During the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I noticed the constant jumping between the past and the present. The story advances a narrative plot, while occasionally injecting the story with some character’s perspective on the situation. This changing is very characteristic of magical realism. I also noticed the amount of dead / ghostly diction used to describe Santiago Nasar. For example, Garcia Marquez writes, “‘He already looked like a ghost,’ she told me” (15) and “... she’d been all the more frightened when he grabbed her by the wrist with a hand that felt frozen and stony, like the hand of a dead man.” This characterization creates conflict within the reader as they protest the destiny set up by Garcia Marquez and wonder can Santiago Nasar be saved? Once again, this is a very large part of the magical realism part of this book. This book does not follow chronological order at all, once again making the reader feel unsettled. One last thing I noticed in this first chapter is the difference in characterization of Nasar in the past telling of the story and in the more current telling of the story by characters. The characters that are being “interviewed” say much nicer things to describe Nasar, when the reader learns that Nasar actually sexually harassed a girl and was not that good of a person. This dramatic irony is a very key part of the play. One other thing is that Nasar is described to be wearing white, representing purity, while the reader knows this is not quite so! Irony!
I agree with your response wholeheartedly, especially about the intent of the dead and ghostly diction. However, I’d like to add to your point by stating that Marquez also intended to display the group mentality (bystander effect?) present throughout the novel. As seen through the chapter, mostly everyone knew of his impending death. The ghastly diction further accentuate this notion. People saw that he looked dead but did nothing to assist him. No one decided to take action since every person in the town expected someone else to jump in and save Santiago. Thus, Marquez probably desired to show the faults and selfishness of humanity, highlighting the lesson through cadaverous diction.
When beginning to read the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, we notice that the story isn’t an actual chronicle. The events don’t take place in chronological order, but are instead scattered throughout. The first chapter is on the assassination of Santiago Nasar and the murderers; Pedro and Pablo Vicario. The story is then filled with various perspectives of the story of the murder. The narrative is composed of repeated events that are actually symbolic to this book. Memory and weather become significant symbols in this play. People can’t seem to remember what the weather was like on the day of Santiago’s murder. Margot, the narrator’s sister, recalled that “it was Christmas weather (18), yet Victoria Guzman said it that “the sun starts warming things up earlier in August” (11). The question that resides is if it was cold or hot on the day of the murder? This confusion and memory loss symbolize the actual mystery of Santiago Nasar’s death. There are multiple conflicting stories and versions of the day and how it all went down. How some people don’t remember the weather is similar to how some people don’t recall Santiago going home, but he did because he was killed on his doorstep. The weather is used to symbolize each perspective of each character. The book doesn’t exactly specify the actual weather of the day, which symbolizes the confusion and unsureness of the murder and how memory is unreliable in certain situations. It displays the character’s emotions and feelings and could be used to foreshadow future events depending on rain or sun.
Many things in this world taste great. Whether it be gummy bears or the magically delicious flavor of Lucky Charms, taste brings so much to the culinary and cultural table. Yet, there is, perhaps, no greater, more potent taste than that of tasteful irony. Regular listeners of mine, of which I hope there is at least one, somewhere, know I am more than a fan of irony. It is my second love. And fortunately for me, I was not left without my passion when reading “Chronicle of a Death Foretold.” Nay, within just the first pages of the book, readers are hit smack in the face with two powerful examples of the fabled situational irony. The most obvious instance comes from the narrator’s telling of a conversation between Santiago Nasar and his mother, in which he details a dream he had. Now, the narrator notes that “she didn’t pay any great attention” (6) to much of its content. However, she explicitly notes that, since his dream involved birds, “Any dream about birds means good health” (6). Anyone paying any attention early in the novel will know that, on this day, Nasar will die, so an obvious mention of good health clearly acts in an ironic fashion, contradicting the fact that Nasar will encounter anything but good health. More subtle, though, is irony found in the details-- in specific, details surrounding Nasar’s gun collection. At first glance, this seems to be meaningless description. The narrator appears to be applying pointless yet intense description of Nasar’s collection, likely with some intent to characterize him. However, this actually plays a key role introducing death into the story, but the irony comes with who is in control. Naturally, the plot of the story revolves around Santiago Nasar getting killed, yet here, Nasar is specifically described as the owner of guns. This puts him, innately, in control of death. He is shown to be defensive and well-armed, and not just because his biceps are in good shape. Rather, he is shown to be the one preventing death, acting as a strong juxtaposition to the idea that he will eventually die. This, as a whole, is a major ironic contribution to the story, crafted subtly yet with the intent to add quite a few layers to Nasar’s tale of woe.
The first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold already begins with an aspect of magic realism; dreams about soaring above trees. Usually when someone dreams about flying in a tinfoil airplane through a forest of almond trees, one would be more concerned; but apparently Santiago Nasar’s abnormal dreams were commonplace. Furthermore, his mother even stated that she could easily interpret his dreams before eating, an unusual limitation. Yet the specific events in the dream caught my attention. For instance, Santiago’s mother, Placida Linero, brought up why she had not worried about Santiago’s dream. She says, “Any dreams about birds means good health” (Marquez 3). Usually in a book, the flight of birds represents freedom, as characterized through the literary maxim of flight is freedom. But in the context of this book, birds symbolize the contrary. In this book, birds represent restriction. Further mentioning of birds in this chapter confirm this analysis. For instance, as Santiago made his way to see the bishop, he traversed through his shadowy house. He passed “among the cages of sleeping birds in the dining room” (8). The imprisonment of the birds coupled with their slumber further display that birds represent constraint and constriction, which can be applied to Santiago’s inevitable murder. Finally, I particularly noticed how Marquez utilizes foreshadowing of past events rather than future events in the novel, an unprecedented technique. For example, Marquez states how someone had left an envelope under the door of Santiago’s house, which contained every detail about his upcoming murder: the motive, the place, etc. Marquez chose to go into minimal detail about the envelope, but as one moves forward through the book, the book reveals the significance of envelope.
In chapter two, a man named Bayardo San Román is introduced. He is around thirty years old and is very handsome and rich. Everyone in the town “says he’s enchanting” (28) and that “people liked him alot because he’s honest and has a good heart (29).” When Román learned that Angela Vicario is “well-named,” he set out to marry her simply on account of her status. Everyone was blinded by Román’s image that he worked so hard to achieve. He only displayed what he wanted people to see, the aspects that made people think he had a “good heart.” He flaunted his prosperity and rank in society, and excessively used it to his advantage. In Colombian culture, rituals are very significant, especially in courting. He attempted to entice Angela by giving her fancy gifts to advertise his wealth to her and her family. At this time, there was much significance in also showing not only the bride, but the whole family what one has to offer as a future husband. An entire family has to approve. Angela has the disadvantage because as a girl, her place in society is low. She can’t exactly choose whoever she wants to love due to family honor. If a girl marries someone of a lower standing, the honor of a family goes down and affects not only that couple, but siblings and parents. If Angela were to marry Román, a man of great honor, then the Vicario name’s dignity will generously transform into one of higher rank. Angela didn’t have a choice in marrying Román no matter how much she truly didn’t want to be with him because society’s rules have already been established. Angela, her family, and Román are contributing to society’s standards of marriage in the interest of higher honor and status, which directly correlates to the idea that societal norms are considered unchangeable, because few have the courage to be an outsider.
I agree with your analysis. I think it is very important how you brought up the context behind the plot in this chapter and the different in courting in the US and Columbia. As readers from the US, it is easy to think of this situation as very abnormal when it is not. I like how you mentioned the small amount of power Angela has when marrying Bayardo San Roman in this chapter. I also believe that Marquez is providing social commentary on this issue. I also think that the honor you mentioned plays a major role in this story. Why does Angela end up claiming she slept with Santiago Nasar when she could have told the truth? Honor? Honor seems to be the entire reason for the murder in the first place, despite the bystander apathy from almost every character.
“Five minutes later, indeed, he returned to the social club with his silver-trimmed saddlebags, and on the table he laid ten bundles of thousand-peso notes with the printed bands of the State Bank still on them. The widower Xius died two months later. "He died because of that," Dr. Dionisio Iguarán said. "He was healthier than the rest of us, but when you listened with the stethoscope you could hear the tears bubbling inside his heart." But not only had he sold the house with everything in it; he asked Bayardo San Román to pay him little by little because he didn't even have an old trunk where he could keep so much consolation money” (37).
In this quote, the widower Xius sells his house to Bayardo San Román. The silver on the saddlebags is used as a symbol of wealth for Bayardo San Roman. Marquez further describes the peso notes as “with the printed bands of the State Bank” to further characterize Bayardo San Roman as wealthy because of his needlessness to remove the bands due to him having enough money already. There is also significance in the widower dying. The “tears bubbling inside his heart” is an example of magical realism. Marquez uses magical realism to demonstrate the extreme conflict in society between wealth and sentiment/honor. The magical realism blends reality and “magic” to depict how the widower had to go against his sentiment for his wife and creates an uneasy tone that makes the reader reflect on the presented theme. The heart is often associated with the absolute desire and purity of a person, and it can be seen that this is violated because of the human nature to be greedy. Also, the fact that the widower could not accept all the money at once is very ironic. This further expresses the extreme greed within human nature and how it violates all logic. Even though the widower had no use/ability to have money, his greed overcame his sentiment anyways.
Chronicle of a Death Foretold, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, starts off by stating “On the day they were going to kill him” (Marquez, 1), him being Santiago Nasar, telling us what will happen at the end of the day and giving away the ending in the first sentence. I found it very interesting that this book is called a chronicle, but starts of proving that it is not a chronicle at all. I think that this portrays marquez’s style of confusing the reader and making them think harder about what is happening. Another thing I found interesting is that everyone in Santiago’s town just assumed he knew about the murder and did not bother to tell him. This closely relates to how the civilians reacted in the Kitty Genovese article. The bystanders just assumed everything was fine or that she was getting help and did not bother to call 911 or go check and see if she needed help. I believe that both of these situations reflect how it is human nature to shy away from difficult situations. Whether it is out of fear or lack of knowledge, when people are placed in a stressful situation they will opt out. Another thing in the first chapter that stood out to me is that people had a different memory of what was going on the day of Santiago Nasar’s murder. Some people believed it was sunny and some believed it was raining. The way people remembered this day reflects their attitudes toward Santiago. People that believed it was raining that day generally feel that that day was sad, but people that believe that it was sunny would think of Nasar’s murder in a more positive light.
I agree with your analysis! I think that humans are scared and don't enjoy getting involved with conflict. Our lives are already to problematic and we often tend to shy away from animosity. Bystanders in both a Chronicle of a Death Foretold and the Kitty Genovese article didn't take action and were both seen as the problem. They could have prevented the death of Kitty and Santiago if they were to inform someone of authority that could have done something. It's ironic because the bystanders didn't want to get involved and have more conflict so they stayed away and pretended that nothing was happening, but they ended up being the problem and being involved even though they did nothing, which was the issue.
In the second chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the idea of marriage is mentioned throughout the entire chapter. Angela is being forced to marry a man that she does not love due to status and wealth. This may seem to be extremely wrong based on our standards today, but back in the 1950’s, when this book was set, it was extremely common. The men did whatever it took to show the woman and her parents that he would be a suitable husband and could support her when or if they ended up getting married. Women on the other hand, “ knew how to do screen embroidery, sew by machine, weave bone lace, wash and iron, make artificial flowers and fancy candy, and write engagement announcement” (pg 31). The only thing that was important in a woman’s skill set were easy, dainty things that made her look presentable. When Angela begins to have difficulties with this situation, her mother attempts to “comfort” her and tells Angela that she can learn to love Bayardo. This situation resembles another story we have read this year, Taming of the Shrew. Much like the relationships between Kate and Bianca and their suitors they originally did not love them, but were forced to marry anyway. The way different authors wrote about how the way marriage was perceived challenged societal norms and helped people realize that the way things were may not be best for society as a whole.
