One aspect of this chapter that I found extremely interesting was Marquez’s characterization of the Vicario twins. Since the beginning of this novel, Marquez always referred to the twins together, they were always together like a packaged deal. This was enhanced by the fact that both of their first names began with the same letter. Due to the style of this book, the reader does not get an in depth view of most characters. This is contradicted with the Vicario twins. Finally, in this chapter, they are individualized and the reader begins to see them as two separate people. Marquez starts this characterization by writing, “Pablo Vicario was six minutes older than his brother, and he was ore imaginative and resolute until adolescence. Pedro Vicario always seemed more sentimental to me, and by the same token more authoritarian.” (Page 59). This glimpse into the pasts of the Vicario twins really begins to set them apart from one another. Now, the reader understands the motives and personalities of these two brothers individually, rather than a pair. Also, the reader can infer that due to the fact that Pedro is more authoritarian, as the narrator explains, he probably makes most of the decisions in this relationship, because Pablo lost his determination at adolescence. This characterization elicited a meaningful tone, because now, the reader realizes that these are actual people with good past that have made this odd, yet justified (in their culture) to murder Santiago Nasar. Additionally, this characterization continues when the details of the crime are elaborated on. Marquez explained, “Pedro Vicario, according to his own declaration, was the one who made the decision to kill Santiago Nasar, and at first his brother only followed along. But he was also the one who considered his duty fulfilled when the mayor disarmed them, and then it was Pablo Vicario who assumed command.” (Page 60). Although this pertains to he events that occurred with the murder of Santiago Nasar, it effectively explains the dynamic between these two brothers. As I mentioned above, Pedro made the decision for the pair to kill Santiago. This demonstrates how Pedro has a power over Pablo. Conversely, because Marque describes Pablo taking over after the mayor finds them, it demonstrates that Pablo desires to be viewed as just as strong as his brother. This creates a competitive tone between the two, which indicates that they both want to be seen as masculine. This could have led to the decision to kill Santiago Nasar as they both wanted to prove their masculinity. Overall, Marquez’s characterization of the Vicario twins leads the reader to see the twins as individual human beings.
This is really well written and explained. I definitely agree that the brothers had their own competition to prove who was the masculine one. I also realized something else. As bad as killing Santiago was, it still showed that the brothers cared for their sister. They were protecting her. This contradicts their culture in a way because back then, women weren't shown care by the men in their family and were seen as just property.
Something that intrigued me was the emphasis on imagery of knives in this chapter used to create an obvious foreshadowing of them killing Santiago Nasar, especially when Pedro and Pablo went to go sharpen them. They picked two knives: "one for quartering, ten inches long by two and a half inches wide, and the other for trimming, seven inches long by one and a half inches wide" (58). The meticulous amount of effort poured into describing the knives and portraying their importance in slaughtering suggests an inexorably ominous tone. The amount of motivation that Pedro and Pablo have for killing Santiago Nasar is palpable by the reader. Furthermore, the twins "were coming on a Monday and so early...He was accustomed to seeing them on Fridays" (59). Mondays are times of transition between a restful weekend and a stressful work week, so the irony of sharpening the knives on a Monday instead of a Friday further expresses an inexorable tone, in which the reader can perceive that the twins will not show any indolence or languor in completing their kill. Laslty, the twins "sharpened them on the grindstone...they made the knives sing on the stone...the steel sparkled" (59). Marquez portrays the knives with a beautiful and polished tone through personification and meticulous amounts of imagery, which is ironic to the deadly and fatal nature of knives. He implements this description in order to demonstrate the spurious and deceptive nature of superficiality, which his contemporaries are very familiar with abiding to. As a result, the knives ultimately serve to obviate a clear foreshadowing of Santiago Nasar's death, which characters are somehow oblivious to.
I also noticed the emphasis on the description of the knives within the third chapter, however, I wasn't sure about what they symbolized entirely. Your idea of how affect tone however makes sense, though I wasn't entirely sure of how they managed to show their complete motivation of the kill. Later, the twins become a bit flaky when Pedro wants to back out of murdering Santiago, Pablo convinces him back of course though. Earlier though, their original knives where taken away for one's of less precision, more rusted. I personally thought these two separate sets of knives symbolized different levels of motivation the twins had towards their task.
The whole idea of hypocrisy really stood out to me in chapter three. Before I noticed that it was strange to be celebrating and getting drunk, but refusing to marry someone who is not a virgin. It is intriguing to me to see how society worked in Columbia at the time, where there was a double standard. At the beginning of this chapter, Pedro Vicario said "We killed him openly, but we're innocent," (49). Then he explains how he believed him and his brother are innocent "before God and before men," (49). Although this book doesn't mention religion, I do know that the Bible's 10 commandments states that "thou shalt not kill." This reminded me of how brothers like to stick up for their sisters, but in an extreme way. It is not normal for Pedro and Pablo to want to kill Santiago for stealing Angela's virginity. Overall, as the reader this was very strange because the morals that the Vicario brothers claim to have don't align with those of their actions.
