that doesn’t keep the darkness of their actions from haunting them.
Chapter 5-Okay I hate to begin this blog with a gigantic “quote bomb” but I really feel like this quote is super duper fascinating and it’ll be worth it. So with that here it is: “For years we couldn’t talk about anything else. Our daily conduct, dominated then by so many linear habits, had suddenly begun to spin around a single common anxiety. The cocks of dawn would catch us trying to give order to the chain of many chance events that had made absurdity possible, and it was obvious that we weren’t doing it from an urge to clear up mysteries but because none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (Gabriel Marquez, 113). That’s a quote you’d have to read to really figure out! Allow me to explain my train of thought. The first two sentences refer to the guilt everyone in the town held for years after Santiago Nasar’s death. The only feasible explanation as to why anyone would feel the weight of “anxiety,” years after a murder, that they themselves had claimed could not be helped, would be because they know deep inside that something could have been done to keep this tragedy from happening. Not only that, but perhaps the towns people even knew Santiago Nasar was innocent when it came to the whole Angela situation, and still allowed him to be burnt at the stake. That is no “anxiety” that is guilt. Gabriel Marquez is aware of this and writes next “The cocks of dawn would catch us trying to GIVE ORDER to the chain of MANY CHANCE EVENTS that had made ABSURDITY possible, and it was obvious that we WEREN’T DOING IT FROM AN URGE TO CLEAR UP MYSTERIES but because NONE OF US COULD GO ON LIVING WITHOUT AN EXACT KNOWLEDGE of the place and the MISSION ASSIGNED TO US BY FATE” (Marquez, 113). Okay so the words I put in bold are the words I’d like to draw your attention to. Gabriel is describing humans tendency to want to order things, categorize events- this is how we understand things, especially things as absurd and seemingly impossible as the death of Santiago Nasar. Marquez also mentions that “...none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge…”(Marquez, 113). This exact knowledge he refers to is truth. But what is truth? (Sorry but I’m going to TOK for a bit) It varies from person to person, and at least in my opinion, truth is what human want to believe in; more than anything else we, as humans we want to be right, and rather than the facts prove truth, we want the facts to prove OUR individual truth. In other words, the people in the town wanted the truth to be that they couldn’t have done anything to prevent Santiago’s death, when in reality just the opposite is true. Everyone wanted to believe that Santiago’s death was fate, that was their way of coping with the decisions they made while he still lived- what resulted of that? The “anxiety” or rather, the guilt that they’ll feel for the rest of their lives. As much as we wish we could go back to the past to make better decisions and cure our guilt; as humans, to repent for poor decisions, more often than not, the only way to move forward, ease guilt and lessen the shame we feel is to learn from our mistakes, and that’s what Gabriel Marquez is trying to convey to the readers- To learn from others’ mistakes so we personally never have to experience hardship when it could have been avoided.
While I was reading the final chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I couldn’t help but continuously thinking about how the title of the book played a role. Foretold was the word I kept thinking of when reading. The series of unbelievable chances that result in Santiago’s death suggest that the death was fated, that no one could have stopped it. The magic sense of magical realism stood out to me here, the magic of inescapable destiny. This theme has been explored since the very first words of the book, even from the book's title, Santiago’s death is foretold. Marquez writes, “...but because none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (96). This passage describes the townspeople's guilt for not preventing the murder years after the fact, as well as the fate that the entire town felt of Santiago Nasar’s death. Santiago seems to be complicit with his own death. The morning of his murder, he chooses to leave out the front door of his house, rather than going out the back like he normally does. This simple change could have prevented his death and saved him. Characters in the book also comment throughout the book, that he is either already dead or that there was no way he would be killed. The narrator writes, “No one even wondered whether Santiago Nasar had been warned, because it seemed impossible to all that he hadn't” (36). This describes the townspeople's belief that there was no way that the Vicario brothers would go through with the murder. They were sadly mistaken and they deal with that guilt throughout the final chapter. The narrator also records all these events twenty seven years after the murder. The people he interviews seem to all shrink their role in the murder onto the sense of the murders fatedness. If the sense of fate in the book is what makes it magical, then it is the attentiveness to magic as a human condition that makes the book realistic.
One thing that stood out to me in chapter 5 was the theme of fate. The theme of fate is shown throughout the whole book, but the final chapter ties it all together. The narrator seems to have a nonchalant tone that doesn't sound like he's talking about a murder. It seems throughout the chapter that the narrator is never actually looking for the truth. He isn't really trying to find out whether or not Santiago is guilty, he is just explaining why the whole thing was inevitable. For example, Celeste Dangond says, ¨I got all mixed up. Because it suddenly seemed to me that they couldn't be killing him if he was so sure of what he was going to do¨ (Marquez 103). He is saying that he didn't warn Santiago because it seemed like he already had his day planned out. This whole concept doesn't make sense and is just another excuse. It doesn't matter if Santiago had his day planned out or not, Pedro and Pablo were going to find him and kill him. In the end none of the townspeople really wanted Santiago to die (except Pedro and Pablo), but everyone ended up being involved in the murder without trying. Each person interviewed had some strange excuse that made them feel better for not taking action. Telling their side of the story is a way to get rid of that lingering guilt. This relates to the Genovese syndrome where the people are now looking at this horrible thing they created and feeling guilty. Most of these people didn't want to get involved at the time or figured that someone else would take care of it. The only way for them to feel less guilty is to almost boast about their lack of involvement. Santiago's murder represents the Genovese case at an extreme but helps the reader see the selfishness in humans. In the end I don't know if I believe that Santiago's murder was fate, but that's what the narrator wants us to believe.
The introduction of Bayardo San Roman in chapter two of chronicle of a death foretold shows us the motive for killing Santiago Nasar. The first thing about Bayardo that I noticed is that he seems to be able to marry whomever he pleases. He has his heart set to Angela Vicario, however, Angela is not very enthusiastic about him marrying her, and states “He is too much of a man for me”. I find Bayardo similar to Petruchio from Taming of the Shrew because they both do and believe they can accomplish anything they like. Bayardo knows he can run an expensive wedding and can forcefully marry Angela Vicario. Likewise, Petruchio knows and has faith that he will tame Katherine and marry her. In addition, both men seem very masculine to the point where they are perceived as foolished by some (for Petruchio, many). The double standards in this community are also shown in this chapter when the narrator, Luis, Cristo, and Santiago go to a whorehouse and are allowed to do whatever they please while women have strict standards and cannot have premarital sex. Angela Vicario on the other hand, has high expectations for her and she finally breaks at the end of the chapter when she reveals Santiago Nasar has taken her virginity. Her family even strongly encourages the marriage because Bayardo comes from a wealthy family. Much like Taming of the Shrew, families did have a say in marriages. Bianca wanted Katherine to be married so she could be married, and Baptista for the same reason so he wouldn't have to care for them much now that another man would.
