In the first chapter of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the book opens with a description of Santiago’s dream on the day of his death. “He’d dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit” (Marquez 1). This dream of Santiago’s is foreshadowing his death later in the day. Many people in his town remembered him “as being a little sleepy but in a good mood, and he remarked to all of them in a casual way that it was a very beautiful day” (2). The day had started out pleasant, due to the fact that the bishop would be visiting. In his dream, Santiago dreamt that he was walking through a grove of trees gently. This sensation that he feels in his dream is similar to how his day begun. Santiago had started the day blissfully and carefree. Shortly after in his dream, Santiago is woken by fallen bird poop. The presence of bird poop represents his death. The foreshadowing of Santiago’s death is straightforward and easy to see. Santiago is awoken from the world he has created in his dream from something so indecent and disrespectful. In other words, Santiago will be taken from his pleasant life by murder, later in the day. It’s interesting how Marquez places this dream in the very beginning of the book. Although, the audience is aware that Santiago will be murdered, Marquez still foreshadows how the day will be, in a nutshell. Also, interestingly, Marquez mentions trees in Santiago’s dream. Throughout chapter one there is a recurrence of trees, possibly implying a deeper meaning. After pondering upon the theme of trees, I came to the conclusion that the trees in the dream symbolize the people Santiago met but did not warn him about the plotting of his death. Trees surround us and where we live, similar to how people surround us in our lives. Though, the only difference is that people can speak up, while trees cannot. What do you guys think the trees symbolize?
I agree with Ariel when she says that the trees symbolize the people around him that did not give him a heads up that he was about to die. In the dream it says, “...flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything” and I know can see the connection to Santiago in his silent plane, which is not disturbing anyone, as it kind of sneaks up on people like the death sneaks up on the reader even though we are told by the first line he dies. I also noticed the amount of seasonal diction was in your post and I think it’s important to note because it is also foreshadowing events and feelings as Piáciada Linera said it was rainy when her son died and the cook said it was sunny.
The first thing that caught my attention after reading only a few sentences of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “Chronicle Of A Death Foretold”, was the intense language that is used. Immediately the audience’s attention is grabbed with the line “spattered with bird s***”. It’s not as though this line is inappropriately thrown in though, as it adds a harsh awakening to the end of Santiago’s dream of going through groves of beautiful trees, and instead of being drizzled with rain, he was drizzled with bird excrement. This is foreshadowing towards his death in the story, which the audience is very aware of, but all the audience knows is that Santiago died. They are yet to learn about his waking hours before his death. On the note of dreams, Santiago’s mother mentions that Santiago had a dream a week before his death entailing that he was “...alone in a tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything”. Of course, dreams are insane and always up to interpretation, but this specific dream intrigued and confused me. After thinking about it, I thought that tinfoil is a substance that can safely be put into a hot oven, but is still easily flammable. Almond trees are commonly grown in the Middle East and North Africa, as they grow to be peaches if the almonds fully develop into the fruit. Plants are usually respected by most Asian cultures, so almond trees could be seen as things left to grow and bloom and blossom. Perhaps flying a flammable single-pilot airplane and trying not to bump into a grove of sacred trees is a symbol for just trying to get through life? Maybe Santiago was just trying to get through his life without disturbing anyone or making a fuss and his dream was reflective of that? What do you guys think?
I hadn’t really thought much of the dream that is mentioned by Santiago’s mother. I agree, it’s difficult to make sense out of at first, but that only means we have to dig deeper. In my blog, I mentioned how trees represent the bystanders and the people that knew of his murder. The book mentions how Santiago dreamt that he was “alone in a tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything” (Marquez 1). I interpreted this quote a little differently than you did. What I take away from this passage, is that Santiago is the pilot of this tinfoil airplane. As the pilot, he controls the decisions he makes/his life, which is the plane. He guides his life in anyway that he wants. As Santiago, lives his life, he does not bump into other people. Or in other words, he does not bump into any trees. Perhaps Santiago viewed himself as a someone who did not cause trouble and chaos for anyone.
There are various things that really stuck out to me within the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. For one, I noticed how much trees were mentioned, leading me to believe that they could perhaps be a symbol in the story, “‘He was always dreaming about trees,’” (Marquez, 3). In a sense this could be tied back to magical realism, since his mother is apparently a dream interpreter, and that is not actually a thing. The idea that dreams can influence or predict the future is one of magical realism. The way that trees are often brought up in dreams or just in the general plot line, was really interesting. The syntax in the beginning contributes to a dream like feel, similarly to how it was in Siddhartha.There are long sentences which makes the reader feel as if it was a long morning, “Furthermore: all the many people he ran into after leaving his house at five minutes past six and until he was carved up like a pig an hour later remembered him as being a little sleepy but in a good mood, and he remarked to all of them in a casual way that it was a very beautiful day,” (4). These long sentence structures make the reader feel in possibly two ways. One way being that it was a slow start to the morning that was bound to be filled with a lot of tension, or also that perhaps his death was a slow and long. Another thing that I found that was interesting, especially the first time I read it over the summer, was the weird warped timeline. I thought that it was an interesting way to tell a story by having the ending being told within the first line of the story. It was so intriguing and I think that it really sets up the tone for the rest of the story. It definitely creates a suspenseful and unsettling tone, that is very apparent throughout the rest of the chapter and the rest of the book.
Rereading the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold with the new knowledge of what magical realism is and how it appears in stories was very eye-opening. I read it more informative and picked up on a few magical realism lines. When the narrator is recalling the reasoning behind never having the gun loaded in the house. “It was a wise custom established by his father ever since one morning when a servant girl has shaken the case to get the pillow out and the pistol went off as it hit the floor and the bullet wrecked the cupboard in the room, went through the living room wall, passed through the dining room of the house next door with the thunder of war, and turned a life-size saint on the main altar of the church on the opposite side of the square to plaster dust” (Marquez 6). Another example I found that might be stretching it was when Piácida Linero says, “The week before, he’d dreamed that he was alone in a tin foil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything” (Marquez 4). This was a dream so I first thought that since any weird thing can happen in a dream it wouldn’t be magical realism. However, the mother responded like it was normal to actually dream about not hitting the almond trees, as if there was such things as almond trees. What do you guys think? Do you guys think this is magical realism? This quote from Piácida Linero was also giving insight to how important dreams are in the rest of the book and what they mean.
I agree with your insight about magical realism within the novel. In addition to that, I agree with your examples about how Piacida Linero provides insight to how important dreams are. I personally think that the dreams will be a important aspect of this novel because the novel tends to be more specific about irrelevant details, such as dream, and vague about matters of real importance, such as what the current weather was when Santiago died.
After rereading and analyzing the novel after the first chapter, the novel resembles a mystery. From the very beginning, we learn that Santiago Nasar is predicted to die and later on in the book, we found out how and why this event will occur. However, Chronicle of a Death Foretold is not a chronicle; the narrative does not portray the events chronologically. although , the title misleadingly suggests so. The first chapter recounts the morning of the assassination by two brothers, Pedro and Pablo Vicario, but different variation of the morning event are retold from different viewpoints throughout the rest of the book. Despite the journalistic approach of this novel, a lot of the narrative is composed of recurring events that carry ambiguous symbolic meaning. For instance, the narrator repeatedly points out the disruption over what the weather was on the day of Santiago Nasar's murder. Some people believed that the weather was nice out; others believe that it rained. However, significance of the rain is left unclear. The narrative is specific about irrelevant details, and vague about matters of real importance.
Something that was interesting to me in this book was how often the weather was mentioned throughout the entirety of the first chapter. When each person recalls what they were doing on the day of Santiago’s death they tend to mention the weather. Some examples of this are “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 funeral, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters, and at that moment of the misfortune a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago had never seen in his dream grove” (1.4). Another example is, “Victoria Guzman, the cook, was sure that it hadn’t rained that day, or during the whole month of February. ‘On the contrary,’ she told me when I came to see her, a short time before her death. ‘The sun warms things up earlier than in August’” (1.9.). The significance of the weather on the day of his death could represent a number of things such as foreshadowing to the outcome or a metaphor for how he was feeling or the motivations of his killers. The weather could also be significant because of the great beliefs in superstition that everyone in their community had. Like all South American countries Colombia is no different in its high populations of superstitious people. In South America especially superstitions have been passed down for generations. This can be seen when Santiago talks about his mother. He says “She had a well earned reputation as an accurate interpreter of other people’s dreams, provided they were told to her before eating...”(1.4). This is also shown when he tells her his dream and she replies “Any dream about birds means good health”(1.6). Both of these quotes show the superstitious family and community that Santiago grew up around. This could be the very reason that the first thing people attempt to remember about the day Santiago was killed is the weather. There are many superstitions about the weather in south america, all very specific. The impact of these superstitions on Santiago’s community can be seen in phrases such as “a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago had never seen in his dream grove.” and “the sun warms things up earlier than august”. Both of these quotes show that the weather is believed to be controlled by something other than the laws of nature. First, it is used as foreshadowing predicting something new and unseen and unpreventable happening to Santiago and second the sun is used as a reason to dismiss anything strange happening that day.Both of these quotes could be considered forecasting and could be cause for suspicion.
Blog #2: In this chapter it is made extremely evident that the characters in this story often hide their true feelings or intentions. This can be seen in many instances such as when Angela Vicario reveals how she truly felt about Bayardo San Roman before they married. The narrator writes, “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” (28). This example is essential to the plot as it sets the entire story in motion. Because Angela did not share her feelings and married Bayardo she was sent back to her house for not being a virgin and when asked who had done this, accused Santiago of taking her virginity. This is a very important theme that is carried out throughout the story, many characters hold in their emotions and feelings towards others or just simply don’t say what they know they should. Because many characters don’t speak out and have a lazy “someone-else-will-do-it” attitude, this tragedy is able to take place. Gabriel Garcia Marquez chose this environment specifically because he knew it would have been easy for this unfortunate chain of coincidences and events could happen because no one would do anything to stop it.
I never really thought about why Angela couldn’t speak up very well for herself. She told her parents that she did not want to marry Bayardo, but they insisted. This could be because of what’s culturally appropriate/right. After all, Angela’s parents sole focus was on finding her and her sisters husbands to support them through life. Although she spoke up to her parents, I don’t believe she ever told Bayardo that she didn’t want to marry him. Like you were saying about how the mentally in the characters throughout the book are all centered around the “Someone-else-will-speak-up” idea, could that be why? Why did Angela not speak up? Also, who might have been able to speak up for her, if she had this mentality?