I also noticed this idea of hypocrisy that is prevalent throughout the novel. It seems very odd to me that someone could have such double standards and not question it because it is ingrained in the society. One instance in which this was rally apparent to me was the part of the chapter in which they visit the Maria Cervantes, who is essentially a prostitute. Most men in the city have hd sex with her yet is a absolute when a woman has premarital sex. i really like your idea on how the 10 commandments state that you shall not kill, yet the Vicario twins feel that religion justifies their decision.
Something that I noticed as I was reading chapter 3 was how often time was mentioned. I noticed that as the plot was getting closer to Santiago's death, the time was mentioned less and was more spaced out. An example of this is on page 61, where the time is mentioned five different times. When time is mentioned most, it is mostly describing Clotilde Armenta's routine with her husband and shop. After this, the mentions of time are every few pages and are describing what other people were doing before Santiago's murder. Something that I also noticed was that everyone seemed to know that the Vicario twins were going to kill Santiago and we're talking about it but he did not know before it happened. I thought that he would have at least heard that they were going to kill him, if everyone was talking about it.
One thing I took interest in while reading chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, was the jobs of Pedro and Pablo Vicario. Eventually after their youth, and after Pedro comes back from being in the military service, both boys take up the job of slaughtering pigs to help fund their family. Most people would become attached to the animal there were about to kill, and probably wouldn't be able to go through with the task once they had known the creature, let alone after they had given it a name. The book describes, "But remember, they didn't give them people's names, but names of flowers" (60). Flowers throughout this book are used as a symbol of virginity or innocence. This is almost worse than giving the animals 'people names' as people are flawed, but flowers however are innocent in the matter and do nothing to deserve their death. The Vicario's career is based on killing innocent things. Going back to the idea of flowers though, when someone takes a girl's virginity, it is often said to be taking away their innocence. The Vicario brother's career can be seen as a reflection of their morals. We know at least Pedro is not a virgin, after we learn earlier that he contracted gonorrhea when in the service (a disease only sexually transmitted), and from the appeal of most guys in their society, they want a virgin girl. The twins see first hand what happens to virgin's whose innocence is taken away too early, but they do not care about the consequences for the girl when taking that away. This is almost comparable to how even in jail, they did not regret killing Santiago Nasar. This brings up the question, did the Vicario brothers choose to kill the innocent whether it be figuratively or literally, or were they made to?
What most struck me about this chapter was how open the Vicario twins were with their murder of Santiago Nasar. At the beginning of the chapter, Pedro says to a priest that they, “killed him openly,” because, “it was a matter of honor,” (49). The priest does not seem to be angry or scared about the fact that a murder was just admitted to him, as he replies with the somewhat smug but not so serious words, “perhaps in God’s eyes,” (49). Not only does the church seem to condone this kind of murderous behavior in the name of honor, but the state also seems to condone it as well. During the trial, “the lawyer stood by the thesis of homicide in legitimate defense of honor, which was upheld by the court in good faith,” (48). Neither the twins, nor the lawyer try to shy away from the fact that the twins both murdered a man for no better reason than their sister’s virginity being taken. Even during the trial, the murder is so socially acceptable that the twins are willing to say, “that they would have done it again a thousand times over for the same reason,” (48). Not only were they honest about the murder after it took place, but they were also honest about it before. They do not even attempt to hide what they are doing, which is shown when they tell Clotilde Armenta that they are, “looking for him to kill him,” (54). The short sentence length and relaxed syntax shows their willingness and comfort to be open and honest about the murder, and since “their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention to them,” (52) they were able to get away with murder while the entire town sat back and watched in apathy.
I do not think that the Vicario brothers actually wanted to kill Santiago Nasar. The twins always waited to kill Santiago in places they knew he never went to. For example, the brothers waited for Nasar at, “Clotilde Armenta’s place, where they knew that almost everyone would turn up except Santiago Nasar” (50). If the brothers had actually wanted to kill Nasar they would have waited for him at a place where they knew Santiago visited often. It does not make sense for a murderer to wait for their victim in a place where he usually does not usually go. The Vicario twins also made their plan to kill Nasar a little too obvious. The brothers said twice, once in the cafe and once in the marketplace, that they were “...looking for him to kill him”(52 and 54). By repeating their plan to other people it is almost as if they wanted to be stopped by someone before they actually killed Santiago. I think that the murder is actually a social commentary from Marquez on the importance placed upon self image. The two brothers went to kill Santiago to protect their sister’s image and their own, in a sense. If they did not protect their sister they would look like bad brothers which shows that the two men place more importance on their image rather than another person’s life. This commentary shows that the people during the time the book was written, and even during current times, place too much weight on how they are perceived by others and do not pay attention to how they actually treat others around them.
