In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the narrator speaks a lot about how everyone knew Santiago Nasar was going to die except the people that were expected to know. Santiago himself; his mother, who often told the future from dreams; the narrator’s sister, who was friends with Santiago; and the narrator’s mother, who “knew about everything before anyone else,” (Marquez 23). I think this is an interesting detail because the killers apparently plainly wrote a note for him saying that they were planning on killing him and how they were planning on doing so. Why would nobody go up to him and ask, “Hey you’re still out and about even though you’re about to be killed?” because that’s definitely something I would do. I’m also curious about the connection between Angela Vicario, who turned out to not be a virgin after her wedding, and Santiago. Is this connection why they wanted to kill him? And why would you leave a note saying how you’re going to kill someone if you’re planning on killing him? Maybe they didn’t actually want to kill him but felt obligated to? Or were hired to? I just think this entire story is already sketchy. Also, the dream about the trees and the tinfoil airplane that he was “flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything,” was really interesting to me (1). It seems like that’s foretelling him not running into anything that would have warned him about his death, even though the crashing is generally considered more dangerous for a person.
The first time I read this novel I also found it extremely odd how everybody in this town was gossiping about Santiago's planned murder but almost nobody actually did anything to stop it, let alone even bring it up to him at all. They all just let him walk by unknowingly and watched curiously to see if it would actually happen. It appears to me that in this small town that death threats were not that uncommon of a thing, and maybe even death by murder was not uncommon either. It is unclear of the time period this novel takes place in, but I find it hard to believe that people were so trusting and carefree about the laws, let alone the law that states not to murder people!
I also found this interesting, especially as this bystander effect seems to be one of the main points of the story. I was especially surprised when the narrator's mother was so concerned about warning Santiago's mother because "'It isn't right that everybody should know that they're going to kill her son and she the only one who doesn't'" (Márquez 22). Why would she think it was so important to tell his mother but not even consider telling him? I think his characterization by the cook and her daughter as being rich and disliked may point to an socioeconomic disparity that could be the cause of many people's lack of care or action.
When first reading “Chronicle Of a Death Foretold” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, I did not pay much attention to the smaller details that would foreshadow the later events to happen in this novel. So when I reread the first chapter I was honestly shocked when I realized what this quote was directly referring to. Garcia Marquez writes, “But she couldn’t avoid a wave of fright as she remembered Santiago Nasar’s horror when she pulled out the insides of a rabbit by the roots and threw the steaming guts to the dogs...Victoria Guzman needed almost twenty years to understand that a man accustomed to killing defenseless animals could suddenly express such horror” (10). As readers later find out at the end of the novel, Santiago is murdered by two brothers, Pablo and Pedro, with a butcher knife that ultimately leaves Santiago sitting there with his arms full of his own guts spilling out from his body. A common theme in this novel is that of interpreting omens and predicting things later to come. This quote is one example of how signs before Santiago’s death can be shown to lead to it later on in the novel and how it was odd for Santiago to be horrified by this action when it was something he dealt with so often and seemingly had never showed any sign of being horrified by in the past. Another thing I noticed while reading the first chapter again is the continuous mention of rain and the weather during the morning of Santiago’s death. “Many people coincided in recalling that it was a radiant morning with a sea breeze coming in through the banana groves, as was to be expected in a fine February of that period. But most agreed that the weather was funereal, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters, and that at the moment of the misfortune a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago Nasar had seen in his dream grove” (4). Garcia Marquez writes. The obvious connotation readers connect with rain is that of a melancholy feeling and discontent. Garcia Marquez’s description of rain sets the mood that is the entire rest of this book.
I really like your analysis! I agree that Santiago being disgusted by the throwing of the guts but did kill animals for his job was really strange when I first read it, but it made a lot more sense this time around. Also, I believe that when Santiago responds with " Make believe they are human( 10). is very important. He believes that even animals shouldn't have their guts thrown on the ground, but in the end that is exactly what happens to him. This foreshadowing is very evident and actually really sad. This idea made me think about murder and how others handled it. When asked,the Vicario Brothers had all of these rules about the animals they butcher. They only did it out of necessity, they could only live with themselves if it was absolutely necessary . I think this is how they must have justified murdering Santiago. Santiago supposedly took their sister's virginity, which is her honor but also their honor, the most important thing. It was a necessity, in their sick, crazy, insane minds.
What I really want to talk about today is the Trees and dreams If you were in period 3 last semester, you know that I like trees, I even did my IOP on them. Anyways.
There were many trees mentioned in Chapter 1, specifically the almond tree. Santiago Nasar dreams of “flying in a tinfoil airplane through almond trees without bumping anything” (Marquez 4). The almond tree can have very different interpretations of it’s symbolism. One thing that the almond tree is known for is that it blooms very early but bares fruit very late. This can relate to the story in how everyone knew of the plan to murder Santiago very early, but it was very late, too late when someone actually attempted and made an effort to tell Santiago. Another way that it connects, is that the Hebrew word for almond is “Shaker” which translates roughly to “ to watch”. That is literally all that the villagers did when The Vicario Brothers made their long journey to kill Santiago. Hardly anyone stepped in or if they did it wasn’t enough.
When Santiago's mother recalls that she should have noticed the signs, it’s pretty understandable. In his dream, he is flying in a very precarious object that could easily break. This might represent his happiness or even his life because it is functioning but is susceptible to a lot. The act of not hitting anything can be seen as no one connecting with him or telling him that he was about to be murdered.
I really like your analysis of tress and I definitely agree with you. I also think that the almond trees and when they bear fruit can represent Angela's life, because I'm assuming she lost her virginity awhile ago, or at the very least no one knew when she lost it, but when the truth came out or the tree bore fruit, it was too late and the damage was already done. I have no idea if I'm making sense right now, but yeah.
While reading the first chapter, one thing that stood out to me was how they portrayed Santiago Nasar. On page 3, the narrator was describing what Santiago was like on a normal Monday: “If it hadn’t been for the bishop’s arrival, he would have dressed in his khaki outfit and the riding boots he wore on Mondays to go to The Divine Face, the cattle ranch he’d inherited from his father and which he administered with very good judgement but without much luck. In the country he wore a .375 Magnum on his belt, and its armored bullets, according to what he said, could cut a horse in two through the middle. During the partridge season he would also carry his falconry equipment. In the closet he kept a Mannlicher Schoenauer .30-06 rifle, a .300 Holland & Holland Magnum rifle, a .22 Hornet with a double powered telescopic sight, and a Winchester repeater.” (Marquez) Okay, so that was a really long quote, but it is an important one. It portrays Santiago as the men of all men. He owns a cattle ranch and does falconry and he has his own personal arsenal. Later on, the page also mentions that he sleeps with a weapon under his pillow. All of these things portray him to be a dominant man who is in control of his life. It also shows that he is rich and has a routine. I also think that it’s important to note that the narrator emphasizes the bishop being there, causing Santiago to stray from his routine. It shows that Santiago is very religious, but also suggests that if it had been any other Monday, he might not have died. I find this quote to be very interesting because it makes Santiago out to be this amazing man and gives him an air of innocence that causes the reader to sympathize with him. It really sets the reader up for the rest of the book, as these first few pages really set the tone for how the reader views all of the characters.
I think this is also interesting because Santiago is normally really in control of his life, but he wasn't on this specific day. Also because he could have been in control, if someone had told him about his death, or he had seen the note. It makes his death much more interesting because of the lack of control, and connects to the idea of this being a weird event because people are doing the opposite of what's expected of them.
In chapter one, something I found interesting was the frequent use of birds both in the foreground and background of the narrative. Santiago Nasar is mentioned to be involved in falconry, which sets up his later characterization by the cook and her daughter as being predatory and powerful. His mother’s assertion that “any dream about birds means good health” (Márquez 6) is the other most important mention of birds, and one that makes all the other subtler mentions such as the “hens sleeping on their perches” (9) and the “cages of sleeping birds in the dining room” (13). The birds, and their common connection to sleep, are thus connected to the idea of health and dreams, but perhaps in a more foretelling way than the mother thought. This symbol, as well as the frequent disagreements over the weather, may turn out to have continued significance as the story progresses.
Another interesting element to me was the naming of characters-- they are almost always referred to by their full names, such as Santiago Nasar and Victoria Guzmán, or occasionally by their relation to other characters. This contributes significantly to the interesting narrative style of the story, which has a strong connection to the idea of an investigative report, but also a strange amount of personal information from the nameless narrator. This effect is furthered by the frequent naming of times, but it is also countered by the elements of personality, as though two different narrative styles are fighting to prevail. The story uses the trope of letting the audience know the criminals before the crime takes place, but in the first few pages only the crime is named, adding further suspense as the killer’s identities are revealed. This combination of mystery and report, of the narrator having or not having an identity, results in a unique kind of storytelling.