In the second chapter of a “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the narrator tells the story of Bayardo San Roman, the bridegroom of Angela Vicario. The story of the marriage between Bayardo and Angela emphasizes the expectations/roles of men and women in the setting of this story. When the Bayardo’s family comes to visit the Vicario’s, it becomes clear to the reader that Bayardo can marry anyone he pleases to. Angela Vicario’s parents are very supportive of this match because Bayardo is wealthy, and comes from a prestigious family. From the narrator, we hear that Angela is not interested in marrying Bayardo for many reasons. Earlier in the second chapter, the narrator states that the Vicario daughters “were raised to be married” (Marquez 34). In the culture of this book, we are able to see how a woman’s life will improve if she marries a husband who will provide well for her. Although, Angela’s protest to her parents against the marriage is prominent, her mother states that “love can be learned too” (38). Angela Vicario’s parents have also stated that “a family dignified by modest means has so right to disdain a prize of destiny” (38). From what we know about the Vicario’s, they are the type of family that is very loyal to traditions and sustaining the roles of women. Women were to be virgins before marriage. In the case of this story, Angela Vicario was not a virgin when she was married. In fact, she decided to keep it a secret from her husband (Bayardo), but he found out shortly after their marriage. I find this tradition/rule interesting because of the vast difference between the standards of men and women. While women must be virgins before marriage, it does not matter for men. In the previous chapter, we saw how Santiago Nasar did not think twice when being sexually abusive towards Divina Flor. From this alone, we can see how women are expected to be pristine and pure, while men are not expected to be. Instead the only trait in men that happens to matter for marriage is if they have money. A pattern that I have been noticing in the first two chapters of CODF, is the fact that men only take actions that boost their ego or make their appearance seem bigger to society. They are not responsible for keeping up a perfect image like women. What other differences and similarities between the role of men and women did you guys notice?
I agree with you when you say women have this role to be pure and perfect unlike the men who seem to do whatever they want. I difference I saw again was the fact that women have no control of their future or identity. The quote from the narrator says it best when he tells a primary school student that they will be married in fourteen years. It baffles me that no one thought this weird or gross, but as normal because it’s tradition for men to be dominant and the women to be submissive even if she is twenty years younger.
My group is presenting next class and in our question we focused on the women’s roles in the town that this book is about. It was like reading a new book because the first time I read it I concentrated on Bayardo San Román because he was first introduced in chapter two and the descriptions of the crazy wedding. I didn’t really take into account the way the women were being treated. “Purísima del Carmen, her mother, had been a schoolteacher until she married for ever” (Marquez 30-31). Purísima is identified as a married woman and no longer an individual. It said she was a schoolteacher “until she married,” which gives the impression that all women were something until they had to give it up for their husbands. Also the incident where Bayardo is two hours late to pick up Angela for the wedding reminds me of Taming of the Shrew. “The only unforeseen surprise was caused by the groom on the morning of the wedding, for he was two hours late coming for Angela Vicario and she had refused to get dressed as a bride until she saw him in the house” (Marquez 41). Both women were extremely upset and also embarrassed by the actions of their soon to be husbands. However, Petruchio’s actions was to tame Kate. What was the reasoning behind Bayardo’s actions? I also think it’s interesting how the chapter starts off with telling the ending, giving back Angela Vicario, right away just like the beginning of the book foretells Santiago’s death as well. “Bayardo San Román, the man who had given back his bride, had turned up for the first time in August of the year before: six months before the wedding” (Marquez 25).
Blog 2 In Chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the narrator provides background context as it reveals to the audience what happened throughout the weeks leading up to Santiago’s murder. Despite the fact, Angela claims Santiago was the man who took her virginity, her accusation is established as an ambiguity. There are no other witnesses or evidence that justifies Angela being seen with Santiago. The narrator points out, nobody in the town even knew Angela already had lost her virginity. In addition, at the wedding feast, Santiago displayed no suspicious clues of having a secret with Angela. Furthermore, the construction of the last paragraph, which Angela is portrayed as finding his name “at first sight among the many, many easily confused names,” implies that she simply said the first name that popped into her head, to avoid further beating from her mother. If the quote “butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written” is compared with Santiago’s name, it falls within the fate motif because it suggests that he is an innocent victim fate, due to Angela. Moreover to the concept of virginity, this chapter portrays the brutality of the social conventions surrounding women. Because Angela did not have her virginity when she married, Angela is abandoned by her husband, but she is also beaten by her mother. This double standards of her culture become a spotlight, the narrator points out. On the contrary, Santiago, Luis Enrique, and Cristo are all at a whorehouse doing whatever they please, which is claiming that, culturally it is acceptable for men to have premarital sex, even if they are already betrothed to marry other women.
I thought that your comment about how it Angela seemed to have said simply the first name that came to mind was really interesting. It really does raise the question of whether or not Santiago really did take away her virginity. Then again, there is such a double standard here. I talked about this in my own blog post, in that women are expected to be pure, yet men are totally expected to go out and have sex. This idea still exists today, perhaps not as as much as it did at the time of the book, but this double standard still very much exists and is prevalent!
In chapter two, one interesting thing is all of the double standards in the story. In this chapter, we get a motive as to why the Vicario brothers want to kill Santiago Nasar. We are introduced to two very important characters in this chapter, Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario. One thing this is to be noted that it's a major motif is the idea of honor over love. In this case marriage is more our of honor, Angela had almost no say in what she wanted to do, she was forced to marry Bayardo in order to uphold her family's name, “‘Love can be learned too’” (35). Angela's mother is telling her that honor is more important than love, and that love can come afterward. With this we also see the double standard that women are supposed to be pure, and that men are supposed to be so out there. This is a double standard that still exists to this day, it is a lot more loose, but it is still prevalent. Everyone is completely shocked that Angela wasn't a virgin, and that is the whole reason this whole story happened, “No one would have thought, not did anyone say, that Angela Vicario wasn’t a virgin,” (37). When Bayardo finds out that she is not a virgin, he goes crazy, and goes to “return” her to her mother. This then causes a lot chaos, Angela is beat to the point where she thought she was dying! This is all because of the double standard that women are not supposed to have sex. This is seen in the fact that they are not killing Santiago for having premarital sex, but for taking away the virginity of a woman. This sort of double standard can still be seen today in the sense that women are still not supposed to have sex before they are married, but men are supposed to have a lot of sex with various different women. It raises the question of who these men are supposed to be having sex with? Could I be wrong, would anyone agree that this double standard still exists in our society?
I honestly think that this double standard is not as common as everybody thinks. While I do agree that this way of thinking isn't completely extinct, I do think that virginity has become more of a personal choice in the modern world. While some people may judge others for their choice to have premarital sex, a person's sex life is no longer anybody's business besides the individual's. I think that because of this, for the most part, women who choose to save their virginity do it out of religious or personal reasons, and not because they think that society says women shouldn't have sex. However, I do agree that men are applauded for "getting around." When a man tells his family about his new girlfriend, the parents congratulate him and give him a slap on the back. When a woman tells her family about her new boyfriend, you often find that the boyfriend gets heavily scrutinized because the parents are aware of the fact that men have this reputation. While in the past this scrutiny may have occurred because the pride of the family name was on the line, I think that in our time, it is most often because the parents want to protect the daughter and her feelings, not just her virginity.
In chapter three of a “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the author, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, questions the extent of an outsider’s responsibilities in situations that don’t exactly involve them. Chapter three reveals to the audience the perspective/thoughts of the Vicario twins behind the idea of murdering Santiago Nasar. Throughout the process of trying to track Santiago down, both brothers have doubts about killing Santiago. They question if their actions will fulfill their family’s honor. Something I found interesting in the third chapter, is the fact that the Vicario twins continuously announce their plan (to kill Santiago Nasar) to people. After discussing with a couple of my classmates, I came to the conclusion that the Vicario twins told people about their plan to kill Santiago as a cry for help. By being open with their desire of wanting to kill Santiago, they gave people an opportunity to stop themselves from going through with the murder. The narrator makes a clear point about the Vicario brother’s view for killing Santiago Nasar. “Still, in reality it seemed that the Vicario brothers had done nothing right with a view to killing Santiago Nasar immediately and without any public spectacle, but had done much more than could be imagined to have someone stop them from killing him, and they had failed” (Marquez 56). From this quote alone, it is clear to see that Santiago’s death could have been prevented. If only someone could have stepped in and taken action in stopping the Vicario brothers. But ironically, when the townspeople were questioned on why they didn’t prevent the death of Santiago, they made excuses. Colonel Lazaro stated that when he saw the twins “[he] thought they were nothing but a pair of big bluffers” (65). That day, twenty-two people declared that they had heard everything the twins had said, and they all coincided in the impression that the only reason the brothers had said it was so that someone would come over and hear them. The Vicario Brothers technically did give a chance for someone to stop them from murdering Santiago. Do you guys think that the bystanders should be at fault for the murder of Santiago Nasar?
I completely agree when you said the Vicario brothers were crying for help when they were very open about their intention of murdering Santiago. Typically, when someone wanted to kill someone, they would not be very open about their idea, unlike the Vicario brothers. Answering, your question, I think that the bystanders should be blamed to an extent because the Vicario brother were providing many opportunities for others to say "Hey, maybe you should not kill a guy that isn't really justified of taking your sister's virginity"
The element of time is presented in a captivating method in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. The typical mystery novel investigation develops in a linear format. Typically, the plot is slightly complex and the past plays a significant role in affecting the present, but the detective pushes through the suspects and clues, driven to move forward and make progress to catch the culprit. There are false leads, distractions, and obstacles and the detective experiences a setback, so he eventually backtracks. However, the main core of the narrative is very direct until the detective eventually arrives to his conclusion. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, in contrast to the typical murder-mystery-novel formula, the structure is circular or indirect. The narrator explains the tale in a way that time is looping back onto itself. Each chapter begins at a certain point in time within the few hours that covers murder of Santiago, but, the tale spins off into flashbacks and flash forwards, digressions, commentaries on the different people involved. This is ironic because the chapters are not in chronological order however the title is The Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Despite the fact the novel’s plot jumps around, the narrative is extremely tight. We get background context of every character that might have been associated to the murder. In addition, with some characters, we discover how the characters lives are, after the murder. Gabriel Marquez’s use of this structure is impeccable. The story seems to flow fluidly, even though the plot is not in order.
In chapter three, it begins with the story of the Vicario brothers and how they went about their journey to kill Santiago. Not only did they tell multiple people about their plan to kill Santiago Nasar without suspicion but their actions were also made clear through their calm, calculated actions. After getting knives to kill Santiago, sharpening them, getting them taken away by the police and getting new knives sharpened they ended up at Clotilde Armenta’s store at around 4 in the morning. The imagery used to describe the brothers was written, “...Then they took off their cloth jackets, hung them carefully on the chair backs, and asked her for another bottle. Their shirts were dirty with dried sweat and a on-day beard gave them a backwoods look. They drank the second bottle more slowly, sitting down, looking insistently toward Placida Linero’s house on the sidewalk...” these slow concise movements show that the brothers were utterly aware of their crimes and motivations and these actions were witnessed by many people. Describing their actions as “hung them carefully” and their look as a “backwoods look” gives the impression that they look very tired and haggard like they have been through alot and are not well. All of these actions and the way they look could’ve obviously given away the fact that they were not bluffing and obviously intended to kill Santiago.