In chapter 3 of CODF, the fact that nobody pays attention to the Vicario brothers when they tell others about their plan to kill Santiago Nasar chapter 3 in CODF shows how human nature’s common instinct is to care for themselves over others. In chapter 3, specifically, it appears that the brothers are drunk as well; others do not believe what the Vicario brothers are actually going to follow through with their plan to kill him because the Vicario brothers were seen as good people. Faustino, who is slightly worried about their plan, tells an officer. Clothilde Armenta also tells her husband about the brothers’ plan, but he thinks she is silly and such a thing wouldn’t happen. The colonel is informed, and goes to Clothilde’s shop and confiscates the knives from the brothers. This series of events further shows how human nature in this book is portrayed in a way where humans are not only being selfish, but also in a way where humans worry too little to actually ponder over damage in society could be done; this leads to them only really working on things that benefit themselves rather than things that help other human beings. No one really did anything except gossip about the rumored murder and even the colonel did little to stop them. Everything everyone did to prevent the murder virtually didn’t help at all. It’s not until after the murder occurs when everyone selfish “shell” is broken and they care about the wellbeing of others.
The sense of smell is an important symbol in chapter 4 of CODF because it is something that individuals in the book can’t get rid of. First, Maria Alejandria Cervantes will not sleep with the narrator of the book because he smells like Santiago. The brothers also cannot get of Santiago’s smell off their bodies. I think Marquéz uses this to show the audience a more literal way of the impact of murder. In society, no matter the status of an individual, there will always be an impact on those who knew the dead individual for the rest of their lives. After the murder of Santiago, everyone in the book is impacted greatly, whether it be physically, mentally, or emotionally. Marquéz used smell to show that even though everyone in the book up until this point cannot see Santiago, they will still always be reminded of him from the smell he gives off. Furthermore, Márquez must’ve chose smell because smell is the only sense that an individual uses 24/7. This gives the reader the understanding that everyone that knew Santiago Nasar cannot physically forget Santiago because the smell is always lurking around Santiago’s friends, families and acquaintances. Continuing on with the impact Santiago’s death has put on his community, we also see that Angela’s face was wrapped so that no one could see the bruises that she obtained from her mother’s beating, and we see Bayardo almost dead from alcohol poisoning. Even though the murder seemed like a good idea at the time, the brothers have to put up with internal and external consequences, no matter what society they live in.
In chapter 5 of CODF, we see the last efforts of other characters trying to prevent the murder, however, again, they fail. Santiago is warned a short while before the death, but fails to believe it and wanders off by himself. Once again, people are only caring and looking after Santiago a little more, and are only doing a little more to help prevent the murder; Santiago’s loved ones are still not doing enough to help prevent the murder. The main question I feel that could be brought up after reading this book is: why would the town and community the book takes place in allow such a publicized murder plan to take place? So many people were warned about Santiago’s murder, yet no one really stood up or chose to believe it and took it seriously. Even Santiago Nasar himself was warned in advance, and still didn’t take it seriously or even believe it. This is odd, because throughout the whole story, the audience has seen other characters besides Santiago Nasar as selfish. However, Santiago Nasar wouldn't be selfish in this case if he wasn’t worried about his own death. This is one of the reasons why I consider him a Christ-like figure in this situation because Jesus also didn’t care about his death. Now, a huge difference between him and Jesus is the fact that Jesus had many enemies, and people opposed to him. Santiago, in general, was only disliked by the Vicario brothers. But, in the end, both of them died for reasons other than crime.
Group 2? Hello???
ReplyDeleteAs expected for a book written focusing in on a genre of magical realism, it opens by stating blatantly the dismal future set for Santiago Nasar. Gabriel Marquez writes “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on” (Gabriel Marquez, 1). It could have said instead “On the day they were going to go bowling...” or “On the day they were going to go eat lunch with friends…,” the so blatant way of putting things made for little mystery. This lack for both suspense and resolution is what for me made this book so...odd. Can’t say I like it or I don’t, but the straightforward diction of just stating the scene how it was, beginning with Santiago feeling as if he was “...spattered with bird shit” (Marquez, 1) on the very first page- maybe it was a bit too real already. The way the narrator tells the story of Santiago Nasar and his tragedy the more a reader hopes. Beginning by saying some guy is going to die, at least for me, is tactless, and personally, I think that is what made the story so unappealing at first. At the same time, it was knowing what was going to happen that made me hope; that maybe, just maybe, because I was reading this book that, Santiago Nasar was NOT going to die. Spoiler alert- that’s not how it works. It’s part of human nature to hope and look towards a better future, and I think that Chronicle of a Death Foretold plays on our tendency as humans to believe and hope. Tactful? Or tactless? I mean basically it’s a narrative recounting the last day of a guy’s life- if we know what’s going to happen why do we care? That’s the thing- by putting the fact of Santiago’s death in the first sentence of the book the author eliminates instantly any reader who feels they know what’s happened. What’s left of the group of readers are those who can take an event and break it down into all the factors that added up to cause it. This may be way too inferring of me to say but, I think Gabriel Marquez is trying to teach people to understand the significance of their actions.
ReplyDeleteI also was struck and thrown off-balance by the bluntness and winding plot and narration in CODF. There is hardly any suspense set up in this novel, which is a foreign concept in the majority of literature we read. Writing, especially modern writing, grabs your attention with flashy and dramatic characters and plots, and keeps your focus by heightening suspense. If this book was not a required one, I probably would not have made it 10 pages, because my interest never peaked. However, one of my favorite books of all time -Catch 22-, is similar to CODF in its extremely confusing, fragmented, and stream-of-conscious like narration. While reading and comprehending CODF is more difficult than most other books I've read, the very same challenge interests me and makes the reader look past plot progression and suspension in terms of enjoyment of a story. While Gabriel Garcia's writing is heavily influenced by his Latin American roots, his stream of consciousness approach to narration and plot progression is one shared by many authors such as James Joyce (Ulysses).