I completely agree. It seemed as though the brothers were looking for ways to be stopped where they could still retain their own appearance and honor. This is also shown by the fact that they wait for Santiago by the front door of his house, when most people know Santiago only uses the back door. The front door, which is more open to the public, represents the brothers trying to make their actions for honor more prominent to the town. However, it is also stated in the book that it was a coincidence that Santiago chose to use that door the same day. Does this mean that if Santiago had used the back door, as usual, the Vicario brothers would not have murdered him? Would they have used that as a final excuse to not follow through with the murder but say they tried?
One thing that was very interesting throughout chapter 3, was the mention of honor and how the Vicario twins were desperately trying to get someone to stop them from performing their "duty" of murdering Santiago. They defend their innocence by stating "it was a matter of honor". This revealed a little about the values of the culture of Santiago and the rest of the cultures. Honor is valued above all and serves to justify some things in instances where the law cannot. When at the market sharpening their murder weapons, the brothers make no attempt to keep their plan a secret and on page 51 it is stated that "they all coincided in the impression that the only reason the brothers had said it was so that someone would come over to hear them. I had never thought of this until this point in the book. The duty of having to defend their sister must have been an enormous stress and weight on their shoulders. Until this point in the book, I only thought that they were so public about their plans because they were not ashamed. It makes a lot of sense after reading this chapter, that the public nature of their plan almost acts as a cry for help. They do not want to be murderers but feel like it is their duty to do so. This point of view is supported by Clotilde Armenta when she states that she "was certain that the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them" (pg. 57)
I agree with everything you said but one thing that I always wondered was why is it that out of all these people the Vicario brothers talked to, not one of them choice to go and warn Nasar face to face. Nowadays if someone were to go around saying that there going to kill someone there would be major complaints and that person would be questioned certainly. In the book no body seems to care and so they they just put it to the side resulting in a mans death.
The main aspect of chapter three, that stood out to me, was the symbol of doors. Doors are brought up multiple times regarding many people. Most times the doors are used as a way of secrecy. The narrator says, "...she left the door unbarred and with a lamp lighted in the hall so I could come in secretly," (65). It is clear the doors symbolize the people in the town keeping secrets, especially about Santiago's death. The open doors, or unbarred ones, represent the majority of people who knew about the crime but decided to keep it behind closed doors. The doors create a clandestine tone around the characters which coincides with their knowledge about Santiago's murder and lack of action to prevent it. Even though most doors show the people who kept secrets and the openness of the crime, Santiago's house is the only one that is prominently shown to always have the doors barred. The author writes, "Placida Linero's house was always barred on the inside, even during the daytime..." (50). This makes sense since Placida Linero and Santiago seem to be the only ones in town who do not know about his impending murder, which is evident by their closed doors. The doors give the reader insight to the secrecy kept within the town which foreshadows for their lack of action towards Santiago's murder.
In chapter 3, I noticed how Marquez creates an unsettling tone during Pablo and Pedro's first visit to the meat market through the use of contrasting diction. As Pablo and Pedro proceed to sharpen their knives of the grindstone, Marquez embeds an unusually generous amount of positive diction, given the reason why the twins are sharpening their knives at the meat market in the first place. Pablo speaks "good-naturedly," conversing with the other men at the meat market about trivial subjects such as the wedding cake from the night before (51-52). Marquez even throws in a little personification, writing, "They made the knives sing on the stone, and Pablo laid his beside the lamp so that the steel sparkled," (52). The positive diction gives the impression of light-heartedness, until Marquez suddenly interjects the statement, "We're going to kill Santiago Nasar," (52). The sudden shift in mood presents a new, and far more unsettling tone: a tone intensified by the indifference expressed by the other men present at the meat market. As a reader, I was appalled to find that the characters in the story simply brushed off a statement so grave as that one. The juxtaposition between the light-hearted and unsettling tones had an effect on me as a reader by magnifying the evidence of the bystander effect in the story. I was at the very least disturbed by the actions (or lack thereof) of the bystanders. Of course this is just a fictional story, but it made me question: does outward absurdity such as this exist in the real world as well?