Bayardo San Roman is quite literally Judas Iscariot. Let that sink in. Got it? Certainly, I’ll explain, and thank you for asking, Greg! Part of the basis for literature is cultural comparisons and literary allusions, and within a book such as “Chronicle,” such an instance holds a high probability of occurring naturally. This probability exists largely due to the strong presence of Catholic tradition within the work; even besides notions of the bishop visiting, the presence of God and Catholic culture remains present within the novel. That being said, a comparison similar to the above does exist, and to understand Bayardo’s role, we first must understand the role of Santiago Nasar. This character, largely portrayed as the main character, bears a large resemblance to Jesus, and in a variety of ways. First comes his holy portrayal, emphasized by his appearance in “a shirt and pants of white linen, both items unstarched” (5), dressing him in the pure colors of white. Other notions to Christian celebrations and tradition arise, from the observation of “It was Christmas weather” (17) to the role the bishop’s visit played, it is clear God is present here. However, Nasar is much more closely tied to Jesus, part of which comes via his method of characterization. We know very little about Nasar from Nasar. Rather, we learn about him from other accounts, whether his mother or his cook. What does this mimic? The Bible! There is no book in the New Testament entitled “the book of Jesus,” but what we do have are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, four apostles whose personal accounts describe Jesus, similar to the way “Chronicle” chooses. This follows in a carbon-copy manor, but the final aspect deviates in an ironic fashion. The premise of the Last Supper is Jesus and Jesus alone can tell that he will die. He knows an apostle will turn him in to the Romans, and thus, he gives them his blood and body in communion. To juxtapose this, “Chronicle” has everybody *except* Nasar knowing that he will die, enabling everybody else to do what they feel and bear this knowledge. A plot twist, sure, but this clearly borrows from Biblical structure. Bearing this in mind, what exactly makes Bayardo into Judas Iscariot? The first portion lies within his reveal of Nasar. Upon recognition that his wife, Angela Vicario, “wasn’t a virgin” (21), he reveals this to her mother, spreading the word and prompting motivation to kill Nasar. Vicario, in this case, resembles the silver Pontius Pilate awarded Judas for turning in Jesus, and in turn, San Roman acts in the way of Judas, submitting this man to receive his punishment. The punishment itself is key, too; had Nasar simply been tickled or forced to watch the 9th season of “American Idol,” this would have 0 relevance, even considering the pain the latter induces. Rather, he is killed, and while it is a completely different fashion of death than Jesus faced, the end result is, ultimately, the same, strengthening the comparison. Ultimately, the motivations for this can be examined, but that’s a whole other blog post I don’t have time for at 11:49 pm. However, we can see, as readers, the clear cultural impact Catholicism has on the book, reflected in obvious inspiration borrowed from the New Testament.
One of the things that amazes me about Bayardo San Roman is his extreme confidence in himself, and well-deserved, he's rich, charming, and "people like him alot"(27). His high level of confidence is confirmed when he sees Angela Vicario and he says, "When I wake up, remind me that I'm going to marry her." His confidence is so great that he could see any woman, and just like that, he could not only say he would marry her but also need someone to remind him after he takes a quick nap. I like how this "love at first sight" is not really what you would expect. If this was the same type of love at first sight that we more commonly see, like the ones in Shakespeare for example, Bayardo would have gotten up so darn quick from his slumber, he would wipe his eyes and pinch himself to make sure he wasn't dreaming of such an angel, and then of course, go talk to her with utmost eloquence. BUT NO, this isn't your usual love story, this isn't even a love story at all. It's a death story, it says so right in the title. Later in the chapter, Bayardo buys a home from Xius the widow, who apparently dies of sorrow two months later according to his doctor. Speaking of Xius, and his heart bubbling tears, that is one of the examples of magical realism we talked about in class. I'm having a hard time finding those, I hope I'm not the only one. Something I found interesting was that after all this trouble that Bayardo went through to marry Angela Vicario, he returns her back to her family like a lost dog after he finds that she is not a young budding virgin.
I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis, especially the fact that Bayardo did not have a typical “love at first sight” situation. He seems to hold only a physical attraction to Angela rather than physical and emotional, and, as everyone knows, a physical attraction will never endure. Perhaps this physical attraction was foreshadowing for the end of the chapter when Bayardo returns Angela for having already lost her virginity since he craves only physical interaction with her, and someone already breaking that seal of intimacy erased his attraction for her. And your comment on magical realism resonates with me since I too have trouble finding examples of magical realism, but perhaps another example could be the fact that Bayardo’s father was the “hero of the civil wars of the past century and one of the major glories of the Conservative regime” (Marquez 33)? These achievements seem highly impossible, but people brush the infeasibility off and accept his accomplishments despite seeming quite unlikely.
Rereading the second chapter of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold brought forth an intriguing comparison throughout during the wedding between Angela and Bayardo. The book states how Bayardo was two hours late to the wedding, which seems eerily similar to Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew arriving late to his wedding with Katherina. Furthermore, the book states how, “there was no public misfortune more shameful than for a woman to be jilted in her bridal gown” (Marquez 41). Essentially, Marquez explains that Angela did not want to be left at the altar in a bridal gown. Again, this notion can draw parallels to Taming of the Shrew as well, when Kate was highly embarrassed and weeping at almost being left at the altar. These similarities prove interesting since they show the relation between two vastly different stories. Both grooms prove manipulative, outgoing, and controlling, and both force love out of their partners. Virginity results in the difference between the two. Angela’s virginity breaks up the relationship, whereas Kate’s virginity is not mentioned probably because she still was a virgin before marrying Petruchio. Nevertheless, had Kate lost her virginity before marrying Petruchio, Petruchio most likely would have left her just as Bayardo had with Angela. Thus, these close similarities demonstrate the stagnancy of character throughout time. Also, the end of the chapter emits immense pity for Santiago. The chapter ends with Angela stating Santiago as the culprit for taking her virginity. But the simile Marquez uses to describe stating his name creates sympathy for Santiago. Marquez states, “she nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written” (47). The comparison between Santiago to a butterfly furthers his innocence and supports the fact that perhaps he did not truly take her virginity, and Angela chose either the wrong name or purposely said his name to wreak vengeance on Santiago possibly for judging her wedding based on cost.
The role of virginity makes this a very interesting comparison. Even though both of these stories take place several thousand miles apart and with several years between each other, I'd agree with speculation that Petruchio would have engaged in a similar response. The study of cultural importance of this certainly holds a lot of ground. Seeing how many places valued a "pure" woman, most often in Christian or other heavily religious grounds, has repercussions across many interpersonal dynamics, so the comparison you make between the wedding in "Chronicle" and the wedding in "Taming" definitely is an interesting one.
“The lawyer stood by the thesis of homicide in legitimate defence of honor, which was upheld by the court in good faith, and the twins declared at the end of the trial that they would have done it again a thousand times over for the same reason” (48). “‘We killed him openly,’ Pedro Vicario said, ‘but we're innocent.’ ‘Perhaps before God,’ said Father Amador. ‘Before God and before men,’ Pablo Vicario said. ‘It was a matter of honor’” (49). The third chapter explores the factors influencing the twins decision to murder Santiago Nasar. Honor appears to motivate them above all else. In the first quote, it is interesting how defence of honor was an acceptable justification for murder during the time. Also, Marquez interestingly uses the word ¨defence¨ to make it appear as if the twins were the victims in the crime. By doing this, the reader can better connect with the twins and also realize how perspective has a large influence on the meaning of a situation. Through this, Marquez teaches the importance of empathy and understanding of multiple viewpoints. In the second quote, once again, Marquez uses judicial/victim diction to make the Vicario twins appear to be the victims. In this case, Marquez uses the word innocent. Like mentioned before, this pushes the theme that analyzing and understanding multiple viewpoints is necessary. Also, religious diction is used in the second quote when Marquez writes ¨God¨ to demonstrate how the Vicario twins believe that their actions are justified, even before a higher being. The usage of ¨God¨ also provides context to the story by describing the town as religious. Also, this may provide a stronger connection and appeal to a religious audience.
Chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is where the Vicario twins explain the whole murder scheme to the narrator. The whole day and all information the narrator has on Nasar are from other people’s perspectives. Perspective is very significant in this chronicle, in which the readers have to, to an extent, trust and believe what ever information is shared. It can be interpreted by judging the source. For example, a person that doesn’t like Nasar would purposely leave out certain details of the day and only include ones that make him look bad, or just lie. On the other hand, someone who likes Nasar may milk the story and make him seem like an innocent, poor victim. The pig knives are very compelling symbols. On the day of the murder, the Vicario brothers go and buy the two most sharpest knives in the store. The butcher is curious and questions the brothers on their intentions of their purchase. Pablo reveals that they are planning to murder Santiago Nasar, which the butcher takes lightly and sparsely. The knives foreshadow the death of Nasar. The fact that they bought specifically pig knives signifies that Santiago was killed like an animal, ruthlessly and inhumane. This novel explores the whole concept of honor. From Clotilde Armenta's perspective, she claims that the Vicario brothers had no choice, and had a “horrible duty” to keep their retain their family’s honor and the Vicario name. Being a woman in society, women honor their virginity and take pride in their pureness. Being a man in society, they know it’s their duty to uphold their honor. They say: we’re innocent… it was a matter of honor (55-56). Throughout the whole day, they try and get someone to stop them by being overly obvious and informing people on their plan. They tell the priest, the butcher, and the arbiter but no one stops them, which leaves them no choice but to kill Nasar for their honor.
Chapter 3 interestingly describes the circumstances of Santiago Nasar’s death, in literary terms. For instance, when Pedro and Pablo Vicario both leave the pigpen with their knives on their search for Santiago, the twins recall the weather. They said, “‘It wasn’t raining,’ Pablo Vicario remembered. . . ‘There was a sea wind and you could still count the stars with your finger’” (Marquez 61). This quote spins on the maxim of “It’s not just rain” since the absence of rain indicates the opposite tone that should have been involved with Santiago’s murder. Instead of the circumstances of his death holding a depressing, mournful tone, they instead hold a more honorable, dutiful tone, as shown through the sky being clear and the appearance of a wind. Thus, this clearly illustrates that the Vicarios and other friends believed Santiago’s death to be a matter of honor rather than a matter of anger at Santiago taking Angela’s virginity. Next, relating to honor, the statements about the notion proved surprising. For instance, Prudencia Cotes, Pablo’s fiancee, advocated for Santiago’s death. She even says, “‘I didn’t only agree, I never would have married him if he hadn’t doe what a man should do’” (62). Prudencia’s quote details the sentiment of the town, which is solely based on honor. Many citizens did not disagree with Santiago’s death. For example, Victoria Guzman even wanted Santiago to die because of the dastardly advances that he made toward her daughter, Divina Flor. Thus, she too believed in honorable deaths.
I love that you mention the first example, as it fits so well with overall commentary on Marquez's craft as an author. This deviation from the expected, naturally, is situational irony, and this is the second of two reasons I have the will to wake up in the morning. Truly, though, this instance is not isolated, as irony continuously pops up throughout the novel. Personally, I find it incredibly interesting how frequently Marquez uses it, but I'm certainly not complaining. In the end, Marquez's frequent use of irony keeps readers on their toes. This novel is anything but the norm, and using irony keeps it that way, making us read more. Examples like you said, with the rain, exemplify this to perfection.