DeleteI'd also like to talk about symbols, especially because symbols are often tied directly to magical realism. The reader is thrown into a chaotic, foreign world where a man is destined for death and while timing and logical exposition isn't portrayed by our unknown narrator, a great deal of symbols are. There are many, some significant, and a lot that seem to simply be thrown out there because the narrator likes misdirection, but most notable are bird, weaponry, and dreamlike diction. For bird diction, the initial maxim 'flight is freedom' comes to mind, provided by Santiago's loving mother- "Any dream about birds means good health" (pg. 6). Santiago has an affinity for falconry, which is interesting and ironic because of the nature and premise of falcon-taming. As we all know from The Taming of the Shrew, falconry is entirely contingent on dependence, and this dependence keeps the falcon from its freedom. In Santiago’s dream he is “alone in a tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into them.” (pg. 4). Santiago’s mother doesn’t notice any omens in this, nor does Santiago, but the narrator points this out in a way that seems as if there was an obvious omen to be seen in Santiago’s dreams. The irony from Santiago’s love of falconry and his own dreams of flying comes from his inability to see the omens in his dreams, and his lack of freedom, and eventual death. The almond trees symbolize youthful impetuousness, and because he didn’t hit them in his dream, it can be inferred that even though he didn’t butt heads with his 21 year old rash nature, his death still came. Or you can simply believe that his dream had some other ominous quality to it and that he might have dreamt about drowning the town in his tears, magical realism is pretty hard to evaluate and comprehend. Lastly, the mention of his father’s pistol falling out of a pillowcase and hitting the floor and obliterating half of the house is another subtle nod at magical realism. The magical bullet that causes Santiago to carry his gun unloaded probably wouldn’t actually do the damage it ended up doing, but the line between reality and magic is danced upon, so we might as well dance with them and enjoy ourselves some.
I also saw Marquez' use of bird symbolism when he talks about falconry. He then later refers to Victoria Guzman, Santiago's fathers former mistress, as needing to be tamed. This is also a connection to Taming of the Shrew when Petruchio tries to tame Kate throughout the entire play.
DeleteReply to Julia's post: I also agree with you. The end of the first chapter when they hear that he was killed makes you almost want to stop reading, because what more is their to write? Although the writing style of first telling the whole story and the flashing back is effective for some readers. It makes the reader want to know things that weren't talked about, which in a way adds its own suspense. For example one question I had was who is the bride and what's her side of the story?
DeleteI meant to send this as my own blog, not a response, sorry
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you about not making it ten pages if it wasn't required... it's hard to want to read something where we already know what "happens." But, after about ten times, I got into it--hopefully you will, too! :) :)
DeleteOne thing that stood out to me while reading chapter one of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, was how everyone who knew that Santiago was going to get killed, did not do anything to prevent his death. Margot states, If I’d known, I would have taken him home with me even if I had to hog-tie him” (20). This line symbolizes what the people in the town decided to do when they found out about killing. Margot says what she would have done, although this is false. She would like to think she would try to prevent it, but in reality she would just act like everyone else in the town and leave it up to the next person. The events leading up to his death all come from individual’s perspectives. These perspectives do not match up with each other, and at one point cannot even agree on what the weather was like on that day. This fragmentation of social responsibility also corresponds with the fragmentation of social responsibility. This social responsibility plays out when Pedro and Pablo do not actually want to kill Santiago, but they feel it is their duty in defending the family honor to attempt the murder. Marquez says, “...had been returned to the house of her parents, because her husband had discovered that she wasn’t a virgin” (21). He later states, “The only thing they knew for sure was that Angela Vicario’s brothers were waiting for him to kill him” (21). The brothers seem to do everything they can to inspire the townsfolk to prevent them from killing him. Each member in the society instead of helping, leaves it up to the next person to prevent the murder. The failure to prevent Santiago's death is a failure of every individual within the society. Even the priest and mayor are too self-absorbed to stop a simple, unjust, easily preventable killing.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting thing that I noticed in the first chapter is how calm these people who knew about Santiago’s murder seemed. One of the witnesses was Victoria Guzman who didn't admit she knew about the planned murder until a few years later. She says ¨They (her and her daughter) had been told it by a woman who had passed by after five o’clock to beg a bit of milk, and who in addition had revealed the motives and the place where they were waiting¨ (Marquez 12-13). She then said that she didn't warn him because she thought it was drunkards’ talk. The magical realism is huge right here! A normal person would think it was strange that a random woman is giving them exact details about a planned murder. Most people wouldn't shake this off, especially if the motives could possibly be a reason that someone would kill someone or maybe go to that location and see if the men are waiting there. Another person who knew about the planned murder was the mayor. He said that he figured it was a fib since Santiago seemed safe and sound. It is crazy for even the mayor to know this and do nothing about it. This whole first chapter perfectly illustrates a human's tendency to neglect a rising problem until something bad happens. Magical realism portrays this to an extreme because most people would not ignore a murder. The way Marquez wrote this chapter is interesting because every little detail foreshadows Santiago dying. For example, his mother misinterprets his dream, which seemed to never happen since she was a famous dream interpreter. Also him leaving his bullets and gun at home, barely missed the letter that explain everything about the murder, and leaving out the wrong door. The whole story is told in the first chapter, but there seems to be missing information and parts that don’t fit together, so the rest of the book should piece things together.
ReplyDeleteBefore I start, I must admit that I have not read the book entirely. (sorry Mrs. Ballard!) I’ll try to read ahead of the class for now on so everything that is typed is speculations I have made. The first thing I noticed is that it seems that the 1st person narrator does not have a set name. He goes around collecting information about the murder from others who witnessed the event. This leads me to hypothesize that the different chapters will tell the story from different perspectives, because Mrs. Ballard stated how it also is weird that the times seem to jump between chapters, so I figure the perspective may vary as well. Also, I noticed the color white as a symbol. Santiago wore a white hat today and a lady also said he “looked like a ghost” (page 15). I think the term white or ghost symbolizes death and you don’t know when your time is up. This mentioning could let the audience know to watch out how color foreshadows different meanings. In terms of importance, just like Dolls house, the complexity of names matter. I mean, look at the people who killed him- Pablo and Pedro.