This chapter gives the reader a whole new perspective on the Vicario brothers. In chapter two, they display a crazy personality by saying they want to kill Santiago because of what he has supposably done. The reader probably thought this was psychotic and shouldn't be done. In the first two chapters, the reader can also see how women are still seen as the "underdogs" and the men are superior. This can be seen when Bayardo says that he casually looking for some girl to marry. After I read this chapter, I realized something really interesting. Even though, the brothers are trying to kill someone for taking their sister's virginity, they are still showing love and protection for their sister. Women were seen as property and weren't shown much care back then. Their independent life wasn't too important and this is shown when Angela's family decides that she was going to marry Bayardo and she pretty much has no say in it. The fact that the brothers were willing to go back and get more knifes and risk going to jail again just to kill someone who took their sister's virginity tells a lot about them and how much they care for Angela. This whole scenario contradicts the whole idea of women being seen as property and insignificant. Angela is actually being treated like a person. What do you guys think about this? Do you think the brothers are killing Santiago out of love and protection for Angela or do you think that they are killing Santiago for a different reason? Or are they doing it because it's a way to let out some type of anger that they have inside?
The idea of magical realism is noticeable all throughout the book but it can be seen to stand out most in chapter three. What struck out to me most was the fact that everyone the Vicario brothers told about their plans to kill Santiago Nasar, nobody took it seriously but more as a joke. Throughout the chapter Gabriel Garcia utilizes metaphors, characterization, and tone to show the mindset of the people in the town by establishing a dominant effect of consensual agreement. When the Vicario brother went to Clotilde Armentas shop one of them asks Clotilde," if she had seen any light from Nasars bedroom."(54) Clotilde answered "no", and then she asked them if something happen to him , and they responded with," Just that we're looking for him to kill him."(54) Nowadays if someone walks into a shop holding a knife and they threaten to kill someone you would expect them to be a little more sceptical and scared so they might call the police. In this case though, Clotilde pretends like she didn’t hear it right but still asks why someone would want to kill him. Being so oblivious to such a real problem that is staring her right in the face is what makes it so questioning. With this said she wasn’t the only person in a way ignored the sign of death being foretold. Before six o'clock,”the Vicario brothers had told there plans to more than a dozen people. It is very interesting that so many people knew that Nasar was going to be killed and yet almost no one acted on it. One reason for some people not acting is because they disliked him, but what about the others? As a reader it frustrates you because you think to yourself, how is it that not one person went to tell him.
In chapter three the idea of apathy applies to many characters and situations. For instance, “ ‘There’s no way out of this,’ he told him. ‘It’s as if it had already happened.’ ” (Chapter 3, page 61). In this sentence the Twins are discussing the murder of Santiago. At this moment the twins are becoming more developed through there diction. It shows that they are trying to convince themselves that th murder is okay based on the idea of honor. By this it shows how diction can be used to alter characters and show the lack of apathy the character have. I find it very important because it allpws the reader to truly understand the characrers and the situtations they are going through and how they handle them.
Reading more about the Vicario brothers, I thought that they each represent a side of the question that the book has asked us- was it justified? For the majority of the beginning, the twins are represented as a unit. As their pursuit of Santiago drags on, however, new details about the twins are revealed that make them individuals. Pablo is described as “the more imaginative and resolute” whereas Pedro seems “more sentimental, and by the same token more authoritarian” (68). Further more, “Pablo Vicario had suddenly developed the strange dependence of a younger brother when Pedro Vicario returned with a barrak-room soul…” (69). The points made in support of Santiago’s murder are claims to honor, something that corresponds with Pablo’s imaginative and resolute character. The obvious reasons against Santiago’s murder (it’s morally wrong to kill other humans) correspond with Pedro’s “sentimental” personality. The power struggle between the two twins represent the clash between the two arguments.
I think this aspect is very interesting because family life was obviously important back then, with an emphasis on traditional husband and wife roles, and so I was wondering what kind of effect Marquez was trying to create when demonstrating this in terms of the entire Vicario family. The family isn't hesitant to defend their honor, or at least chide Angela for smudging it, but outside of the brothers and her mother, Angela's family is left mostly undescribed. It makes me wonder if there's any significance behind the family aspect, or if they are just left as minor characters because they don't really have a part in the book
While reading chapter 3, the concept on honor are discussed. The twins believe to be defending the honor of their family and their sister. They are willing to kill a man to do so. They believe that whoever took her virginity is responsible for ruined the chances of her finding a husband that is suitable for her. The family then leaves the town. Before the murder the people in the town were divided by understandings. Some people thought the brothers were joking while others know and feel like it should be stopped. This leads to think about human nature and think about "would you have told Santiago?" Human nature plays a major part in this as some people wanted to tell him but could not for various reasons.