I also noticed how this chapter can connect to Taming of the Shrew. I think that this is a universal theme in literature and art. Relationships not founded on love usually end horrifically. In Romeo and Juliet, the “lustful” relationship caused both characters to die. I know we are blogging about CODF, but one thing that is interestingly about this is that Taming of the Shrew has a twist on this theme. In the play, Petruchio and Kate’s relationship seems to work out fine even though it was all based on a plot for Petruchio to make some money. I think Shakespeare was trying to expand this theme to say that relationships that are rushed into like Lucentio and Bianca’s love at first sight relationship are doomed. I had a different take on that butterfly quote. I think Marquez is a bigger believer in the idea of fate instead of free will and was saying that Santiago Nasar was fated to die since that moment and was pinned to the wall since he couldn’t do anything. I think the butterfly is more symbolic of life because it evolves from a caterpillar and Marquez shows that one can not move/change their life as it is always fixed on one path determined by fate.
Chapter 3 provides the broadest platform for societal commentary thus far in “Chronicle.” Revisiting the role the twins played, their individual story, and the motivations therein proves to be potent in evaluating societal norms and customs of the area. Clearly, the twins do not regret brutally killing Santiago Nasar. According to the priest, they saw the event as “an act of great dignity” (49). As the end of the trial, even, the twins declared that “they would have done it again a thousand times over for the same reason” (48). To this end, no inner reflection of the two shows remorse, an incredibly important point. For the twins, this act depicts one of justice and over values. Their childhood and upbringing traces to the ideas of virgin marriages, of purity, and of honor. In turn, they act as such. The twins’ motivations are clear, sure, but the more important concept resides within an outlet for societal commentary. Marquez, by no means, endorses the actions taken in this novel. Surely, he depicts them in a brutal, primitive fashion, and this aims to make them appear as such. To this end, Marquez clearly devotes his craft to creating potent commentary on this issue. Societal values, according to him, need to be checked, especially when reliant upon such old tradition and such old values. In turn, his call to action clearly declares itself as a check upon conservative fashions of life. He shows the harms of this and, more shockingly, the blind nature by which people follow them in order to comment upon him, showcasing the true purpose of “Chronicle.”
What's interesting about chapter 3 is the fact that chronologically, it takes place before chapter 1. It is the event that leads to the death of Nasar. This again questions the title of a book and makes you wonder why its called a "Chronicle." What also was very interesting to me was the fact that it was fairly simple for these twins to commit this crime. They we're considered to be good people and that they we're only kidding about the murder even from a police perspective. Once their sister lost her virginity, they immediately lost the façade of a goody-goody into cold blooded murderers. They have no doubts in their minds about the killing either as they believed it to be the right thing to do. I would also like to piggy back (haha) off of Hannah's thesis of the pig knives being a very compelling symbol. They specifically chose pig knives in order to represent that they see Santiago as nothing more than a pig/an animal and should be treated as such.
I also believed that it was interesting that chapter three technically occurs before chapter one and agreed with your analysis on what happened in the book. I believe that the book started off with saying Santiago Nasar was going to be murdered, and then proceeding on telling what happened before because that relates to how Santiago was murdered. The book starts off giving away everything, just as the brothers did. They basically told the whole town that they were going to murder Santiago and no one seemed to have a problem with it, just as this book starts off giving everything away by telling us who is going to die and no one (kinda) seems to have too big of a problem with it.
Chapter three talks about the night before the murder of Santiago Nasar, and the events that took place in order for it to happen. The twins that murdered Santiago Nasar were the brothers of Angela, the girl he supposedly had sex with before she was married. During this time period it was extremely frowned upon for a women to have premarital sex, and would result in the loss of her honor. Because of this her brothers had to kill Santiago Nasar, or Bayardo would not want to marry her. As the story of how the brothers would murder Santiago Nasar played out they surprisingly did not keep the murder a secret. The brothers basically paraded around the town letting everyone and anyone that would listen know that they were planning on murdering him. Even though a majority of the town knew that the brothers had plans on killing Santiago Nasar, no one found it important to tell him, or took the threat seriously. Because the Vacario brothers were known for being “good people” everyone thought that they were merely kidding about murdering Santiago Nasar. I found it extremely interesting that no one believed that the Vacario brothers were actually going to kill Santiago Nasar just because they were supposedly good people. This shows how it is human nature that your own perspective on someone can taint how they actually are in real life, and lead you to believe they are something else. When Clotilde says, “spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that's fallen on them," (Márquez, 65) this directly shows how her perspective on the brothers makes her perceive that what they are doing is unfortunate for them, and has no sympathy for Santiago Nasar who is the one that is supposed to be murdered.
I agree with your analysis and find your mention of how one’s perspective influences his/her perspective very interesting. I also found it weird that just because the people of the town thought the twins were innocent, many decided to be apathetic towards the situation. I also think that this shows that is it human nature to have your perspective influence the way you act, but I think it is also shown that many people will go against their personality/common behavior in order to defend their group. I’d also like to add that Marquez seems to show that having a neutral perspective on a situation is impossible. Even the people that did not know Nasar very well in the town and the magistrate that came in seem to have inherent biases towards the case of Santiago Nasar based off of their personality and past.
“The Vicario brothers could smell him in the jail cell where the mayor had locked them up until he could think of something to do with them. 'No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn't get rid of the smell,' Pedro Vicario told me. They'd gone three nights without sleep, but they couldn't rest because as soon as they began to fall asleep they would commit the crime all over again. Now, almost an old man, trying to explain to me his condition on that endless day, Pablo Vicario told me without any effort: 'It was like being awake twice over.' That phrase made me think that what must have been most unbearable for them in jail was their lucidity” (78-79).
At the beginning of chapter 4, the post death of Santiago Nasar world is explored. Gabriel García Márquez describes the prevalent “smell” of Santiago Nasar is the town. Márquez uses this scent to represent guilt. Smell is used in order to demonstrate the intense emotion that the Vicario brothers are feeling and allow the reader to connect through the senses. By showing the reader that the Vicario brothers feel guilty for murdering Nasar, he develops the theme that morality and guilt will always end up being felt. Before murdering Nasar, the Vicario brothers did not feel immoral because they could justify their actions with honor, but after the murder, the guilt eventually caught up to them. Also, Márquez uses a large amount of description of the brothers being awake. This also demonstrates their guilt catching up to them. Before the murder, the brothers were in an altered state of consciousness from their obsession with honor and their constant drinking. Márquez uses the word awake to show the brothers’ new view on the situation and how they are now fully aware of the crime they committed. Interestingly, Márquez writes that “what must have been most unbearable for them in jail was their lucidity.” By saying this, Márquez shows that the only reason the brothers went through with the crime was because they were not completely aware of what they are doing and indeed felt wrong for what they did, providing some forgiveness for the brothers. This teaches that someone cannot be completely responsible for his/her actions if he/she is not fully aware for what they have done.
I think your notice of the time frame falling in a "post death" world is a solid point. To me, it's interesting how Marquez's chronology of telling this story goes even further beyond Nasar's demise. While it does flip around inside the story quite a bit, it breaks outside of it, as well. Most interesting about this, rarely ever does a story take place after the protagonist dies. Sure, there are times the hero dies and there is a bit after, but rarely does a rough 20% of the book take place after his death. Truly, a unique choice on the part of Marquez.
In chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I found the description of Santiago Nasar’s body to be very dehumanizing and barbaric. Nasar’s body had been ravaged and “seven of the many wounds were fatal” (86 Marquez). This is interesting because it goes along with The Seven Deadly Sins. According to Christianity, the biggest sin of them all is pride, which is a significant theme throughout this chronicle. The Vicario brothers murdered Nasar because of pride, and upholding their family name. The Vicario brothers used honor as an excuse for the murder of Nasar. Marquez utilizes the smell as a symbol for guilt of the people. Marques writes, everything continued smelling of Santiago Nasar that day...the brothers could smell him in the jail" (Marquez 90). The smell of Nasar signifies the remorse and regret the people of the town had. After hearing that Nasar had been murdered and stabbed by the brothers, some realized that they could have stopped it from happening. The Vicario brothers left obvious clues, hints, and outright told some people about their intentions to kill Nasar. The fact that no one stopped them or took immediate action makes the smell of Santiago Nasar resonate around the town, and seems to be haunting to many. The narrator also describes specifically how the Vicario brothers were doing post murder, and Marquez describes that “They’d gone three nights without sleep, but they couldn’t rest because as soon as they began to fall asleep they would commit the crime all over again.” Guilt and innocence are really compelling themes in this chronicle. The brothers would like to think they’re innocent because of their intentions of simply upholding their family name. However, they knew that what they did wasn’t right. It was inhumane and sickening. Of course they didn’t want to murder Nasar, because else they wouldn’t be feeling so much guilt to the extent that they can’t sleep for three nights straight because just thinking about the murder haunts them. They purposely made their intentions obvious to the town on the day of the murder and hoped someone would stop them, but no one did because they all believed that the Vicario brothers were good men who would never murder another human being. However, the town was sent in a frenzy hearing that news that Santiago Nasar’s “liver was sliced in pieces by two deep cuts on the anterior side” (Marquez 86).
I enjoyed your blog post, specifically the part where you mentioned how the Vicarios utilized honor as an excuse to murder Santiago. To expand your point, perhaps Marquez used the motif of honor throughout the novel to demonstrate the faults of society. As mentioned in my blog post, society has skewed what is correct and what is not, creating justification for inhumane actions. Marquez obviously wholeheartedly disagrees with that notion. He abhors society for covering up bestial actions with spurious justifications such as “honor” or “duty.” Thus, he derides society by including the excuse of honor to justify murder many, many times throughout the book.
I agree with your analysis of chapter four and I also found it very interesting that Gabriel Garcia Marquez decided to go so in depth on the aftermath of the Vicario brothers emotions after the murder. I found it very interesting that they originally stated they regretted nothing about murdering Santiago Nasar and that they would do it again, but this chapter reveals how much they are struggling. Do you think Gabriel Garcia Marquez does this to highlight how people's emotions heighten during stressful situations and that what you think is right at the time can come back to haunt you?
“On the morning of his death, in fact, Santiago Nasar hadn’t had a moment of doubt, in spite of the fact that he knew very well what the price of the insult imputed to him was. He was aware of the prudish disposition of his world, and he must have understood that the twins’ simple nature was incapable of resisting an insult. No one knew Bayardo San Roman very well, but Santiago Nasar knew him well enough to know that underneath his worldly airs he was as subject as anyone else to his native prejudices. So the murdered man’s refusal to worry could have been suicide. Besides, when he finally learned at the last moment that the Vicario brothers were waiting for him to kill him, his reaction was not one of panic, as has so often been said, but rather the bewilderment of innocence. My personal impression is that he died without understanding his death” (101).
In this quote, Gabriel Garcia Marquez suggests that the main cause of Santiago Nasar’s death was the prejudice against him, due to him being both Arab and wealthy, not the “defence of honor”. Marquez uses this for social commentary about racism. To develop this social commentary, Marquez uses innate diction such as disposition, nature, and native to teach that racism and prejudice is something of human nature. Overall, this commentary can be seen as a reflection of the world. Throughout history, and I’m sure in Columbia, racism has persisted without much change. Marquez shows that these prejudices will never disappear, but it is important to be wary of them to prevent conflict and protect the innocent. This can be seen when marquez states “... the murdered man’s refusal to worry could have been suicide,” suggesting that it is Nasar’s fault that his death occurred because of his inability to recognize the frequent danger he was in because of the prejudice in the world. On top of this discussion of the human nature to contain prejudice, Marquez teaches that innocence is dangerous and potentially fatal. When saying “he died without understanding his death,” it can be seen that Nasar was not fully aware of the prejudice in the world and in fact, could have been saved if he knew that just because he was Arab, he was more likely to be attacked. I think this quote holds importance in modern America with police brutality against African Americans. As taught by Marquez, African Americans should be taught the racism against them so they are especially cautious when around the police. Not all police are bad, just like how not everyone in Chronicle of a Death Foretold is inherently evil, but in the case that one stumbles across someone who is given motive to kill, like how Santiago Nasar angered the Vicario brothers, awareness and action can save a life.