ReplyDeleteAlex!! Haven't read the book?!? Well, at least you were listening about times jumping between chapters... :)
DeleteIn Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the ideas of realism are already shown. In real life, the memories of people are often flawed and little details are often forgotten about a setting. Given a long enough time, even the major details of a setting can be distorted and forgotten. In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Santiago’s mother thought that it was raining. The author writes, “The only thing that interested his mother about the bishop’s arrival, on the other hand, was for her son not to get soaked in the rain, since she’d heard him sneeze while he was sleeping” (Marquez 8). On the same page is written, “Victoria Guzman, the cook, was sure that it hadn’t rained that day, or during the whole month of February” (Marquez 8). Just like in real life, memory is not perfect, and major things like the weather on the day that the bishop arrived and a man was killed can be forgotten or skewed. Both Victoria and Santiago’s mother are convinced that their version of the weather was correct. On this same page, elements of magical realism also start to appear. Santiago’s mother is very superstitious and believes that there are signals and signs that can be seen to predict the future. The fact that Santiago’s mother is worried about him getting soaked because he sneezed in his sleep rather than actually seeing the rain shows that she believes in these magical occurrences.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading chapter two, I noticed the specific characterization techniques Marquez uses when describing Angela Vicario’s family. This characterization creates sympathy amongst the readers. Marquez writes that, “her father was a poor man's goldsmith, and he had lost his sight from working to keep the honor of the house"(33). Angela’s father is blind, and sacrificed his eye sight for his family's sake. This characterization creates sympathy not only for her father, but also Angela as she was raised in a family accustomed to suffering. The reader can also draw conclusions about Angela based on how her parents are described and act. For example, she is raised with a selfless father, which means she is also selfless and have the spirit for sacrifice. Marquez characterizes Angela’s mother as a women who, "devoted herself with such spirit of sacrifice to the care of her husband and the rearing of her children that at times she forgot she still existed"(33). Much like the father, Marquez portrays Angela’s mother as a very selfless, devoted person who willingly sacrifices herself for the good of the family. The mother has many duties including taking care of the children and aiding her blind husband, therefore, she does not have time to spend on herself. Ultimately, this means that Angela is raised to think there is very little room for herself when she gets married and has a family. This means she must also sacrifice for her family, and go marry a rich man who she does not really love. Marquez justifies her family’s pushy nature by telling the reader their entire history of poverty and suffering, trying to make it justifiable that their daughter sacrifice her happiness and marry a wealthy man. I also found it interesting how Marquez does not portray Bayardo positively. He describes him as a ‘devil’ and ‘concealed’.
ReplyDeleteDo you have pity on the Vicario family? I have to agree when you say that the "characterization creates sympathy not only for her father, but also Angela as she was raised in a family accustomed to suffering," however I do not feel any sympathy for Angela. She has been raised to become a wife- she didn't want to marry Bayardo but does because he's rich. Although Pura doesn't like Bayardo and creates the condition "that Bayardo San Roman should identify himself properly" (Marquez 35), she must also give into societal expectations and norms- to marry her daughter off to someone that could support her financially. In any case her mother is painted as a decent, logical person for her daughter to look up to, but in my opinion, Angela has learned nothing of honesty and integrity. Afterall, Pura beats up Angela, and yet she drags Santiago into her situation by telling Pedro he had beat her. I just don't see how Angela could be so selfish as to only think of herself and drag an innocent person into her affairs. In anycase, I think that Bayardo is portrayed blatantly as a bad dude just as you mentioned, but in addition, Marquez also characterizes Angela as a conceited, selfish person but through her actions rather than through words.
DeleteI think that the relationship between Angela and her mother is one that you would have to understand at the time. I agree with Julia when she says that Angela is selfish to drag someone else into her problems but she was originally put in this whole situation because of her mother. Angela is distressed because she cant choose her own life and she has no control, so throwing someone under the bus was probably all she could do to get the attention off of her.
DeleteSo chapter 2 threw me for quite a few loops- Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario and their whole situation... Very odd. Bayardo San Roman is someone with a very peculiar personality- he arrives in the town “Nobody knew what he’d come for. Someone who couldn’t resist the temptation of asking him, a little before the wedding, received the answer: ‘I’ve been going from town to town looking for someone to marry’” (Gabriel Marquez, 28). I mean who’s got the time to do that? I think Gabriel Marquez was being a bit more magical than realistic. Okay moving on from that, the woman he wants to marry, Angela Vicario, is equally interesting, and by that I mean strange. I was merrily reading along and came upon this line, “...She had been born like the great queens of history…” and I was like ‘uh huh sure’ and then the sentence finishes “...with the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck” (Marquez 35). What the hecky- is that some sort of sign of nobility; everyone should strive to be born strangled by their umbilical cord? How very odd. It took me a while to understand what that could’ve meant, but I think it was just a metaphor, it’s like Angela’s mother said on page 34- “They’re perfect… Any man will be happy with them because they’ve been raised to suffer” (Marquez 34). In other words, growing up with struggle, will give you a thicker skin. How true was that for those sisters who “...had been reared to get married” I’m not sure. In any case, Bayardo San Roman wants to marry Angela Vicario, Angela doesn’t want to marry Bayardo, but no one cares what she thinks; they get married, and she’s not a virgin; she get’s beat up by Pura and when asked who beat her up by her brother Pedro, she says it was Santiago Nasar. That’s how the chapter ends leaving a lingering suspense that looms over the reader. Up until now, Santiago Nasar up until now, has been depicted as some status quo guy, who likes to talk about how great the weather is and have happy dreams about a light drizzle in the woods. And then in a sudden turn of events wake up and feel like he’s being pooped on by a bird. I mean the guy is seen as so human, has dreams, and then things just don’t go his way. I remember reading this chapter the first time around- ending the chapter with Angela blaming Santiago made me wonder- what did he ever do to her?
ReplyDeleteI love your monologue and interactions with the characters and what they say, I do pretty much the same thing. The most shocking and overarching quote that envelops the oddities of this chapter for me is "The Vicario boys were raised to be men, and the daughters were raised to be married". Sexism and other societal garbage behind, this quote made me stop and realize that this isn't a story about some magical Colombian town where dreams and reality interplay, but it's a world that has existed, with all of its ugly and unequal ways, and then the reason for Santiago's murder goes from one that we disregard because of all of the magical connotations to one that deals with honor and pride. This chapter took the story, at least for me, from one that didn't have much point and seemed to be floating in limbo to one where double standards for women lead to a wife being beaten on the night of her wedding. This chapter changed the way I saw CODF.