In chapter one of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” there is a lot of foreshadowing towards Santiago Nasar’s murder. It happens almost contently throughout the course of the chapter, whether it’s with dreams, or with observations made by people. The first of this was how it was a pretty gloomy day. The narrator says, “most agreed that the weather was funeral, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters…” (Márquez 2). The dismal condition of the weather shows that this day isn’t going to go well. It’s setting the plot up for a tragedy, the death that we know is going to befall Santiago Nasar. Even though everyone agreed that the weather was miserable, Santiago Nasar proclaimed that it was a very beautiful day, showing his ignorance to his situation. He thinks that everything is looking up in the world and it’s going to be a great day, but the rest of the town knows better. Another instance of foreshadowing is later on when Clotilde Armenta testifies that, “He already looked like a ghost” (16). Here, the line basically speaks for itself. He’s on his way to die, and his fate is written in so soundly that he might as well already be dead. Clotilde can see it, and so can the rest of the town. The fact that this man is going to die is emphasized to such an extreme level, with foreshadowing only being part of it. No matter how much we hope Santiago Nasar will make it out in the end, his demise is just inevitable.
You mention his dreams as foreshadowing for his death and I agree, but why do you think his mother who interpreted dreams didn't for see her sons death? I like how you talked about Santiago Nasar being ignorant to the situation through his reaction to the weather. Another thing that relates to this is how it seems like such a normal day at first with the details of him getting dressed like it's just another day.
It’s clear from the beginning that dreams and what they mean will be an important symbol in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. When describing the first dream it says, “He’d dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees” (Marquez 1). I found it odd that the tree was called a “timber tree” since timber comes from trees rather than is a specific kind of one. It then talks about a drizzle of rain and rain tends to symbolize sadness and depression. However at the very end he gets pooped on by a bird. Bird poop actually supposedly brings good luck which doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the mood of the story since we know he is going to die. In his second dream it first mentions a “tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything” (Marquez 1). From what I found, almond trees symbolize happiness which is ironic since he dies. However you could also look at it as if he was the plane and never hit the trees that were his happiness, was he doomed to be unhappy? His mother, an interpreter of other people’s dreams said, in regards to her son Santiago Nasar, “he was always dreaming about trees” (Marquez 1). Specific kinds of trees have a wide variety of different meanings, but trees as a whole represent strength and life. So after reading this, how do you think Santiago Nasar’s death was foreshadowed through his dreams?
One important theme properly introduced in Chapter 2 of “Chronicle Of a Death Foretold” is honor. Similar to “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, it is important to the characters to maintain their honor. It is not questioned by anyone in this novel of people’s motives to preserve their honor, and similiar to society today a person without honor is looked down upon from the community. The first instance I found of this theme was on page 30. Garcia Marquez writes, “Her father, Poncio Vicario, was a poor man’s goldsmith, and he’d lost his sight from doing so much fine work in gold in order to maintain the honor of the house” (30). It is expected of men, especially fathers, in this novel (and still in society) to work hard in order to maintain a wealthy living as well as be an honorable man. The next quote I found regarding honor is when Angela is about to marry Bayardo San Roman, whom she doesn’t wish to marry but is being forced into. Garcia Marquez writes, “‘I would have been happy even if he hadn’t come, but never if he abandoned me dressed up.” Her caution seemed natural, because there was no public misfortune more shameful than for a women to be jilted in her bridal gown” (41). I believe a lot of people would agree that this happening would be quite embarrassing, but what separates our society compared to the novel’s is that this would make the man look bad compared to the woman. Of course this would not have necessarily been the case in an earlier time period, which seems to fit the time-span of the novel.
I find this comparison interesting, since I wrote my blog post about how Chronicle of a Death Foretold is different from thing's we've read, including A Doll's House. In my blog post, I wrote about how women aren't really expected to be meek and quiet, although they're still expected to be virgins, which is different than Taming of the Shrew and A Doll's House. I think these connections are really interesting, both the similarities and the differences.
While reading chapter two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I noticed something interesting. Marquéz writes, "Unlike other girls of the time, who had neglected the cult of death," and, "they organized dances for women only and were predisposed to find hidden intentions in the designs of men," (Marquéz 34). This, for whatever reason, reminded me of the Crucible, where girls were called witches for dancing and doing things that could be considered odd. This difference in the ways that the dancing and playing with death is represented really shows the difference in setting between this book and things we've previously read, where women are supposed to be meek and inexpressive. Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, Ibsen's A Doll's House, and the Crucible from last year. This book is different from what we've read in a few ways, but I think the setting is an important part in particular. This is set in a world where things that seem odd to us are just accepted, and where girls aren't necessarily supposed to be meek and quiet, as we see with the two mothers who regularly practice what would be considered witchcraft. I think this one big difference in particular is important in understanding the story, because we have to look at it in a fairly different way than we're used to. When reading books about girls being quiet and men being whoever they want to be, that's something we can see in everyday society. This book requires a different lens than the ones we've looked at previously, which I think we should have more of. Overall, the difference in setting is a big thing that requires us to take a step back when analyzing this book, especially when compared to previous books that we've read in English classes.
I agree with what you're saying but I think that there are some women who are at the very least expected to be obedient to men. There is definitely a double standard in this setting as women are expected to be virgins and obey their husbands, but you also get the sense that it's okay for them to be more feisty and headstrong. It's an interesting juxtaposition and it's a fine line that the women in this society were forced to walk.
As made clear in chapter two, Chronicle of a Death Foretold is full of societal criticisms and comparisons, some more straightforward than others. The chapter starts with the introduction of Bayardo San Román, a mysterious stranger who seems more like a folk story character than a person from a real-life report. He as characterized as being very mysterious and difficult to accurately judge, yet judgements are quick. The narrator’s mother says, “he’s honest and has a good heart, and last Sunday he received communion on his knees and helped with the mass in Latin” (Márquez 27). The narrator mentions that these details of her judgement are superfluous, which leads us to believe that she is only seeing what she wants to see-- just as the entire town is in regards to the death of Santiago Nasar. This is a recurring theme which is again referenced later with the bride’s blind father, who responds to the wrong conversations, is generally in the way, and is described as being “happy in his circle of oblivion” (44). Blissful ignorance can also be seen in the entire concept of the party. Román puts more effort into wooing the town than he does to his new wife, and their relationship is obviously flawed, yet the entire town participates in the celebrations. This is more directly a criticism of society’s tendency to lie about its motives as a whole-- this party is not really about a celebration of marriage, but it pretends that it is.
I really like your analysis! I believe that Ignorance is Bliss is a major theme in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. I see this largely with the murder of Santiago Nasar. The whole town knows and chooses to look the other way, to not care, to not realize the consequences. To not act. I had noticed the point about the bride's blind father, but hadn't connected it to this theme yet. Thanks for pointing that out. Something that seems interesting to me is that throughout the whole story, the theme Ignorance is Bliss is expressed. For the narrator to go back 27 years and try to see all of the points of the story, is the exact opposite of Ignorance, it is a quest for knowledge and truth, which I believe is the idea that Marquez is truly trying to express.
Chapter Two talked a lot about Bayardo San Roman. Almost six pages were all about him. I noticed something pretty interesting in these pages. Colors are mentioned very often in Chronicle Of A Death Foretold, but I noticed that the color gold was mentioned more regularly when Bayardo San Roman was the object of focus. In Bayardo San Roman’s first introduction, it is mentioned that he has “golden eyes” (25). As they say, eyes are the window to the soul. What someone’s eyes are like, they can be like. The color gold has a very positive connotation. It’s the color of wealth, extravagance and excess. The San Roman family also gifts Angela Vicario “a chest with table settings in pure gold”(39). This shows the extremity of wealth that Bayardo has come from. The gift shows importance in family, as tabling settings in mainly meant for a family or for hosting. By this I mean, it enforces the idea that women need to be concerned with family first. (quick rant here. Bayardo got a freaking car, and Angela just got some table settings??? Rude). Gold also reminds me of the common phrase “ Not all that glitters is gold”( Fun fact, I’m p sure this is from Shakespeare!! Merchant of Venice)) I believe this to mean that Bayardo may seem to be so great and wealthy, but maybe he is not as great as he is made out to be, only as wealthy. We can see this idea being expressed by other characters also. The narrator’s mother and Angela Vicario are unimpressed by Bayardo, even saying “ He reminded me of the devil” (28). The use of the repetition of Gold calls attention to Bayardo's extravagance, personality, and the conflicting view from other characters of both those things.
I like this analysis of Bayardo San Román! I was especially interested in your mention of the phrase "Not all that glitters is gold", because I hadn't noticed the symbolism behind the gold motif. I'm still trying to decide what I think the purpose of Román's character in this book is-- is he all deception? All honesty? Why is he presented like a storybook character, showing up enigmatically in town looking for a wife, arousing rumors? The connection of gold to deception as well as extravagance definitely helps with pinning down his character.