Chapter 4 recounts the details after Santiago’s murder. Many aspects of magical realism are present throughout the aftermath. For instance, Colonel Lázaro Aponte held a séance to investigate the disappearance of items in the widower Xius’s former place of residence. He found that the soul of Yolanda Xius, the wife, was reclaiming what was rightfully hers, and she caused the house to crumble. This act obviously cannot happen in real life, yet Aponte and the narrator brush the event off as something normal, therefore attributing the event as magical realism. Marquez perhaps used this act of magical realism to further emphasize the skewed ideology of doing and taking what is rightfully yours. By displaying the irrational anger by Yolanda, coupled with the fact that Pedro and Pablo illogically murdered Santiago out of honor, Marquez argues against the notion, stating that performing a deservedly correct action may not always be the best course of action. Society skews what is correct and what is unsound. Next, one thing that caught my attention besides the acts of magical realism was when the narrator meets Angela Vicario twenty-three years after Santiago’s murder. Marquez explains how Angela persevered through life after the event. The book states, “She had gone beyond what was possible to make Angela Vicario die in life, but the daughter herself had brought her plans to naught because she never made any mystery out of her misfortune” (Marquez 89). This quote demonstrates how Angela made meaning out of a life drenched in sorrow. She recounted the whole story to others besides the part about who took her virginity, therefore creating a sense of significance to her melancholy life. This act proves similar to the myth of Sisyphus, who created meaning out of endlessly pushing a boulder to the top of a mountain. Just as Sisyphus created significance out of a mundane life, so did Angela.
Chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is filled with stories from a different perspective and goes in depth on the couple minutes before the actual murder happens. There are a series of unfortunate events in one day that end in the death of Santiago Nasar. In the town, there are several people who know about the Vicario brother’s plan to murder Nasar. However, instead of trying to stop the assassination, the town does not offer any means to the victim, which brought upon a death; the bystander effect. Due to the bias concerning the Vicario twins, the bystanders seem to neglect the danger of the situation. Marquez’s book feed off the idea of selfishness of humans. People only look out for themselves and try to find any way for personal gain in a situation. Many of the townspeople do nothing, because they’re relying on someone else to step up and stop the brothers. The individual’s ignorance towards towards the circumstances resulted in the death of Nasar. The array of deplorable events did not work in Nasar’s favor. His death was easily preventable, yet it happened, representing Santiago Nasar’s fate to die. Marquez purposely named this book a “chronicle” even though the story was not told in order to convey this fate. The first line of the book already stated his death and then is stated later on in the book again, a foretold and destined case. All the way to his death, he has dreamed about it, people know about it, and no one can do anything to stop it. Regarding magical realism, Nasar’s destined fate is the magic, but the realistic aspect is man’s alertness to the magic.
I agree with your analysis and I also found it very interesting that no one chose to step up and help Santiago Nasar and instead everyone just waited around for someone else to do it. I enjoyed when you said that Marquez named the book a chronicle to reflect Santiago’s murder and how his fate could have changed, but we are told in the very beginning of the book what is going to happen. This shows how the people in his town could have changed Santiago’s fate, but they did not take a chance so his fate is set in the beginning.
Responsibility and herd mentality play a huge role in Chapter 5. For instance, with responsibility, the magistrate’s folios demonstrate the major theme relating to this topic when Santiago arrived at his fiancée’s house. The book explains, “In folio 382 of the brief, he wrote another marginal pronouncement in red ink: ‘Fatality makes us invisible’” (Marquez 113). The magistrate’s writing details the mindset of the whole town prior to Santiago’s death. The whole town knew about his impending murder, yet no one chose to intervene until the moment of his murder due to their viewpoint of seeing him as already dead. This notion stems from the motif of the excuse of honor present through the book. Many people justified his murder as something necessary due to Santiago seemingly popping Angela’s cherry, when in reality almost no one chose to intervene because they did not believe the brothers would truly commit the crime. More importantly, many citizens assumed that someone else had already notified Santiago of the murder, so they did not further assist him by telling him. This brings me to my next point of herd mentality. To expand, for example, Indalecio Pardo, a close friend of Santiago, attempted to inform him of his upcoming murder. However, he already thought someone had told him and the matter had been cleared up. The book explains, “But Indalecio found Santiago Nasar being led by the arm of Cristo Bedoya among the groups that were leaving the docks, and he didn’t dare warn him” (102). The quote expresses the universal fault of society. Society has conditioned the ideology of herd mentality in everyone in order to preserve safety. Instead of reaffirming the murder to Santiago, which would have probably saved his life, he just ignores it because he did not want to cause strife. In this way, Marquez demonstrates his disgust for the social upbringing and social norms of his time.
I figured I’d join in the last-minute blogapalooza and post the night before school, for purely academic reasons, I assure you. Without further ado, I present: This Book Is Literally About Jesus Christ, Part 2.
This book is literally about Jesus Christ. I outlined in a previous blog (scroll up to see) exactly the crossovers between Nasar and Jesus, while also making the (great) case for Bayardo San Roman being a manifestation of Judas Iscariot. Convincing as that was, and it certainly was, I opened up Chapter 4-- definitely before right now, trust me-- and I knew, instantly, that I would have to, once again, blog on our Lord and Savior. Interestingly, the tone of this chapter is anything but holy, and with a chapter beginning with the phrase, “The damage from the knives was only a beginning” (72), we shouldn’t be surprised. The first pages adamantly describe Nasar’s destroyed body, the horrific damage done to his once sacred form on full display. Now, I could pull such quotes as, “It was as if we killed him all over again after he was dead” (72), and try to make a point about the resurrection of Christ, and I kind of just did, but the real glory hides three pages later. One of the major points is the juxtaposition between Christ’s demise and Nasar’s. As I’ve explained, this book takes the course of the New Testament flipped on its head. Everyone else knows Jesus dies except him, the book follows the reverse path of the New Testament, it retains the telling through others perspectives, I could go on and on. However, in consideration of chapter 3, Nasar’s death is most focal. By no means does Nasar die in a clean way. Repeatedly, his guts and the raw carnage arise in discussion, clear that Nasar died brutally but quickly. This, naturally, is a contradiction to Jesus’ prolonged, 40-day death, yet that’s exactly it. In every way, this represents an ironic New Testament, following the path yet taking immense amounts of literary freedom on the subject. This made sense and all followed, but I jumped out of my bouncy chair when I hit the quote that spurned this article. We can talk for days about possible correlations to the New Testament, but there is no evidence better than the description of Nasar’s body: “It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ” (75). Nasar, by the book’s own words, died in the style of Jesus Christ. This bears incredible importance to the crossover, and a cross-application of these novels bears so much significance, signaled by such a quote. To truth, this is less than speculation. I would submit it as fact.
Tonight, I’ve had the pleasure of blogging about two of the things I love most in this world: God and, now, irony. Truth be told, one of the lasting impressions Chronicle left on me proved itself to be irony.Two specific instances arise in the fifth chapter, the first coming in the form of the back door. The final line of the book describes the back door as one that “had been open since six” (120). Readers receive this knowledge early on, as we know the door will be unlocked so that Nasar has entrance. Naturally, Nasar does not choose this door, electing to turn to the front, one that is, well, not open, and one where he will meet his foretold doom. This creates potent dramatic irony, wherein readers know the door to be locked, unbeknownst to Nasar, enabling us to experience his cruel demise as gruesome as it comes, seasoned with a thick coating of irony. Tasty. My personal favorite instance, however, turns a literary motif on its head. The description of the weather for Nasar’s demise follows as a “golden sun” (105) illuminating the scene. In fact, Marquez goes straight at our literary motif of “It’s never just rain,” implying rain leads to consequences, by dictating that “Of course it wasn’t raining” (105). The setup for the murder contradicts every expectation we hold for death. It took place the night after a wedding, a bishop came to town, and above all, it was bright and sunny out. This is some good situational irony if I’ve ever seen any.
During chapter four, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, begins to go deeper into the relationship between Bayardo and Angela and how the sexist expectations of a man versus a women is represented in this chapter. Throughout this chapter Bayardo gets pitied for everything that happened while Angela is shamed by everyone. This relationship is the complete opposite of Angela’s relationship with Santiago Nasar. Santiago was murdered because he supposedly slept with Angela without being married, but Angela was defended and beat by her mother. While getting beat by her own mother is still bad, getting murdered is definitely considered worse and, “the blows hurt worse because she knew they were for him” (Marquez, 106). Later on in the chapter Angela begins to write letter after letter to Bayardo explaining how much she loves him. She says that it does not matter what she writes “it was enough for [her] to know he was getting them” (94). Bayardo also thought that what was written in the letters did not matter, because when he arrived 17 years later he is carrying a suitcase with every single letter she wrote, and they are all unopened. The ritualistic idea of Angela sending the letters to Bayardo is similar to the concept of the book as a whole. Gabriel Garcia Marquez continuously writes about Santiago’s murder and how and why it occurred, even though nothing new is ever learned.
I completely agree with your analysis! Marquez is trying to make a point that women are treated so unfairly. It is sad that Angela is seen at fault in this situation, and because she lost her virginity their family name is ruined. Then the only way to maintain their honor is to kill the man who stole the girl's virginity. She is beaten by her mom and everyone in the town looks down on her. It is sad that she has to pretend she doesn't care about the death of her first love just because of society's standards.
Chapter five goes in depth of the murder of Santiago Nasar and the different accounts from people in the town. Santiagos murder was something the town could not stop talking about, and many of them held an abundance of guilt over their heads for not doing something to help him when they knew what was going to happen. An investigator is sent into the town to uncover what happened with Santiago Nasar’s murder, and much to his surprise many people in the town are open to testifying. Chapter five is seen as the chapter that is supposed to help the readers finally understand everything that happened and help the book come together, but it does not. Much of this book is slightly confusing due to its lack of order and this chapter represents that. Throughout the whole book we wonder if Santiago Nasar was really the one that had sex with Angela, or was he just wrongfully accused. We never figure out the actual answer, but the town strongly hints toward Santiago Nasar not being the one that had sex with her. Everyone in the town is so wrapped up in Santiago Nasar’s side of the story, and whether or not his killing was justified, and no one seemed to go to Angela or strip her of her honor. This represents society as a whole and how we always seem to focus on what we are curious in. The whole town was curious if Santiago Nasar actually committed the deed he was accused of, and because of this everyone focused on him while Angela was not strongly pressured by the town. Another big aspect of chapter five was the fact that everyone in the town felt so guilty for not helping Santiago Nasar when they had the power to. Almost everyone in the town knew about the murder, but virtually no one decided to warn Santiago about it because they just assumed someone else already had. This also greatly reflects human nature and how we shy away from difficult times and wait for someone else to rise to the challenge and take a stand. But in this case no one really did rise to the challenge, and because of this everyone felt extremely guilty.
Nice that you guys are blogging so early!!!
ReplyDeletethank you!