DeleteIn chapter 2, Gabriel Garcia, Marquez mentions gold many times. Gold is a color that signifies wisdom and wealth. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, it is used as an attention grabber and a way to attract people. In the beginning of the chapter Bayardo San Roman is described by having ¨golden eyes¨. Eyes are one of the first features people notice when they look someone, so we see right from the start that Bayardo attracts many people. Bayardo’s father is introduced as a man of high power. He was a hero of civil wars and was recognized because of his fame in pictures. He is described with wearing ¨gold-rimmed glasses held by a clasp on the bridge of his nose¨. Gold is used here to signify power. We also see gold used in a different way when Marquez says, ¨Her father, Poncio Vicario, was a poor man’s goldsmith, and he lost his sight from doing so much fine work in gold in order to maintain the honor of the house¨ (Marquez 30). Here gold is used when talking about a very poor, low status person (Angela’s father). Poncio lost sight from working with gold in order to keep his honor, which is ironic because gold was used to describe Bayardos eyes and general Pertronio San Roman’s expensive glasses in order to draw attention and signify wealth. Gold is used when talking about eyes and sight, which can symbolize how people view each other throughout the book. I believe gold is used to represent social power and the status of the characters.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Poncio Vicario was blinded by gold is not only ironic, but I believe that it shows how people of the lower class are often used and hurt by people of higher classes. While the wealthy benefit from the gold made by the lower class, the lower class sacrifice themselves for people of a wealthier class. In this society, it is clear that poor people are subservient to wealthy people.
DeleteI also saw Marquez's constant use of gold throughout the chapter. I really liked your connection between people noticing someones eyes first and Bayardo attracting many people because of this. I also noticed that Angela realizes in order to move up in the social latter, she must marry someone rich, and Bayardo is the perfect man for that, except that she does not love him.
ReplyDelete^This is meant to be a reply to Natalie's blog post
DeleteIn chapter two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, similarities between Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew become evident. Taming of the Shrew was all about how women were treated, especially in regards to marriage. In chapter two, the exact same social ideas are used against Angela Vicario. Gabriel García Márquez writes, “The brothers were brought up to be men. The girls had been reared to be married” (Marquez 31). Gender roles had a large part in the lives of everyone. The Vicario brothers are expected to act like men and were raised as such while the sole purpose of the being of Angela Vicario is to be married off to whoever offers enough money. The difference in word choice between men and women and how they are raised shows even further divide between the sexes. For men, they are brought up, which has connotations of someone helping them along as they grew up. Angela was reared, which also means raised, has more of a forceful connotation to it, as if the parents had to forcefully keep her in line. This difference in word choice portrays the view of society on men and women. Men are praised more than women are and as a result, they might receive a better upbringing. While both men and women had to conform to strict societal constructs, it would be easier to be a man since they are granted more freedom and power along with better treatment. The parallels between Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew are prevalent. The fact that these two different stories occur on timelines that exist hundreds of years apart is not very comforting. Little has changed in that time.
ReplyDeleteGood points--I like the connections to Shrew!
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 3, Gabriel García Marquez uses the symbol of doors. The doors throughout this chapter represent the secrecy throughout the town. Just like in A Doll’s House, where Nora closed doors to create a perfect image, the characters in Chronicle of a Death Foretold close doors to act like nothing is wrong in the town. Everyone seems very self involved and the doors are used as barriers between them. A door of a home is the separation between the outside world and the dangers. One house that always has closed doors is Santiago’s. We see this clearly in the first chapter when Marquez says, ¨the front door, except on festive occasions, remained closed and barred” (Marquez, 12). Another example in chapter 3 was when Marquez says Placida Linero’s house was always barred on the inside, even during the daytime..¨ (Marquez 50). Santiago's house is also the only house who didn't know about the murder which makes sense because his door were always closed. The barred doors in his house ultimately determine his fate. On the flip side María Alejandrina Cervantes, always keeps her doors open. ¨She’d been born and reared here, and she lived in a house with open doors, with several rooms for rent...¨ (Marquez 64). María Alejandrina is the opposite of secretive and is a prostitute that is very open to the outside world. She represents the opposite of Santiago’s family. Not only is she very welcoming, but she also keeps all with doors open.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I actually started to get a little annoyed with this recurring theme of people not doing anything. In the first chapter, everyone assumed that Santiago Nasar already knew of the plot against him, so no one thought to tell him or ask. In chapter three, a similar idea occurs where everyone assumes that what the Vicario brothers are just spewing, “drunkards’ baloney” (Marquez 52). Even if the brothers were drunk, they were still sharpening their knives and drunk people with knives might even be worse than sober people with knives. People also did not think much of it because the Vicario brothers were generally perceived as being good people. Again, if they thought that the brothers were drunk, they probably will not be behaving normally either, so why did no one help? I would talk about the police officer also not doing or barely doing anything, but I am done ranting. One interesting thing that I had noticed was when Pedro went to pee under the tamarind tree. Being under a tamarind tree is bad luck in some cultures and its leaves are corrosive. Pedro has a condition that causes him great pain when he urinates, “like pissing ground glass” (Marquez 61). The idea of corrosiveness is also seen in one of the murder weapons as it is described as being rusty. This idea of corrosiveness might be the author’s way of demonstrating how Pedro Vicario wants Santiago to feel the pain he feels as a form of revenge for his sister’s lost honor.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with your commentary; I found myself quite annoyed with the characters in the book by this point as well. And when you said "Even if the brothers were drunk, they were still sharpening their knives and drunk people with knives might even be worse than sober people with knives." Ha! Good point! The characters in this book lacked any sort of competence, I don't think I have enough fingers to count the number of times Santiago Nasar's death could have been avoided had the people in the town bothered to use their brain for a minute. Also, cool explanation of the symbolism/meaning of the tamarind tree, I didn't catch that.
DeleteWho can we blame for Santiago Nasar’s death? While reading chapter three, this question kept popping up in my head. Chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold goes more in depth to Santiago Nasar’s death. The chapter also focuses on the possibility that the Vicario brothers do not actually want to kill Santiago Nasar, they feel obligated to because it is their family's honor to uphold. The narrator writes, "The Vicario brothers...had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing [Santiago], and they had failed (56). At every turn in their quest to kill Santiago, the brothers do everything in their power to prevent themselves from having to kill him. The Vicario brothers first hang out at the milk shop much longer than they need to, more or less trying to be stopped. They then wait outside of Santiago’s door, which is the last place that everyone thought he would leave through. They also try and tell anyone they run into about how they plan on killing Santiago, hoping someone will do something to prevent them from exacting revenge. The brothers are acting as performers of a public/social expectation to avenge their family honor. Some characters carry more of the blame for Santiago’s death than the actual killers, for example, the mayor. The mayor, who is a very large figurehead in the city and is supposed to be a role model to citizens, refuses to detain the twins after he gets word of their plans. Clotilde says he should, “he should "spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that's fallen on them” (64). I found it very odd that even the mayor decided not to prevent the murder. The mayor's case comes down to everyone in the town waiting for it to be someone else's problem. Everyone believes someone else will prevent it, someone will come along. If the mayor chooses to not stop the murder, the head of the city, who will?