I totally agree that it becomes apparent that the killing was planned, but I would argue that it was poorly planned. Not only that, but that it was poorly planned on purpose. I also thought that it was interesting how no one was doing anything to stop them, I spoke about this in my own blog post, about how many people in the village looked at them and kind of dismissed them, and claimed that they thought they were simply too drunk or were just joking! It seems so absurd that they would think that they were just joking about killing someone, especially when they village learns that they are, in fact, not bluffing, and do plan on going through. Still almost no one did anything to stop them.
One there are various different things that become apparent in this chapter. The motif of honor is everywhere in this chapter, and what it means to obtain it in terms of family honor. This is a continuation from the second chapter, and the double standards between men and women, and just what it means to have honor. While this is a very important topic, I will not be discussing this in my blog post, instead I will be discussing the characterization of the Vicario brothers, because it is very important, especially in talking about honor and social standards and expectations. Something that stood out as interesting was how the Vicario brothers have a good reputation, “ Their reputation as good people was so well- founded that no one paid any attention to them,” (52). Because of their seemingly good reputation, it is apparent that many people looked at them and thought that they were perhaps joking about wanting to kill Santiago. They did not take them seriously when they went around opening saying that they were going to kill Santiago. So then this raises the question of how does reputation affect whether or not people take what you say seriously, or to heart. Instead of being looked at as possible murderers, people just dismissed them, or were only vaguely concerned. Another thing is that the Vicario brothers were characterized as perhaps lacking a sort of emotional sentiment behind the killing, “I reminded them that the Vicario brothers sacrificed the same hogs they raised, which were so familiar to them that they called them by their names.” (60). They named each of the pigs that they raised, and were still able to kill them with almost no remorse. Usually, it can be seen that in order to kill something else, you have to almost dehumanize it, but the opposite is true of the Vicario brothers, especially because it seemed almost as if they were all friends. It just goes to show how desensitized they were from the killing almost, and that they almost didn’t care. This makes sense because at that point it was not so much about what they wanted to do, but so much what they felt like they had to do. They did not care that they were killing a friend, or even, someone they had grown up with, they were protecting her sisters, and their families honor.
I agree with Mariella with the motif of honor. A lot of the reasoning behind people’s actions in this book is to maintain or regain their honor. I found it strange when Pablo’s fiance said she wouldn’t marry him unless he killed Santiago because it would give the Vicario’s family's honor back. “‘I knew what they were up to,’ she told me, “and I didn’t only agree, I never would have married him if he hadn’t done what a man should do’”(Marquez 62). This also connects to gender roles and what men were supposed to do in society, they were supposed to be macho.
During chapter three, there were a lot of references to rain in this chapter. Colonel Lázaro said, “I can remember with certainty that it was almost five o’clock and it was beginning to rain” (Marquez 56). “‘It wasn’t raining,’ Pablo Vicario remembered. ‘Just the opposite,’ Pedro recalled” (Marquez 61). Even the narrator said, “Until then it hadn’t rained; on the contrary, the moon was high in the sky and the air was clear, and at the bottom of the precipice you could see the trickles of light from the Saint Elmo’s fire in the cemetery”(Marquez 66). This connects to the maxim that rain is never just rain as it sets tone and mood for a piece of literature. Every person who talked about rain had an opinion on the death of Santiago Nasar. With the rain comes sadness. Colonel said it was raining which implies he believed the killing of Santiago was mournful and unnecessary. Unlike the twins who said that it was not raining. This can be implied that they didn’t see the death of Santiago as sad or a bad thing. Also the narrator, who we don’t really know anything about, also said it wasn’t raining giving a happy mood and tone towards the death of Santiago Nasar so we can imply he thought Santiago deserved it even though we know they were friends. At the beginning of the book the maid said it wasn’t raining which supports the idea that rain means sadness about his death and sunny weather means they are content or believe Santiago deserves to be dead.
In chapter four of a “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, Gabriel Garcia Marquez makes the readers question if Angela Vicario was ever truly in love. Angela Vicario was forced into marrying Bayardo, in which she then hid the fact that she was not a virgin. She failed to keep this secret and claimed immediately that Santiago Nasar should be accused and blamed for. However, it is not confirmed in the novel that Santiago was the one to take her virginity. In fact, there are narrations that contradict Angela’s statement. For example, the narrator states that “Angela Vicario was protecting someone who really loved her and she had chosen Santiago’s Nasar name because she thought her brothers would never dare go up against him” (104). Further analyzing the whole novel, this reason for the blame on Santiago is quite believable and could be true. In the second chapter of CODF, the story of the marriage between Angela and Bayardo seems very straight forward. Angela was not interested in marrying Bayardo, but Bayardo was set on marrying Angela. This story itself is what makes chapter four interesting. In chapter four, the narrator goes further in depth about Angela’s feelings for Bayardo, and her state of mind after the death of Santiago. Marquez adds a twist in the novel, stating that Angela had fallen in love years after parting with Bayardo, on the night of their marriage. This feeling from Angela is evident in the narration, “She wrote a weekly letter for over half a lifetime. ‘Sometimes I couldn’t think of what to say’, she told me, dying with laughter, ‘but it was enough for me to know that he was getting them’” (109). The narrator emphasizes how Angela continually sent letters to Bayardo for a long period of time, hoping that he received them. This proves Angela’s intense feelings for Bayardo through her strong preservation of hope. The narrator makes a clear point that Angela is in love with Bayardo, but since when? If Angela was trying to protect someone she loved, when she blamed Santiago for taking her virginity, then why and when could she have fallen in love with Bayardo?
In the fifth chapter of a “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, Gabriel Garcia Marquez shares many ways that the murder of Santiago Nasar could have been avoided. A reoccurring theme that can be seen in this novel, is how nothing falls in place correctly. The actions of almost everyone either promotes the murder of Santiago or doesn’t help the prevention of it. But reassurance can be seen in chapter five as well. Cristo Bedoya, who cared for Santiago, tried to warn him of the plan that the Vicario brothers had planned. Although Cristo Bedoya and couple other characters had good intentions, they were never able to find Santiago to warn him in time. Something I found interesting in this chapter is how Santiago’s mother was one of the biggest factors of his death. The narrator states how Placida Linero (Santiago’s mother) had just closed the front door, because Divina Flor lied to her and said that he was already home and gone up to his room; “Through the door she saw the Vicario brothers running toward the house with their knives out. From the place where she was standing she could see them but she couldn’t see her son, who was running toward the door from a different angle. ‘I thought that they wanted to get in, to kill him inside the house,’ she told me. Then she ran to the door and slammed it shut” (138). This action of Placida struck me with curiosity. It’s ironic how the one person in the world who will always love Santiago (motherly love!) was the one to lead him straight to death. Because she shut the door, Santiago was unable to run inside the house. The Vicario brothers then caught up to him, and stabbed him multiple times. Why do you guys think Gabriel Marquez may have added this into the plot of the novel? What does this action of Santiago’s mother tell the audience? Although the people that loved Santiago took actions to save him, it is also important to notice how other people in the town, did not care to prevent the murder. This is depressing and powerful at the same time to see how people would rather watch something cruel happen, more than wanting to stop the event. Could this be a possible reflection of people’s lives in the town? Perhaps it’s that people are so bored and uninterested with their own lives that they’ll accept anything to make it interesting. Even a murder. It’s become slowly noticeable to me that people are drawn to the chaos, and drama of others due to the fact that it’s entertaining.
In Chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the word Falconry and the concept of falconry grabbed my attention. The very beginning of the chapter, Marquez integrates a quote by Gil Vicente, a portuguese poet and playwright. The quote reads “The pursuit of love / is like falconry.” In this chapter, falconry is mentioned several times throughout the narrative style writing. The word “falconry” is a reference to the actual practice of hunting small game utilizing falcons and the art of training the falcons to hunt. These definitions of the word correlates to the roles of Bayardo and Angela. From the beginning of the novel, Bayardo is hunting Angela, referring Bayardo as the falcon and Angela as the small game. In addition, when Bayardo leaves Angela, this is depicting the process of Bayardo training Angela to hunt, where Angela is the falcon. However, Angela is hunting Bayardo, which is represented by the love letters.
I think that this was interesting as well, especially when we look at how love letters are used in this narrative. It does seem almost like Bayardo has trained Angela to hunt for him, which is why Angela continues to write those letters. However, I think that a lot more could be said about these so called love letters. I think that Angela used that as a coping mechanism, to deal with the remains of what was left of her life, she could not deal with the hurt that she was feeling anymore and decided to take action against her frustration, and thus she wrote out her agony in these letters. However we could she that she is "trained" I guess, by the fact that she was never able to do anything with her life after the incident. I don't know, I think that it definitely is interesting how this is done, but what do you think about the idea of writing these letters as a way to cope with the events of the wedding night?
In the fourth chapter, Santiago Nasar’s autopsy is described. Within this description the seven wounds that were fatal are described. One of the wounds is described as, “He also had six minor wounds on his arms and hands, and two horizontal cuts: one in the right thigh and the other in the abdominal muscles. He had a deep stab in the right hand. The report says: “It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ” (75). The word stigma means a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or person. This comparison between Santiago’s body and Christ’s could be representative of the guilt that this priest felt while he performed the autopsy on Santiago. Because the priest compared santiago to Christ he compared him to a perfect being who died because he was innocent and wrongly accused which could have been how the priest saw Santiago. This use of a stigma could also be comparing the two in a negative way, for example the priest could have believed that Christ was innocent and because Santiago’s wounds are similar to Christ’s simply having these wounds as a guilty man is disrespectful to the catholic faith and their beliefs. Either way, the remainder of the sacrifice of Christ to this priest during the autopsy obviously brought feelings of discomfort and guilt to his mind, reminding him of the unsurety of this man’s guilt and the guilt it would place on him to perform this informal autopsy on an innocent man.
Your analysis is very interesting. I have not thought of it in a way like that. I agreed with your Santiago's body and Christ. In my opinion, I think that the quote would support more of the priest thinking that Santiago was an innocent man. It might be bias because we are already given that Santiago is murdered as an innocent from the very beginning of the novel.