During Chapter 2, the introduction of Bayardo San Roman reminds me of Gatsby. He blows into town and starts doing all of these extravagant things, but he’s obviously hiding something. This is evident in the description of the way he speaks, “It might have been true, but he would have answered anything else in the same way, because he had a way of speaking that served to conceal rather than to reveal,” (Marquez, 28). It’s obvious from the description of him that he avoids revealing anything truthful about himself. He’s similar to Gatsby in that he seems to know everything or have a hand in everything, but he’s different in his intentions and ending. He’s also different because people learn the truth of him. This is demonstrated in the narrator’s mom’s letter, “Only a long time after the unfortunate wedding did she confess to me that she actually knew him when it was already too late to correct the October letter, and that his golden eyes had caused the shudder of a fear in her,” (Marquez, 30). I find Bayardo’s description interesting because in some ways it’s similar to Gatsby’s and in others it’s not. However, they’re similar in the regard that they have either no or very few friends, they’re very mysterious and don’t reveal much about themselves to other people, and they’re both sad. They both hide behind their wealth and their ability to do extravagant things.
Chronicle of a Death Foretold tends to skip around in time, always avoiding the actual scene of the murder until the end. But from the very beginning of the book we know that Santiago Nasar is to die, and very shortly after that we know who kills him, and why. This makes the foreshadowing in this book very interesting, because it is foreshadowing of something that everyone already knows is going to happen. The motif of butchering is brought back in chapter three with connections to Santiago Nasar’s uncharacteristic disgust at the pig intestines in the first chapter: “I was to ask the butchers sometime later whether or not the trade of slaughterer didn’t reveal a soul predisposed to killing a human being” (Márquez 52). The response was a denial and a description of being unable to slaughter animals they had known. This entire concept throughout the book seems very meaningful in many ways-- first of all, it is obvious foreshadowing of the foretold death, but it ends up being very specific imagery in relation to Nasar’s gory death. Secondly, Nasar’s discomfort with the pig guts and the brothers’ pigs willingness to kill pigs named after flowers offer insight into these characters’ morality and perception of others’ life. For Nasar, it is a small moment of empathy in a person who is characterized by those around him as being wealthy and somewhat apathetic. For the brothers, it opens the door for more exploration of their morality and individuality through the eyes of Clotilde Armenta.
I like your connection of foreshadowing to the motif of butchering. As you can probably guess from the title, foreshadowing plays a huge role in this story and everyone knows that Santiago Nasar is going to die. The butchering that you describe is the perfect foreshadowing for his death, as the two were pretty similar. There's a lot of motifs that imply foreshadowing in the book, but I think the one you described is one of the biggest ones.
Something interesting I noticed in chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is actually something I've been thinking about throughout the book. Why would the Vicario brothers tell so enough people that everyone knows about their decision to kill Santiago? There are two options. One is brought up in this chapter by Clotilde Armenta, when she tells the colonel she wants to "spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that's fallen on them," (Márquez 65). The narrator then goes on to say that she was sure Pedro and Pablo "were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them," (65). So, maybe they told everyone because they knew they had to defend their sister's honor, but they didn't want to have to kill someone. Maybe they thought that, if they told enough people, someone would stop them and they wouldn't be forced to carry out this duty that's befallen them. Another reason could be that they were testing their boundaries. How likely were people to believe they'd kill someone? If they were stopped, well, then they wouldn't have to kill anyone. If they weren't, at least they know they'll get a fairly lenient sentence, since they're liked around town. This second theory reminds me of the movie Bernie, which is based off a true story about a guy who's liked all around town. He gets fairly close to this old lady that everyone hates, and then kills her. However, when everyone finds out, they don't want to convict him, so they have to move the trial to somewhere else. I think this is similar to what's happening in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. The Vicario brothers have such a good reputation that they can literally walk around town saying they're going to kill someone and the townsfolk doesn't even care, for the most part. Those who do care even want to help them, whether to get them to carry out the murder, or to stop them because of the belief that they don't want to have to kill Santiago. Honestly, I think the first theory is more likely, but I wouldn't be surprised about them testing just how much they can get away with.
I've seen that movie and I think that's an interesting comparison, but I also agree that it's probably not the most accurate interpretation of the events. There isn't much evidence that the Vicario brothers are beloved by the town, especially since most people can't even tell them apart. I think it's much more of a testament to their unwillingness to intervene in a crisis or to interfere with fate. As for the brothers' actions, it is made fairly clear as the book progresses that they wanted to be stopped. However, their reasoning behind this and why they couldn't just stop themselves is less clear, so I can see how testing boundaries could be interpreted as part of the reason for their actions.
Is that a true story? (The movie, that is??) I think you're right about them not actually wanting to do it... but once you've told someone you're doing something, it's hard to back down!
Let’s talk about the Vicario Brothers. They are two male twin butchers from a poor large family. They are also murderers. Being a ‘slaughterer’ comes with a lot of rules about the animals you slaughter, according to the village butchers. In Chapter 3, different butchers explain the different superstitions or rules, such as “ When you sacrifice a steer, you don’t dare look into it’s eyes”(52) or “ he wouldn’t be capable of sacrificing a cow if he’d known it before, much less if he’d drunk its milk”(52). Since the Vicario Brothers are butchers, I would assume that they would follow these rules, even when it comes to murder of a human being. Quite to the contrary, they are reported “drinking with us and singing with Santiago Nasar five hours before killing him”(45). The unknown town where this event takes place is very superstitious. Their belief system is based on religion and (almost magic-like) superstitions, and they very much value following the rules or the norms. Soon before before and soon after the murder, both of the brothers are plagued with problems centering around their hips or bottoms, which I believe to be symbolizing their masculinity or manhood. Especially due to the nature of the murder, for honor. Pedro Vicario came back from the military with “ Sergeant’s blennorrhea” or as we call it today, Gonorrhea. This made it extremely difficult for him to urinate, because just the act of urinating irritates it and it can lead to a swollen or painful penis. Right before the murder, Pedro retreats to a tamarind tree and unsuccessfully tries to urinate, resulting in an “agonized, drop by drop”(61) process. Pedro Vicario’s episode of gonorrhea(not saying that he didn’t have it before, but in the story it was made known right before the murder) is directly correlated to the murder of Santiago Nasar. The brothers have broken a rule of slaughtering, they knew their victim well and had enjoyed the benefits of his friendship. For breaking the rule, they punished by themselves. In chapter 4, Pablo has crazy diarrhea, but I’ll talk about that later. Also, the tamarind tree in which Pedro retreats to, is known for it’s sweet and sourness of its fruit. Almost like the murder. They retrieved their sister’s lost honor and proved themselves as men, but they murdered a human being to do so.
In chapters 4 and 5, we see a continuing juxtaposition between a logical, numerical report-like tone and the feeling of a storybook. The story about Angela Vicario’s letters and the return of Bayardo San Román doesn’t sound like something that would happen in real life, whereas he description of Santiago Nasar’s wounds several pages earlier is entirely methodological and sounds like it was lifted from the autopsy report. Anatomical diction like “thoracic cavity” and “transverse colon” gives the passage a scientific, unfeeling tone, while the inclusion of the medal brings back the motif of gold and its connection to wealth, privilege, and dishonesty. Another interesting element in the scene was the continued juxtaposition of religion with violence in the fact that the priest performed the autopsy, saying, “‘It was as if we killed him all over again after he was dead’” (Márquez 72). This suggests an interesting correlation between religion and harm, giving insight into the author’s thoughts on a connection between catholicism and mental, physical, or spiritual deterioration. The fact that the autopsy is performed in such a haphazard and unprofessional circumstance, with few tools, few qualifications, and no functioning freezer, provides an additional tone of negligence. Something that I didn’t entirely understand was what happened with Bayardo San Román, and why he was considered to be the only victim, rather than Santiago Nasar or even Angela Vicario. I don’t really get why he was considered to have lost everything, since as I understand it the only thing he lost was his impure wife. If I’m correct, this is definitely important in an analysis of this society’s priorities: they care more for the enigmatic newcomer who has it all than they do for the person who actually died.
I'm thinking that Angela isn't considered a victim because she did what was considered at the time, and to an extent now, as something that wasn't okay. Santiago, I think, wasn't much considered a victim even though they all knew he and Angela didn't actually have sex because Angela never actually said it wasn't him, which left this doubt in their minds. I also think so because it makes them feel better about their inaction.