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting how especially in this chapter honor killings were justified. The Vicario brothers, while they where involved in a brutal occupation as butchers, they weren't mean spirited people, which lead many people to not believe that they were actually going to kill Santiago. If they had been bloodthirsty people, then the mayor and other officials in legal prosecutors would have had a much easier time in convicting the Vicario brothers, but since they killed Santiago to uphold their sister's honor and not out of brutality, their case, and the nature of the killing, was much harder to label.
DeleteIn Chapter 3, we see a really strong sense of magical realism when the book describes that Maria Alejandrina Cervantes has had a lot of sexual experience and isn’t downcasted by others for the most part. in this time period, women were expected to stay virgins until marriage, however, men were supposed to experience sex before getting married like we talked about in class, creating a double standard that contradicts each other. With this creating a problem, it creates a lot of judgement and suspicion between characters and their relationships when individuals do not conform to these standards. Maria is seen as a beautiful woman who has taught men the community about sex when normally she’d be looked down upon most of the community. Moreover, with the narrator’s repeated mentioning of the Vicario brothers being “good people” I sense that Márquez is trying to portray the idea that there is no difference in the morals of people in the book, and virtually anyone at any given time could have ideas of murder. This also shows how status isn’t prevalent throughout the book; it seems that all characters are significant in the story. When we were making our “what+how=why” in class last time, we were surprised that everyone in the book was referred to by their full names. Unlike Doll’s house, where every single character was referred to in a unique way by the narrator, the narrator describes and refers to people by their full name, signifying that the narrator is remembering details of the story/case, so one person can’t receive more praise than another.
ReplyDeleteI found Santiago Nasar’s dogs very interesting in chapter four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. His dogs are first seen in chapter one, begging for the rabbit's intestines while Victoria Guzman cooks. The dogs make another memorable appearance when Santiago Nasar is gutted on his front steps. Divina Flor screams, “Help me, she shouted to me. ‘What they want is to eat his guts”’ (73). Time has looped back on itself and the reader is in current time. Repetition of the rabbit guts and Santiago’s guts emphasize the deaths ‘foretold’ nature. As the people in the book explain, no one could have prevented the innocent from dying. I could also see how his own dogs turning on their master, by eating his guts, is similar to the people in the town not doing anything to prevent the murder and letting their fellow neighbor be slashed down on the front steps of his own home. The dogs are not the only ones obsessed with guts in the fourth chapter. Another main event of the chapter was Father Amador’s botched autopsy of Santiago Nasar’s corpse, whose gore and wounds evoke a lot of the meaning in the passage. For most of the book, Santiago Nasar is referred to as an idea. Someone who was misremembered by the community that had failed him. Although in chapter four, Marquez shows Santiago as a human being. He does this by going into descriptive, horrific detail when speaking on his autopsy. Marquez writes, “...the priest had pulled out the sliced-up intestines by the roots, but in the end he didn't know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail” (76). Marquez even makes several comparisons of Santiago Nasar to Jesus, by explaining the stigma in his left hand and saying he had been sacrificed for a sin that he most likely did not even commit. He is a scapegoat, a sacrificial lamb in white linen.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Interesting comment about Santiago's dogs- I didn't catch that when I read it. Also when you say "...his own dogs turning on their master, by eating his guts is similar to the people in the town not doing anything to prevent the murder and letting their fellow neighbor be slashed down on the front steps of his own home," I totally agree with you. Dogs are symbols of loyalty and the fact that even they betrayed him really shows how betrayed Santiago was. Also the reference you made to Santiago Nasar and Jesus are fascinating, I don't know a whole lot about that reference, but since we'll be discussing it in class, I guess I'll find out. In any case, cool blog
DeleteThe connection about Santiago and Jesus seems very interesting! There is already the theme of religion throughout the book especially with characters like the bishop and Father Amador. I also find it very interesting how Father Amador seems to excuse Pedro and Pablo from their crimes while Santiago pays for a sin he did not even commit (or at least there is no evidence that he did commit it, which means that he probably did not commit it, but everyone thinks he did). I look forward to hearing more about it in class
DeleteYes! I totally agree, Jared, about the Jesus references... so strange... let's talk about this tomorrow! :)
ReplyDeleteThe autopsy of Santiago Nasar is a very descriptive part in chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. At the time the doctor is absent so the mayor makes Father Carmen to do the autopsy. First off the mayor thought he could refrigerate the body but couldn't find a big enough fridge so he leaves it in the center of the living room and just pushes back the chairs. The way the characters talk about Santiago's dead body makes him seem like roadkill and not an actual human. For example Divina Flor yells, ¨what they want is to eat his guts¨ (Marquez 73), when the dogs are barking at the dead body in the house. This line really grossed me out especially since they are talking about a human. Father Amador is ordered to carry out the autopsy with limited medical background or legal standing. It is done in a public school with minimal materials. The intestines were given an angry blessing and then thrown in the garbage. Over all, they completely destroyed his body. This whole part adds to the magical realism because actions taken by all the people to downgrade a dead human like this seems so normal. I think a lot of the negalating of the body has to do with the guilt everyone is feeling. I think the people are thinking that if they get rid of the body, as fast as they can, they can all go back to their normal lives and forget about what happened. Marquez also uses the symbol of smell after the narrator goes to Maria Alejandrina Cervantes house. She won't sleep with him because he smells of Santiago. Also while in prison, the Vicario brothers say they can't get rid of the smell of Santiago. Pedro says “No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn't get rid of the smell¨ (Marquez 78). The smell could literally mean the smell of the gross dead body but I think it symbolizes the guilt that is hanging over the town. It’s a constant reminder that they could have done something but never did.
ReplyDeleteI also found the description of Santiago Nasar's corpse disturbing yet interesting. In my blog post, I talked about how leading up to the autopsy, Santiago had been referred to as an idea of an eventual death. Although, when they get a look at his body, Marquez uses very descriptive imagery to portray Santiago as an actual human being.