“I’d given it to him at least three times and there wasn’t a drop of blood.” Santiago Nasar twisted after the third stab, his arms crossed over his stomach, let out the moan of a calf, and turned his back on them. Pablo Vicari, who was on his left, then gave him the only stab in the back and a spurt of blood under high pressure soaked his shirt.” (118). This passage left me wondering, how in the world did blood only come out when Santiago Nasar was stabbed in the back? Sure, there is obviously the anatomical reason such as the knife never hit a main artery or never hit an organ or anything that could cause blood to spurt from his body, and yet it wasn’t just that the blood hadn’t spurt out, the knife had come out completely clean. In chapter five it seems that all of the events up to and after Santiago Nasar’s death have come to a conclusion and the narrator has gathered as much information as possible. Because it had been so long since the crime the information the narrator has gathered has had to be the information that people could recall. This makes the information flawed because it comes from people. Because people like to see the best in themselves and people’s memories aren’t perfect every testimony he gathered had different flaws. This could provide an explanation for every coincidence and superstition involved in this story. Because he gathered the memory of the stabbing from the brothers themselves this could provide an explanation for why their crime seemed so eerie and haunting. The reason the brothers could have believed that blood only shot out of Santiago when they stabbed him in the back could also have been because they knew they had also metaphorically “stabbed him in the back” or killed an innocent man. Their guilt from this crime could have weighed on their conscience enough to come back to haunt them in their memory, to stay there forever. This could also explain the overly gruesome autopsy and the ravenous dogs. All of the extreme events surrounding Satiago’s death could simply be explained by the people of the town’s guilt ridden lives. It could also explain why it was talked about for years and years after. After all, a guilt ridden soul is a hard thing to shake.
When I first came across this passage, the metaphor “stabbed me in the back” as like turned and hurt me also came to my mind. The use of animal diction in this whole passage shows how the brothers perspective could be this horrific and gruesome account because they were only used to slaughtering their cattle. And they really were not planning on killing a man as they basically were begging the town to get them in trouble so they would not have to carry out the death.
During the final chapter of the novel, the same plot is explained once again, but with different information. Chapter 5 exposes the occurrence of the eventful minutes before the murder. A collection of unfortunate choices and random coincidences guide to Santiago’s avertible death. Foremost, many people could have warned Santiago, however does not bother to do so. Before Santiago is murdered, crowd of people gathered in the square, “the way they did on parade days,” displaying themselves as passive observers and defenseless to stop the murder. The authority figure in provincial Columbia ,the Colonel, fails to stop the crime because he is focused more on a dominoes game. Even Santiago’s mother is to blame for her own son’s death. Because she mistakenly believes that Santiago is at home, misperceived by Divina Flor vision of Santiago carrying a bouquet of flowers. Due to the fact almost the entire population of the town know about the crime planned against Santiago and yet failed to take action to stop it, the entire community is to blame for the atrocious injustice. However on the other hand, the abnormal series of coincidental events, along with Divina Flor’s premonition, this implies that Santiago’s fate had already been predestined and nothing could have been done to alter the outcome.
I agree with Juyoung when he says there were so many people in town who could have stopped this event from unfolding so they seem to be the ones to blame and yet it was Santiago’s fate to die from the Vicario twins. All the excuses from the bystanders all made sense as they thought the twins were still drunk, or that the killing wasn’t going to actually happen because of Santiago’s calm nature. And even when Santiago was finally told the truth Divina Flor just happened to see him walk upstairs and his mother just happened to lock the front door and Santiago just happened to try to use the front door and not the back one in which he always uses.
In the last chapter of Chronicle of a Death foretold, the whole truth comes out that everybody knew Santiago was going to die that day. “I only know that at six o’clock in the morning everybody knew it” (Marquez 112). This is the bystander effect that took hold of the entire town. Everybody thought the someone else would be the one to tell Santiago Nasar. And the idea that Santiago Nasar had actually known he was going to die was a lie too, but the whole town believed he had known the truth the whole time. Nahir Miguel was finally the person to tell him of the Vicario brother’s plan to kill him and he said, “‘He turned pale and lost control in such a way that it was impossible to think he was pretending’ he told me. He agrees that his manner reflected not so much fear as confusion” (Marquez 114). Again this shows how even after all this time to warn Santiago Nasar, nobody took the responsibility to tell him of his fate as it wasn’t really their problem. The line that threw me off the most was when the narrator said that, “The people who were coming back from the docks, alerted by the shouts, began to take up positions around the square to witness the crime” (Marquez 109). The reality that the whole town was there to watch the event unfold yet had the time to stop the incident still upholds the idea of how strong the bystander effect took ahold of the town. I also found it strange that the investigating magistrate, or the judge, did not have a name when everybody else in this book had a name. What do you guys think this implies??
To respond to your question, I do not think it implies anything specifically, but I do think it is interesting. When thinking about names we know that it is what can define you as a person, it is part of your identity and dignity, and can sometimes come with a certain honor. The fact that the judge did not have a name perhaps means that he was less than important in the story, and that he had little to do with the murder. I think everyone else had a name because the world sure does like to point fingers at other people and assign blame to others, and I think that this is exactly what every one in that town did. They kept of saying that they heard the news from one person and then told another person, almost to draw attention away from themselves, which I think really shows the bystander effect, as you well mentioned in your post as well.
The fourth chapter in Chronicle of a Death Foretold starts off with a quote from Father Carmen Amador saying, “It was as if we killed him all over again after he was dead” (Marquez 72). This touches on the motif of fate which is frequently mentioned in the book. A lot of the reasoning behind the things that occur in this book is defined as fate. Even the title, A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, displays the idea that fate is prominent as the death of Santiago is already “foretold” right at the beginning of the book. The death of Santiago seems to have been helpful to everybody except Bayardo San Román who was left lifeless and humiliated. When the family came to gather him, they had a strange grieving process. “Before stepping onto land, they took off their shoes and went barefoot through the streets up to the hilltop in the burning dust of noon. Pulling out strands of hair by the roots and wailing loudly with such high-pitched shrieks that they seemed to be shouts of joy” (Marquez 85). This seemed like a certain tradition or ritual that symbolized the way they were feeling. A lot of outward grieving or sorrow appearance seemed important in this book for example, when Angela Vicario had to wear all red to show she was not mourning her secret lover, in which nobody in today’s world would have thought anything of her wearing black or not. The ending of the chapter lifted my spirits a little for Bayardo and Angela as I had gained some empathy for Bayardo when he was the only one with no honor nor a someone to share his life with. What do you guys feel about them getting back together?
I definitely agree with you on your statement about fate. After all this motif is present in the first line of the novel. “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on” (1). Marquez states to the readers that Santiago is bound to die. I find it interesting though, how the one person who does not gain anything out of the murder of Santiago is Bayardo. Throughout the book, his only intention is to marry Angela. While everyone else has twisted ideas and thoughts. Answering your question, It seems nice for Angela and Bayardo to get back together. Due to the fact that we all feel sympathy for Bayardo, perhaps this gain for him is good. The only thing that puzzles me, is the fact that Angela may have been hiding a secret lover from everyone; causing the murder of Santiago. So what could have happened to this secret person?
In chapter four of this book, there are so many interesting things that happen, however, I want to focus specifically on the concept of letters at the end of the chapter. This concept, of Angela writing letters to Bayardo kind of symbolizes, or embodies, the idea of writing love letters. It is obvious to the audience that Angela has never forgotten about her lost, potential, lover. The wedding incident has really taken a toll on her, physically and mentally, and when she writes him these letters, they are not so much about love, but about her anger, “Then she wrote him a feverish letter, twenty pages long, in which without shame she let out the bitter truths she carried rotting in her heart ever since that ill fated night,” (94). At some point she could not stop thinking about what her life has become and so she started writing these letters, almost as a coping mechanism to create the idea there is still hope for her to regain what she has lost. As if by having him come back or forgive her, that all will be restored. This idea of sending love letters, is usually a very sweet image, her love is simply unrequited and she is doing her best to change that. However here, letters used ironically, and they started out as Angela letting out her anger and her frustration. Moreover, along with this, the idea that Bayardo is the real victim is continued to be painted in the minds of those in the town. Angela keeps on doubting herself and blaming herself for everything that went wrong, as if she is the one who truly lost something so valuable (marriage) and could not do her family justice. After years of sending Bayardo letters, he shows up one day, “‘Well,’ he said, ‘here I am.’ He was carrying a suitcase with clothing… and another just like it with almost two thousand letters that she had written him. They were arranged by date in bundles tied with colored ribbons, and they were all unopened” (95). He never even opened the letters, but he just comes back as if it is some sort of chore, something he has to do, but does not actually want to do. By never having opened the letters it makes it seem as if he is still continuing to undermine Angela, and that this whole story between them is just like a ritual of some sort.
The most important part of the story, the reason it happened in this first place, finally happens, and I think that it is really well done. This book was one of my personal favorites out of the books that we read over the summer, and I cannot help but talk about the last part of the last chapter. I think the idea of not revealing any part of the actual murder until the very end is so clever. Throughout the entire book, the audience knows that Santiago is going to die, but that did not make the murder any less surprising or impactful, more or less. It almost reminds me of Romeo and Juliet, him which right in the beginning the audience is told that the main characters are going to die, but at the end everyone is still kind of shocked that it happened. The effect here is different, however, so much of the story is focused on other characters and other parts, that Santiago's death is almost not the most important thing. The book humanizes all of the people in the town with all the different interviews, and getting their perspective on what they thought actually happened and using the defense of ignorance as a way to assign blame to others, and that is a very important aspect of the story and the commentary on the bystander effect, “He agreed that his manner reflected not so much fear as confusion,” (114). More importantly it humanizes the murders, the reader is given a lot of detail about their life after the murder and a lot of backstory, meanwhile, the reader is given very little back story on Santiago, mainly only that he allegedly took Angela's virginity and that he was murdered. It almost reminds me of another story that was based off of true events, the same idea of humanizing the murders can be seen in Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. By the time of the actual events of the murder are described, the audience is almost desensitized from the murder itself, yes the reader may feel bad for Santiago, “Santiago Nasar… leaned his back against his mother’s door, without the slightest resistance, as if he only wanted to help them finish killing him by his own contribution,” (118). Even though the reader may have sympathy for Santiago it is not as much as we would have, had the reader more information about his character. Which, I would argue, is exactly what Marquez was trying to do with this novel. His goal was to make the reader not care as much because that way the reader become on of the bystanders as well, someone who also did not do anything to stop what was happening, and we just idly watched and read what what going on.