DeleteDoes this count as a response
DeleteDuring the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I noticed the constant jumping between the past and the present. The story advances a narrative plot, while occasionally injecting the story with some character’s perspective on the situation. This changing is very characteristic of magical realism. I also noticed the amount of dead / ghostly diction used to describe Santiago Nasar. For example, Garcia Marquez writes, “‘He already looked like a ghost,’ she told me” (15) and “... she’d been all the more frightened when he grabbed her by the wrist with a hand that felt frozen and stony, like the hand of a dead man.” This characterization creates conflict within the reader as they protest the destiny set up by Garcia Marquez and wonder can Santiago Nasar be saved? Once again, this is a very large part of the magical realism part of this book. This book does not follow chronological order at all, once again making the reader feel unsettled. One last thing I noticed in this first chapter is the difference in characterization of Nasar in the past telling of the story and in the more current telling of the story by characters. The characters that are being “interviewed” say much nicer things to describe Nasar, when the reader learns that Nasar actually sexually harassed a girl and was not that good of a person. This dramatic irony is a very key part of the play. One other thing is that Nasar is described to be wearing white, representing purity, while the reader knows this is not quite so! Irony!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your response wholeheartedly, especially about the intent of the dead and ghostly diction. However, I’d like to add to your point by stating that Marquez also intended to display the group mentality (bystander effect?) present throughout the novel. As seen through the chapter, mostly everyone knew of his impending death. The ghastly diction further accentuate this notion. People saw that he looked dead but did nothing to assist him. No one decided to take action since every person in the town expected someone else to jump in and save Santiago. Thus, Marquez probably desired to show the faults and selfishness of humanity, highlighting the lesson through cadaverous diction.
DeleteWhen beginning to read the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, we notice that the story isn’t an actual chronicle. The events don’t take place in chronological order, but are instead scattered throughout. The first chapter is on the assassination of Santiago Nasar and the murderers; Pedro and Pablo Vicario. The story is then filled with various perspectives of the story of the murder. The narrative is composed of repeated events that are actually symbolic to this book. Memory and weather become significant symbols in this play. People can’t seem to remember what the weather was like on the day of Santiago’s murder. Margot, the narrator’s sister, recalled that “it was Christmas weather (18), yet Victoria Guzman said it that “the sun starts warming things up earlier in August” (11). The question that resides is if it was cold or hot on the day of the murder? This confusion and memory loss symbolize the actual mystery of Santiago Nasar’s death. There are multiple conflicting stories and versions of the day and how it all went down. How some people don’t remember the weather is similar to how some people don’t recall Santiago going home, but he did because he was killed on his doorstep. The weather is used to symbolize each perspective of each character. The book doesn’t exactly specify the actual weather of the day, which symbolizes the confusion and unsureness of the murder and how memory is unreliable in certain situations. It displays the character’s emotions and feelings and could be used to foreshadow future events depending on rain or sun.
ReplyDeleteMany things in this world taste great. Whether it be gummy bears or the magically delicious flavor of Lucky Charms, taste brings so much to the culinary and cultural table. Yet, there is, perhaps, no greater, more potent taste than that of tasteful irony. Regular listeners of mine, of which I hope there is at least one, somewhere, know I am more than a fan of irony. It is my second love. And fortunately for me, I was not left without my passion when reading “Chronicle of a Death Foretold.” Nay, within just the first pages of the book, readers are hit smack in the face with two powerful examples of the fabled situational irony. The most obvious instance comes from the narrator’s telling of a conversation between Santiago Nasar and his mother, in which he details a dream he had. Now, the narrator notes that “she didn’t pay any great attention” (6) to much of its content. However, she explicitly notes that, since his dream involved birds, “Any dream about birds means good health” (6). Anyone paying any attention early in the novel will know that, on this day, Nasar will die, so an obvious mention of good health clearly acts in an ironic fashion, contradicting the fact that Nasar will encounter anything but good health.
ReplyDeleteMore subtle, though, is irony found in the details-- in specific, details surrounding Nasar’s gun collection. At first glance, this seems to be meaningless description. The narrator appears to be applying pointless yet intense description of Nasar’s collection, likely with some intent to characterize him. However, this actually plays a key role introducing death into the story, but the irony comes with who is in control. Naturally, the plot of the story revolves around Santiago Nasar getting killed, yet here, Nasar is specifically described as the owner of guns. This puts him, innately, in control of death. He is shown to be defensive and well-armed, and not just because his biceps are in good shape. Rather, he is shown to be the one preventing death, acting as a strong juxtaposition to the idea that he will eventually die. This, as a whole, is a major ironic contribution to the story, crafted subtly yet with the intent to add quite a few layers to Nasar’s tale of woe.
The first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold already begins with an aspect of magic realism; dreams about soaring above trees. Usually when someone dreams about flying in a tinfoil airplane through a forest of almond trees, one would be more concerned; but apparently Santiago Nasar’s abnormal dreams were commonplace. Furthermore, his mother even stated that she could easily interpret his dreams before eating, an unusual limitation. Yet the specific events in the dream caught my attention. For instance, Santiago’s mother, Placida Linero, brought up why she had not worried about Santiago’s dream. She says, “Any dreams about birds means good health” (Marquez 3). Usually in a book, the flight of birds represents freedom, as characterized through the literary maxim of flight is freedom. But in the context of this book, birds symbolize the contrary. In this book, birds represent restriction. Further mentioning of birds in this chapter confirm this analysis. For instance, as Santiago made his way to see the bishop, he traversed through his shadowy house. He passed “among the cages of sleeping birds in the dining room” (8). The imprisonment of the birds coupled with their slumber further display that birds represent constraint and constriction, which can be applied to Santiago’s inevitable murder. Finally, I particularly noticed how Marquez utilizes foreshadowing of past events rather than future events in the novel, an unprecedented technique. For example, Marquez states how someone had left an envelope under the door of Santiago’s house, which contained every detail about his upcoming murder: the motive, the place, etc. Marquez chose to go into minimal detail about the envelope, but as one moves forward through the book, the book reveals the significance of envelope.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter two, a man named Bayardo San Román is introduced. He is around thirty years old and is very handsome and rich. Everyone in the town “says he’s enchanting” (28) and that “people liked him alot because he’s honest and has a good heart (29).” When Román learned that Angela Vicario is “well-named,” he set out to marry her simply on account of her status. Everyone was blinded by Román’s image that he worked so hard to achieve. He only displayed what he wanted people to see, the aspects that made people think he had a “good heart.” He flaunted his prosperity and rank in society, and excessively used it to his advantage. In Colombian culture, rituals are very significant, especially in courting. He attempted to entice Angela by giving her fancy gifts to advertise his wealth to her and her family. At this time, there was much significance in also showing not only the bride, but the whole family what one has to offer as a future husband. An entire family has to approve. Angela has the disadvantage because as a girl, her place in society is low. She can’t exactly choose whoever she wants to love due to family honor. If a girl marries someone of a lower standing, the honor of a family goes down and affects not only that couple, but siblings and parents. If Angela were to marry Román, a man of great honor, then the Vicario name’s dignity will generously transform into one of higher rank. Angela didn’t have a choice in marrying Román no matter how much she truly didn’t want to be with him because society’s rules have already been established. Angela, her family, and Román are contributing to society’s standards of marriage in the interest of higher honor and status, which directly correlates to the idea that societal norms are considered unchangeable, because few have the courage to be an outsider.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis. I think it is very important how you brought up the context behind the plot in this chapter and the different in courting in the US and Columbia. As readers from the US, it is easy to think of this situation as very abnormal when it is not. I like how you mentioned the small amount of power Angela has when marrying Bayardo San Roman in this chapter. I also believe that Marquez is providing social commentary on this issue. I also think that the honor you mentioned plays a major role in this story. Why does Angela end up claiming she slept with Santiago Nasar when she could have told the truth? Honor? Honor seems to be the entire reason for the murder in the first place, despite the bystander apathy from almost every character.
Delete“Five minutes later, indeed, he returned to the social club with his silver-trimmed saddlebags, and on the table he laid ten bundles of thousand-peso notes with the printed bands of the State Bank still on them. The widower Xius died two months later. "He died because of that," Dr. Dionisio Iguarán said. "He was healthier than the rest of us, but when you listened with the stethoscope you could hear the tears bubbling inside his heart." But not only had he sold the house with everything in it; he asked Bayardo San Román to pay him little by little because he didn't even have an old trunk where he could keep so much consolation money” (37).
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, the widower Xius sells his house to Bayardo San Román. The silver on the saddlebags is used as a symbol of wealth for Bayardo San Roman. Marquez further describes the peso notes as “with the printed bands of the State Bank” to further characterize Bayardo San Roman as wealthy because of his needlessness to remove the bands due to him having enough money already. There is also significance in the widower dying. The “tears bubbling inside his heart” is an example of magical realism. Marquez uses magical realism to demonstrate the extreme conflict in society between wealth and sentiment/honor. The magical realism blends reality and “magic” to depict how the widower had to go against his sentiment for his wife and creates an uneasy tone that makes the reader reflect on the presented theme. The heart is often associated with the absolute desire and purity of a person, and it can be seen that this is violated because of the human nature to be greedy. Also, the fact that the widower could not accept all the money at once is very ironic. This further expresses the extreme greed within human nature and how it violates all logic. Even though the widower had no use/ability to have money, his greed overcame his sentiment anyways.
Chronicle of a Death Foretold, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, starts off by stating “On the day they were going to kill him” (Marquez, 1), him being Santiago Nasar, telling us what will happen at the end of the day and giving away the ending in the first sentence. I found it very interesting that this book is called a chronicle, but starts of proving that it is not a chronicle at all. I think that this portrays marquez’s style of confusing the reader and making them think harder about what is happening. Another thing I found interesting is that everyone in Santiago’s town just assumed he knew about the murder and did not bother to tell him. This closely relates to how the civilians reacted in the Kitty Genovese article. The bystanders just assumed everything was fine or that she was getting help and did not bother to call 911 or go check and see if she needed help. I believe that both of these situations reflect how it is human nature to shy away from difficult situations. Whether it is out of fear or lack of knowledge, when people are placed in a stressful situation they will opt out. Another thing in the first chapter that stood out to me is that people had a different memory of what was going on the day of Santiago Nasar’s murder. Some people believed it was sunny and some believed it was raining. The way people remembered this day reflects their attitudes toward Santiago. People that believed it was raining that day generally feel that that day was sad, but people that believe that it was sunny would think of Nasar’s murder in a more positive light.
ReplyDeleteThis didnt post for some reason but its from chapter one and I can show you the time I wrote it
DeleteI agree with your analysis! I think that humans are scared and don't enjoy getting involved with conflict. Our lives are already to problematic and we often tend to shy away from animosity. Bystanders in both a Chronicle of a Death Foretold and the Kitty Genovese article didn't take action and were both seen as the problem. They could have prevented the death of Kitty and Santiago if they were to inform someone of authority that could have done something. It's ironic because the bystanders didn't want to get involved and have more conflict so they stayed away and pretended that nothing was happening, but they ended up being the problem and being involved even though they did nothing, which was the issue.
DeleteIn the second chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the idea of marriage is mentioned throughout the entire chapter. Angela is being forced to marry a man that she does not love due to status and wealth. This may seem to be extremely wrong based on our standards today, but back in the 1950’s, when this book was set, it was extremely common. The men did whatever it took to show the woman and her parents that he would be a suitable husband and could support her when or if they ended up getting married. Women on the other hand, “ knew how to do screen embroidery, sew by machine, weave bone lace, wash and iron, make artificial flowers and fancy candy, and write engagement announcement” (pg 31). The only thing that was important in a woman’s skill set were easy, dainty things that made her look presentable. When Angela begins to have difficulties with this situation, her mother attempts to “comfort” her and tells Angela that she can learn to love Bayardo. This situation resembles another story we have read this year, Taming of the Shrew. Much like the relationships between Kate and Bianca and their suitors they originally did not love them, but were forced to marry anyway. The way different authors wrote about how the way marriage was perceived challenged societal norms and helped people realize that the way things were may not be best for society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteBayardo San Roman is quite literally Judas Iscariot. Let that sink in.