In chapter 4, I noticed a lot about the symbol of birds. It's also seen throughout the book, but something about them stood out in this chapter in particular. One time it's mentioned is when Xius told the mayor he's seen a "phosphorescent bird fluttering over his former home," (Marquez 97). This was said, presumably, shortly before he died. Similar to how Santiago looked like a bird in chapter 5, this bird foretold death. Birds were then brought up again when the narrator recalls Santiago calling his cousin, "your cousin the booby," whenever he needed to mention her (104). Shortly after, the narrator says Santiago has always been "a sparrow hawk," because he preferred to be alone. I think these are both important to their respective characters and what people think about them. By calling Angela a booby, he's calling her stupid. The name of the blue-footed boobies originated with Spanish explorers calling them "bobos," essentially meaning dummies. This shows that Santiago sees himself above her, and has no desire to associate himself with her. Blue-footed boobies are also known to be pretty because of their bright blue feet, which are glaringly obvious details, similar to how Angela was known to be the prettiest of the four sisters. For Santiago, his bird sounds slightly contradictory. A sparrow and a hawk in one bird? A sparrow is generally a bird that is seen as small and weak, while a hawk is seen as strong and majestic. A sparrowhawk actually takes more from the latter, being a bird of prey. However, I think this shows exactly how people see him. A contradiction in the fact that he is known to have a gun, but is also known to never keep it loaded, but he looks strong and like he can win a fight. However, unlike the bird he is said to be like, he ends up being the prey, rather than being the predator. I think birds are a very important part to this book, if just to show a little more about characters.
During Chapter 4, I was really interested in finally learning about what actually went down on the wedding night of Angela Vicario and Bayardo San Roman. In previous chapters, we learned that Angela Vicario was learning old wives’ tricks to fake her virginity, but we never learned exactly what they were. On the night of her wedding, Angela Vicario only asked for one thing from her mother, “ a small valise” (86) containing an assortment of “old wives’ artifices"(86). This small suitcase is the only item left belonging to Angela Vicario as the house slowly breaks down. I believe this is extremely important because it is the only thing that Angela Vicario is remembered for and now seen as. The whole townsfolk see her as a disgrace, she is almost nothing, neither the perpetrator or the victim. Her own mother doesn’t know what to do with her, so she tries to hide her in an unknown town. This shows to what extreme extent that sexism is in the society. Inside of her suitcase, Angela Vicario carried alum water and Mercurochrome. To fake her virginity, Angela Vicario was supposed to get her husband drunk, make sure the lights were off, douche herself with alum water and then dye the sheet with Mercurochrome. This plan presents a lot of problems stemming from a very flawed belief system about virginity and marriage. First problem is that not everyone bleeds when they first have sex, so I sense a lot of unnecessary problems coming from that. Alum is used for tightening the vagina(honestly, why do I know this? Google.), which could symbolize virginity. This also represents a problem as not all vaginas are tight when the person has never engaged in sexual intercourse. Overall, I believe this whole plan sheds more light on the amount of fear and uncertainty that Angela was feeling or was taught to feel by her society. The fact she decides to not deceive her husband, and then gets in even more trouble makes it clearer that back then and even now, there is little a women can do that is considered right. Thanks, GGM for making these killer truthful points!
I totally agree with what you're saying. I also think that these things say a lot about the role of women for hundreds of years, because it's obvious that these are things that women commonly use on their wedding night to make sure they're a "satisfactory" virgin (hard eye roll on that one). It makes me wonder what women did when society first started dictating that they had to be virgins. You know, like who came up with this stuff and how many women had to suffer before someone finnally found a solution? This makes me so mad.
One of the things that stood out to me in Chapter 4 was the dehumanization of Santiago’s remains. In the beginning of the chapter, his remains are essentially compared to the rabbit at the beginning of the book. The rabbit’s guts had been pulled out and fed to the dogs, and when Santiago dies the dogs are “aroused by the smell of death” (Marquez, 84). Santiago became the rabbit or the prey and his remains were treated similarly. This is seen when the priest finishes his autopsy and doesn’t know what to do with the intestines, “....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,” (Marquez, 88). By treating Santiago’s remains in this way, it is comparing him to the rabbit and the dogs to the twins. He was their prey and they hunted him, and in the end they gutted him like you would an animal. This says a lot about how the townspeople were able to act so nonchalantly about his death; it wasn’t entirely real to him. They made him an animal, they made him prey, in order to ease their conscious. It also shows a complete lack of regard for life. Santiago was supposedly someone to fear and respect, a man among men, and in the end he was treated like nothing more than an animal.
Something that stood out to me in Chapter 5 was at the end when Pablo was describing the murder of Santiago. He said to the narrator, “I felt the way you do when you’re galloping on horseback,” (Marquez, 140). This suggests that killing Santiago gave Pablo a sense of power. For centuries, the cavalrymen were the most feared and respected in any army, and by comparing the feeling of killing to galloping on horseback it is comparing Pablo to them. This is interesting because throughout the book, Santiago is portrayed as the powerful one, the one who can’t be killed. Later, Pablo becomes more somber when he says, “....you can’t imagine how hard it is to kill a man!” (Marquez, 140-141). What struck me was that he was talking about the physical aspect of killing a man, though I suppose he could have been talking about the emotional aspect. He proceeds to talk about how long it took Santiago to die, and how they had a hard time finding the heart. I find it somewhat disgusting that they feel no remorse for killing a man without making absolute certain that the allegation against him were true. I think that this is saying something about the apathy of man and man’s potential to commit atrocities. We all like to believe that everyone is pure and good and that only psychopaths could commit murder without feeling an ounce of remorse, but in reality, anyone could commit murder if they’re pushed far enough. It’s just that most people would regret it afterwards, even if they felt justified in it.
In chapter five of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, you'd expect everything to come together. However, that's an important thing about this book. We, as the readers, never find out if Santiago was really guilty of having sex with Angela, and Angela never tells. It's strongly hinted that the town is sure that he didn't do it, but Angela never says whether or not it was. This is commentary in itself on society. People are so focused on whether or not Santiago did it, and therefore whether his death was technically his fault, rather than questioning this idea of killing for Angela's "honor" in the first place. This idea that a woman's honor is in whether or not she's had sex is an important issue that Marquez covers and by not solving whether or not Santiago did it, he's saying that it doesn't actually matter. I also think it’s important to note who died. Instead of blaming Angela and killing her for being disgraceful, they killed Santiago, which is important because murders under these circumstances often end in the death of the woman, rather than the man. This could be another commentary by Marquez, in which he says that they are both to blame for the action. Angela loses her husband, and therefore the person that’s supposed to take care of her, while Santiago loses his life. While this isn’t equal loss, Angela does spend a large period of her life upset writing letters nearly obsessively, so there is something to say for her loss of total sanity.
I really like your analysis! I also believe that the fact that the townspeople are more obsessed with whether Santiago was guilty than whether the Vicario Brothers were guilty is a major social comententary. People free themselves from guilt, blame or shame by focusing on in the end meaningless things. It doesn't matter if he had slept with Angela, or if he had dreams of birds or if it rained or not, Santiago Nasar was murdered. In the novel, Santiago Nasar's death is hardly treated with respect or even acknowlegement. The phrase, " respect the dead" is utterly ignored by the townspeople, not only by the horrendous autopsy, but by the people's lack of a need for justice. The reason why I believe this is such a major point is "Honor is Love". When honor is threatened, like Love, all hell breaks loose, and it is acceptable due to the need to preserve honor. GGM makes a major point on the role of Honor in the past but also arguably in the present.
Chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold basically cements events that the reader already knows of. One thing I hadn’t noticed before, was the mention of Santiago’s fiancee, Flora Miguel. She had only been mentioned once before in passing, which says a lot. Their engagement was out of convenience and necessity. Neither loved each other, but they needed to be married because it was practical. Their engagement shows the lack of importance in love in the community. Flora Miguel belongs to a family that “slept until twelve o’clock on orders from Nahir Miguel, the wise man of the community” (111). Flora lived a completely separate life from Santiago, but they were attached by the engagement. This reminds me a lot of Angela and Bayardo. Angela Vicario was “ raised to suffer” and engaged to a man she did not love and barely knew. They were both beautiful, Flora was “ preserved like a rose”(111), and Angela was “ the prettiest of the four”(32). The two were different in many ways though. Angela had “ a helpless air and a poverty of spirit”(32), while Flora “ enjoyed a certain floral quality, but she lacked wit and judgement”(111). They also reacted the the engagement in different ways. Angela was very reluctant to marry Bayardo, only doing it out of necessity. She believed that “ He seemed too much of a man for me” (34). To Flora, the engagement was almost a blessed miracle, since her age and personality left her a little disadvantaged. When Santiago came to visit, the morning of his death, she was so furious that he might leave her, she shouted “ and I hope they kill you!” (113). These women are very similar and very different but in the end, both of their partners left them. They were alone. (yes, until Flora was an unwilling prostitute and Angela was reunited). This comparison of Angela and Flora’s lives and engagements show the need for love in a society. When marriages are made without love, you end up with death, betrayal, and an angry housemaid who lets your son die. GGM makes a very strong point about the need of live in life and marriage.