Blog #1 - Chapter one
ReplyDeleteIn the first chapter of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the book opens with a description of Santiago’s dream on the day of his death. “He’d dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit” (Marquez 1). This dream of Santiago’s is foreshadowing his death later in the day. Many people in his town remembered him “as being a little sleepy but in a good mood, and he remarked to all of them in a casual way that it was a very beautiful day” (2). The day had started out pleasant, due to the fact that the bishop would be visiting. In his dream, Santiago dreamt that he was walking through a grove of trees gently. This sensation that he feels in his dream is similar to how his day begun. Santiago had started the day blissfully and carefree. Shortly after in his dream, Santiago is woken by fallen bird poop. The presence of bird poop represents his death. The foreshadowing of Santiago’s death is straightforward and easy to see. Santiago is awoken from the world he has created in his dream from something so indecent and disrespectful. In other words, Santiago will be taken from his pleasant life by murder, later in the day. It’s interesting how Marquez places this dream in the very beginning of the book. Although, the audience is aware that Santiago will be murdered, Marquez still foreshadows how the day will be, in a nutshell. Also, interestingly, Marquez mentions trees in Santiago’s dream. Throughout chapter one there is a recurrence of trees, possibly implying a deeper meaning. After pondering upon the theme of trees, I came to the conclusion that the trees in the dream symbolize the people Santiago met but did not warn him about the plotting of his death. Trees surround us and where we live, similar to how people surround us in our lives. Though, the only difference is that people can speak up, while trees cannot. What do you guys think the trees symbolize?
I agree with Ariel when she says that the trees symbolize the people around him that did not give him a heads up that he was about to die. In the dream it says, “...flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything” and I know can see the connection to Santiago in his silent plane, which is not disturbing anyone, as it kind of sneaks up on people like the death sneaks up on the reader even though we are told by the first line he dies. I also noticed the amount of seasonal diction was in your post and I think it’s important to note because it is also foreshadowing events and feelings as Piáciada Linera said it was rainy when her son died and the cook said it was sunny.
DeleteThe first thing that caught my attention after reading only a few sentences of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “Chronicle Of A Death Foretold”, was the intense language that is used. Immediately the audience’s attention is grabbed with the line “spattered with bird s***”. It’s not as though this line is inappropriately thrown in though, as it adds a harsh awakening to the end of Santiago’s dream of going through groves of beautiful trees, and instead of being drizzled with rain, he was drizzled with bird excrement. This is foreshadowing towards his death in the story, which the audience is very aware of, but all the audience knows is that Santiago died. They are yet to learn about his waking hours before his death. On the note of dreams, Santiago’s mother mentions that Santiago had a dream a week before his death entailing that he was “...alone in a tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything”. Of course, dreams are insane and always up to interpretation, but this specific dream intrigued and confused me. After thinking about it, I thought that tinfoil is a substance that can safely be put into a hot oven, but is still easily flammable. Almond trees are commonly grown in the Middle East and North Africa, as they grow to be peaches if the almonds fully develop into the fruit. Plants are usually respected by most Asian cultures, so almond trees could be seen as things left to grow and bloom and blossom. Perhaps flying a flammable single-pilot airplane and trying not to bump into a grove of sacred trees is a symbol for just trying to get through life? Maybe Santiago was just trying to get through his life without disturbing anyone or making a fuss and his dream was reflective of that? What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteI hadn’t really thought much of the dream that is mentioned by Santiago’s mother. I agree, it’s difficult to make sense out of at first, but that only means we have to dig deeper. In my blog, I mentioned how trees represent the bystanders and the people that knew of his murder. The book mentions how Santiago dreamt that he was “alone in a tinfoil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything” (Marquez 1). I interpreted this quote a little differently than you did. What I take away from this passage, is that Santiago is the pilot of this tinfoil airplane. As the pilot, he controls the decisions he makes/his life, which is the plane. He guides his life in anyway that he wants. As Santiago, lives his life, he does not bump into other people. Or in other words, he does not bump into any trees. Perhaps Santiago viewed himself as a someone who did not cause trouble and chaos for anyone.
DeleteGood point about the use of that language!
ReplyDeleteThere are various things that really stuck out to me within the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. For one, I noticed how much trees were mentioned, leading me to believe that they could perhaps be a symbol in the story, “‘He was always dreaming about trees,’” (Marquez, 3). In a sense this could be tied back to magical realism, since his mother is apparently a dream interpreter, and that is not actually a thing. The idea that dreams can influence or predict the future is one of magical realism. The way that trees are often brought up in dreams or just in the general plot line, was really interesting. The syntax in the beginning contributes to a dream like feel, similarly to how it was in Siddhartha.There are long sentences which makes the reader feel as if it was a long morning, “Furthermore: all the many people he ran into after leaving his house at five minutes past six and until he was carved up like a pig an hour later remembered him as being a little sleepy but in a good mood, and he remarked to all of them in a casual way that it was a very beautiful day,” (4). These long sentence structures make the reader feel in possibly two ways. One way being that it was a slow start to the morning that was bound to be filled with a lot of tension, or also that perhaps his death was a slow and long. Another thing that I found that was interesting, especially the first time I read it over the summer, was the weird warped timeline. I thought that it was an interesting way to tell a story by having the ending being told within the first line of the story. It was so intriguing and I think that it really sets up the tone for the rest of the story. It definitely creates a suspenseful and unsettling tone, that is very apparent throughout the rest of the chapter and the rest of the book.
ReplyDeleteRereading the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold with the new knowledge of what magical realism is and how it appears in stories was very eye-opening. I read it more informative and picked up on a few magical realism lines. When the narrator is recalling the reasoning behind never having the gun loaded in the house. “It was a wise custom established by his father ever since one morning when a servant girl has shaken the case to get the pillow out and the pistol went off as it hit the floor and the bullet wrecked the cupboard in the room, went through the living room wall, passed through the dining room of the house next door with the thunder of war, and turned a life-size saint on the main altar of the church on the opposite side of the square to plaster dust” (Marquez 6). Another example I found that might be stretching it was when Piácida Linero says, “The week before, he’d dreamed that he was alone in a tin foil airplane and flying through the almond trees without bumping into anything” (Marquez 4). This was a dream so I first thought that since any weird thing can happen in a dream it wouldn’t be magical realism. However, the mother responded like it was normal to actually dream about not hitting the almond trees, as if there was such things as almond trees. What do you guys think? Do you guys think this is magical realism? This quote from Piácida Linero was also giving insight to how important dreams are in the rest of the book and what they mean.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your insight about magical realism within the novel. In addition to that, I agree with your examples about how Piacida Linero provides insight to how important dreams are. I personally think that the dreams will be a important aspect of this novel because the novel tends to be more specific about irrelevant details, such as dream, and vague about matters of real importance, such as what the current weather was when Santiago died.
DeleteBlog #1
ReplyDeleteAfter rereading and analyzing the novel after the first chapter, the novel resembles a mystery. From the very beginning, we learn that Santiago Nasar is predicted to die and later on in the book, we found out how and why this event will occur. However, Chronicle of a Death Foretold is not a chronicle; the narrative does not portray the events chronologically. although , the title misleadingly suggests so. The first chapter recounts the morning of the assassination by two brothers, Pedro and Pablo Vicario, but different variation of the morning event are retold from different viewpoints throughout the rest of the book.
Despite the journalistic approach of this novel, a lot of the narrative is composed of recurring events that carry ambiguous symbolic meaning. For instance, the narrator repeatedly points out the disruption over what the weather was on the day of Santiago Nasar's murder. Some people believed that the weather was nice out; others believe that it rained. However, significance of the rain is left unclear. The narrative is specific about irrelevant details, and vague about matters of real importance.
Something that was interesting to me in this book was how often the weather was mentioned throughout the entirety of the first chapter. When each person recalls what they were doing on the day of Santiago’s death they tend to mention the weather. Some examples of this are “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 funeral, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters, and at that moment of the misfortune a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago had never seen in his dream grove” (1.4). Another example is, “Victoria Guzman, the cook, was sure that it hadn’t rained that day, or during the whole month of February. ‘On the contrary,’ she told me when I came to see her, a short time before her death. ‘The sun warms things up earlier than in August’” (1.9.). The significance of the weather on the day of his death could represent a number of things such as foreshadowing to the outcome or a metaphor for how he was feeling or the motivations of his killers. The weather could also be significant because of the great beliefs in superstition that everyone in their community had. Like all South American countries Colombia is no different in its high populations of superstitious people. In South America especially superstitions have been passed down for generations. This can be seen when Santiago talks about his mother. He says “She had a well earned reputation as an accurate interpreter of other people’s dreams, provided they were told to her before eating...”(1.4). This is also shown when he tells her his dream and she replies “Any dream about birds means good health”(1.6). Both of these quotes show the superstitious family and community that Santiago grew up around. This could be the very reason that the first thing people attempt to remember about the day Santiago was killed is the weather. There are many superstitions about the weather in south america, all very specific. The impact of these superstitions on Santiago’s community can be seen in phrases such as “a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago had never seen in his dream grove.” and “the sun warms things up earlier than august”. Both of these quotes show that the weather is believed to be controlled by something other than the laws of nature. First, it is used as foreshadowing predicting something new and unseen and unpreventable happening to Santiago and second the sun is used as a reason to dismiss anything strange happening that day.Both of these quotes could be considered forecasting and could be cause for suspicion.
ReplyDeleteBlog #2:
ReplyDeleteIn this chapter it is made extremely evident that the characters in this story often hide their true feelings or intentions. This can be seen in many instances such as when Angela Vicario reveals how she truly felt about Bayardo San Roman before they married. The narrator writes, “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” (28). This example is essential to the plot as it sets the entire story in motion. Because Angela did not share her feelings and married Bayardo she was sent back to her house for not being a virgin and when asked who had done this, accused Santiago of taking her virginity. This is a very important theme that is carried out throughout the story, many characters hold in their emotions and feelings towards others or just simply don’t say what they know they should. Because many characters don’t speak out and have a lazy “someone-else-will-do-it” attitude, this tragedy is able to take place. Gabriel Garcia Marquez chose this environment specifically because he knew it would have been easy for this unfortunate chain of coincidences and events could happen because no one would do anything to stop it.
I never really thought about why Angela couldn’t speak up very well for herself. She told her parents that she did not want to marry Bayardo, but they insisted. This could be because of what’s culturally appropriate/right. After all, Angela’s parents sole focus was on finding her and her sisters husbands to support them through life. Although she spoke up to her parents, I don’t believe she ever told Bayardo that she didn’t want to marry him. Like you were saying about how the mentally in the characters throughout the book are all centered around the “Someone-else-will-speak-up” idea, could that be why? Why did Angela not speak up? Also, who might have been able to speak up for her, if she had this mentality?