ReplyDeleteGot it?
Certainly, I’ll explain, and thank you for asking, Greg! Part of the basis for literature is cultural comparisons and literary allusions, and within a book such as “Chronicle,” such an instance holds a high probability of occurring naturally. This probability exists largely due to the strong presence of Catholic tradition within the work; even besides notions of the bishop visiting, the presence of God and Catholic culture remains present within the novel.
That being said, a comparison similar to the above does exist, and to understand Bayardo’s role, we first must understand the role of Santiago Nasar. This character, largely portrayed as the main character, bears a large resemblance to Jesus, and in a variety of ways. First comes his holy portrayal, emphasized by his appearance in “a shirt and pants of white linen, both items unstarched” (5), dressing him in the pure colors of white. Other notions to Christian celebrations and tradition arise, from the observation of “It was Christmas weather” (17) to the role the bishop’s visit played, it is clear God is present here. However, Nasar is much more closely tied to Jesus, part of which comes via his method of characterization. We know very little about Nasar from Nasar. Rather, we learn about him from other accounts, whether his mother or his cook. What does this mimic? The Bible! There is no book in the New Testament entitled “the book of Jesus,” but what we do have are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, four apostles whose personal accounts describe Jesus, similar to the way “Chronicle” chooses. This follows in a carbon-copy manor, but the final aspect deviates in an ironic fashion. The premise of the Last Supper is Jesus and Jesus alone can tell that he will die. He knows an apostle will turn him in to the Romans, and thus, he gives them his blood and body in communion. To juxtapose this, “Chronicle” has everybody *except* Nasar knowing that he will die, enabling everybody else to do what they feel and bear this knowledge. A plot twist, sure, but this clearly borrows from Biblical structure.
Bearing this in mind, what exactly makes Bayardo into Judas Iscariot? The first portion lies within his reveal of Nasar. Upon recognition that his wife, Angela Vicario, “wasn’t a virgin” (21), he reveals this to her mother, spreading the word and prompting motivation to kill Nasar. Vicario, in this case, resembles the silver Pontius Pilate awarded Judas for turning in Jesus, and in turn, San Roman acts in the way of Judas, submitting this man to receive his punishment. The punishment itself is key, too; had Nasar simply been tickled or forced to watch the 9th season of “American Idol,” this would have 0 relevance, even considering the pain the latter induces. Rather, he is killed, and while it is a completely different fashion of death than Jesus faced, the end result is, ultimately, the same, strengthening the comparison.
Ultimately, the motivations for this can be examined, but that’s a whole other blog post I don’t have time for at 11:49 pm. However, we can see, as readers, the clear cultural impact Catholicism has on the book, reflected in obvious inspiration borrowed from the New Testament.
One of the things that amazes me about Bayardo San Roman is his extreme confidence in himself, and well-deserved, he's rich, charming, and "people like him alot"(27). His high level of confidence is confirmed when he sees Angela Vicario and he says, "When I wake up, remind me that I'm going to marry her."
ReplyDeleteHis confidence is so great that he could see any woman, and just like that, he could not only say he would marry her but also need someone to remind him after he takes a quick nap. I like how this "love at first sight" is not really what you would expect. If this was the same type of love at first sight that we more commonly see, like the ones in Shakespeare for example, Bayardo would have gotten up so darn quick from his slumber, he would wipe his eyes and pinch himself to make sure he wasn't dreaming of such an angel, and then of course, go talk to her with utmost eloquence. BUT NO, this isn't your usual love story, this isn't even a love story at all. It's a death story, it says so right in the title. Later in the chapter, Bayardo buys a home from Xius the widow, who apparently dies of sorrow two months later according to his doctor. Speaking of Xius, and his heart bubbling tears, that is one of the examples of magical realism we talked about in class. I'm having a hard time finding those, I hope I'm not the only one. Something I found interesting was that after all this trouble that Bayardo went through to marry Angela Vicario, he returns her back to her family like a lost dog after he finds that she is not a young budding virgin.
I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis, especially the fact that Bayardo did not have a typical “love at first sight” situation. He seems to hold only a physical attraction to Angela rather than physical and emotional, and, as everyone knows, a physical attraction will never endure. Perhaps this physical attraction was foreshadowing for the end of the chapter when Bayardo returns Angela for having already lost her virginity since he craves only physical interaction with her, and someone already breaking that seal of intimacy erased his attraction for her. And your comment on magical realism resonates with me since I too have trouble finding examples of magical realism, but perhaps another example could be the fact that Bayardo’s father was the “hero of the civil wars of the past century and one of the major glories of the Conservative regime” (Marquez 33)? These achievements seem highly impossible, but people brush the infeasibility off and accept his accomplishments despite seeming quite unlikely.
DeleteRereading the second chapter of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold brought forth an intriguing comparison throughout during the wedding between Angela and Bayardo. The book states how Bayardo was two hours late to the wedding, which seems eerily similar to Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew arriving late to his wedding with Katherina. Furthermore, the book states how, “there was no public misfortune more shameful than for a woman to be jilted in her bridal gown” (Marquez 41). Essentially, Marquez explains that Angela did not want to be left at the altar in a bridal gown. Again, this notion can draw parallels to Taming of the Shrew as well, when Kate was highly embarrassed and weeping at almost being left at the altar. These similarities prove interesting since they show the relation between two vastly different stories. Both grooms prove manipulative, outgoing, and controlling, and both force love out of their partners. Virginity results in the difference between the two. Angela’s virginity breaks up the relationship, whereas Kate’s virginity is not mentioned probably because she still was a virgin before marrying Petruchio. Nevertheless, had Kate lost her virginity before marrying Petruchio, Petruchio most likely would have left her just as Bayardo had with Angela. Thus, these close similarities demonstrate the stagnancy of character throughout time. Also, the end of the chapter emits immense pity for Santiago. The chapter ends with Angela stating Santiago as the culprit for taking her virginity. But the simile Marquez uses to describe stating his name creates sympathy for Santiago. Marquez states, “she nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written” (47). The comparison between Santiago to a butterfly furthers his innocence and supports the fact that perhaps he did not truly take her virginity, and Angela chose either the wrong name or purposely said his name to wreak vengeance on Santiago possibly for judging her wedding based on cost.
ReplyDeleteThe role of virginity makes this a very interesting comparison. Even though both of these stories take place several thousand miles apart and with several years between each other, I'd agree with speculation that Petruchio would have engaged in a similar response. The study of cultural importance of this certainly holds a lot of ground. Seeing how many places valued a "pure" woman, most often in Christian or other heavily religious grounds, has repercussions across many interpersonal dynamics, so the comparison you make between the wedding in "Chronicle" and the wedding in "Taming" definitely is an interesting one.
Delete“The lawyer stood by the thesis of homicide in legitimate defence of honor, which was upheld by the court in good faith, and the twins declared at the end of the trial that they would have done it again a thousand times over for the same reason” (48).
ReplyDelete“‘We killed him openly,’ Pedro Vicario said, ‘but we're innocent.’ ‘Perhaps before God,’ said Father Amador. ‘Before God and before men,’ Pablo Vicario said. ‘It was a matter of honor’” (49).
The third chapter explores the factors influencing the twins decision to murder Santiago Nasar. Honor appears to motivate them above all else. In the first quote, it is interesting how defence of honor was an acceptable justification for murder during the time. Also, Marquez interestingly uses the word ¨defence¨ to make it appear as if the twins were the victims in the crime. By doing this, the reader can better connect with the twins and also realize how perspective has a large influence on the meaning of a situation. Through this, Marquez teaches the importance of empathy and understanding of multiple viewpoints. In the second quote, once again, Marquez uses judicial/victim diction to make the Vicario twins appear to be the victims. In this case, Marquez uses the word innocent. Like mentioned before, this pushes the theme that analyzing and understanding multiple viewpoints is necessary. Also, religious diction is used in the second quote when Marquez writes ¨God¨ to demonstrate how the Vicario twins believe that their actions are justified, even before a higher being. The usage of ¨God¨ also provides context to the story by describing the town as religious. Also, this may provide a stronger connection and appeal to a religious audience.
Chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is where the Vicario twins explain the whole murder scheme to the narrator. The whole day and all information the narrator has on Nasar are from other people’s perspectives. Perspective is very significant in this chronicle, in which the readers have to, to an extent, trust and believe what ever information is shared. It can be interpreted by judging the source. For example, a person that doesn’t like Nasar would purposely leave out certain details of the day and only include ones that make him look bad, or just lie. On the other hand, someone who likes Nasar may milk the story and make him seem like an innocent, poor victim.
ReplyDeleteThe pig knives are very compelling symbols. On the day of the murder, the Vicario brothers go and buy the two most sharpest knives in the store. The butcher is curious and questions the brothers on their intentions of their purchase. Pablo reveals that they are planning to murder Santiago Nasar, which the butcher takes lightly and sparsely. The knives foreshadow the death of Nasar. The fact that they bought specifically pig knives signifies that Santiago was killed like an animal, ruthlessly and inhumane.
This novel explores the whole concept of honor. From Clotilde Armenta's perspective, she claims that the Vicario brothers had no choice, and had a “horrible duty” to keep their retain their family’s honor and the Vicario name. Being a woman in society, women honor their virginity and take pride in their pureness. Being a man in society, they know it’s their duty to uphold their honor. They say: we’re innocent… it was a matter of honor (55-56). Throughout the whole day, they try and get someone to stop them by being overly obvious and informing people on their plan. They tell the priest, the butcher, and the arbiter but no one stops them, which leaves them no choice but to kill Nasar for their honor.
Chapter 3 interestingly describes the circumstances of Santiago Nasar’s death, in literary terms. For instance, when Pedro and Pablo Vicario both leave the pigpen with their knives on their search for Santiago, the twins recall the weather. They said, “‘It wasn’t raining,’ Pablo Vicario remembered. . . ‘There was a sea wind and you could still count the stars with your finger’” (Marquez 61). This quote spins on the maxim of “It’s not just rain” since the absence of rain indicates the opposite tone that should have been involved with Santiago’s murder. Instead of the circumstances of his death holding a depressing, mournful tone, they instead hold a more honorable, dutiful tone, as shown through the sky being clear and the appearance of a wind. Thus, this clearly illustrates that the Vicarios and other friends believed Santiago’s death to be a matter of honor rather than a matter of anger at Santiago taking Angela’s virginity. Next, relating to honor, the statements about the notion proved surprising. For instance, Prudencia Cotes, Pablo’s fiancee, advocated for Santiago’s death. She even says, “‘I didn’t only agree, I never would have married him if he hadn’t doe what a man should do’” (62). Prudencia’s quote details the sentiment of the town, which is solely based on honor. Many citizens did not disagree with Santiago’s death. For example, Victoria Guzman even wanted Santiago to die because of the dastardly advances that he made toward her daughter, Divina Flor. Thus, she too believed in honorable deaths.
ReplyDeleteI love that you mention the first example, as it fits so well with overall commentary on Marquez's craft as an author. This deviation from the expected, naturally, is situational irony, and this is the second of two reasons I have the will to wake up in the morning. Truly, though, this instance is not isolated, as irony continuously pops up throughout the novel. Personally, I find it incredibly interesting how frequently Marquez uses it, but I'm certainly not complaining. In the end, Marquez's frequent use of irony keeps readers on their toes. This novel is anything but the norm, and using irony keeps it that way, making us read more. Examples like you said, with the rain, exemplify this to perfection.