In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the narrator speaks a lot about how everyone knew Santiago Nasar was going to die except the people that were expected to know. Santiago himself; his mother, who often told the future from dreams; the narrator’s sister, who was friends with Santiago; and the narrator’s mother, who “knew about everything before anyone else,” (Marquez 23). I think this is an interesting detail because the killers apparently plainly wrote a note for him saying that they were planning on killing him and how they were planning on doing so. Why would nobody go up to him and ask, “Hey you’re still out and about even though you’re about to be killed?” because that’s definitely something I would do. I’m also curious about the connection between Angela Vicario, who turned out to not be a virgin after her wedding, and Santiago. Is this connection why they wanted to kill him? And why would you leave a note saying how you’re going to kill someone if you’re planning on killing him? Maybe they didn’t actually want to kill him but felt obligated to? Or were hired to? I just think this entire story is already sketchy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the dream about the trees and the tinfoil airplane that he was “flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything,” was really interesting to me (1). It seems like that’s foretelling him not running into anything that would have warned him about his death, even though the crashing is generally considered more dangerous for a person.
The first time I read this novel I also found it extremely odd how everybody in this town was gossiping about Santiago's planned murder but almost nobody actually did anything to stop it, let alone even bring it up to him at all. They all just let him walk by unknowingly and watched curiously to see if it would actually happen. It appears to me that in this small town that death threats were not that uncommon of a thing, and maybe even death by murder was not uncommon either. It is unclear of the time period this novel takes place in, but I find it hard to believe that people were so trusting and carefree about the laws, let alone the law that states not to murder people!
DeleteI also found this interesting, especially as this bystander effect seems to be one of the main points of the story. I was especially surprised when the narrator's mother was so concerned about warning Santiago's mother because "'It isn't right that everybody should know that they're going to kill her son and she the only one who doesn't'" (Márquez 22). Why would she think it was so important to tell his mother but not even consider telling him? I think his characterization by the cook and her daughter as being rich and disliked may point to an socioeconomic disparity that could be the cause of many people's lack of care or action.
DeleteWhen first reading “Chronicle Of a Death Foretold” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, I did not pay much attention to the smaller details that would foreshadow the later events to happen in this novel. So when I reread the first chapter I was honestly shocked when I realized what this quote was directly referring to. Garcia Marquez writes, “But she couldn’t avoid a wave of fright as she remembered Santiago Nasar’s horror when she pulled out the insides of a rabbit by the roots and threw the steaming guts to the dogs...Victoria Guzman needed almost twenty years to understand that a man accustomed to killing defenseless animals could suddenly express such horror” (10). As readers later find out at the end of the novel, Santiago is murdered by two brothers, Pablo and Pedro, with a butcher knife that ultimately leaves Santiago sitting there with his arms full of his own guts spilling out from his body. A common theme in this novel is that of interpreting omens and predicting things later to come. This quote is one example of how signs before Santiago’s death can be shown to lead to it later on in the novel and how it was odd for Santiago to be horrified by this action when it was something he dealt with so often and seemingly had never showed any sign of being horrified by in the past. Another thing I noticed while reading the first chapter again is the continuous mention of rain and the weather during the morning of Santiago’s death. “Many people coincided in recalling that it was a radiant morning with a sea breeze coming in through the banana groves, as was to be expected in a fine February of that period. But most agreed that the weather was funereal, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters, and that at the moment of the misfortune a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago Nasar had seen in his dream grove” (4). Garcia Marquez writes. The obvious connotation readers connect with rain is that of a melancholy feeling and discontent. Garcia Marquez’s description of rain sets the mood that is the entire rest of this book.
ReplyDeleteI really like your analysis! I agree that Santiago being disgusted by the throwing of the guts but did kill animals for his job was really strange when I first read it, but it made a lot more sense this time around. Also, I believe that when Santiago responds with " Make believe they are human( 10). is very important. He believes that even animals shouldn't have their guts thrown on the ground, but in the end that is exactly what happens to him. This foreshadowing is very evident and actually really sad. This idea made me think about murder and how others handled it. When asked,the Vicario Brothers had all of these rules about the animals they butcher. They only did it out of necessity, they could only live with themselves if it was absolutely necessary . I think this is how they must have justified murdering Santiago. Santiago supposedly took their sister's virginity, which is her honor but also their honor, the most important thing. It was a necessity, in their sick, crazy, insane minds.
DeleteWhat I really want to talk about today is the Trees and dreams If you were in period 3 last semester, you know that I like trees, I even did my IOP on them. Anyways.
ReplyDeleteThere were many trees mentioned in Chapter 1, specifically the almond tree. Santiago Nasar dreams of “flying in a tinfoil airplane through almond trees without bumping anything” (Marquez 4). The almond tree can have very different interpretations of it’s symbolism. One thing that the almond tree is known for is that it blooms very early but bares fruit very late. This can relate to the story in how everyone knew of the plan to murder Santiago very early, but it was very late, too late when someone actually attempted and made an effort to tell Santiago. Another way that it connects, is that the Hebrew word for almond is “Shaker” which translates roughly to “ to watch”. That is literally all that the villagers did when The Vicario Brothers made their long journey to kill Santiago. Hardly anyone stepped in or if they did it wasn’t enough.
When Santiago's mother recalls that she should have noticed the signs, it’s pretty understandable. In his dream, he is flying in a very precarious object that could easily break. This might represent his happiness or even his life because it is functioning but is susceptible to a lot. The act of not hitting anything can be seen as no one connecting with him or telling him that he was about to be murdered.
I really like your analysis of tress and I definitely agree with you. I also think that the almond trees and when they bear fruit can represent Angela's life, because I'm assuming she lost her virginity awhile ago, or at the very least no one knew when she lost it, but when the truth came out or the tree bore fruit, it was too late and the damage was already done. I have no idea if I'm making sense right now, but yeah.
DeleteWay to go, Group Three! I love that three of you have gotten going! :)
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the first chapter, one thing that stood out to me was how they portrayed Santiago Nasar. On page 3, the narrator was describing what Santiago was like on a normal Monday:
ReplyDelete“If it hadn’t been for the bishop’s arrival, he would have dressed in his khaki outfit and the
riding boots he wore on Mondays to go to The Divine Face, the cattle ranch he’d inherited
from his father and which he administered with very good judgement but without much luck. In the country he wore a .375 Magnum on his belt, and its armored bullets, according to what he said, could cut a horse in two through the middle. During the partridge season he would also carry his falconry equipment. In the closet he kept a Mannlicher Schoenauer .30-06 rifle, a .300 Holland & Holland Magnum rifle, a .22 Hornet with a double powered telescopic sight, and a Winchester repeater.” (Marquez)
Okay, so that was a really long quote, but it is an important one. It portrays Santiago as the men of all men. He owns a cattle ranch and does falconry and he has his own personal arsenal. Later on, the page also mentions that he sleeps with a weapon under his pillow. All of these things portray him to be a dominant man who is in control of his life. It also shows that he is rich and has a routine. I also think that it’s important to note that the narrator emphasizes the bishop being there, causing Santiago to stray from his routine. It shows that Santiago is very religious, but also suggests that if it had been any other Monday, he might not have died. I find this quote to be very interesting because it makes Santiago out to be this amazing man and gives him an air of innocence that causes the reader to sympathize with him. It really sets the reader up for the rest of the book, as these first few pages really set the tone for how the reader views all of the characters.
I think this is also interesting because Santiago is normally really in control of his life, but he wasn't on this specific day. Also because he could have been in control, if someone had told him about his death, or he had seen the note. It makes his death much more interesting because of the lack of control, and connects to the idea of this being a weird event because people are doing the opposite of what's expected of them.
DeleteIn chapter one, something I found interesting was the frequent use of birds both in the foreground and background of the narrative. Santiago Nasar is mentioned to be involved in falconry, which sets up his later characterization by the cook and her daughter as being predatory and powerful. His mother’s assertion that “any dream about birds means good health” (Márquez 6) is the other most important mention of birds, and one that makes all the other subtler mentions such as the “hens sleeping on their perches” (9) and the “cages of sleeping birds in the dining room” (13). The birds, and their common connection to sleep, are thus connected to the idea of health and dreams, but perhaps in a more foretelling way than the mother thought. This symbol, as well as the frequent disagreements over the weather, may turn out to have continued significance as the story progresses.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting element to me was the naming of characters-- they are almost always referred to by their full names, such as Santiago Nasar and Victoria Guzmán, or occasionally by their relation to other characters. This contributes significantly to the interesting narrative style of the story, which has a strong connection to the idea of an investigative report, but also a strange amount of personal information from the nameless narrator. This effect is furthered by the frequent naming of times, but it is also countered by the elements of personality, as though two different narrative styles are fighting to prevail. The story uses the trope of letting the audience know the criminals before the crime takes place, but in the first few pages only the crime is named, adding further suspense as the killer’s identities are revealed. This combination of mystery and report, of the narrator having or not having an identity, results in a unique kind of storytelling.