DeleteBlog #2
ReplyDeleteIn the second chapter of a “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the narrator tells the story of Bayardo San Roman, the bridegroom of Angela Vicario. The story of the marriage between Bayardo and Angela emphasizes the expectations/roles of men and women in the setting of this story. When the Bayardo’s family comes to visit the Vicario’s, it becomes clear to the reader that Bayardo can marry anyone he pleases to. Angela Vicario’s parents are very supportive of this match because Bayardo is wealthy, and comes from a prestigious family. From the narrator, we hear that Angela is not interested in marrying Bayardo for many reasons. Earlier in the second chapter, the narrator states that the Vicario daughters “were raised to be married” (Marquez 34). In the culture of this book, we are able to see how a woman’s life will improve if she marries a husband who will provide well for her. Although, Angela’s protest to her parents against the marriage is prominent, her mother states that “love can be learned too” (38). Angela Vicario’s parents have also stated that “a family dignified by modest means has so right to disdain a prize of destiny” (38). From what we know about the Vicario’s, they are the type of family that is very loyal to traditions and sustaining the roles of women. Women were to be virgins before marriage. In the case of this story, Angela Vicario was not a virgin when she was married. In fact, she decided to keep it a secret from her husband (Bayardo), but he found out shortly after their marriage. I find this tradition/rule interesting because of the vast difference between the standards of men and women. While women must be virgins before marriage, it does not matter for men. In the previous chapter, we saw how Santiago Nasar did not think twice when being sexually abusive towards Divina Flor. From this alone, we can see how women are expected to be pristine and pure, while men are not expected to be. Instead the only trait in men that happens to matter for marriage is if they have money. A pattern that I have been noticing in the first two chapters of CODF, is the fact that men only take actions that boost their ego or make their appearance seem bigger to society. They are not responsible for keeping up a perfect image like women. What other differences and similarities between the role of men and women did you guys notice?
I agree with you when you say women have this role to be pure and perfect unlike the men who seem to do whatever they want. I difference I saw again was the fact that women have no control of their future or identity. The quote from the narrator says it best when he tells a primary school student that they will be married in fourteen years. It baffles me that no one thought this weird or gross, but as normal because it’s tradition for men to be dominant and the women to be submissive even if she is twenty years younger.
DeleteMy group is presenting next class and in our question we focused on the women’s roles in the town that this book is about. It was like reading a new book because the first time I read it I concentrated on Bayardo San Román because he was first introduced in chapter two and the descriptions of the crazy wedding. I didn’t really take into account the way the women were being treated. “Purísima del Carmen, her mother, had been a schoolteacher until she married for ever” (Marquez 30-31). Purísima is identified as a married woman and no longer an individual. It said she was a schoolteacher “until she married,” which gives the impression that all women were something until they had to give it up for their husbands. Also the incident where Bayardo is two hours late to pick up Angela for the wedding reminds me of Taming of the Shrew. “The only unforeseen surprise was caused by the groom on the morning of the wedding, for he was two hours late coming for Angela Vicario and she had refused to get dressed as a bride until she saw him in the house” (Marquez 41). Both women were extremely upset and also embarrassed by the actions of their soon to be husbands. However, Petruchio’s actions was to tame Kate. What was the reasoning behind Bayardo’s actions? I also think it’s interesting how the chapter starts off with telling the ending, giving back Angela Vicario, right away just like the beginning of the book foretells Santiago’s death as well. “Bayardo San Román, the man who had given back his bride, had turned up for the first time in August of the year before: six months before the wedding” (Marquez 25).
ReplyDeleteBlog 2
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the narrator provides background context as it reveals to the audience what happened throughout the weeks leading up to Santiago’s murder. Despite the fact, Angela claims Santiago was the man who took her virginity, her accusation is established as an ambiguity. There are no other witnesses or evidence that justifies Angela being seen with Santiago. The narrator points out, nobody in the town even knew Angela already had lost her virginity. In addition, at the wedding feast, Santiago displayed no suspicious clues of having a secret with Angela. Furthermore, the construction of the last paragraph, which Angela is portrayed as finding his name “at first sight among the many, many easily confused names,” implies that she simply said the first name that popped into her head, to avoid further beating from her mother. If the quote “butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written” is compared with Santiago’s name, it falls within the fate motif because it suggests that he is an innocent victim fate, due to Angela.
Moreover to the concept of virginity, this chapter portrays the brutality of the social conventions surrounding women. Because Angela did not have her virginity when she married, Angela is abandoned by her husband, but she is also beaten by her mother. This double standards of her culture become a spotlight, the narrator points out. On the contrary, Santiago, Luis Enrique, and Cristo are all at a whorehouse doing whatever they please, which is claiming that, culturally it is acceptable for men to have premarital sex, even if they are already betrothed to marry other women.
I thought that your comment about how it Angela seemed to have said simply the first name that came to mind was really interesting. It really does raise the question of whether or not Santiago really did take away her virginity. Then again, there is such a double standard here. I talked about this in my own blog post, in that women are expected to be pure, yet men are totally expected to go out and have sex. This idea still exists today, perhaps not as as much as it did at the time of the book, but this double standard still very much exists and is prevalent!
DeleteDo you think that is still the case?
ReplyDeleteIn chapter two, one interesting thing is all of the double standards in the story. In this chapter, we get a motive as to why the Vicario brothers want to kill Santiago Nasar. We are introduced to two very important characters in this chapter, Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario. One thing this is to be noted that it's a major motif is the idea of honor over love. In this case marriage is more our of honor, Angela had almost no say in what she wanted to do, she was forced to marry Bayardo in order to uphold her family's name, “‘Love can be learned too’” (35). Angela's mother is telling her that honor is more important than love, and that love can come afterward. With this we also see the double standard that women are supposed to be pure, and that men are supposed to be so out there. This is a double standard that still exists to this day, it is a lot more loose, but it is still prevalent. Everyone is completely shocked that Angela wasn't a virgin, and that is the whole reason this whole story happened, “No one would have thought, not did anyone say, that Angela Vicario wasn’t a virgin,” (37). When Bayardo finds out that she is not a virgin, he goes crazy, and goes to “return” her to her mother. This then causes a lot chaos, Angela is beat to the point where she thought she was dying! This is all because of the double standard that women are not supposed to have sex. This is seen in the fact that they are not killing Santiago for having premarital sex, but for taking away the virginity of a woman. This sort of double standard can still be seen today in the sense that women are still not supposed to have sex before they are married, but men are supposed to have a lot of sex with various different women. It raises the question of who these men are supposed to be having sex with? Could I be wrong, would anyone agree that this double standard still exists in our society?
ReplyDeleteI honestly think that this double standard is not as common as everybody thinks. While I do agree that this way of thinking isn't completely extinct, I do think that virginity has become more of a personal choice in the modern world. While some people may judge others for their choice to have premarital sex, a person's sex life is no longer anybody's business besides the individual's. I think that because of this, for the most part, women who choose to save their virginity do it out of religious or personal reasons, and not because they think that society says women shouldn't have sex. However, I do agree that men are applauded for "getting around." When a man tells his family about his new girlfriend, the parents congratulate him and give him a slap on the back. When a woman tells her family about her new boyfriend, you often find that the boyfriend gets heavily scrutinized because the parents are aware of the fact that men have this reputation. While in the past this scrutiny may have occurred because the pride of the family name was on the line, I think that in our time, it is most often because the parents want to protect the daughter and her feelings, not just her virginity.
DeleteBlog #3
ReplyDeleteIn chapter three of a “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the author, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, questions the extent of an outsider’s responsibilities in situations that don’t exactly involve them. Chapter three reveals to the audience the perspective/thoughts of the Vicario twins behind the idea of murdering Santiago Nasar. Throughout the process of trying to track Santiago down, both brothers have doubts about killing Santiago. They question if their actions will fulfill their family’s honor. Something I found interesting in the third chapter, is the fact that the Vicario twins continuously announce their plan (to kill Santiago Nasar) to people. After discussing with a couple of my classmates, I came to the conclusion that the Vicario twins told people about their plan to kill Santiago as a cry for help. By being open with their desire of wanting to kill Santiago, they gave people an opportunity to stop themselves from going through with the murder. The narrator makes a clear point about the Vicario brother’s view for killing Santiago Nasar. “Still, in reality it seemed that the Vicario brothers had done nothing right with a view to killing Santiago Nasar immediately and without any public spectacle, but had done much more than could be imagined to have someone stop them from killing him, and they had failed” (Marquez 56). From this quote alone, it is clear to see that Santiago’s death could have been prevented. If only someone could have stepped in and taken action in stopping the Vicario brothers. But ironically, when the townspeople were questioned on why they didn’t prevent the death of Santiago, they made excuses. Colonel Lazaro stated that when he saw the twins “[he] thought they were nothing but a pair of big bluffers” (65). That day, twenty-two people declared that they had heard everything the twins had said, and they all coincided in the impression that the only reason the brothers had said it was so that someone would come over and hear them. The Vicario Brothers technically did give a chance for someone to stop them from murdering Santiago. Do you guys think that the bystanders should be at fault for the murder of Santiago Nasar?
I completely agree when you said the Vicario brothers were crying for help when they were very open about their intention of murdering Santiago. Typically, when someone wanted to kill someone, they would not be very open about their idea, unlike the Vicario brothers. Answering, your question, I think that the bystanders should be blamed to an extent because the Vicario brother were providing many opportunities for others to say "Hey, maybe you should not kill a guy that isn't really justified of taking your sister's virginity"
DeleteBlog #3
ReplyDeleteThe element of time is presented in a captivating method in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. The typical mystery novel investigation develops in a linear format. Typically, the plot is slightly complex and the past plays a significant role in affecting the present, but the detective pushes through the suspects and clues, driven to move forward and make progress to catch the culprit. There are false leads, distractions, and obstacles and the detective experiences a setback, so he eventually backtracks. However, the main core of the narrative is very direct until the detective eventually arrives to his conclusion. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, in contrast to the typical murder-mystery-novel formula, the structure is circular or indirect. The narrator explains the tale in a way that time is looping back onto itself. Each chapter begins at a certain point in time within the few hours that covers murder of Santiago, but, the tale spins off into flashbacks and flash forwards, digressions, commentaries on the different people involved. This is ironic because the chapters are not in chronological order however the title is The Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Despite the fact the novel’s plot jumps around, the narrative is extremely tight. We get background context of every character that might have been associated to the murder. In addition, with some characters, we discover how the characters lives are, after the murder. Gabriel Marquez’s use of this structure is impeccable. The story seems to flow fluidly, even though the plot is not in order.