One aspect of this chapter that I found extremely interesting was Marquez’s characterization of the Vicario twins. Since the beginning of this novel, Marquez always referred to the twins together, they were always together like a packaged deal. This was enhanced by the fact that both of their first names began with the same letter. Due to the style of this book, the reader does not get an in depth view of most characters. This is contradicted with the Vicario twins. Finally, in this chapter, they are individualized and the reader begins to see them as two separate people. Marquez starts this characterization by writing, “Pablo Vicario was six minutes older than his brother, and he was ore imaginative and resolute until adolescence. Pedro Vicario always seemed more sentimental to me, and by the same token more authoritarian.” (Page 59). This glimpse into the pasts of the Vicario twins really begins to set them apart from one another. Now, the reader understands the motives and personalities of these two brothers individually, rather than a pair. Also, the reader can infer that due to the fact that Pedro is more authoritarian, as the narrator explains, he probably makes most of the decisions in this relationship, because Pablo lost his determination at adolescence. This characterization elicited a meaningful tone, because now, the reader realizes that these are actual people with good past that have made this odd, yet justified (in their culture) to murder Santiago Nasar. Additionally, this characterization continues when the details of the crime are elaborated on. Marquez explained, “Pedro Vicario, according to his own declaration, was the one who made the decision to kill Santiago Nasar, and at first his brother only followed along. But he was also the one who considered his duty fulfilled when the mayor disarmed them, and then it was Pablo Vicario who assumed command.” (Page 60). Although this pertains to he events that occurred with the murder of Santiago Nasar, it effectively explains the dynamic between these two brothers. As I mentioned above, Pedro made the decision for the pair to kill Santiago. This demonstrates how Pedro has a power over Pablo. Conversely, because Marque describes Pablo taking over after the mayor finds them, it demonstrates that Pablo desires to be viewed as just as strong as his brother. This creates a competitive tone between the two, which indicates that they both want to be seen as masculine. This could have led to the decision to kill Santiago Nasar as they both wanted to prove their masculinity. Overall, Marquez’s characterization of the Vicario twins leads the reader to see the twins as individual human beings.
ReplyDeleteThis is really well written and explained. I definitely agree that the brothers had their own competition to prove who was the masculine one. I also realized something else. As bad as killing Santiago was, it still showed that the brothers cared for their sister. They were protecting her. This contradicts their culture in a way because back then, women weren't shown care by the men in their family and were seen as just property.
DeleteSomething that intrigued me was the emphasis on imagery of knives in this chapter used to create an obvious foreshadowing of them killing Santiago Nasar, especially when Pedro and Pablo went to go sharpen them. They picked two knives: "one for quartering, ten inches long by two and a half inches wide, and the other for trimming, seven inches long by one and a half inches wide" (58). The meticulous amount of effort poured into describing the knives and portraying their importance in slaughtering suggests an inexorably ominous tone. The amount of motivation that Pedro and Pablo have for killing Santiago Nasar is palpable by the reader. Furthermore, the twins "were coming on a Monday and so early...He was accustomed to seeing them on Fridays" (59). Mondays are times of transition between a restful weekend and a stressful work week, so the irony of sharpening the knives on a Monday instead of a Friday further expresses an inexorable tone, in which the reader can perceive that the twins will not show any indolence or languor in completing their kill. Laslty, the twins "sharpened them on the grindstone...they made the knives sing on the stone...the steel sparkled" (59). Marquez portrays the knives with a beautiful and polished tone through personification and meticulous amounts of imagery, which is ironic to the deadly and fatal nature of knives. He implements this description in order to demonstrate the spurious and deceptive nature of superficiality, which his contemporaries are very familiar with abiding to. As a result, the knives ultimately serve to obviate a clear foreshadowing of Santiago Nasar's death, which characters are somehow oblivious to.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed the emphasis on the description of the knives within the third chapter, however, I wasn't sure about what they symbolized entirely. Your idea of how affect tone however makes sense, though I wasn't entirely sure of how they managed to show their complete motivation of the kill. Later, the twins become a bit flaky when Pedro wants to back out of murdering Santiago, Pablo convinces him back of course though. Earlier though, their original knives where taken away for one's of less precision, more rusted. I personally thought these two separate sets of knives symbolized different levels of motivation the twins had towards their task.