In chapter one of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” there is a lot of foreshadowing towards Santiago Nasar’s murder. It happens almost contently throughout the course of the chapter, whether it’s with dreams, or with observations made by people. The first of this was how it was a pretty gloomy day. The narrator says, “most agreed that the weather was funeral, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters…” (Márquez 2). The dismal condition of the weather shows that this day isn’t going to go well. It’s setting the plot up for a tragedy, the death that we know is going to befall Santiago Nasar. Even though everyone agreed that the weather was miserable, Santiago Nasar proclaimed that it was a very beautiful day, showing his ignorance to his situation. He thinks that everything is looking up in the world and it’s going to be a great day, but the rest of the town knows better. Another instance of foreshadowing is later on when Clotilde Armenta testifies that, “He already looked like a ghost” (16). Here, the line basically speaks for itself. He’s on his way to die, and his fate is written in so soundly that he might as well already be dead. Clotilde can see it, and so can the rest of the town. The fact that this man is going to die is emphasized to such an extreme level, with foreshadowing only being part of it. No matter how much we hope Santiago Nasar will make it out in the end, his demise is just inevitable.
ReplyDeleteYou mention his dreams as foreshadowing for his death and I agree, but why do you think his mother who interpreted dreams didn't for see her sons death? I like how you talked about Santiago Nasar being ignorant to the situation through his reaction to the weather. Another thing that relates to this is how it seems like such a normal day at first with the details of him getting dressed like it's just another day.
DeleteIt’s clear from the beginning that dreams and what they mean will be an important symbol in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. When describing the first dream it says, “He’d dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees” (Marquez 1). I found it odd that the tree was called a “timber tree” since timber comes from trees rather than is a specific kind of one. It then talks about a drizzle of rain and rain tends to symbolize sadness and depression. However at the very end he gets pooped on by a bird. Bird poop actually supposedly brings good luck which doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the mood of the story since we know he is going to die. In his second dream it first mentions a “tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything” (Marquez 1). From what I found, almond trees symbolize happiness which is ironic since he dies. However you could also look at it as if he was the plane and never hit the trees that were his happiness, was he doomed to be unhappy? His mother, an interpreter of other people’s dreams said, in regards to her son Santiago Nasar, “he was always dreaming about trees” (Marquez 1). Specific kinds of trees have a wide variety of different meanings, but trees as a whole represent strength and life. So after reading this, how do you think Santiago Nasar’s death was foreshadowed through his dreams?
ReplyDeleteOne important theme properly introduced in Chapter 2 of “Chronicle Of a Death Foretold” is honor. Similar to “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, it is important to the characters to maintain their honor. It is not questioned by anyone in this novel of people’s motives to preserve their honor, and similiar to society today a person without honor is looked down upon from the community. The first instance I found of this theme was on page 30. Garcia Marquez writes, “Her father, Poncio Vicario, was a poor man’s goldsmith, and he’d lost his sight from doing so much fine work in gold in order to maintain the honor of the house” (30). It is expected of men, especially fathers, in this novel (and still in society) to work hard in order to maintain a wealthy living as well as be an honorable man. The next quote I found regarding honor is when Angela is about to marry Bayardo San Roman, whom she doesn’t wish to marry but is being forced into. Garcia Marquez writes, “‘I would have been happy even if he hadn’t come, but never if he abandoned me dressed up.” Her caution seemed natural, because there was no public misfortune more shameful than for a women to be jilted in her bridal gown” (41). I believe a lot of people would agree that this happening would be quite embarrassing, but what separates our society compared to the novel’s is that this would make the man look bad compared to the woman. Of course this would not have necessarily been the case in an earlier time period, which seems to fit the time-span of the novel.
ReplyDeleteI find this comparison interesting, since I wrote my blog post about how Chronicle of a Death Foretold is different from thing's we've read, including A Doll's House. In my blog post, I wrote about how women aren't really expected to be meek and quiet, although they're still expected to be virgins, which is different than Taming of the Shrew and A Doll's House. I think these connections are really interesting, both the similarities and the differences.
DeleteWhile reading chapter two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I noticed something interesting. Marquéz writes, "Unlike other girls of the time, who had neglected the cult of death," and, "they organized dances for women only and were predisposed to find hidden intentions in the designs of men," (Marquéz 34). This, for whatever reason, reminded me of the Crucible, where girls were called witches for dancing and doing things that could be considered odd. This difference in the ways that the dancing and playing with death is represented really shows the difference in setting between this book and things we've previously read, where women are supposed to be meek and inexpressive. Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, Ibsen's A Doll's House, and the Crucible from last year. This book is different from what we've read in a few ways, but I think the setting is an important part in particular. This is set in a world where things that seem odd to us are just accepted, and where girls aren't necessarily supposed to be meek and quiet, as we see with the two mothers who regularly practice what would be considered witchcraft. I think this one big difference in particular is important in understanding the story, because we have to look at it in a fairly different way than we're used to. When reading books about girls being quiet and men being whoever they want to be, that's something we can see in everyday society. This book requires a different lens than the ones we've looked at previously, which I think we should have more of. Overall, the difference in setting is a big thing that requires us to take a step back when analyzing this book, especially when compared to previous books that we've read in English classes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you're saying but I think that there are some women who are at the very least expected to be obedient to men. There is definitely a double standard in this setting as women are expected to be virgins and obey their husbands, but you also get the sense that it's okay for them to be more feisty and headstrong. It's an interesting juxtaposition and it's a fine line that the women in this society were forced to walk.
DeleteAs made clear in chapter two, Chronicle of a Death Foretold is full of societal criticisms and comparisons, some more straightforward than others. The chapter starts with the introduction of Bayardo San Román, a mysterious stranger who seems more like a folk story character than a person from a real-life report. He as characterized as being very mysterious and difficult to accurately judge, yet judgements are quick. The narrator’s mother says, “he’s honest and has a good heart, and last Sunday he received communion on his knees and helped with the mass in Latin” (Márquez 27). The narrator mentions that these details of her judgement are superfluous, which leads us to believe that she is only seeing what she wants to see-- just as the entire town is in regards to the death of Santiago Nasar. This is a recurring theme which is again referenced later with the bride’s blind father, who responds to the wrong conversations, is generally in the way, and is described as being “happy in his circle of oblivion” (44). Blissful ignorance can also be seen in the entire concept of the party. Román puts more effort into wooing the town than he does to his new wife, and their relationship is obviously flawed, yet the entire town participates in the celebrations. This is more directly a criticism of society’s tendency to lie about its motives as a whole-- this party is not really about a celebration of marriage, but it pretends that it is.
ReplyDeleteI really like your analysis! I believe that Ignorance is Bliss is a major theme in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. I see this largely with the murder of Santiago Nasar. The whole town knows and chooses to look the other way, to not care, to not realize the consequences. To not act. I had noticed the point about the bride's blind father, but hadn't connected it to this theme yet. Thanks for pointing that out. Something that seems interesting to me is that throughout the whole story, the theme Ignorance is Bliss is expressed. For the narrator to go back 27 years and try to see all of the points of the story, is the exact opposite of Ignorance, it is a quest for knowledge and truth, which I believe is the idea that Marquez is truly trying to express.
DeleteChapter Two talked a lot about Bayardo San Roman. Almost six pages were all about him. I noticed something pretty interesting in these pages. Colors are mentioned very often in Chronicle Of A Death Foretold, but I noticed that the color gold was mentioned more regularly when Bayardo San Roman was the object of focus. In Bayardo San Roman’s first introduction, it is mentioned that he has “golden eyes” (25). As they say, eyes are the window to the soul. What someone’s eyes are like, they can be like. The color gold has a very positive connotation. It’s the color of wealth, extravagance and excess.
ReplyDeleteThe San Roman family also gifts Angela Vicario “a chest with table settings in pure gold”(39). This shows the extremity of wealth that Bayardo has come from. The gift shows importance in family, as tabling settings in mainly meant for a family or for hosting. By this I mean, it enforces the idea that women need to be concerned with family first. (quick rant here. Bayardo got a freaking car, and Angela just got some table settings??? Rude).
Gold also reminds me of the common phrase “ Not all that glitters is gold”( Fun fact, I’m p sure this is from Shakespeare!! Merchant of Venice)) I believe this to mean that Bayardo may seem to be so great and wealthy, but maybe he is not as great as he is made out to be, only as wealthy. We can see this idea being expressed by other characters also. The narrator’s mother and Angela Vicario are unimpressed by Bayardo, even saying “ He reminded me of the devil” (28). The use of the repetition of Gold calls attention to Bayardo's extravagance, personality, and the conflicting view from other characters of both those things.
Good job! (Try to practice avoiding passive voice!!) I love your fun fact!! :) :)
DeleteI like this analysis of Bayardo San Román! I was especially interested in your mention of the phrase "Not all that glitters is gold", because I hadn't noticed the symbolism behind the gold motif. I'm still trying to decide what I think the purpose of Román's character in this book is-- is he all deception? All honesty? Why is he presented like a storybook character, showing up enigmatically in town looking for a wife, arousing rumors? The connection of gold to deception as well as extravagance definitely helps with pinning down his character.