In chapter three, it begins with the story of the Vicario brothers and how they went about their journey to kill Santiago. Not only did they tell multiple people about their plan to kill Santiago Nasar without suspicion but their actions were also made clear through their calm, calculated actions. After getting knives to kill Santiago, sharpening them, getting them taken away by the police and getting new knives sharpened they ended up at Clotilde Armenta’s store at around 4 in the morning. The imagery used to describe the brothers was written, “...Then they took off their cloth jackets, hung them carefully on the chair backs, and asked her for another bottle. Their shirts were dirty with dried sweat and a on-day beard gave them a backwoods look. They drank the second bottle more slowly, sitting down, looking insistently toward Placida Linero’s house on the sidewalk...” these slow concise movements show that the brothers were utterly aware of their crimes and motivations and these actions were witnessed by many people. Describing their actions as “hung them carefully” and their look as a “backwoods look” gives the impression that they look very tired and haggard like they have been through alot and are not well. All of these actions and the way they look could’ve obviously given away the fact that they were not bluffing and obviously intended to kill Santiago.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that it becomes apparent that the killing was planned, but I would argue that it was poorly planned. Not only that, but that it was poorly planned on purpose. I also thought that it was interesting how no one was doing anything to stop them, I spoke about this in my own blog post, about how many people in the village looked at them and kind of dismissed them, and claimed that they thought they were simply too drunk or were just joking! It seems so absurd that they would think that they were just joking about killing someone, especially when they village learns that they are, in fact, not bluffing, and do plan on going through. Still almost no one did anything to stop them.
DeleteOne there are various different things that become apparent in this chapter. The motif of honor is everywhere in this chapter, and what it means to obtain it in terms of family honor. This is a continuation from the second chapter, and the double standards between men and women, and just what it means to have honor. While this is a very important topic, I will not be discussing this in my blog post, instead I will be discussing the characterization of the Vicario brothers, because it is very important, especially in talking about honor and social standards and expectations. Something that stood out as interesting was how the Vicario brothers have a good reputation, “ Their reputation as good people was so well- founded that no one paid any attention to them,” (52). Because of their seemingly good reputation, it is apparent that many people looked at them and thought that they were perhaps joking about wanting to kill Santiago. They did not take them seriously when they went around opening saying that they were going to kill Santiago. So then this raises the question of how does reputation affect whether or not people take what you say seriously, or to heart. Instead of being looked at as possible murderers, people just dismissed them, or were only vaguely concerned. Another thing is that the Vicario brothers were characterized as perhaps lacking a sort of emotional sentiment behind the killing, “I reminded them that the Vicario brothers sacrificed the same hogs they raised, which were so familiar to them that they called them by their names.” (60). They named each of the pigs that they raised, and were still able to kill them with almost no remorse. Usually, it can be seen that in order to kill something else, you have to almost dehumanize it, but the opposite is true of the Vicario brothers, especially because it seemed almost as if they were all friends. It just goes to show how desensitized they were from the killing almost, and that they almost didn’t care. This makes sense because at that point it was not so much about what they wanted to do, but so much what they felt like they had to do. They did not care that they were killing a friend, or even, someone they had grown up with, they were protecting her sisters, and their families honor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mariella with the motif of honor. A lot of the reasoning behind people’s actions in this book is to maintain or regain their honor. I found it strange when Pablo’s fiance said she wouldn’t marry him unless he killed Santiago because it would give the Vicario’s family's honor back. “‘I knew what they were up to,’ she told me, “and I didn’t only agree, I never would have married him if he hadn’t done what a man should do’”(Marquez 62). This also connects to gender roles and what men were supposed to do in society, they were supposed to be macho.
DeleteDuring chapter three, there were a lot of references to rain in this chapter. Colonel Lázaro said, “I can remember with certainty that it was almost five o’clock and it was beginning to rain” (Marquez 56). “‘It wasn’t raining,’ Pablo Vicario remembered. ‘Just the opposite,’ Pedro recalled” (Marquez 61). Even the narrator said, “Until then it hadn’t rained; on the contrary, the moon was high in the sky and the air was clear, and at the bottom of the precipice you could see the trickles of light from the Saint Elmo’s fire in the cemetery”(Marquez 66). This connects to the maxim that rain is never just rain as it sets tone and mood for a piece of literature. Every person who talked about rain had an opinion on the death of Santiago Nasar. With the rain comes sadness. Colonel said it was raining which implies he believed the killing of Santiago was mournful and unnecessary. Unlike the twins who said that it was not raining. This can be implied that they didn’t see the death of Santiago as sad or a bad thing. Also the narrator, who we don’t really know anything about, also said it wasn’t raining giving a happy mood and tone towards the death of Santiago Nasar so we can imply he thought Santiago deserved it even though we know they were friends. At the beginning of the book the maid said it wasn’t raining which supports the idea that rain means sadness about his death and sunny weather means they are content or believe Santiago deserves to be dead.
ReplyDeleteBlog #4
ReplyDeleteIn chapter four of a “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, Gabriel Garcia Marquez makes the readers question if Angela Vicario was ever truly in love. Angela Vicario was forced into marrying Bayardo, in which she then hid the fact that she was not a virgin. She failed to keep this secret and claimed immediately that Santiago Nasar should be accused and blamed for. However, it is not confirmed in the novel that Santiago was the one to take her virginity. In fact, there are narrations that contradict Angela’s statement. For example, the narrator states that “Angela Vicario was protecting someone who really loved her and she had chosen Santiago’s Nasar name because she thought her brothers would never dare go up against him” (104). Further analyzing the whole novel, this reason for the blame on Santiago is quite believable and could be true. In the second chapter of CODF, the story of the marriage between Angela and Bayardo seems very straight forward. Angela was not interested in marrying Bayardo, but Bayardo was set on marrying Angela. This story itself is what makes chapter four interesting. In chapter four, the narrator goes further in depth about Angela’s feelings for Bayardo, and her state of mind after the death of Santiago. Marquez adds a twist in the novel, stating that Angela had fallen in love years after parting with Bayardo, on the night of their marriage. This feeling from Angela is evident in the narration, “She wrote a weekly letter for over half a lifetime. ‘Sometimes I couldn’t think of what to say’, she told me, dying with laughter, ‘but it was enough for me to know that he was getting them’” (109). The narrator emphasizes how Angela continually sent letters to Bayardo for a long period of time, hoping that he received them. This proves Angela’s intense feelings for Bayardo through her strong preservation of hope. The narrator makes a clear point that Angela is in love with Bayardo, but since when? If Angela was trying to protect someone she loved, when she blamed Santiago for taking her virginity, then why and when could she have fallen in love with Bayardo?
Blog #5
ReplyDeleteIn the fifth chapter of a “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, Gabriel Garcia Marquez shares many ways that the murder of Santiago Nasar could have been avoided. A reoccurring theme that can be seen in this novel, is how nothing falls in place correctly. The actions of almost everyone either promotes the murder of Santiago or doesn’t help the prevention of it. But reassurance can be seen in chapter five as well. Cristo Bedoya, who cared for Santiago, tried to warn him of the plan that the Vicario brothers had planned. Although Cristo Bedoya and couple other characters had good intentions, they were never able to find Santiago to warn him in time. Something I found interesting in this chapter is how Santiago’s mother was one of the biggest factors of his death. The narrator states how Placida Linero (Santiago’s mother) had just closed the front door, because Divina Flor lied to her and said that he was already home and gone up to his room; “Through the door she saw the Vicario brothers running toward the house with their knives out. From the place where she was standing she could see them but she couldn’t see her son, who was running toward the door from a different angle. ‘I thought that they wanted to get in, to kill him inside the house,’ she told me. Then she ran to the door and slammed it shut” (138). This action of Placida struck me with curiosity. It’s ironic how the one person in the world who will always love Santiago (motherly love!) was the one to lead him straight to death. Because she shut the door, Santiago was unable to run inside the house. The Vicario brothers then caught up to him, and stabbed him multiple times. Why do you guys think Gabriel Marquez may have added this into the plot of the novel? What does this action of Santiago’s mother tell the audience? Although the people that loved Santiago took actions to save him, it is also important to notice how other people in the town, did not care to prevent the murder. This is depressing and powerful at the same time to see how people would rather watch something cruel happen, more than wanting to stop the event. Could this be a possible reflection of people’s lives in the town? Perhaps it’s that people are so bored and uninterested with their own lives that they’ll accept anything to make it interesting. Even a murder. It’s become slowly noticeable to me that people are drawn to the chaos, and drama of others due to the fact that it’s entertaining.
In Chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the word Falconry and the concept of falconry grabbed my attention. The very beginning of the chapter, Marquez integrates a quote by Gil Vicente, a portuguese poet and playwright. The quote reads “The pursuit of love / is like falconry.” In this chapter, falconry is mentioned several times throughout the narrative style writing. The word “falconry” is a reference to the actual practice of hunting small game utilizing falcons and the art of training the falcons to hunt. These definitions of the word correlates to the roles of Bayardo and Angela. From the beginning of the novel, Bayardo is hunting Angela, referring Bayardo as the falcon and Angela as the small game. In addition, when Bayardo leaves Angela, this is depicting the process of Bayardo training Angela to hunt, where Angela is the falcon. However, Angela is hunting Bayardo, which is represented by the love letters.
ReplyDeleteI think that this was interesting as well, especially when we look at how love letters are used in this narrative. It does seem almost like Bayardo has trained Angela to hunt for him, which is why Angela continues to write those letters. However, I think that a lot more could be said about these so called love letters. I think that Angela used that as a coping mechanism, to deal with the remains of what was left of her life, she could not deal with the hurt that she was feeling anymore and decided to take action against her frustration, and thus she wrote out her agony in these letters. However we could she that she is "trained" I guess, by the fact that she was never able to do anything with her life after the incident. I don't know, I think that it definitely is interesting how this is done, but what do you think about the idea of writing these letters as a way to cope with the events of the wedding night?
DeleteIn the fourth chapter, Santiago Nasar’s autopsy is described. Within this description the seven wounds that were fatal are described. One of the wounds is described as, “He also had six minor wounds on his arms and hands, and two horizontal cuts: one in the right thigh and the other in the abdominal muscles. He had a deep stab in the right hand. The report says: “It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ” (75). The word stigma means a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or person. This comparison between Santiago’s body and Christ’s could be representative of the guilt that this priest felt while he performed the autopsy on Santiago. Because the priest compared santiago to Christ he compared him to a perfect being who died because he was innocent and wrongly accused which could have been how the priest saw Santiago. This use of a stigma could also be comparing the two in a negative way, for example the priest could have believed that Christ was innocent and because Santiago’s wounds are similar to Christ’s simply having these wounds as a guilty man is disrespectful to the catholic faith and their beliefs. Either way, the remainder of the sacrifice of Christ to this priest during the autopsy obviously brought feelings of discomfort and guilt to his mind, reminding him of the unsurety of this man’s guilt and the guilt it would place on him to perform this informal autopsy on an innocent man.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis is very interesting. I have not thought of it in a way like that. I agreed with your Santiago's body and Christ. In my opinion, I think that the quote would support more of the priest thinking that Santiago was an innocent man. It might be bias because we are already given that Santiago is murdered as an innocent from the very beginning of the novel.