DeleteThe whole idea of hypocrisy really stood out to me in chapter three. Before I noticed that it was strange to be celebrating and getting drunk, but refusing to marry someone who is not a virgin. It is intriguing to me to see how society worked in Columbia at the time, where there was a double standard. At the beginning of this chapter, Pedro Vicario said "We killed him openly, but we're innocent," (49). Then he explains how he believed him and his brother are innocent "before God and before men," (49). Although this book doesn't mention religion, I do know that the Bible's 10 commandments states that "thou shalt not kill." This reminded me of how brothers like to stick up for their sisters, but in an extreme way. It is not normal for Pedro and Pablo to want to kill Santiago for stealing Angela's virginity. Overall, as the reader this was very strange because the morals that the Vicario brothers claim to have don't align with those of their actions.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed this idea of hypocrisy that is prevalent throughout the novel. It seems very odd to me that someone could have such double standards and not question it because it is ingrained in the society. One instance in which this was rally apparent to me was the part of the chapter in which they visit the Maria Cervantes, who is essentially a prostitute. Most men in the city have hd sex with her yet is a absolute when a woman has premarital sex. i really like your idea on how the 10 commandments state that you shall not kill, yet the Vicario twins feel that religion justifies their decision.
DeleteSomething that I noticed as I was reading chapter 3 was how often time was mentioned. I noticed that as the plot was getting closer to Santiago's death, the time was mentioned less and was more spaced out. An example of this is on page 61, where the time is mentioned five different times. When time is mentioned most, it is mostly describing Clotilde Armenta's routine with her husband and shop. After this, the mentions of time are every few pages and are describing what other people were doing before Santiago's murder. Something that I also noticed was that everyone seemed to know that the Vicario twins were going to kill Santiago and we're talking about it but he did not know before it happened. I thought that he would have at least heard that they were going to kill him, if everyone was talking about it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I took interest in while reading chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, was the jobs of Pedro and Pablo Vicario. Eventually after their youth, and after Pedro comes back from being in the military service, both boys take up the job of slaughtering pigs to help fund their family. Most people would become attached to the animal there were about to kill, and probably wouldn't be able to go through with the task once they had known the creature, let alone after they had given it a name. The book describes, "But remember, they didn't give them people's names, but names of flowers" (60). Flowers throughout this book are used as a symbol of virginity or innocence. This is almost worse than giving the animals 'people names' as people are flawed, but flowers however are innocent in the matter and do nothing to deserve their death. The Vicario's career is based on killing innocent things. Going back to the idea of flowers though, when someone takes a girl's virginity, it is often said to be taking away their innocence. The Vicario brother's career can be seen as a reflection of their morals. We know at least Pedro is not a virgin, after we learn earlier that he contracted gonorrhea when in the service (a disease only sexually transmitted), and from the appeal of most guys in their society, they want a virgin girl. The twins see first hand what happens to virgin's whose innocence is taken away too early, but they do not care about the consequences for the girl when taking that away. This is almost comparable to how even in jail, they did not regret killing Santiago Nasar. This brings up the question, did the Vicario brothers choose to kill the innocent whether it be figuratively or literally, or were they made to?
ReplyDeleteWhat most struck me about this chapter was how open the Vicario twins were with their murder of Santiago Nasar. At the beginning of the chapter, Pedro says to a priest that they, “killed him openly,” because, “it was a matter of honor,” (49). The priest does not seem to be angry or scared about the fact that a murder was just admitted to him, as he replies with the somewhat smug but not so serious words, “perhaps in God’s eyes,” (49). Not only does the church seem to condone this kind of murderous behavior in the name of honor, but the state also seems to condone it as well. During the trial, “the lawyer stood by the thesis of homicide in legitimate defense of honor, which was upheld by the court in good faith,” (48). Neither the twins, nor the lawyer try to shy away from the fact that the twins both murdered a man for no better reason than their sister’s virginity being taken. Even during the trial, the murder is so socially acceptable that the twins are willing to say, “that they would have done it again a thousand times over for the same reason,” (48). Not only were they honest about the murder after it took place, but they were also honest about it before. They do not even attempt to hide what they are doing, which is shown when they tell Clotilde Armenta that they are, “looking for him to kill him,” (54). The short sentence length and relaxed syntax shows their willingness and comfort to be open and honest about the murder, and since “their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention to them,” (52) they were able to get away with murder while the entire town sat back and watched in apathy.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the Vicario brothers actually wanted to kill Santiago Nasar. The twins always waited to kill Santiago in places they knew he never went to. For example, the brothers waited for Nasar at, “Clotilde Armenta’s place, where they knew that almost everyone would turn up except Santiago Nasar” (50). If the brothers had actually wanted to kill Nasar they would have waited for him at a place where they knew Santiago visited often. It does not make sense for a murderer to wait for their victim in a place where he usually does not usually go. The Vicario twins also made their plan to kill Nasar a little too obvious. The brothers said twice, once in the cafe and once in the marketplace, that they were “...looking for him to kill him”(52 and 54). By repeating their plan to other people it is almost as if they wanted to be stopped by someone before they actually killed Santiago. I think that the murder is actually a social commentary from Marquez on the importance placed upon self image. The two brothers went to kill Santiago to protect their sister’s image and their own, in a sense. If they did not protect their sister they would look like bad brothers which shows that the two men place more importance on their image rather than another person’s life. This commentary shows that the people during the time the book was written, and even during current times, place too much weight on how they are perceived by others and do not pay attention to how they actually treat others around them.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. It seemed as though the brothers were looking for ways to be stopped where they could still retain their own appearance and honor. This is also shown by the fact that they wait for Santiago by the front door of his house, when most people know Santiago only uses the back door. The front door, which is more open to the public, represents the brothers trying to make their actions for honor more prominent to the town. However, it is also stated in the book that it was a coincidence that Santiago chose to use that door the same day. Does this mean that if Santiago had used the back door, as usual, the Vicario brothers would not have murdered him? Would they have used that as a final excuse to not follow through with the murder but say they tried?