DeleteDuring Chapter 2, the introduction of Bayardo San Roman reminds me of Gatsby. He blows into town and starts doing all of these extravagant things, but he’s obviously hiding something. This is evident in the description of the way he speaks, “It might have been true, but he would have answered anything else in the same way, because he had a way of speaking that served to conceal rather than to reveal,” (Marquez, 28). It’s obvious from the description of him that he avoids revealing anything truthful about himself. He’s similar to Gatsby in that he seems to know everything or have a hand in everything, but he’s different in his intentions and ending. He’s also different because people learn the truth of him. This is demonstrated in the narrator’s mom’s letter, “Only a long time after the unfortunate wedding did she confess to me that she actually knew him when it was already too late to correct the October letter, and that his golden eyes had caused the shudder of a fear in her,” (Marquez, 30). I find Bayardo’s description interesting because in some ways it’s similar to Gatsby’s and in others it’s not. However, they’re similar in the regard that they have either no or very few friends, they’re very mysterious and don’t reveal much about themselves to other people, and they’re both sad. They both hide behind their wealth and their ability to do extravagant things.
ReplyDeleteChronicle of a Death Foretold tends to skip around in time, always avoiding the actual scene of the murder until the end. But from the very beginning of the book we know that Santiago Nasar is to die, and very shortly after that we know who kills him, and why. This makes the foreshadowing in this book very interesting, because it is foreshadowing of something that everyone already knows is going to happen. The motif of butchering is brought back in chapter three with connections to Santiago Nasar’s uncharacteristic disgust at the pig intestines in the first chapter: “I was to ask the butchers sometime later whether or not the trade of slaughterer didn’t reveal a soul predisposed to killing a human being” (Márquez 52). The response was a denial and a description of being unable to slaughter animals they had known. This entire concept throughout the book seems very meaningful in many ways-- first of all, it is obvious foreshadowing of the foretold death, but it ends up being very specific imagery in relation to Nasar’s gory death. Secondly, Nasar’s discomfort with the pig guts and the brothers’ pigs willingness to kill pigs named after flowers offer insight into these characters’ morality and perception of others’ life. For Nasar, it is a small moment of empathy in a person who is characterized by those around him as being wealthy and somewhat apathetic. For the brothers, it opens the door for more exploration of their morality and individuality through the eyes of Clotilde Armenta.
ReplyDeleteI like your connection of foreshadowing to the motif of butchering. As you can probably guess from the title, foreshadowing plays a huge role in this story and everyone knows that Santiago Nasar is going to die. The butchering that you describe is the perfect foreshadowing for his death, as the two were pretty similar. There's a lot of motifs that imply foreshadowing in the book, but I think the one you described is one of the biggest ones.
DeleteSomething interesting I noticed in chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is actually something I've been thinking about throughout the book. Why would the Vicario brothers tell so enough people that everyone knows about their decision to kill Santiago? There are two options. One is brought up in this chapter by Clotilde Armenta, when she tells the colonel she wants to "spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that's fallen on them," (Márquez 65). The narrator then goes on to say that she was sure Pedro and Pablo "were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them," (65). So, maybe they told everyone because they knew they had to defend their sister's honor, but they didn't want to have to kill someone. Maybe they thought that, if they told enough people, someone would stop them and they wouldn't be forced to carry out this duty that's befallen them. Another reason could be that they were testing their boundaries. How likely were people to believe they'd kill someone? If they were stopped, well, then they wouldn't have to kill anyone. If they weren't, at least they know they'll get a fairly lenient sentence, since they're liked around town. This second theory reminds me of the movie Bernie, which is based off a true story about a guy who's liked all around town. He gets fairly close to this old lady that everyone hates, and then kills her. However, when everyone finds out, they don't want to convict him, so they have to move the trial to somewhere else. I think this is similar to what's happening in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. The Vicario brothers have such a good reputation that they can literally walk around town saying they're going to kill someone and the townsfolk doesn't even care, for the most part. Those who do care even want to help them, whether to get them to carry out the murder, or to stop them because of the belief that they don't want to have to kill Santiago. Honestly, I think the first theory is more likely, but I wouldn't be surprised about them testing just how much they can get away with.
ReplyDeleteI've seen that movie and I think that's an interesting comparison, but I also agree that it's probably not the most accurate interpretation of the events. There isn't much evidence that the Vicario brothers are beloved by the town, especially since most people can't even tell them apart. I think it's much more of a testament to their unwillingness to intervene in a crisis or to interfere with fate. As for the brothers' actions, it is made fairly clear as the book progresses that they wanted to be stopped. However, their reasoning behind this and why they couldn't just stop themselves is less clear, so I can see how testing boundaries could be interpreted as part of the reason for their actions.
DeleteIs that a true story? (The movie, that is??) I think you're right about them not actually wanting to do it... but once you've told someone you're doing something, it's hard to back down!
ReplyDeleteLet’s talk about the Vicario Brothers. They are two male twin butchers from a poor large family. They are also murderers. Being a ‘slaughterer’ comes with a lot of rules about the animals you slaughter, according to the village butchers. In Chapter 3, different butchers explain the different superstitions or rules, such as “ When you sacrifice a steer, you don’t dare look into it’s eyes”(52) or “ he wouldn’t be capable of sacrificing a cow if he’d known it before, much less if he’d drunk its milk”(52). Since the Vicario Brothers are butchers, I would assume that they would follow these rules, even when it comes to murder of a human being. Quite to the contrary, they are reported “drinking with us and singing with Santiago Nasar five hours before killing him”(45). The unknown town where this event takes place is very superstitious. Their belief system is based on religion and (almost magic-like) superstitions, and they very much value following the rules or the norms. Soon before before and soon after the murder, both of the brothers are plagued with problems centering around their hips or bottoms, which I believe to be symbolizing their masculinity or manhood. Especially due to the nature of the murder, for honor. Pedro Vicario came back from the military with “ Sergeant’s blennorrhea” or as we call it today, Gonorrhea. This made it extremely difficult for him to urinate, because just the act of urinating irritates it and it can lead to a swollen or painful penis. Right before the murder, Pedro retreats to a tamarind tree and unsuccessfully tries to urinate, resulting in an “agonized, drop by drop”(61) process. Pedro Vicario’s episode of gonorrhea(not saying that he didn’t have it before, but in the story it was made known right before the murder) is directly correlated to the murder of Santiago Nasar. The brothers have broken a rule of slaughtering, they knew their victim well and had enjoyed the benefits of his friendship. For breaking the rule, they punished by themselves. In chapter 4, Pablo has crazy diarrhea, but I’ll talk about that later. Also, the tamarind tree in which Pedro retreats to, is known for it’s sweet and sourness of its fruit. Almost like the murder. They retrieved their sister’s lost honor and proved themselves as men, but they murdered a human being to do so.
ReplyDeleteReally good points!!
ReplyDeleteIn chapters 4 and 5, we see a continuing juxtaposition between a logical, numerical report-like tone and the feeling of a storybook. The story about Angela Vicario’s letters and the return of Bayardo San Román doesn’t sound like something that would happen in real life, whereas he description of Santiago Nasar’s wounds several pages earlier is entirely methodological and sounds like it was lifted from the autopsy report. Anatomical diction like “thoracic cavity” and “transverse colon” gives the passage a scientific, unfeeling tone, while the inclusion of the medal brings back the motif of gold and its connection to wealth, privilege, and dishonesty. Another interesting element in the scene was the continued juxtaposition of religion with violence in the fact that the priest performed the autopsy, saying, “‘It was as if we killed him all over again after he was dead’” (Márquez 72). This suggests an interesting correlation between religion and harm, giving insight into the author’s thoughts on a connection between catholicism and mental, physical, or spiritual deterioration. The fact that the autopsy is performed in such a haphazard and unprofessional circumstance, with few tools, few qualifications, and no functioning freezer, provides an additional tone of negligence. Something that I didn’t entirely understand was what happened with Bayardo San Román, and why he was considered to be the only victim, rather than Santiago Nasar or even Angela Vicario. I don’t really get why he was considered to have lost everything, since as I understand it the only thing he lost was his impure wife. If I’m correct, this is definitely important in an analysis of this society’s priorities: they care more for the enigmatic newcomer who has it all than they do for the person who actually died.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking that Angela isn't considered a victim because she did what was considered at the time, and to an extent now, as something that wasn't okay. Santiago, I think, wasn't much considered a victim even though they all knew he and Angela didn't actually have sex because Angela never actually said it wasn't him, which left this doubt in their minds. I also think so because it makes them feel better about their inaction.