DeleteI also found the portrayals of guilt in chapter four to be interesting and more detailed than those in previous chapters. Because the guilt and baggage that the entire town feels is represented by the pervasive smell of Santiago's body, no one is free from it. The ugly smell of death, of an unnecessary and preventable death, poisons the town
ReplyDeleteSo this chapter was the epitome of no one doing anything about Santiago Nasar and his killers. Marquez writes, “But most of those who could have done something to prevent the crime and did not consoled themselves with the pretext that affairs of honor are sacred monopolies, giving access only to those who are part of the drama” (Marquez 97). This is a major theme throughout the book and the audience never sees how bad the problem actually is until chapter five. The town seemed to feel more like spectators than people who were actually involved which led them to not do anything when Pedro and Pablo were screaming that they were going to kill Santiago while holding pig-knives... This attitude of spectatorship was also the cause for their excuses later on. Another interesting things about chapter five, but also the book overall is that when starting the book, the reader expects to figure out the truth behind the murder, like most mystery type novels. However, instead of that, the reader gets a recap of the events that took place. The only thing the reader figures out is how the murder could have possibly taken place. This allows for commentary on human nature and themes surrounding this. Without this, the author would have had a harder time discussing elements of human nature, like the complacency of the town and unwillingness to do anything about the murder plans. The only people that bothered to even mention the murder plot to Santiago were people who wanted to help him. Unfortunately, everyone that tries to help him, either is blocked from doing so, or are too late to help.
ReplyDeleteSantiago’s autopsy in chapter 4 shows how unorganized and brutal the whole situation has been for the town. From the gory autopsy performed by inexperienced people and strange connections back to Santiago’s wealth: “and in the midst of the morass of gastric contents appeared a medal of gold that Santiago Nasar had swallowed at the age of four.” (44), the autopsy was teeming with mistakes and failure. The botched autopsy is representative of the whole town’s failure to recognize the significance of the Vicario brother’s claims to murder Santiago Nasar, and failure to step in to save someone innocent. While it was culturally accepted to kill for the sake of defending honor, no one questioned if Santiago had really taken Angela Vicario’s virginity. The whole innocent until proven guilty philosophy wasn’t applied to Santiago, and the word of a delirious and almost beaten to death rejected bride was taken without doubt. Santiago’s dogs were also symbolic for the town’s failures. They began barking and sought out Santiago’s guts, and Plلcida Linero called for their death. “The order was carried out immediately and the house was silent again” (44), but their yearning for the master’s blood showed how Santiago’s childhood friends and acquaintances turned on him, and even though the dog’s were silenced, the atrocity of indifference and the failure of action cannot be. The guilt that the town deserves is portrayed by the scent of Santiago in death, as pervasive and pungent as his innocence. His scent is an example of magical realism, and the the whole town lives in a waking nightmare. Pedro doesn’t sleep for 11 months, and besides that being impossible, it shows how even though neither of the brothers show remorse for their acts, they still feel the weight of what they have done for the rest of their lives. Is their action truly righteous? The Vicario brothers believed in the validity and even necessary nature of their actions, and believed they were innocent “before God and before men” (29), but that doesn’t keep the darkness of their actions from haunting them.
ReplyDeleteChapter 5-Okay I hate to begin this blog with a gigantic “quote bomb” but I really feel like this quote is super duper fascinating and it’ll be worth it. So with that here it is: “For years we couldn’t talk about anything else. Our daily conduct, dominated then by so many linear habits, had suddenly begun to spin around a single common anxiety. The cocks of dawn would catch us trying to give order to the chain of many chance events that had made absurdity possible, and it was obvious that we weren’t doing it from an urge to clear up mysteries but because none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (Gabriel Marquez, 113). That’s a quote you’d have to read to really figure out! Allow me to explain my train of thought. The first two sentences refer to the guilt everyone in the town held for years after Santiago Nasar’s death. The only feasible explanation as to why anyone would feel the weight of “anxiety,” years after a murder, that they themselves had claimed could not be helped, would be because they know deep inside that something could have been done to keep this tragedy from happening. Not only that, but perhaps the towns people even knew Santiago Nasar was innocent when it came to the whole Angela situation, and still allowed him to be burnt at the stake. That is no “anxiety” that is guilt. Gabriel Marquez is aware of this and writes next “The cocks of dawn would catch us trying to GIVE ORDER to the chain of MANY CHANCE EVENTS that had made ABSURDITY possible, and it was obvious that we WEREN’T DOING IT FROM AN URGE TO CLEAR UP MYSTERIES but because NONE OF US COULD GO ON LIVING WITHOUT AN EXACT KNOWLEDGE of the place and the MISSION ASSIGNED TO US BY FATE” (Marquez, 113). Okay so the words I put in bold are the words I’d like to draw your attention to. Gabriel is describing humans tendency to want to order things, categorize events- this is how we understand things, especially things as absurd and seemingly impossible as the death of Santiago Nasar. Marquez also mentions that “...none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge…”(Marquez, 113). This exact knowledge he refers to is truth. But what is truth? (Sorry but I’m going to TOK for a bit) It varies from person to person, and at least in my opinion, truth is what human want to believe in; more than anything else we, as humans we want to be right, and rather than the facts prove truth, we want the facts to prove OUR individual truth. In other words, the people in the town wanted the truth to be that they couldn’t have done anything to prevent Santiago’s death, when in reality just the opposite is true. Everyone wanted to believe that Santiago’s death was fate, that was their way of coping with the decisions they made while he still lived- what resulted of that? The “anxiety” or rather, the guilt that they’ll feel for the rest of their lives. As much as we wish we could go back to the past to make better decisions and cure our guilt; as humans, to repent for poor decisions, more often than not, the only way to move forward, ease guilt and lessen the shame we feel is to learn from our mistakes, and that’s what Gabriel Marquez is trying to convey to the readers- To learn from others’ mistakes so we personally never have to experience hardship when it could have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading the final chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I couldn’t help but continuously thinking about how the title of the book played a role. Foretold was the word I kept thinking of when reading. The series of unbelievable chances that result in Santiago’s death suggest that the death was fated, that no one could have stopped it. The magic sense of magical realism stood out to me here, the magic of inescapable destiny. This theme has been explored since the very first words of the book, even from the book's title, Santiago’s death is foretold. Marquez writes, “...but because none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (96). This passage describes the townspeople's guilt for not preventing the murder years after the fact, as well as the fate that the entire town felt of Santiago Nasar’s death. Santiago seems to be complicit with his own death. The morning of his murder, he chooses to leave out the front door of his house, rather than going out the back like he normally does. This simple change could have prevented his death and saved him. Characters in the book also comment throughout the book, that he is either already dead or that there was no way he would be killed. The narrator writes, “No one even wondered whether Santiago Nasar had been warned, because it seemed impossible to all that he hadn't” (36). This describes the townspeople's belief that there was no way that the Vicario brothers would go through with the murder. They were sadly mistaken and they deal with that guilt throughout the final chapter. The narrator also records all these events twenty seven years after the murder. The people he interviews seem to all shrink their role in the murder onto the sense of the murders fatedness. If the sense of fate in the book is what makes it magical, then it is the attentiveness to magic as a human condition that makes the book realistic.