Delete“I’d given it to him at least three times and there wasn’t a drop of blood.” Santiago Nasar twisted after the third stab, his arms crossed over his stomach, let out the moan of a calf, and turned his back on them. Pablo Vicari, who was on his left, then gave him the only stab in the back and a spurt of blood under high pressure soaked his shirt.” (118).
ReplyDeleteThis passage left me wondering, how in the world did blood only come out when Santiago Nasar was stabbed in the back? Sure, there is obviously the anatomical reason such as the knife never hit a main artery or never hit an organ or anything that could cause blood to spurt from his body, and yet it wasn’t just that the blood hadn’t spurt out, the knife had come out completely clean. In chapter five it seems that all of the events up to and after Santiago Nasar’s death have come to a conclusion and the narrator has gathered as much information as possible. Because it had been so long since the crime the information the narrator has gathered has had to be the information that people could recall. This makes the information flawed because it comes from people. Because people like to see the best in themselves and people’s memories aren’t perfect every testimony he gathered had different flaws. This could provide an explanation for every coincidence and superstition involved in this story. Because he gathered the memory of the stabbing from the brothers themselves this could provide an explanation for why their crime seemed so eerie and haunting. The reason the brothers could have believed that blood only shot out of Santiago when they stabbed him in the back could also have been because they knew they had also metaphorically “stabbed him in the back” or killed an innocent man. Their guilt from this crime could have weighed on their conscience enough to come back to haunt them in their memory, to stay there forever. This could also explain the overly gruesome autopsy and the ravenous dogs. All of the extreme events surrounding Satiago’s death could simply be explained by the people of the town’s guilt ridden lives. It could also explain why it was talked about for years and years after. After all, a guilt ridden soul is a hard thing to shake.
When I first came across this passage, the metaphor “stabbed me in the back” as like turned and hurt me also came to my mind. The use of animal diction in this whole passage shows how the brothers perspective could be this horrific and gruesome account because they were only used to slaughtering their cattle. And they really were not planning on killing a man as they basically were begging the town to get them in trouble so they would not have to carry out the death.
DeleteDuring the final chapter of the novel, the same plot is explained once again, but with different information. Chapter 5 exposes the occurrence of the eventful minutes before the murder. A collection of unfortunate choices and random coincidences guide to Santiago’s avertible death. Foremost, many people could have warned Santiago, however does not bother to do so. Before Santiago is murdered, crowd of people gathered in the square, “the way they did on parade days,” displaying themselves as passive observers and defenseless to stop the murder. The authority figure in provincial Columbia ,the Colonel, fails to stop the crime because he is focused more on a dominoes game. Even Santiago’s mother is to blame for her own son’s death. Because she mistakenly believes that Santiago is at home, misperceived by Divina Flor vision of Santiago carrying a bouquet of flowers. Due to the fact almost the entire population of the town know about the crime planned against Santiago and yet failed to take action to stop it, the entire community is to blame for the atrocious injustice. However on the other hand, the abnormal series of coincidental events, along with Divina Flor’s premonition, this implies that Santiago’s fate had already been predestined and nothing could have been done to alter the outcome.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Juyoung when he says there were so many people in town who could have stopped this event from unfolding so they seem to be the ones to blame and yet it was Santiago’s fate to die from the Vicario twins. All the excuses from the bystanders all made sense as they thought the twins were still drunk, or that the killing wasn’t going to actually happen because of Santiago’s calm nature. And even when Santiago was finally told the truth Divina Flor just happened to see him walk upstairs and his mother just happened to lock the front door and Santiago just happened to try to use the front door and not the back one in which he always uses.
DeleteIn the last chapter of Chronicle of a Death foretold, the whole truth comes out that everybody knew Santiago was going to die that day. “I only know that at six o’clock in the morning everybody knew it” (Marquez 112). This is the bystander effect that took hold of the entire town. Everybody thought the someone else would be the one to tell Santiago Nasar. And the idea that Santiago Nasar had actually known he was going to die was a lie too, but the whole town believed he had known the truth the whole time. Nahir Miguel was finally the person to tell him of the Vicario brother’s plan to kill him and he said, “‘He turned pale and lost control in such a way that it was impossible to think he was pretending’ he told me. He agrees that his manner reflected not so much fear as confusion” (Marquez 114). Again this shows how even after all this time to warn Santiago Nasar, nobody took the responsibility to tell him of his fate as it wasn’t really their problem. The line that threw me off the most was when the narrator said that, “The people who were coming back from the docks, alerted by the shouts, began to take up positions around the square to witness the crime” (Marquez 109). The reality that the whole town was there to watch the event unfold yet had the time to stop the incident still upholds the idea of how strong the bystander effect took ahold of the town. I also found it strange that the investigating magistrate, or the judge, did not have a name when everybody else in this book had a name. What do you guys think this implies??
ReplyDeleteTo respond to your question, I do not think it implies anything specifically, but I do think it is interesting. When thinking about names we know that it is what can define you as a person, it is part of your identity and dignity, and can sometimes come with a certain honor. The fact that the judge did not have a name perhaps means that he was less than important in the story, and that he had little to do with the murder. I think everyone else had a name because the world sure does like to point fingers at other people and assign blame to others, and I think that this is exactly what every one in that town did. They kept of saying that they heard the news from one person and then told another person, almost to draw attention away from themselves, which I think really shows the bystander effect, as you well mentioned in your post as well.
DeleteThe fourth chapter in Chronicle of a Death Foretold starts off with a quote from Father Carmen Amador saying, “It was as if we killed him all over again after he was dead” (Marquez 72). This touches on the motif of fate which is frequently mentioned in the book. A lot of the reasoning behind the things that occur in this book is defined as fate. Even the title, A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, displays the idea that fate is prominent as the death of Santiago is already “foretold” right at the beginning of the book. The death of Santiago seems to have been helpful to everybody except Bayardo San Román who was left lifeless and humiliated. When the family came to gather him, they had a strange grieving process. “Before stepping onto land, they took off their shoes and went barefoot through the streets up to the hilltop in the burning dust of noon. Pulling out strands of hair by the roots and wailing loudly with such high-pitched shrieks that they seemed to be shouts of joy” (Marquez 85). This seemed like a certain tradition or ritual that symbolized the way they were feeling. A lot of outward grieving or sorrow appearance seemed important in this book for example, when Angela Vicario had to wear all red to show she was not mourning her secret lover, in which nobody in today’s world would have thought anything of her wearing black or not. The ending of the chapter lifted my spirits a little for Bayardo and Angela as I had gained some empathy for Bayardo when he was the only one with no honor nor a someone to share his life with. What do you guys feel about them getting back together?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you on your statement about fate. After all this motif is present in the first line of the novel. “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on” (1). Marquez states to the readers that Santiago is bound to die. I find it interesting though, how the one person who does not gain anything out of the murder of Santiago is Bayardo. Throughout the book, his only intention is to marry Angela. While everyone else has twisted ideas and thoughts. Answering your question, It seems nice for Angela and Bayardo to get back together. Due to the fact that we all feel sympathy for Bayardo, perhaps this gain for him is good. The only thing that puzzles me, is the fact that Angela may have been hiding a secret lover from everyone; causing the murder of Santiago. So what could have happened to this secret person?
DeleteIn chapter four of this book, there are so many interesting things that happen, however, I want to focus specifically on the concept of letters at the end of the chapter. This concept, of Angela writing letters to Bayardo kind of symbolizes, or embodies, the idea of writing love letters. It is obvious to the audience that Angela has never forgotten about her lost, potential, lover. The wedding incident has really taken a toll on her, physically and mentally, and when she writes him these letters, they are not so much about love, but about her anger, “Then she wrote him a feverish letter, twenty pages long, in which without shame she let out the bitter truths she carried rotting in her heart ever since that ill fated night,” (94). At some point she could not stop thinking about what her life has become and so she started writing these letters, almost as a coping mechanism to create the idea there is still hope for her to regain what she has lost. As if by having him come back or forgive her, that all will be restored. This idea of sending love letters, is usually a very sweet image, her love is simply unrequited and she is doing her best to change that. However here, letters used ironically, and they started out as Angela letting out her anger and her frustration. Moreover, along with this, the idea that Bayardo is the real victim is continued to be painted in the minds of those in the town. Angela keeps on doubting herself and blaming herself for everything that went wrong, as if she is the one who truly lost something so valuable (marriage) and could not do her family justice. After years of sending Bayardo letters, he shows up one day, “‘Well,’ he said, ‘here I am.’ He was carrying a suitcase with clothing… and another just like it with almost two thousand letters that she had written him. They were arranged by date in bundles tied with colored ribbons, and they were all unopened” (95). He never even opened the letters, but he just comes back as if it is some sort of chore, something he has to do, but does not actually want to do. By never having opened the letters it makes it seem as if he is still continuing to undermine Angela, and that this whole story between them is just like a ritual of some sort.
ReplyDeleteThe most important part of the story, the reason it happened in this first place, finally happens, and I think that it is really well done. This book was one of my personal favorites out of the books that we read over the summer, and I cannot help but talk about the last part of the last chapter. I think the idea of not revealing any part of the actual murder until the very end is so clever. Throughout the entire book, the audience knows that Santiago is going to die, but that did not make the murder any less surprising or impactful, more or less. It almost reminds me of Romeo and Juliet, him which right in the beginning the audience is told that the main characters are going to die, but at the end everyone is still kind of shocked that it happened. The effect here is different, however, so much of the story is focused on other characters and other parts, that Santiago's death is almost not the most important thing. The book humanizes all of the people in the town with all the different interviews, and getting their perspective on what they thought actually happened and using the defense of ignorance as a way to assign blame to others, and that is a very important aspect of the story and the commentary on the bystander effect, “He agreed that his manner reflected not so much fear as confusion,” (114). More importantly it humanizes the murders, the reader is given a lot of detail about their life after the murder and a lot of backstory, meanwhile, the reader is given very little back story on Santiago, mainly only that he allegedly took Angela's virginity and that he was murdered. It almost reminds me of another story that was based off of true events, the same idea of humanizing the murders can be seen in Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. By the time of the actual events of the murder are described, the audience is almost desensitized from the murder itself, yes the reader may feel bad for Santiago, “Santiago Nasar… leaned his back against his mother’s door, without the slightest resistance, as if he only wanted to help them finish killing him by his own contribution,” (118). Even though the reader may have sympathy for Santiago it is not as much as we would have, had the reader more information about his character. Which, I would argue, is exactly what Marquez was trying to do with this novel. His goal was to make the reader not care as much because that way the reader become on of the bystanders as well, someone who also did not do anything to stop what was happening, and we just idly watched and read what what going on.
ReplyDelete