DeleteI also noticed how this chapter can connect to Taming of the Shrew. I think that this is a universal theme in literature and art. Relationships not founded on love usually end horrifically. In Romeo and Juliet, the “lustful” relationship caused both characters to die. I know we are blogging about CODF, but one thing that is interestingly about this is that Taming of the Shrew has a twist on this theme. In the play, Petruchio and Kate’s relationship seems to work out fine even though it was all based on a plot for Petruchio to make some money. I think Shakespeare was trying to expand this theme to say that relationships that are rushed into like Lucentio and Bianca’s love at first sight relationship are doomed. I had a different take on that butterfly quote. I think Marquez is a bigger believer in the idea of fate instead of free will and was saying that Santiago Nasar was fated to die since that moment and was pinned to the wall since he couldn’t do anything. I think the butterfly is more symbolic of life because it evolves from a caterpillar and Marquez shows that one can not move/change their life as it is always fixed on one path determined by fate.
DeleteChapter 3 provides the broadest platform for societal commentary thus far in “Chronicle.” Revisiting the role the twins played, their individual story, and the motivations therein proves to be potent in evaluating societal norms and customs of the area. Clearly, the twins do not regret brutally killing Santiago Nasar. According to the priest, they saw the event as “an act of great dignity” (49). As the end of the trial, even, the twins declared that “they would have done it again a thousand times over for the same reason” (48). To this end, no inner reflection of the two shows remorse, an incredibly important point. For the twins, this act depicts one of justice and over values. Their childhood and upbringing traces to the ideas of virgin marriages, of purity, and of honor. In turn, they act as such.
ReplyDeleteThe twins’ motivations are clear, sure, but the more important concept resides within an outlet for societal commentary. Marquez, by no means, endorses the actions taken in this novel. Surely, he depicts them in a brutal, primitive fashion, and this aims to make them appear as such. To this end, Marquez clearly devotes his craft to creating potent commentary on this issue. Societal values, according to him, need to be checked, especially when reliant upon such old tradition and such old values. In turn, his call to action clearly declares itself as a check upon conservative fashions of life. He shows the harms of this and, more shockingly, the blind nature by which people follow them in order to comment upon him, showcasing the true purpose of “Chronicle.”
What's interesting about chapter 3 is the fact that chronologically, it takes place before chapter 1. It is the event that leads to the death of Nasar. This again questions the title of a book and makes you wonder why its called a "Chronicle." What also was very interesting to me was the fact that it was fairly simple for these twins to commit this crime. They we're considered to be good people and that they we're only kidding about the murder even from a police perspective. Once their sister lost her virginity, they immediately lost the façade of a goody-goody into cold blooded murderers. They have no doubts in their minds about the killing either as they believed it to be the right thing to do. I would also like to piggy back (haha) off of Hannah's thesis of the pig knives being a very compelling symbol. They specifically chose pig knives in order to represent that they see Santiago as nothing more than a pig/an animal and should be treated as such.
ReplyDeleteI also believed that it was interesting that chapter three technically occurs before chapter one and agreed with your analysis on what happened in the book. I believe that the book started off with saying Santiago Nasar was going to be murdered, and then proceeding on telling what happened before because that relates to how Santiago was murdered. The book starts off giving away everything, just as the brothers did. They basically told the whole town that they were going to murder Santiago and no one seemed to have a problem with it, just as this book starts off giving everything away by telling us who is going to die and no one (kinda) seems to have too big of a problem with it.
DeleteChapter three talks about the night before the murder of Santiago Nasar, and the events that took place in order for it to happen. The twins that murdered Santiago Nasar were the brothers of Angela, the girl he supposedly had sex with before she was married. During this time period it was extremely frowned upon for a women to have premarital sex, and would result in the loss of her honor. Because of this her brothers had to kill Santiago Nasar, or Bayardo would not want to marry her. As the story of how the brothers would murder Santiago Nasar played out they surprisingly did not keep the murder a secret. The brothers basically paraded around the town letting everyone and anyone that would listen know that they were planning on murdering him. Even though a majority of the town knew that the brothers had plans on killing Santiago Nasar, no one found it important to tell him, or took the threat seriously. Because the Vacario brothers were known for being “good people” everyone thought that they were merely kidding about murdering Santiago Nasar. I found it extremely interesting that no one believed that the Vacario brothers were actually going to kill Santiago Nasar just because they were supposedly good people. This shows how it is human nature that your own perspective on someone can taint how they actually are in real life, and lead you to believe they are something else. When Clotilde says, “spare those poor boys from the horrible duty that's fallen on them," (Márquez, 65) this directly shows how her perspective on the brothers makes her perceive that what they are doing is unfortunate for them, and has no sympathy for Santiago Nasar who is the one that is supposed to be murdered.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis and find your mention of how one’s perspective influences his/her perspective very interesting. I also found it weird that just because the people of the town thought the twins were innocent, many decided to be apathetic towards the situation. I also think that this shows that is it human nature to have your perspective influence the way you act, but I think it is also shown that many people will go against their personality/common behavior in order to defend their group. I’d also like to add that Marquez seems to show that having a neutral perspective on a situation is impossible. Even the people that did not know Nasar very well in the town and the magistrate that came in seem to have inherent biases towards the case of Santiago Nasar based off of their personality and past.
Delete“The Vicario brothers could smell him in the jail cell where the mayor had locked them up until he could think of something to do with them. 'No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn't get rid of the smell,' Pedro Vicario told me. They'd gone three nights without sleep, but they couldn't rest because as soon as they began to fall asleep they would commit the crime all over again. Now, almost an old man, trying to explain to me his condition on that endless day, Pablo Vicario told me without any effort: 'It was like being awake twice over.' That phrase made me think that what must have been most unbearable for them in jail was their lucidity” (78-79).
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of chapter 4, the post death of Santiago Nasar world is explored. Gabriel García Márquez describes the prevalent “smell” of Santiago Nasar is the town. Márquez uses this scent to represent guilt. Smell is used in order to demonstrate the intense emotion that the Vicario brothers are feeling and allow the reader to connect through the senses. By showing the reader that the Vicario brothers feel guilty for murdering Nasar, he develops the theme that morality and guilt will always end up being felt. Before murdering Nasar, the Vicario brothers did not feel immoral because they could justify their actions with honor, but after the murder, the guilt eventually caught up to them. Also, Márquez uses a large amount of description of the brothers being awake. This also demonstrates their guilt catching up to them. Before the murder, the brothers were in an altered state of consciousness from their obsession with honor and their constant drinking. Márquez uses the word awake to show the brothers’ new view on the situation and how they are now fully aware of the crime they committed. Interestingly, Márquez writes that “what must have been most unbearable for them in jail was their lucidity.” By saying this, Márquez shows that the only reason the brothers went through with the crime was because they were not completely aware of what they are doing and indeed felt wrong for what they did, providing some forgiveness for the brothers. This teaches that someone cannot be completely responsible for his/her actions if he/she is not fully aware for what they have done.
I think your notice of the time frame falling in a "post death" world is a solid point. To me, it's interesting how Marquez's chronology of telling this story goes even further beyond Nasar's demise. While it does flip around inside the story quite a bit, it breaks outside of it, as well. Most interesting about this, rarely ever does a story take place after the protagonist dies. Sure, there are times the hero dies and there is a bit after, but rarely does a rough 20% of the book take place after his death. Truly, a unique choice on the part of Marquez.
DeleteIn chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I found the description of Santiago Nasar’s body to be very dehumanizing and barbaric. Nasar’s body had been ravaged and “seven of the many wounds were fatal” (86 Marquez). This is interesting because it goes along with The Seven Deadly Sins. According to Christianity, the biggest sin of them all is pride, which is a significant theme throughout this chronicle. The Vicario brothers murdered Nasar because of pride, and upholding their family name. The Vicario brothers used honor as an excuse for the murder of Nasar. Marquez utilizes the smell as a symbol for guilt of the people. Marques writes, everything continued smelling of Santiago Nasar that day...the brothers could smell him in the jail" (Marquez 90). The smell of Nasar signifies the remorse and regret the people of the town had. After hearing that Nasar had been murdered and stabbed by the brothers, some realized that they could have stopped it from happening. The Vicario brothers left obvious clues, hints, and outright told some people about their intentions to kill Nasar. The fact that no one stopped them or took immediate action makes the smell of Santiago Nasar resonate around the town, and seems to be haunting to many. The narrator also describes specifically how the Vicario brothers were doing post murder, and Marquez describes that “They’d gone three nights without sleep, but they couldn’t rest because as soon as they began to fall asleep they would commit the crime all over again.” Guilt and innocence are really compelling themes in this chronicle. The brothers would like to think they’re innocent because of their intentions of simply upholding their family name. However, they knew that what they did wasn’t right. It was inhumane and sickening. Of course they didn’t want to murder Nasar, because else they wouldn’t be feeling so much guilt to the extent that they can’t sleep for three nights straight because just thinking about the murder haunts them. They purposely made their intentions obvious to the town on the day of the murder and hoped someone would stop them, but no one did because they all believed that the Vicario brothers were good men who would never murder another human being. However, the town was sent in a frenzy hearing that news that Santiago Nasar’s “liver was sliced in pieces by two deep cuts on the anterior side” (Marquez 86).
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your blog post, specifically the part where you mentioned how the Vicarios utilized honor as an excuse to murder Santiago. To expand your point, perhaps Marquez used the motif of honor throughout the novel to demonstrate the faults of society. As mentioned in my blog post, society has skewed what is correct and what is not, creating justification for inhumane actions. Marquez obviously wholeheartedly disagrees with that notion. He abhors society for covering up bestial actions with spurious justifications such as “honor” or “duty.” Thus, he derides society by including the excuse of honor to justify murder many, many times throughout the book.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of chapter four and I also found it very interesting that Gabriel Garcia Marquez decided to go so in depth on the aftermath of the Vicario brothers emotions after the murder. I found it very interesting that they originally stated they regretted nothing about murdering Santiago Nasar and that they would do it again, but this chapter reveals how much they are struggling. Do you think Gabriel Garcia Marquez does this to highlight how people's emotions heighten during stressful situations and that what you think is right at the time can come back to haunt you?
Delete“On the morning of his death, in fact, Santiago Nasar hadn’t had a moment of doubt, in spite of the fact that he knew very well what the price of the insult imputed to him was. He was aware of the prudish disposition of his world, and he must have understood that the twins’ simple nature was incapable of resisting an insult. No one knew Bayardo San Roman very well, but Santiago Nasar knew him well enough to know that underneath his worldly airs he was as subject as anyone else to his native prejudices. So the murdered man’s refusal to worry could have been suicide. Besides, when he finally learned at the last moment that the Vicario brothers were waiting for him to kill him, his reaction was not one of panic, as has so often been said, but rather the bewilderment of innocence. My personal impression is that he died without understanding his death” (101).
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, Gabriel Garcia Marquez suggests that the main cause of Santiago Nasar’s death was the prejudice against him, due to him being both Arab and wealthy, not the “defence of honor”. Marquez uses this for social commentary about racism. To develop this social commentary, Marquez uses innate diction such as disposition, nature, and native to teach that racism and prejudice is something of human nature. Overall, this commentary can be seen as a reflection of the world. Throughout history, and I’m sure in Columbia, racism has persisted without much change. Marquez shows that these prejudices will never disappear, but it is important to be wary of them to prevent conflict and protect the innocent. This can be seen when marquez states “... the murdered man’s refusal to worry could have been suicide,” suggesting that it is Nasar’s fault that his death occurred because of his inability to recognize the frequent danger he was in because of the prejudice in the world. On top of this discussion of the human nature to contain prejudice, Marquez teaches that innocence is dangerous and potentially fatal. When saying “he died without understanding his death,” it can be seen that Nasar was not fully aware of the prejudice in the world and in fact, could have been saved if he knew that just because he was Arab, he was more likely to be attacked. I think this quote holds importance in modern America with police brutality against African Americans. As taught by Marquez, African Americans should be taught the racism against them so they are especially cautious when around the police. Not all police are bad, just like how not everyone in Chronicle of a Death Foretold is inherently evil, but in the case that one stumbles across someone who is given motive to kill, like how Santiago Nasar angered the Vicario brothers, awareness and action can save a life.