DeleteOne thing that was very interesting throughout chapter 3, was the mention of honor and how the Vicario twins were desperately trying to get someone to stop them from performing their "duty" of murdering Santiago. They defend their innocence by stating "it was a matter of honor". This revealed a little about the values of the culture of Santiago and the rest of the cultures. Honor is valued above all and serves to justify some things in instances where the law cannot. When at the market sharpening their murder weapons, the brothers make no attempt to keep their plan a secret and on page 51 it is stated that "they all coincided in the impression that the only reason the brothers had said it was so that someone would come over to hear them. I had never thought of this until this point in the book. The duty of having to defend their sister must have been an enormous stress and weight on their shoulders. Until this point in the book, I only thought that they were so public about their plans because they were not ashamed. It makes a lot of sense after reading this chapter, that the public nature of their plan almost acts as a cry for help. They do not want to be murderers but feel like it is their duty to do so. This point of view is supported by Clotilde Armenta when she states that she "was certain that the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them" (pg. 57)
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said but one thing that I always wondered was why is it that out of all these people the Vicario brothers talked to, not one of them choice to go and warn Nasar face to face. Nowadays if someone were to go around saying that there going to kill someone there would be major complaints and that person would be questioned certainly. In the book no body seems to care and so they they just put it to the side resulting in a mans death.
DeleteThe main aspect of chapter three, that stood out to me, was the symbol of doors. Doors are brought up multiple times regarding many people. Most times the doors are used as a way of secrecy. The narrator says, "...she left the door unbarred and with a lamp lighted in the hall so I could come in secretly," (65). It is clear the doors symbolize the people in the town keeping secrets, especially about Santiago's death. The open doors, or unbarred ones, represent the majority of people who knew about the crime but decided to keep it behind closed doors. The doors create a clandestine tone around the characters which coincides with their knowledge about Santiago's murder and lack of action to prevent it. Even though most doors show the people who kept secrets and the openness of the crime, Santiago's house is the only one that is prominently shown to always have the doors barred. The author writes, "Placida Linero's house was always barred on the inside, even during the daytime..." (50). This makes sense since Placida Linero and Santiago seem to be the only ones in town who do not know about his impending murder, which is evident by their closed doors. The doors give the reader insight to the secrecy kept within the town which foreshadows for their lack of action towards Santiago's murder.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 3, I noticed how Marquez creates an unsettling tone during Pablo and Pedro's first visit to the meat market through the use of contrasting diction. As Pablo and Pedro proceed to sharpen their knives of the grindstone, Marquez embeds an unusually generous amount of positive diction, given the reason why the twins are sharpening their knives at the meat market in the first place. Pablo speaks "good-naturedly," conversing with the other men at the meat market about trivial subjects such as the wedding cake from the night before (51-52). Marquez even throws in a little personification, writing, "They made the knives sing on the stone, and Pablo laid his beside the lamp so that the steel sparkled," (52). The positive diction gives the impression of light-heartedness, until Marquez suddenly interjects the statement, "We're going to kill Santiago Nasar," (52). The sudden shift in mood presents a new, and far more unsettling tone: a tone intensified by the indifference expressed by the other men present at the meat market. As a reader, I was appalled to find that the characters in the story simply brushed off a statement so grave as that one. The juxtaposition between the light-hearted and unsettling tones had an effect on me as a reader by magnifying the evidence of the bystander effect in the story. I was at the very least disturbed by the actions (or lack thereof) of the bystanders. Of course this is just a fictional story, but it made me question: does outward absurdity such as this exist in the real world as well?