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stood out to me in chapter 5 was the theme of fate. The theme of fate is shown throughout the whole book, but the final chapter ties it all together. The narrator seems to have a nonchalant tone that doesn't sound like he's talking about a murder. It seems throughout the chapter that the narrator is never actually looking for the truth. He isn't really trying to find out whether or not Santiago is guilty, he is just explaining why the whole thing was inevitable. For example, Celeste Dangond says, ¨I got all mixed up. Because it suddenly seemed to me that they couldn't be killing him if he was so sure of what he was going to do¨ (Marquez 103). He is saying that he didn't warn Santiago because it seemed like he already had his day planned out. This whole concept doesn't make sense and is just another excuse. It doesn't matter if Santiago had his day planned out or not, Pedro and Pablo were going to find him and kill him. In the end none of the townspeople really wanted Santiago to die (except Pedro and Pablo), but everyone ended up being involved in the murder without trying. Each person interviewed had some strange excuse that made them feel better for not taking action. Telling their side of the story is a way to get rid of that lingering guilt. This relates to the Genovese syndrome where the people are now looking at this horrible thing they created and feeling guilty. Most of these people didn't want to get involved at the time or figured that someone else would take care of it. The only way for them to feel less guilty is to almost boast about their lack of involvement. Santiago's murder represents the Genovese case at an extreme but helps the reader see the selfishness in humans. In the end I don't know if I believe that Santiago's murder was fate, but that's what the narrator wants us to believe.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction of Bayardo San Roman in chapter two of chronicle of a death foretold shows us the motive for killing Santiago Nasar. The first thing about Bayardo that I noticed is that he seems to be able to marry whomever he pleases. He has his heart set to Angela Vicario, however, Angela is not very enthusiastic about him marrying her, and states “He is too much of a man for me”. I find Bayardo similar to Petruchio from Taming of the Shrew because they both do and believe they can accomplish anything they like. Bayardo knows he can run an expensive wedding and can forcefully marry Angela Vicario. Likewise, Petruchio knows and has faith that he will tame Katherine and marry her. In addition, both men seem very masculine to the point where they are perceived as foolished by some (for Petruchio, many). The double standards in this community are also shown in this chapter when the narrator, Luis, Cristo, and Santiago go to a whorehouse and are allowed to do whatever they please while women have strict standards and cannot have premarital sex. Angela Vicario on the other hand, has high expectations for her and she finally breaks at the end of the chapter when she reveals Santiago Nasar has taken her virginity. Her family even strongly encourages the marriage because Bayardo comes from a wealthy family. Much like Taming of the Shrew, families did have a say in marriages. Bianca wanted Katherine to be married so she could be married, and Baptista for the same reason so he wouldn't have to care for them much now that another man would.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 3 of CODF, the fact that nobody pays attention to the Vicario brothers when they tell others about their plan to kill Santiago Nasar chapter 3 in CODF shows how human nature’s common instinct is to care for themselves over others. In chapter 3, specifically, it appears that the brothers are drunk as well; others do not believe what the Vicario brothers are actually going to follow through with their plan to kill him because the Vicario brothers were seen as good people. Faustino, who is slightly worried about their plan, tells an officer. Clothilde Armenta also tells her husband about the brothers’ plan, but he thinks she is silly and such a thing wouldn’t happen. The colonel is informed, and goes to Clothilde’s shop and confiscates the knives from the brothers. This series of events further shows how human nature in this book is portrayed in a way where humans are not only being selfish, but also in a way where humans worry too little to actually ponder over damage in society could be done; this leads to them only really working on things that benefit themselves rather than things that help other human beings. No one really did anything except gossip about the rumored murder and even the colonel did little to stop them. Everything everyone did to prevent the murder virtually didn’t help at all. It’s not until after the murder occurs when everyone selfish “shell” is broken and they care about the wellbeing of others.
ReplyDeleteThe sense of smell is an important symbol in chapter 4 of CODF because it is something that individuals in the book can’t get rid of. First, Maria Alejandria Cervantes will not sleep with the narrator of the book because he smells like Santiago. The brothers also cannot get of Santiago’s smell off their bodies. I think Marquéz uses this to show the audience a more literal way of the impact of murder. In society, no matter the status of an individual, there will always be an impact on those who knew the dead individual for the rest of their lives. After the murder of Santiago, everyone in the book is impacted greatly, whether it be physically, mentally, or emotionally. Marquéz used smell to show that even though everyone in the book up until this point cannot see Santiago, they will still always be reminded of him from the smell he gives off. Furthermore, Márquez must’ve chose smell because smell is the only sense that an individual uses 24/7. This gives the reader the understanding that everyone that knew Santiago Nasar cannot physically forget Santiago because the smell is always lurking around Santiago’s friends, families and acquaintances. Continuing on with the impact Santiago’s death has put on his community, we also see that Angela’s face was wrapped so that no one could see the bruises that she obtained from her mother’s beating, and we see Bayardo almost dead from alcohol poisoning. Even though the murder seemed like a good idea at the time, the brothers have to put up with internal and external consequences, no matter what society they live in.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 5 of CODF, we see the last efforts of other characters trying to prevent the murder, however, again, they fail. Santiago is warned a short while before the death, but fails to believe it and wanders off by himself. Once again, people are only caring and looking after Santiago a little more, and are only doing a little more to help prevent the murder; Santiago’s loved ones are still not doing enough to help prevent the murder. The main question I feel that could be brought up after reading this book is: why would the town and community the book takes place in allow such a publicized murder plan to take place? So many people were warned about Santiago’s murder, yet no one really stood up or chose to believe it and took it seriously. Even Santiago Nasar himself was warned in advance, and still didn’t take it seriously or even believe it. This is odd, because throughout the whole story, the audience has seen other characters besides Santiago Nasar as selfish. However, Santiago Nasar wouldn't be selfish in this case if he wasn’t worried about his own death. This is one of the reasons why I consider him a Christ-like figure in this situation because Jesus also didn’t care about his death. Now, a huge difference between him and Jesus is the fact that Jesus had many enemies, and people opposed to him. Santiago, in general, was only disliked by the Vicario brothers. But, in the end, both of them died for reasons other than crime.
ReplyDelete