DeleteIn chapter 4, I noticed a lot about the symbol of birds. It's also seen throughout the book, but something about them stood out in this chapter in particular. One time it's mentioned is when Xius told the mayor he's seen a "phosphorescent bird fluttering over his former home," (Marquez 97). This was said, presumably, shortly before he died. Similar to how Santiago looked like a bird in chapter 5, this bird foretold death. Birds were then brought up again when the narrator recalls Santiago calling his cousin, "your cousin the booby," whenever he needed to mention her (104). Shortly after, the narrator says Santiago has always been "a sparrow hawk," because he preferred to be alone. I think these are both important to their respective characters and what people think about them. By calling Angela a booby, he's calling her stupid. The name of the blue-footed boobies originated with Spanish explorers calling them "bobos," essentially meaning dummies. This shows that Santiago sees himself above her, and has no desire to associate himself with her. Blue-footed boobies are also known to be pretty because of their bright blue feet, which are glaringly obvious details, similar to how Angela was known to be the prettiest of the four sisters. For Santiago, his bird sounds slightly contradictory. A sparrow and a hawk in one bird? A sparrow is generally a bird that is seen as small and weak, while a hawk is seen as strong and majestic. A sparrowhawk actually takes more from the latter, being a bird of prey. However, I think this shows exactly how people see him. A contradiction in the fact that he is known to have a gun, but is also known to never keep it loaded, but he looks strong and like he can win a fight. However, unlike the bird he is said to be like, he ends up being the prey, rather than being the predator. I think birds are a very important part to this book, if just to show a little more about characters.
ReplyDeleteDuring Chapter 4, I was really interested in finally learning about what actually went down on the wedding night of Angela Vicario and Bayardo San Roman. In previous chapters, we learned that Angela Vicario was learning old wives’ tricks to fake her virginity, but we never learned exactly what they were. On the night of her wedding, Angela Vicario only asked for one thing from her mother, “ a small valise” (86) containing an assortment of “old wives’ artifices"(86). This small suitcase is the only item left belonging to Angela Vicario as the house slowly breaks down. I believe this is extremely important because it is the only thing that Angela Vicario is remembered for and now seen as. The whole townsfolk see her as a disgrace, she is almost nothing, neither the perpetrator or the victim. Her own mother doesn’t know what to do with her, so she tries to hide her in an unknown town. This shows to what extreme extent that sexism is in the society. Inside of her suitcase, Angela Vicario carried alum water and Mercurochrome. To fake her virginity, Angela Vicario was supposed to get her husband drunk, make sure the lights were off, douche herself with alum water and then dye the sheet with Mercurochrome. This plan presents a lot of problems stemming from a very flawed belief system about virginity and marriage. First problem is that not everyone bleeds when they first have sex, so I sense a lot of unnecessary problems coming from that. Alum is used for tightening the vagina(honestly, why do I know this? Google.), which could symbolize virginity. This also represents a problem as not all vaginas are tight when the person has never engaged in sexual intercourse. Overall, I believe this whole plan sheds more light on the amount of fear and uncertainty that Angela was feeling or was taught to feel by her society. The fact she decides to not deceive her husband, and then gets in even more trouble makes it clearer that back then and even now, there is little a women can do that is considered right. Thanks, GGM for making these killer truthful points!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you're saying. I also think that these things say a lot about the role of women for hundreds of years, because it's obvious that these are things that women commonly use on their wedding night to make sure they're a "satisfactory" virgin (hard eye roll on that one). It makes me wonder what women did when society first started dictating that they had to be virgins. You know, like who came up with this stuff and how many women had to suffer before someone finnally found a solution? This makes me so mad.
DeleteOne of the things that stood out to me in Chapter 4 was the dehumanization of Santiago’s remains. In the beginning of the chapter, his remains are essentially compared to the rabbit at the beginning of the book. The rabbit’s guts had been pulled out and fed to the dogs, and when Santiago dies the dogs are “aroused by the smell of death” (Marquez, 84). Santiago became the rabbit or the prey and his remains were treated similarly. This is seen when the priest finishes his autopsy and doesn’t know what to do with the intestines, “....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,” (Marquez, 88). By treating Santiago’s remains in this way, it is comparing him to the rabbit and the dogs to the twins. He was their prey and they hunted him, and in the end they gutted him like you would an animal. This says a lot about how the townspeople were able to act so nonchalantly about his death; it wasn’t entirely real to him. They made him an animal, they made him prey, in order to ease their conscious. It also shows a complete lack of regard for life. Santiago was supposedly someone to fear and respect, a man among men, and in the end he was treated like nothing more than an animal.
ReplyDeleteSomething that stood out to me in Chapter 5 was at the end when Pablo was describing the murder of Santiago. He said to the narrator, “I felt the way you do when you’re galloping on horseback,” (Marquez, 140). This suggests that killing Santiago gave Pablo a sense of power. For centuries, the cavalrymen were the most feared and respected in any army, and by comparing the feeling of killing to galloping on horseback it is comparing Pablo to them. This is interesting because throughout the book, Santiago is portrayed as the powerful one, the one who can’t be killed. Later, Pablo becomes more somber when he says, “....you can’t imagine how hard it is to kill a man!” (Marquez, 140-141). What struck me was that he was talking about the physical aspect of killing a man, though I suppose he could have been talking about the emotional aspect. He proceeds to talk about how long it took Santiago to die, and how they had a hard time finding the heart. I find it somewhat disgusting that they feel no remorse for killing a man without making absolute certain that the allegation against him were true. I think that this is saying something about the apathy of man and man’s potential to commit atrocities. We all like to believe that everyone is pure and good and that only psychopaths could commit murder without feeling an ounce of remorse, but in reality, anyone could commit murder if they’re pushed far enough. It’s just that most people would regret it afterwards, even if they felt justified in it.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter five of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, you'd expect everything to come together. However, that's an important thing about this book. We, as the readers, never find out if Santiago was really guilty of having sex with Angela, and Angela never tells. It's strongly hinted that the town is sure that he didn't do it, but Angela never says whether or not it was. This is commentary in itself on society. People are so focused on whether or not Santiago did it, and therefore whether his death was technically his fault, rather than questioning this idea of killing for Angela's "honor" in the first place. This idea that a woman's honor is in whether or not she's had sex is an important issue that Marquez covers and by not solving whether or not Santiago did it, he's saying that it doesn't actually matter. I also think it’s important to note who died. Instead of blaming Angela and killing her for being disgraceful, they killed Santiago, which is important because murders under these circumstances often end in the death of the woman, rather than the man. This could be another commentary by Marquez, in which he says that they are both to blame for the action. Angela loses her husband, and therefore the person that’s supposed to take care of her, while Santiago loses his life. While this isn’t equal loss, Angela does spend a large period of her life upset writing letters nearly obsessively, so there is something to say for her loss of total sanity.
ReplyDeleteI really like your analysis! I also believe that the fact that the townspeople are more obsessed with whether Santiago was guilty than whether the Vicario Brothers were guilty is a major social comententary. People free themselves from guilt, blame or shame by focusing on in the end meaningless things. It doesn't matter if he had slept with Angela, or if he had dreams of birds or if it rained or not, Santiago Nasar was murdered. In the novel, Santiago Nasar's death is hardly treated with respect or even acknowlegement. The phrase, " respect the dead" is utterly ignored by the townspeople, not only by the horrendous autopsy, but by the people's lack of a need for justice. The reason why I believe this is such a major point is "Honor is Love". When honor is threatened, like Love, all hell breaks loose, and it is acceptable due to the need to preserve honor. GGM makes a major point on the role of Honor in the past but also arguably in the present.
DeleteChapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold basically cements events that the reader already knows of. One thing I hadn’t noticed before, was the mention of Santiago’s fiancee, Flora Miguel. She had only been mentioned once before in passing, which says a lot. Their engagement was out of convenience and necessity. Neither loved each other, but they needed to be married because it was practical. Their engagement shows the lack of importance in love in the community.
ReplyDeleteFlora Miguel belongs to a family that “slept until twelve o’clock on orders from Nahir Miguel, the wise man of the community” (111). Flora lived a completely separate life from Santiago, but they were attached by the engagement. This reminds me a lot of Angela and Bayardo. Angela Vicario was “ raised to suffer” and engaged to a man she did not love and barely knew. They were both beautiful, Flora was “ preserved like a rose”(111), and Angela was “ the prettiest of the four”(32). The two were different in many ways though. Angela had “ a helpless air and a poverty of spirit”(32), while Flora “ enjoyed a certain floral quality, but she lacked wit and judgement”(111). They also reacted the the engagement in different ways. Angela was very reluctant to marry Bayardo, only doing it out of necessity. She believed that “ He seemed too much of a man for me” (34). To Flora, the engagement was almost a blessed miracle, since her age and personality left her a little disadvantaged. When Santiago came to visit, the morning of his death, she was so furious that he might leave her, she shouted “ and I hope they kill you!” (113).
These women are very similar and very different but in the end, both of their partners left them. They were alone. (yes, until Flora was an unwilling prostitute and Angela was reunited). This comparison of Angela and Flora’s lives and engagements show the need for love in a society. When marriages are made without love, you end up with death, betrayal, and an angry housemaid who lets your son die. GGM makes a very strong point about the need of live in life and marriage.