ReplyDeleteThis chapter gives the reader a whole new perspective on the Vicario brothers. In chapter two, they display a crazy personality by saying they want to kill Santiago because of what he has supposably done. The reader probably thought this was psychotic and shouldn't be done. In the first two chapters, the reader can also see how women are still seen as the "underdogs" and the men are superior. This can be seen when Bayardo says that he casually looking for some girl to marry. After I read this chapter, I realized something really interesting. Even though, the brothers are trying to kill someone for taking their sister's virginity, they are still showing love and protection for their sister. Women were seen as property and weren't shown much care back then. Their independent life wasn't too important and this is shown when Angela's family decides that she was going to marry Bayardo and she pretty much has no say in it. The fact that the brothers were willing to go back and get more knifes and risk going to jail again just to kill someone who took their sister's virginity tells a lot about them and how much they care for Angela. This whole scenario contradicts the whole idea of women being seen as property and insignificant. Angela is actually being treated like a person. What do you guys think about this? Do you think the brothers are killing Santiago out of love and protection for Angela or do you think that they are killing Santiago for a different reason? Or are they doing it because it's a way to let out some type of anger that they have inside?
ReplyDeleteThe idea of magical realism is noticeable all throughout the book but it can be seen to stand out most in chapter three. What struck out to me most was the fact that everyone the Vicario brothers told about their plans to kill Santiago Nasar, nobody took it seriously but more as a joke. Throughout the chapter Gabriel Garcia utilizes metaphors, characterization, and tone to show the mindset of the people in the town by establishing a dominant effect of consensual agreement. When the Vicario brother went to Clotilde Armentas shop one of them asks Clotilde," if she had seen any light from Nasars bedroom."(54) Clotilde answered "no", and then she asked them if something happen to him , and they responded with," Just that we're looking for him to kill him."(54) Nowadays if someone walks into a shop holding a knife and they threaten to kill someone you would expect them to be a little more sceptical and scared so they might call the police. In this case though, Clotilde pretends like she didn’t hear it right but still asks why someone would want to kill him. Being so oblivious to such a real problem that is staring her right in the face is what makes it so questioning. With this said she wasn’t the only person in a way ignored the sign of death being foretold. Before six o'clock,”the Vicario brothers had told there plans to more than a dozen people. It is very interesting that so many people knew that Nasar was going to be killed and yet almost no one acted on it. One reason for some people not acting is because they disliked him, but what about the others? As a reader it frustrates you because you think to yourself, how is it that not one person went to tell him.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter three the idea of apathy applies to many characters and situations. For instance, “ ‘There’s no way out of this,’ he told him. ‘It’s as if it had already happened.’ ” (Chapter 3, page 61). In this sentence the Twins are discussing the murder of Santiago. At this moment the twins are becoming more developed through there diction. It shows that they are trying to convince themselves that th murder is okay based on the idea of honor. By this it shows how diction can be used to alter characters and show the lack of apathy the character have. I find it very important because it allpws the reader to truly understand the characrers and the situtations they are going through and how they handle them.
ReplyDeleteReading more about the Vicario brothers, I thought that they each represent a side of the question that the book has asked us- was it justified? For the majority of the beginning, the twins are represented as a unit. As their pursuit of Santiago drags on, however, new details about the twins are revealed that make them individuals. Pablo is described as “the more imaginative and resolute” whereas Pedro seems “more sentimental, and by the same token more authoritarian” (68). Further more, “Pablo Vicario had suddenly developed the strange dependence of a younger brother when Pedro Vicario returned with a barrak-room soul…” (69). The points made in support of Santiago’s murder are claims to honor, something that corresponds with Pablo’s imaginative and resolute character. The obvious reasons against Santiago’s murder (it’s morally wrong to kill other humans) correspond with Pedro’s “sentimental” personality. The power struggle between the two twins represent the clash between the two arguments.
ReplyDeleteI think this aspect is very interesting because family life was obviously important back then, with an emphasis on traditional husband and wife roles, and so I was wondering what kind of effect Marquez was trying to create when demonstrating this in terms of the entire Vicario family. The family isn't hesitant to defend their honor, or at least chide Angela for smudging it, but outside of the brothers and her mother, Angela's family is left mostly undescribed. It makes me wonder if there's any significance behind the family aspect, or if they are just left as minor characters because they don't really have a part in the book
DeleteWhile reading chapter 3, the concept on honor are discussed. The twins believe to be defending the honor of their family and their sister. They are willing to kill a man to do so. They believe that whoever took her virginity is responsible for ruined the chances of her finding a husband that is suitable for her. The family then leaves the town. Before the murder the people in the town were divided by understandings. Some people thought the brothers were joking while others know and feel like it should be stopped. This leads to think about human nature and think about "would you have told Santiago?" Human nature plays a major part in this as some people wanted to tell him but could not for various reasons.
ReplyDelete