Chapter 4 recounts the details after Santiago’s murder. Many aspects of magical realism are present throughout the aftermath. For instance, Colonel Lázaro Aponte held a séance to investigate the disappearance of items in the widower Xius’s former place of residence. He found that the soul of Yolanda Xius, the wife, was reclaiming what was rightfully hers, and she caused the house to crumble. This act obviously cannot happen in real life, yet Aponte and the narrator brush the event off as something normal, therefore attributing the event as magical realism. Marquez perhaps used this act of magical realism to further emphasize the skewed ideology of doing and taking what is rightfully yours. By displaying the irrational anger by Yolanda, coupled with the fact that Pedro and Pablo illogically murdered Santiago out of honor, Marquez argues against the notion, stating that performing a deservedly correct action may not always be the best course of action. Society skews what is correct and what is unsound. Next, one thing that caught my attention besides the acts of magical realism was when the narrator meets Angela Vicario twenty-three years after Santiago’s murder. Marquez explains how Angela persevered through life after the event. The book states, “She had gone beyond what was possible to make Angela Vicario die in life, but the daughter herself had brought her plans to naught because she never made any mystery out of her misfortune” (Marquez 89). This quote demonstrates how Angela made meaning out of a life drenched in sorrow. She recounted the whole story to others besides the part about who took her virginity, therefore creating a sense of significance to her melancholy life. This act proves similar to the myth of Sisyphus, who created meaning out of endlessly pushing a boulder to the top of a mountain. Just as Sisyphus created significance out of a mundane life, so did Angela.
ReplyDeleteChapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is filled with stories from a different perspective and goes in depth on the couple minutes before the actual murder happens. There are a series of unfortunate events in one day that end in the death of Santiago Nasar. In the town, there are several people who know about the Vicario brother’s plan to murder Nasar. However, instead of trying to stop the assassination, the town does not offer any means to the victim, which brought upon a death; the bystander effect. Due to the bias concerning the Vicario twins, the bystanders seem to neglect the danger of the situation. Marquez’s book feed off the idea of selfishness of humans. People only look out for themselves and try to find any way for personal gain in a situation. Many of the townspeople do nothing, because they’re relying on someone else to step up and stop the brothers. The individual’s ignorance towards towards the circumstances resulted in the death of Nasar. The array of deplorable events did not work in Nasar’s favor. His death was easily preventable, yet it happened, representing Santiago Nasar’s fate to die. Marquez purposely named this book a “chronicle” even though the story was not told in order to convey this fate. The first line of the book already stated his death and then is stated later on in the book again, a foretold and destined case. All the way to his death, he has dreamed about it, people know about it, and no one can do anything to stop it. Regarding magical realism, Nasar’s destined fate is the magic, but the realistic aspect is man’s alertness to the magic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis and I also found it very interesting that no one chose to step up and help Santiago Nasar and instead everyone just waited around for someone else to do it. I enjoyed when you said that Marquez named the book a chronicle to reflect Santiago’s murder and how his fate could have changed, but we are told in the very beginning of the book what is going to happen. This shows how the people in his town could have changed Santiago’s fate, but they did not take a chance so his fate is set in the beginning.
DeleteResponsibility and herd mentality play a huge role in Chapter 5. For instance, with responsibility, the magistrate’s folios demonstrate the major theme relating to this topic when Santiago arrived at his fiancée’s house. The book explains, “In folio 382 of the brief, he wrote another marginal pronouncement in red ink: ‘Fatality makes us invisible’” (Marquez 113). The magistrate’s writing details the mindset of the whole town prior to Santiago’s death. The whole town knew about his impending murder, yet no one chose to intervene until the moment of his murder due to their viewpoint of seeing him as already dead. This notion stems from the motif of the excuse of honor present through the book. Many people justified his murder as something necessary due to Santiago seemingly popping Angela’s cherry, when in reality almost no one chose to intervene because they did not believe the brothers would truly commit the crime. More importantly, many citizens assumed that someone else had already notified Santiago of the murder, so they did not further assist him by telling him. This brings me to my next point of herd mentality. To expand, for example, Indalecio Pardo, a close friend of Santiago, attempted to inform him of his upcoming murder. However, he already thought someone had told him and the matter had been cleared up. The book explains, “But Indalecio found Santiago Nasar being led by the arm of Cristo Bedoya among the groups that were leaving the docks, and he didn’t dare warn him” (102). The quote expresses the universal fault of society. Society has conditioned the ideology of herd mentality in everyone in order to preserve safety. Instead of reaffirming the murder to Santiago, which would have probably saved his life, he just ignores it because he did not want to cause strife. In this way, Marquez demonstrates his disgust for the social upbringing and social norms of his time.
ReplyDeleteI figured I’d join in the last-minute blogapalooza and post the night before school, for purely academic reasons, I assure you. Without further ado, I present: This Book Is Literally About Jesus Christ, Part 2.
ReplyDeleteThis book is literally about Jesus Christ. I outlined in a previous blog (scroll up to see) exactly the crossovers between Nasar and Jesus, while also making the (great) case for Bayardo San Roman being a manifestation of Judas Iscariot. Convincing as that was, and it certainly was, I opened up Chapter 4-- definitely before right now, trust me-- and I knew, instantly, that I would have to, once again, blog on our Lord and Savior. Interestingly, the tone of this chapter is anything but holy, and with a chapter beginning with the phrase, “The damage from the knives was only a beginning” (72), we shouldn’t be surprised. The first pages adamantly describe Nasar’s destroyed body, the horrific damage done to his once sacred form on full display. Now, I could pull such quotes as, “It was as if we killed him all over again after he was dead” (72), and try to make a point about the resurrection of Christ, and I kind of just did, but the real glory hides three pages later.
One of the major points is the juxtaposition between Christ’s demise and Nasar’s. As I’ve explained, this book takes the course of the New Testament flipped on its head. Everyone else knows Jesus dies except him, the book follows the reverse path of the New Testament, it retains the telling through others perspectives, I could go on and on. However, in consideration of chapter 3, Nasar’s death is most focal. By no means does Nasar die in a clean way. Repeatedly, his guts and the raw carnage arise in discussion, clear that Nasar died brutally but quickly. This, naturally, is a contradiction to Jesus’ prolonged, 40-day death, yet that’s exactly it. In every way, this represents an ironic New Testament, following the path yet taking immense amounts of literary freedom on the subject.
This made sense and all followed, but I jumped out of my bouncy chair when I hit the quote that spurned this article. We can talk for days about possible correlations to the New Testament, but there is no evidence better than the description of Nasar’s body: “It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ” (75). Nasar, by the book’s own words, died in the style of Jesus Christ. This bears incredible importance to the crossover, and a cross-application of these novels bears so much significance, signaled by such a quote. To truth, this is less than speculation. I would submit it as fact.
Tonight, I’ve had the pleasure of blogging about two of the things I love most in this world: God and, now, irony. Truth be told, one of the lasting impressions Chronicle left on me proved itself to be irony.Two specific instances arise in the fifth chapter, the first coming in the form of the back door. The final line of the book describes the back door as one that “had been open since six” (120). Readers receive this knowledge early on, as we know the door will be unlocked so that Nasar has entrance. Naturally, Nasar does not choose this door, electing to turn to the front, one that is, well, not open, and one where he will meet his foretold doom. This creates potent dramatic irony, wherein readers know the door to be locked, unbeknownst to Nasar, enabling us to experience his cruel demise as gruesome as it comes, seasoned with a thick coating of irony. Tasty.
ReplyDeleteMy personal favorite instance, however, turns a literary motif on its head. The description of the weather for Nasar’s demise follows as a “golden sun” (105) illuminating the scene. In fact, Marquez goes straight at our literary motif of “It’s never just rain,” implying rain leads to consequences, by dictating that “Of course it wasn’t raining” (105). The setup for the murder contradicts every expectation we hold for death. It took place the night after a wedding, a bishop came to town, and above all, it was bright and sunny out. This is some good situational irony if I’ve ever seen any.
During chapter four, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, begins to go deeper into the relationship between Bayardo and Angela and how the sexist expectations of a man versus a women is represented in this chapter. Throughout this chapter Bayardo gets pitied for everything that happened while Angela is shamed by everyone. This relationship is the complete opposite of Angela’s relationship with Santiago Nasar. Santiago was murdered because he supposedly slept with Angela without being married, but Angela was defended and beat by her mother. While getting beat by her own mother is still bad, getting murdered is definitely considered worse and, “the blows hurt worse because she knew they were for him” (Marquez, 106). Later on in the chapter Angela begins to write letter after letter to Bayardo explaining how much she loves him. She says that it does not matter what she writes “it was enough for [her] to know he was getting them” (94). Bayardo also thought that what was written in the letters did not matter, because when he arrived 17 years later he is carrying a suitcase with every single letter she wrote, and they are all unopened. The ritualistic idea of Angela sending the letters to Bayardo is similar to the concept of the book as a whole. Gabriel Garcia Marquez continuously writes about Santiago’s murder and how and why it occurred, even though nothing new is ever learned.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analysis! Marquez is trying to make a point that women are treated so unfairly. It is sad that Angela is seen at fault in this situation, and because she lost her virginity their family name is ruined. Then the only way to maintain their honor is to kill the man who stole the girl's virginity. She is beaten by her mom and everyone in the town looks down on her. It is sad that she has to pretend she doesn't care about the death of her first love just because of society's standards.
DeleteChapter five goes in depth of the murder of Santiago Nasar and the different accounts from people in the town. Santiagos murder was something the town could not stop talking about, and many of them held an abundance of guilt over their heads for not doing something to help him when they knew what was going to happen. An investigator is sent into the town to uncover what happened with Santiago Nasar’s murder, and much to his surprise many people in the town are open to testifying. Chapter five is seen as the chapter that is supposed to help the readers finally understand everything that happened and help the book come together, but it does not. Much of this book is slightly confusing due to its lack of order and this chapter represents that. Throughout the whole book we wonder if Santiago Nasar was really the one that had sex with Angela, or was he just wrongfully accused. We never figure out the actual answer, but the town strongly hints toward Santiago Nasar not being the one that had sex with her. Everyone in the town is so wrapped up in Santiago Nasar’s side of the story, and whether or not his killing was justified, and no one seemed to go to Angela or strip her of her honor. This represents society as a whole and how we always seem to focus on what we are curious in. The whole town was curious if Santiago Nasar actually committed the deed he was accused of, and because of this everyone focused on him while Angela was not strongly pressured by the town. Another big aspect of chapter five was the fact that everyone in the town felt so guilty for not helping Santiago Nasar when they had the power to. Almost everyone in the town knew about the murder, but virtually no one decided to warn Santiago about it because they just assumed someone else already had. This also greatly reflects human nature and how we shy away from difficult times and wait for someone else to rise to the challenge and take a stand. But in this case no one really did rise to the challenge, and because of this everyone felt extremely guilty.
ReplyDeletehiii im from Australia and found this by looking online. im writing an essay on chronicle and all these comments have helped me so much thank youuu!!!
ReplyDelete